UFO disclosure: the insider game of "reliable sources"
By Jon Rappoport
In the current wave of UFO disclosures, the press (in
particular, the New York Times) has decided to use Luis Elizondo, a
career intelligence case officer, as its main source.
This choice reveals a time-honored strategy of elite news operations: cherry-pick who is reliable and who isn't.
Of course, the press presents its case as flowing FROM the
source. But that's not true, because reporters and editors could have
used other "reliable sources" to tell a different, or even
contradictory, story.
Everything depends on who, at the moment, is pumped up and ushered on to center stage, and tagged as "reliable."
I'm not saying Mr. Elizondo is telling lies from wall to
wall. But, for example, where was the Times when reports began to emerge
of UFOs appearing at a missile base in Montana (1967) and shutting down
launch-capability? There were a number of professional military
observers at the time. They could have been deemed "reliable sources,"
but they weren't. For decades, this event has been suppressed or
downplayed by the mainstream press.
"Well, we did look into it, but we concluded there just
wasn't enough there. We didn't go with the piece because the
confirmation was thin." That's a frequent excuse. Often, it doesn't hold
water. It reflects an arbitrary decision to ignore a valid account.
This is how the game is played.
"Reliable source" can be managed, on a case by case basis.
"Let's see. We can imply the steep rise in autism is the
result of more careful monitoring of cases, or a genetic problem, or the
rapid expansion of the CDC vaccination schedule. Let's do a piece on
genetics. Who can we tap for comments? Round up the usual list of expert
sources and get quotes. 'New research suggests a stronger link to genes
than previously supposed.' That'll work..."
When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the
Century, in 1987, I decided to look into the widely promoted notion that
HIV had spread to humans, in Africa, through contact with green
monkeys. When the US press wants to promote a "new disease," they
inevitably go to far-off places around the globe for their "origin
story." The last time I looked, no new epidemic has ever begun in
Brooklyn. I called a prominent AIDS researcher at Harvard. Without
pause, he told me the green monkey theory had no evidence to support it.
Well, obviously, the press hadn't used him as a "reliable source." They
might use him to comment on other matters, but not this one---because
"green monkey" was the preferred scenario for the moment.
On the UFO front, the Times could have jumped with both feet
into Steven Greer's Disclosure Project years ago. Greer had scores of
military and intelligence officers who were testifying to all sorts of
UFO contact. But back then, the story was verboten. So the sources were
ignored.
Sometimes, the graduation from nonsense-story to breaking
news isn't the decision of a major press outlet. The newspaper or
broadcast network takes its cue from a "higher authority." The CIA or
the Pentagon, for example. Or from an anonymous heavy hitter who will
never be revealed. Depending on the topic of the story, the heavy hitter
could exist within the core of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral
Commission, the Vatican, the upper reaches of the "banking community" (a
Rothschild front man), etc.
This is the "green light" phenomenon. What was once a
studiously ignored piece suddenly turns into an imperative to publish.
The chosen news outlets jump into action.
The green light can also click through indirect means.
Consider the name, Jim Semivan. He is on Tom DeLonge's team at the newly
formed To the Stars Academy, the group which includes Mr. Elizondo,
mentioned above. Here is a thumbnail bio of Mr. Semivan from Simon &
Schuster publishers: "Jim retired in 2007 after a 25-year career in the
Central Intelligence Agency's National Clandestine Service. At the time
of his retirement he was a member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence
Service. Jim served multiple overseas and domestic tours along with
senior management positions in CIA headquarters. He is the recipient of
the Agency's Career Intelligence Medal."
Semivan's emergence in UFO disclosure activities would alert
the New York Times that it should pay attention to any information
coming out of To the Stars Academy. Semivan is more than a witness or a
researcher. He's a high-level man connected to the intelligence
community. If he backs up a story, it's "official."
I'll give you a name: Richard Dolan. Dolan is the author of
books on UFOs, and he is a publisher in the same field. A highly
intelligent observer, when he makes inferences from data he explains his
reasons. He possesses a formidable knowledge of UFO incidents over the
course of decades. Major media outlets could go to him as a direct
source for articles, or as a guide who could point them to credible
stories. But that doesn't happen.
Why? Because Mr. Dolan could unleash "too much information."
He could open up too many cans of worms. And he doesn't have an official
position in government or corporate circles.
He is reliable, but not in the media sense of the word. He
could give, say, the reporters at the New York Times far more help than
their editors could---but that doesn't matter.
What matters to the Times and other mainstream outlets is the agenda of the moment. And who will bolster that agenda.
Why isn't long-time UFO researcher Grant Cameron writing
op-ed pieces for the Times? He has a very interesting take on how
various UFO spokespeople have been used by the military-intelligence
complex. Alas, Cameron makes too much sense. He goes too deep. So
instead, a Times reporter writes a human-interest story about his
father. The father was a veteran UFO watcher, who sadly died before the
US government "admitted UFOs exist," a couple of weeks ago.
At any time over the past 40 years, the Times could have
assigned a couple of reporters the job of assembling a history of
bullet-proof UFO-encounter stories. For a major article. An article that
would have settled the issue once and for all: UFOs, whatever they are,
exist, and they exhibit extraordinary capabilities.
But "it wasn't time."
Now, it is.
The green light is on. But it is only glowing for certain people, and for chosen news companies.
The Reliable Ones.
Therefore, when the Times, or a comparable media operation,
discloses UFO revelations, the stories---accurate or not---reflect a
purpose that is hidden.
That purpose is never the unvarnished and complete truth.
Over the past 35 years, working as a reporter, I've spoken
off-the-record with a number of mainstream journalists. They readily
admit to making "partial disclosures," otherwise known as limited
hangouts. They explain this as "sticking to the facts at hand." But
that's not true. They also admit their editors keep them from digging
deeper on a story.
Digging deeper would, of course, expose unpleasant scandals
the public shouldn't be aware of. And in the process, people who are
deemed unreliable sources would be vindicated. If THAT happened, the
whole proprietary media egg would crack.
The public would understand, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
that big media cherry-pick their sources, and mainstream news is a stage
play.
An acid test: If the New York Times gave the first five pages
of their paper to a few independent UFO reporters for a week, those
reporters could write a slew of hard-hitting factual pieces that would
shake the foundations of knowledge about UFOs. Sales of the paper would
skyrocket, and names like Luis Elizondo and Jim Semivan would fade far
into the background. The public would realize that verified sightings of
UFOs go back at least 50 years. And that would be just the beginning of
actual Disclosure.
"Reliable source" is a pliable term. In the media landscape,
it implies that editors and publishers are in charge of defining it, at
any given moment, to suit their agenda.
If tomorrow, for example, the Times decided that the famous
Lockheed Skunkworks, located in the desert (Palmdale, California), was
their primary target, as in---what have they been building out there for
years?---a whole new raft of reliable sources would come into play
overnight. Setting their hounds loose, with no restrictive deadline, the
Times might experience what it's like to operate as an actual news
outlet.
They would eventually penetrate many cover stories. What would they discover?
The former director of the elite Skunkworks, Ben Rich, before
his death, is reported to have said (UCLA School of Engineering speech,
March 23, 1993): "We now know how to travel to the stars...There are
many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in
the black and not see the light of day."
Now there's a potential source---an insider's insider. Did
Ben Rich say that? Is it true? If it's true, how did Lockheed
develop/obtain the technology?
Why not pursue that lead and run it down?
"Well, we don't like to rely on dead sources, especially when they make bizarre claims."
Who says the claim is bizarre? The CIA? The Pentagon? Lockheed?
They're automatically listed as reliable?
Is "hard to believe, hard to fathom" an unimpeachable standard for barring investigations without further thought?
Wasn't, for instance, the whole CIA MKULTRA mind control program bizarre and hard to believe, before it was exposed?
Thousands of events and programs are impossible, before they turn out to have happened.
The idea that the New York Times, the number one media outlet
in the world, isn't devoted to the truth---that idea would be very hard
for many people to believe; until it's shown to be factual.
"Hi, I'm major media. I depend on reliable sources. I decide
who is reliable and who isn't, on any given day of the week. I use these
sources to construct and shape Reality for the masses. That's my job. I
spend gargantuan amounts of money in this effort. After all, inventing
Reality is an awesome mandate. You can't fool around with that. You must
be convincing. If I tried and failed, the consequences would be
devastating. A few billion people would see holes in Reality Itself.
This is not permitted to happen."
Ah, but it is happening. Deepest apologies.
The Reality Manufacturing Company is at DEFCON 1, red lights are blinking, and systems are going down.
No comments:
Post a Comment