UAPs, Bigelow, and the "Invisible College"

[Ben Harris]

Looks like we both did it now, it was INGO Swann. My bad, and it should have been Joseph (Joe) McMoneagle, not John. My failing memory.

Lol. Need another coffee.

 

[Greene]

I'd argue we had one in the Navy from around 2004-2005, then another around Virginia Beach with naval pilots around 2019, if those were not all one extended cultural phenomenon.

I would classify them as a single phenomenon that was kickstarted by the Leslie Keane NYT article in 2017.

 

[Mendel]

I would classify them as a single phenomenon that was kickstarted by the Leslie Keane NYT article in 2017.

Keane kickstarting a 2004 UFO flap with a 2017 article would be proof of "breakthrough physics".

(And I'd say Keane was merely Elizondo's accomplice.)

 

[jarlrmai]

The term flap is being used with 2 slightly different meanings, a flap can be localised to a group or area. Someone has a weird experience tells people and then suddenly everyone is looking up and seeing and misinterpreting things and it spreads within the group, say for example the US Navy.

Or the flap can refer to an increase of interest in UFOs in the media which can then lead to a more widespread flap, in this instance one flap with delayed wider reporting led to another.

 

[FatPhil]

UFO flaps have been fizzling out since the late 1940s.

Google's NGrams says that, at least in books, they haven't.

 

[RTM]

UFO flaps have been fizzling out since the late 1940s.

I know "this time it's different" is a bit of a cliche, but I think this time it's at least a bit different. Obviously with the internet, social media etc. they got a lot more exposure, and there are the congressional hearings, influencing legislation etc. It just seems like this massive PR/lobbying campaign happened and the aliens never made an appearance, but instead of everyone shrugging their shoulders and turning to some thing else there seems to be an entrenchment of beliefs and a focus more on skeptics/debunkers.

 

[Ann K]

Google's NGrams says that, at least in books, they haven't.

Now add UAPs to that.

 

[JMartJr]

Now add UAPs to that.

That gets tricky, you start to get noticeable hits back as far as the 60s, apparently for things like Unlicensed Assistive Personnel, Urban Art Projects, Unstable Angina Pectoris, University of Asia and the Pacific, etc... though I was surprised to be reminded that the term had an early usage in USAF for "UFO" so some of them may be for that after all.

 

[FatPhil]

Now add UAPs to that.

I did that a few days ago and it kept its line just under both of the other two, IIRC, nothing particularly exciting.

 

[MonkeeSage]

This 1958 statement from Keyhoe shows not only the narrative is the same but even the same language is used today. If you replaced the date with 2025 and told me it was a recent tweet from The Disclosure Fund I would believe it.

Because of new developments, we expect a break in official secrecy in 1959. Verified UFO reports by many trained observers, here and abroad, have added strong evidence that the UFO's are real and under intelligent control. This, and documented proof of censorship, have led to Congressional support for open hearings in which hidden Air Force information would be revealed.

Content from External Source

Source: Major Donald E. Keyhoe, NICAP mailing letter, 1958 (PDF pg. 18).

 

[NorCal Dave]

This 1958 statement from Keyhoe shows not only the narrative is the same but even the same language is used today. If you replaced the date with 2025 and told me it was a recent tweet from The Disclosure Fund I would believe it.

Indeed. And interestingly, I came across this passage from a book my wife found for me:

On November 16, 1966, The New York Times noted that "an Air Force plan to have university experts investigate unidentified flying objects is getting good acceptance in the academic world." The interest of the intellectual community coupled with the fact that The New York Times-which until recently, was somewhat hesitant about printing UFO stories at all-devoted a number of column inches to this subject, are two examples of the growing stature of, and interest in, this phenomenon.

Content from External Source

The Flying Saucer Reader (1967) pg: vii

Again, just change the date to 2017 and once again the NYT is helping the "growing stature, and interest in, this phenomenon". Round and round it goes.

 

[Mendel]

Google's NGrams says that, at least in books, they haven't.

your graph shows several flaps, including in the late 40s

 

[jarlrmai]

I know "this time it's different" is a bit of a cliche, but I think this time it's at least a bit different. Obviously with the internet, social media etc. they got a lot more exposure, and there are the congressional hearings, influencing legislation etc. It just seems like this massive PR/lobbying campaign happened and the aliens never made an appearance, but instead of everyone shrugging their shoulders and turning to some thing else there seems to be an entrenchment of beliefs and a focus more on skeptics/debunkers.

It's prominence in US politics has found a bit of sticking point mostly it seems with the more anti-state/q-anon/election denying aligned Republicans (Burchett/Luna) but maybe also at least initially a little bit with the lefter leaning members of the Democratic party (was it AOC?) potentially based on the misappropriation of military funds angle.

Both seem to be from an anti-establishment perspective and those views these days do seemingly become more entrenched when they face resistance or don't come to fruition and "us vs them" becomes an issue.

 

[FatPhil]

your graph shows several flaps, including in the late 40s

One of your reactions to my post must be in error:

Z.W: UFO flaps have been fizzling out
Me: They haven't + image showing those flaps
You: "disagree"
Also you: They haven't, your image shows those flaps.

 

[RTM]

It's prominence in US politics has found a bit of sticking point mostly it seems with the more anti-state/q-anon/election denying aligned Republicans (Burchett/Luna) but maybe also at least initially a little bit with the lefter leaning members of the Democratic party (was it AOC?) potentially based on the misappropriation of military funds angle.

Both seem to be from an anti-establishment perspective and those views these days do seemingly become more entrenched when they face resistance or don't come to fruition and "us vs them" becomes an issue.

It's what happens when these claims/predictions don't come true that I find fascinating. Some conspiracies these days almost seem disposable, there almost seems to be one for whatever big story comes along, it then gets replaced by the next one.

 

[Ann K]

It's prominence in US politics has found a bit of sticking point mostly it seems with the more anti-state/q-anon/election denying aligned Republicans

Well ...they DO have excellent reasons to want to distract from things that are really happening. I don't think you can ignore the "shiny object" factor.

 

[JMartJr]

It's what happens when these claims/predictions don't come true that I find fascinating. Some conspiracies these days almost seem disposable, there almost seems to be one for whatever big story comes along, it then gets replaced by the next one.

Is that maybe the ARG (Alternate Reality Game) aspect of QAnon keeping the Game alive with new quests and side quests and the like?

(For those unfamiliar, the concept has been put forward that QAnon was either an intentional adaptation of ARG game practice for disseminating propaganda, or just happened to be the troll that took off in a huge way because it just happened to take on those characteristics. Artoicle on Q as ARG here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...d8ea46-928b-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html

Q has specifically followed the model of an alternate reality game (ARG) using many of the same techniques. The games I design entice players through clever rabbit holes found in the real world that start them searching for answers — maybe something written on a billboard, seen at a rally or printed on a flier. Players are led through labyrinth-like stories full of puzzles, clues and group challenges. ARGs can have millions of people involved in them. (The 2007 game promoting Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” had 11 million participants in 75 countries.) The similarities are so striking that QAnon has sometimes been referred to as a live-action role playing (LARP) or an ARG. But QAnon is the reflection of a game in a mirror: It looks like one, but inverted.
...
In many games, like the ones I work on, apophenia is a wild card that can lead participants away from the plot and force designers to scramble to get them back. Games can easily go off the rails — because there are rails. There are puzzles with real solutions and a real story to experience. In a well-designed game, players arrive at the intended epiphany, the puzzle is solved, new content is revealed, and the plot moves forward.

QAnon is a mirror reflection of this dynamic: Apophenia is the point. (JMartJr remarks -- Hence tghe current diversions of online conspiracy theory players chasing the Conspiracy of the Week, perhaps with no designer still running the game and the thing just lurching along on its own momentum?)
...
In a real game — or real life — it’s hard to solve puzzles. First, there have to be actual puzzles or problems to solve. Then you need the skills to solve them, and your solution has to be right. Not so for the imaginary puzzles created by apophenia: There doesn’t need to be anything to solve. You just have to be creative and follow along, leaping from one conclusion to the next. As Valerie Gilbert, the QAnon “meme queen,” put it: “The world opened up in Technicolor for me. It was like the Matrix — everything just started to download.”

Content from External Source

 

[Mendel]

Article on Q as ARG here:

or here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-game-designer’s-analysis-of-qanon.11509/ linking to medium.com which is not paywalled

 

[Mendel]

Does anyone get the feeling that their grand plan of disclosure (starting with the videos, NYT article etc.) has fizzled a bit?

UFO flaps have been fizzling out since the late 1940s.

This is true:

 

[FatPhil]

This is true:

"Flaps fizzling" means the set of flaps is fizzling - clearly false, they're continuing just fine, and certainly doing better after the 40s than before.
If "flaps fizzling" meant each individual flap, which is defined as a local peak, has a down side, then that's a zero-information statement. As a native speaker I consider your interpretation to be a deliberate attempt to misinterpret what was actually said. I certainly presumed Z.W. wasn't making a zero-information statement, and was merely misreading the media.

 

[Mendel]

"Flaps fizzling" means the set of flaps is fizzling - clearly false, they're continuing just fine, and certainly doing better after the 40s than before.
If "flaps fizzling" meant each individual flap, which is defined as a local peak, has a down side, then that's a zero-information statement. As a native speaker I consider your interpretation to be a deliberate attempt to misinterpret what was actually said. I certainly presumed Z.W. wasn't making a zero-information statement, and was merely misreading the media.

I quoted the context for you in my previous post.
@RTM said, "is this flap fizzling?"
@Z.W. Wolf said, "flaps have been fizzling"—this generalizes RTM's observation to UFO flaps in general—"since the late 1940s"—this is the information.
Wolf takes RTMs observation about this flap and puts it in the context of 80 years of UFOlogy.

Your analyses and nit picks tend to be particularistic, disregarding context. A more holistic approach would lead you less astray on assumed interpretations that do not reflect the intended meaning. Human language is ambiguous, and insisting that your reading is right derails the conversation.

You should grow suspicious when you assume that Z.W.Wolf is more likely to make a false statement than a redundant one. (And it wasn't redundant!)

 

[FatPhil]

I quoted the context for you in my previous post.
@RTM said, "is this flap fizzling?"
@Z.W. Wolf said, "flaps have been fizzling"—this generalizes RTM's observation to UFO flaps in general—"since the late 1940s"—this is the information.
Wolf takes RTMs observation about this flap and puts it in the context of 80 years of UFOlogy.

Your analyses and nit picks tend to be particularistic, disregarding context. A more holistic approach would lead you less astray on assumed interpretations that do not reflect the intended meaning. Human language is ambiguous, and insisting that your reading is right derails the conversation.

You should grow suspicious when you assume that Z.W.Wolf is more likely to make a false statement than a redundant one. (And it wasn't redundant!)

It was a terrible choice of tense/aspect in that case, and/or of subject. "UFO flaps always fizzle" would have been shorter and clearer.

But I accept that if you tie RTM's "their grand plan" and "Grusch" to be what Z.W. generalised to "flaps" then your view seems the most likely. (But I would argue that a *plan* isn't a flap, even if it's a plan to cause a flap, the flap is the response. However, that's unimportant now, that's just my weak excuse for not tieing the two together.)

 

[JMartJr]

linking to medium.com which is not paywalled

The WaPo article is available to me, though I have not got a subscription. Possibly they give a limited number of free views to stimulate interest? In any case, it's good to have an alternate source, so thanks!

 

[MapperGuy]

I know "this time it's different" is a bit of a cliche, but I think this time it's at least a bit different. Obviously with the internet, social media etc. they got a lot more exposure, and there are the congressional hearings, influencing legislation etc. It just seems like this massive PR/lobbying campaign happened and the aliens never made an appearance, but instead of everyone shrugging their shoulders and turning to some thing else there seems to be an entrenchment of beliefs and a focus more on skeptics/debunkers.

What's different this time is the maturity of social media and the number of persons who are making (or trying to make) a living by repeating and embellishing UFO stories. In the past making a living from UFO's required joining the speaking circuit and talking to convention crowds of true belivers between writing books regurgitating older stories. The internet has greatly widened the circle of people who are aware of and follow UFO stories and created more ways to separate them from their money.

The baseline for any graph of UFO fan numbers has been permanently raised because of the simplicity of just clicking "follow" on some website or feed.