UFO Casebook
Recent UFO and other Paranormal News? >> Recent UFO and other Paranormal News >> Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=recentparanormal&action=display&num=1476551012

Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 15th, 2016, 12:03pm

This story has been all over the net. This particular version of the story tells us more than most:

http://www.openminds.tv/hillary-campaign-manager-held-ufo-meeting-with-usaf-generals-rock-star-and-top-secret-aircraft-developer/38698

This is of more particular importance to me because of the inclusion of the heir apparent to head of Lockheed Skunk Works, Rob Weiss - who replaced the late director Ben Rich. Rob Weiss is a name I have never seen before.

My former boss (also now deceased) had a long standing friendship with Ben Rich and Rich's predecessor, Kelly Johnson, before him. I was directly privy to many of his conversations with Rich. Although Rich took his security oaths very seriously, he did relate hints of what the Skunk Works were up to. Rich said in no uncertain terms that we had ET technology and that "we have the technology to send ET home" and "we have things in the desert that are 50 years beyond anything you can imagine" and, that our physics are wrong because "there are errors in the math".

Just before his death, Rich promised to have a meeting with Aerospace researcher James Goodall where he would reveal things he knew personally about our "manmade" UFOs. Sadly, he died weeks before the scheduled meeting was to take place. So, his secrets went the grave with him.

The point I am making: if anybody knows about the our secret use of alien technology, it would be Rob Weiss. This is no joke.....

Could a deeply interested rock god (Tom DeLonge) be the key to opening pandora's box? I hope so. But I shan't be holding my breath. These things all have a nasty habit of becoming empty promises. tongue

We shall see.....

Bonehead

Here is another story explaining why DeLonge thinks he is the man:

http://www.openminds.tv/rocker-tom-delonge-says-he-will-be-the-conduit-for-ufo-disclosure/37214


Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Sys_Config on Oct 15th, 2016, 4:11pm

About as much chance as the bum sleeping on a parkbench.
Some musicians and the mandarin class suffer from messianic complexes..The only thing disclosed by Podesta is he another stick in the mud politician and his emails reveal the importance of keeping the public ignorant and compliant. Note also in the email escapade that some emails were seeded in the event they had to respond to an FOIA..You may not be keeping up with those discussions..but they are most revealing.
I have no doubt.all sides have very surprising tech...but of limited benefit to saving the planet..

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 16th, 2016, 10:39am

Sys,

I think you missed my point. Screw Podesta. What is of import to me here is that DeLonge is talking to one man that I am certain is in the know. I had never heard of Rob Weiss until reading these articles (along with others). Podesta probably knows very little. Not so for the head of the Lockheed Skunk Works. Among others, the skunk works produced the U-2 and SR-71 spy planes and the F-117 Stealth fighter and also had a hand in the B-2 Stealth bomber - which supposedly uses some anti-gravity technology in its design. And those are only the ones we know about.

Believe me, his predecessor (Ben Rich) was in the know. The Skunk Works produce the very leading edge of military technology. Rich himself implied that there was a second set of physics for his high-tech programs that was quite separate and compartmentalized from the academic world.

IF DeLonge's sources spill the beans, he does not need Podesta. Podesta is not a man in the know. Weiss, and perhaps some of his other contacts are.

Anyway, I am far too familiar with the way all these things generally go. So, I can only hope things are different this time. But one thing for sure: DeLonge is talking to at least one person that DOES know what is going on. That puts him well beyond most others that have made such claims.....

Just sayin'...... wink

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by dave54 on Oct 16th, 2016, 12:27pm

on Oct 16th, 2016, 10:39am, bonehead wrote:
... and also had a hand in the B-2 Stealth bomber - which supposedly uses some anti-gravity technology in its design..

Bonehead


No alien technology in the B2.

My cousin, now retired, was an engineer that worked on the B2. Mainly the flight control systems and holds a couple of patents on the control designs he developed. He doesn't talk much about the B2, still some secret technology in it, but he does say design idea goes back to WWII. Most people would be surprised at how much 'old school' is in the plane. The purpose of the plane is radar stealth, and some technology from the 1950's and 60's actually has a smaller radar footprint than the modern designs and materials. Nothing alien in it.
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Sys_Config on Oct 16th, 2016, 12:38pm

on Oct 16th, 2016, 12:27pm, dave54 wrote:
No alien technology in the B2.

My cousin, now retired, was an engineer that worked on the B2. Mainly the flight control systems and holds a couple of patents on the control designs he developed. He doesn't talk much about the B2, still some secret technology in it, but he does say design idea goes back to WWII. Most people would be surprised at how much 'old school' is in the plane. The purpose of the plane is radar stealth, and some technology from the 1950's and 60's actually has a smaller radar footprint than the modern designs and materials. Nothing alien in it.

I believe you!.When I was a teenager one of my favorite books was Failsafe and gave me an eyeopener how we could fool pursuit jets into following multiple bogeys..Radar is the big thing even now. I recall the the suppression of Iraqs power grid In Iraq..I am wondering if the recent alleged missle attack in in Yemen "forcing" the ship to fire on targets that didnt materialize after is in that camp. Submitting radar reports that there were objects that were not there is a tool both sides have and can be used for political purposes or a false story line.
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 17th, 2016, 11:23am

on Oct 16th, 2016, 12:27pm, dave54 wrote:
No alien technology in the B2.

My cousin, now retired, was an engineer that worked on the B2. Mainly the flight control systems and holds a couple of patents on the control designs he developed. He doesn't talk much about the B2, still some secret technology in it, but he does say design idea goes back to WWII. Most people would be surprised at how much 'old school' is in the plane. The purpose of the plane is radar stealth, and some technology from the 1950's and 60's actually has a smaller radar footprint than the modern designs and materials. Nothing alien in it.


Thanks Dave. I must point out that I never said anything about "alien technology" on the B-2. I said anti-gravity. That is not necessarily "alien".

Certainly Townsend Brown was involved in this kind of research as far back as the 1950s. And, according to Paul LaViolette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" Brown's attempts to sell his technology to the U.S. Navy met with willful disinterest. The implication being that they already had technology beyond Brown's baby steps. Again, this was in the 1950s.

But the question does remain: if not from Townsend Brown, then where did the military get this technology from?

Here are some links that confirm my assertion:

http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/?p=1

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_flyingobjects44.htm

https://amunaor.com/2012/07/26/obama-declassifies-anti-gravity-technology/

The presence of anti-gravity technology in the B-2 bomber is a story that has been around since the early '90s when certain people that had worked on the aircraft released information about this technology. They thought that it was foolish to have technology that could so markedly improve the efficiency of conventional aircraft. This technology that has been in use from the 1980s, at least, could revolutionize the airline industry, reducing fuel consumption by one-third or more.

Again, all of this can be read about in LaViolette's book.

Although Rich never came out to say that the secret technologies he was dealing in were back-engineered from UFO crashes, he also never discouraged my former boss from thinking that they were. Indeed, he left tantalizing clues suggesting that such might well be the case. And that was as much as he could say without breaking his security oaths.

At any rate, the use of anti-gravity technology on the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a story that has been around for over 20 years now. The above links are but the tip of the iceberg for this story.

Alien or not? I don't know. But the technology is a fact. We can only speculate about where it came from.....

Bonehead


Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Cliff-67 on Oct 17th, 2016, 12:16pm


"Certain" craft depend on this to stay airborne :


https://giphy.com/gifs/Z5FxTUlcUtyJW/fullscreen



Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by INT21 on Oct 17th, 2016, 12:43pm

Bonehead,

...But the technology is a fact..

Ah well, but is it really ?

I think you have been reading too much into these old news items.

We don't seem to be tripping up over anti gravity devices at the moment.

And yes, I did read all the links.

HAL
INT21
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by dave54 on Oct 17th, 2016, 5:00pm

on Oct 17th, 2016, 12:43pm, INT21 wrote:
...And yes, I did read all the links.

HAL
INT21


Also note: none of those links would be considered reliable or factual sources.
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Sys_Config on Oct 17th, 2016, 5:16pm

iNTERESTING EXCERPTS FROM OLD CLIPPINGS
https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/
Bob Park is a physics professor at the University of Maryland. When he's pressed to say something about Podkletnov's work, he comments: "Well, we know that we can create shields for other fields, such as electromagnetic fields; so in that sense I suppose that a gravity shield does not violate any physical laws. Still, most scientists would be reluctant to conclude anything publicly from this." Ironically, Park has made a name for himself by debunking "fringe" science in a weekly column for the American Physical Society's Web page. If scientists are reluctant to "conclude anything publicly," it's partly because they know they may be stigmatized by critics such as Park.

Of course, reflexive conservatism isn't the whole story. Many physicists are skeptical about gravity shielding because they believe that it conflicts with Einstein's general theory of relativity. According to George Smoot, a renowned professor of physics at UC Berkeley who collaborated on an essay that won a Gravity Research Foundation award, "If gravity shielding is going to be consistent with Einstein's general theory, you would need tremendous amounts of mass and energy. It's far beyond the technology we have today."

On the other hand, theories developed by Giovanni Modanese, Ning Li, and Douglas Torr portray a superconductor as a giant "quantum object" which might be exempt from Smoot's criticism, since Einstein's general theory has nothing to say about quantum effects. As Smoot himself admits, "The general theory is widely revered because Einstein wrote it, and it happens to be very beautiful. But the general theory is not entirely compatible with quantum mechanics, and sooner or later it will have to be modified."

He also says that the nonlinear spin of gravity particles – "gravitons" – makes calculations extremely difficult. "When you add a spinning disc," he says, "the equations become impossible to solve."

This means that gravity shielding cannot be disproved mathematically. Even Bob Park, the resident skeptic, shies away from describing it as "impossible," because "there have been things that we thought were impossible, which actually came to pass." Gregory Benford, a professor of physics at UC Irvine who also writes science fiction, echoes this and takes it a step further. "There's nothing impossible about gravity shielding," he says. "It just requires a field theory that we don't have yet. Anyone who says it's inconceivable is suffering from a lack of imagination."

When I first started reading about gravity modification, I was skeptical. Most likely, I thought, Podkletnov's experimental procedures were flawed.

A year later, I'm not so sure. Having questioned him in detail for several hours, I believe that he did his work in a careful, responsible fashion. I'm no longer willing to write him off as an eccentric suffering from wishful thinking. I believe he observed something – although the exact nature of it remains unclear.

And so, frustratingly, there's no conclusive ending to this long, strange story – at least until someone provides independent verification. In the meantime, there's only one thing we can do:

Wait.

Thanks to John Cramer for factual orientation and Robert Becker for theoretical background. Pete Skeggs participated in my visit to NASA and offered extremely generous help.
http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=158

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1064.htm

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.

The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: ‘GRASP’ — Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.

A GRASP briefing document obtained by JDW sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business."

GRASP’s objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world’s more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov’s work and "examine possible uses for such a technology". Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and ‘fuelless’ electricity generation — so-called ‘free energy’.

But it is also apparent that Podkletnov’s work could be engineered into a radical new weapon. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnov’s claims that his high-power experiments, using a device called an ‘impulse gravity generator’, are capable of producing a beam of ‘gravity-like’ energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object — enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam’s ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km. Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield. Podkletnov declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight.

Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) attempted to replicate his work in the mid-1990s. Because NASA lacked Podkletnov’s unique formula for the work, the attempt failed. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments using apparatus built to Podkletnov’s specifications.

Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov "and have some activity in this area".

It is also possible, Boeing admits, that "classified activities in gravity modification may exist". The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the ‘white world’ of open development.

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 19th, 2016, 11:43am

on Oct 17th, 2016, 5:00pm, dave54 wrote:
Also note: none of those links would be considered reliable or factual sources.


Those were only three of a large number of sources. But back to the original source, Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 9, 1992:

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

The article we are after is: ‘Black World’ engineers, Scientists Encourage Using Highly Classified Technology for Civil Applications. The link can be seen at the bottom of the page.

Sadly, it cannot be read without subscribing to the magazine. "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (sometimes called "Aviation Leak" by insiders) is an industry magazine aimed at folks that work inside the aviation industry. Most of the articles deal with military aviation.

Here is a quote from LaViolette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion":


"Aviation Week obtained its information about the B-2 from a small group of renegade West Coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects, which were defense projects so secret that even their very existence is classified.... They took the risk because they felt that it was important for economic reasons (I would suggest that environmental concerns would be the more important reasons for revealing this info) that efforts be made to declassify certain black technologies for commercial use. Two of these individuals said that their civil rights had been blatantly abused (in the name of security), either to keep them quiet or to prevent them form leaving the tightly controlled black R&D community.

Several months after Aviation Week published the article, security personnel from the black world went into high gear. That sector of the black R&D community received very strong warnings, and as a result, the group of scientists broke off contact with the magazine."

I was around when this story first got out. It is not BS. Of course, you guys can believe whatever you like. But to just fob it off as bogus is prejudicial and does not fit with the information that is out there.

I would recommend reading LaViolette's book as it has much technical and historical information that puts this story in its proper perspective. My comments concerning Ben Rich come from my own personal experience. I was privy to many conversations between him and my boss. Rich was a serious guy and he was not making stuff up. He was there and, sadly, he took most of his secrets to the grave.

But to get back to my point: the head of the Lockheed Skunk Works would be a man in the know. End of story.....

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Suzy on Oct 19th, 2016, 12:01pm

on Oct 19th, 2016, 11:43am, bonehead wrote:
Those were only three of a large number of sources. But back to the original source, Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 9, 1992:

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

The article we are after is: ‘Black World’ engineers, Scientists Encourage Using Highly Classified Technology for Civil Applications. The link can be seen at the bottom of the page.

Sadly, it cannot be read without subscribing to the magazine. "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (sometimes called "Aviation Leak" by insiders) is an industry magazine aimed at folks that work inside the aviation industry. Most of the articles deal with military aviation.

Here is a quote from LaViolette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion":


"Aviation Week obtained its information about the B-2 from a small group of renegade West Coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects, which were defense projects so secret that even their very existence is classified.... They took the risk because they felt that it was important for economic reasons (I would suggest that environmental concerns would be the more important reasons for revealing this info) that efforts be made to declassify certain black technologies for commercial use. Two of these individuals said that their civil rights had been blatantly abused (in the name of security), either to keep them quiet or to prevent them form leaving the tightly controlled black R&D community.

Several months after Aviation Week published the article, security personnel from the black world went into high gear. That sector of the black R&D community received very strong warnings, and as a result, the group of scientists broke off contact with the magazine."

I was around when this story first got out. It is not BS. Of course, you guys can believe whatever you like. But to just fob it off as bogus is prejudicial and does not fit with the information that is out there.

I would recommend reading LaViolette's book as it has much technical and historical information that puts this story in its proper perspective. My comments concerning Ben Rich come from my own personal experience. I was privy to many conversations between him and my boss. Rich was a serious guy and he was not making stuff up. He was there and, sadly, he took most of his secrets to the grave.

But to get back to my point: the head of the Lockheed Skunk Works would be a man in the know. End of story.....

Bonehead


Ya' never know, it might be found someday tucked away in a file marked "C" on a private server... grin


wink
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by dave54 on Oct 20th, 2016, 12:48pm

I called my cousin back and asked about antigravity and electric fields. He laughed. He then told me he knew of the anti-gravity stories circulating around the internet. It is true the B2 use fields around some of the surfaces, but has nothing to do with anti-gravity. The object is to produce a thin boundary layer of electrostatic air on the surface, reducing turbulence from every small opening, rivet, or irregularity in the skin. This improves flight efficiency through normal aerodynamics. It also slightly reduces a radar return. Anti gravity has nothing to do with it. It is not a new idea. Many aircraft used it. In recent years improvements in materials technology and wing and fuselage design has somewhat left it behind. He wondered why it was still called 'black' technology when everyone now knows about, and the U.S. stole it from the Russians during the arms race of the Cold War.

He has been retired for several years now, and admitted it is possible a new wrinkle has been found, but he doubts it. He still has his contacts in the industry and no one has mentioned anything about anti-gravity other than the same conspiracy theories that keep popping up. Such a technology would not remain secret very long. The civilian applications would be too immense.
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 23rd, 2016, 12:18pm

Hello Dave,

I have to admit that when I first heard about the B-2 technology, I too thought that "anti-gravity" was a bit of a bridge too far. The electrostatic ion field you describe is, in fact, exactly the technology that LaViolette describes in his book. The part left out of your cousin's description are the bits about the electrostatic probes in the jet exhausts. This coupled with the leading edge electrified fields, create an sort of "repelling" envelope around the entire aircraft - not just a boundary layer reduction in drag.

I do remember when the B-2 was first revealed to the public, that photos of the aft end of the aircraft were completely off limits. There were "top-secret" things at the back of the aircraft that were not cleared for release at that time. I do not know if that is still in place all these years later.

And i should point out that the technology you describe also matches the work of Townsend Brown. There must be a modicum of anti-gravity in the technology since that is specifically what Brown was after in the first place. At any rate whether anti-gravity or not, everybody agrees that the technology DOES offer a substantial improvement in performance and flight economy. Adding such a technology to airline fleets, for instance, could reduce fuel consumption and flight economy substantially and reduce harmful emissions in the environment.

That was the main point of my original statements concerning this. To my knowledge, this technology has not found its way into civil aircraft - despite the fact that the technology has been in constant use since the late 1980s. That is nearly 30 years of hamstringing the planet - all for a little "edge" in military performance.

This is the kind of sociopathic behavior I have come to expect from our government operatives. Our planet becomes more ecologically compromised by the day, while the government only sees the military worthy of such an edge. It is criminal and inexcusable. If what you say about the pressure of potential civil applications is true, then where is the technology being used in civil aviation today?

Meanwhile, Tom DeLonge is still maintaining that he has the goods:

http://pigeonsandplanes.com/news/2016/10/tom-delonge-ufo

I only hope that his promises bear fruit. As I said before, past experience shows that all such promises tend to fizzle out in the end. It would be nice if things are different this time.

One can only hope.....

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 15th, 2017, 12:45pm

Pardon the revival of an old thread, but this story seems to be moving along now.

Does Delonge have the goods? Here is an article by journalist Leslie Kean suggesting he does:


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fmr-manager-of-dod-aerospace-threat-program-ufos_us_59de2f4be4b0b992a8214874

While I question DeLonge's methodology, I am sympathetic to his crusade. Posing "disclosure" as a commercial enterprise (as Delonge does) immediately puts the whole thing into question. But hell, in this twisted present time, pretty much everything has become corrupted with self-serving, subversive and discursive motives. Truth, lies and manipulations all share our mind-space on an equal footing. Truth (which I have come to believe is subjective) has become more relative than ever.

Is this disclosure? Not really. Elizondo is far from the first government operative claiming to be in the know that has said, unequivocally, that UFOs are real. His credentials certainly put him in the right place to know. And his claim is a step in the right direction.

DeLonge has fired his first shot across the bow of general ignorance. Only time will tell if his claims hit pay-dirt or, are just the rantings of another fool urinating into the wind.

C'mon Tom, where's the beef? I, for one, would like to know....

Keep your eyes on this story folks. It has the potential to be the one we are waiting for - or, just another in a long line of disappointments....

But I am hopeful. kiss

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 15th, 2017, 1:02pm

While I remain hopeful, my man Billy Cox is less sanguine....

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15590/still-looks-like-rain/#comment-497340

Kevin Randle shares my misgivings about DeLonge's project, but carries them all the way to full-blown rejection....

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/10/tom-delonge-and-ufos.html

Just because DeLonge is a rich dude with a serious yen for long ducats does not necessarily compel me to write him off completely.... yet.

How much slack should I cut him?? huh

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by ZETAR on Oct 16th, 2017, 09:34am

BONEY OPINES,

"Keep your eyes on this story folks."..." I am hopeful."

User Image

SHALOM...Z
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Raf on Oct 23rd, 2017, 08:52am

on Oct 15th, 2017, 1:02pm, bonehead wrote:
While I remain hopeful, my man Billy Cox is less sanguine....

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15590/still-looks-like-rain/#comment-497340

Kevin Randle shares my misgivings about DeLonge's project, but carries them all the way to full-blown rejection....

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/10/tom-delonge-and-ufos.html


Just because DeLonge is a rich dude with a serious yen for long ducats does not necessarily compel me to write him off completely.... yet.

How much slack should I cut him?? huh

Bonehead


I've been following this too. The cynic in me says that all those insiders are there to keep DeLonge busy and off track. But I hope not.

I feel generous. So I'll give him a year of slack.
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by ZETAR on Oct 23rd, 2017, 09:10am

RAF,

"The cynic in me says that all those insiders are there to keep DeLonge busy and off track."

...OR ACTUALLY...TO CONTROL THE CONTENT/MESSAGE wink

User Image

SHALOM...Z
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Raf on Oct 24th, 2017, 08:56am

on Oct 23rd, 2017, 09:10am, ZETAR wrote:
RAF,

"The cynic in me says that all those insiders are there to keep DeLonge busy and off track."

...OR ACTUALLY...TO CONTROL THE CONTENT/MESSAGE wink

User Image

SHALOM...Z


Yes, that too, Zetar. Partial Disclosure controlled by the PTB....cynically speaking.
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Swamprat on Oct 24th, 2017, 09:46am

Bonehead said:

"While I remain hopeful, my man Billy Cox is less sanguine...."

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15590/still-looks-like-rain/#comment-497340


Yes! If nothing else, one positive thing DeLonge has done already is reawaken Cox's DeVoid blog. Here is my exchange with Billy:

Me-- "OK, Mr. Cox, just what are you up to? I was under the impression that DeVoid was dead and that you were moving on to educational issues. Imagine my surprise when a poster quoted you from your "Still Looks Like Rain" entry! So what is it, are you posting on DeVoid every 2 or 3 months when the spirits move you?"

Billy-- "...As for De Void, my professional predicament has improved considerably since I bailed out last year. Last week, the TTS announcement provided a little hope that maybe things on the UFO front aren't quite as hopeless as they were the day before. Depending on how that plays out I might air out the blog on a more regular basis, we'll see."

Swamp


Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Oct 24th, 2017, 11:51am

on Oct 24th, 2017, 09:46am, Swamprat wrote:


Billy-- "...As for De Void, my professional predicament has improved considerably since I bailed out last year. Last week, the TTS announcement provided a little hope that maybe things on the UFO front aren't quite as hopeless as they were the day before. Depending on how that plays out I might air out the blog on a more regular basis, we'll see."

Swamp



Swamp,

HHHhmmm, from that quote, me thinks that even Billy Cox is holding out some hope for this one? Funny how his article suggests otherwise.

I think it just goes to show how little hope has been coming from UFOLogy in recent years....

Hey Raf! wink

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Raf on Oct 26th, 2017, 09:09am


Hi Bonehead...been awhile smiley
Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Dec 23rd, 2017, 12:57pm

Well, the feedback from this past week's revelatory stories certainly is encouraging. Even the ever pessimistic Billy Cox was acting like he had gotten a glimpse of the holy grail. Wow!

Make no mistake, the fact that the mainstream media took the series of stories revealed in the past few weeks seriously is a watershed moment. There are admissions that the feds have had an active interest in UFOs since their loud proclamation, in 1969, that they were "out of the UFO business". Balderdash. And the only people trying to walk this back are dyed in the wool rational materialists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Won't he have egg on his face if our boy DeLonge actually reveals real concrete evidence of UFO reality? C,mon Tom, let's pants the "science guys"!

But as I have said before, people will not buy into the UFO scenario completely until tangible physical evidence is revealed. Where's the beef? Until the beef is presented, we are still a subject of ridicule.

But DeLonge has achieved a minor coup here. Serious people (except maybe DeGrasse Tyson?) are talking seriously in public venues about UFOs and saying that there is there there. That is no small thing in a present cultural environment that seems to revel in blatantly confabulated "truths" and mendacious manipulative lowbrow polemic drivel.

But it is the there that is there that is the real fly in the ointment. The world wants real tangible proofs. They want real there in their there, not another unfulfilling tasteless rice cake. Until DeLonge pries that brass ring from the crooked fingers of an ever grasping powers that be, this story is still just a flaccid balloon in desperate need of inflation.

But I have to give props to my man Tom. He has tooted the first puff of air into that evidentiary balloon. This is getting fun. Keep puffing Tom! Hopefully he will eventually blow us all away....

Yeah, so I am still hopeful. grin

Bonehead

Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by Cliff-67 on Dec 23rd, 2017, 2:22pm

"Balloon...?" grin


wink



Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
Post by bonehead on Dec 24th, 2017, 11:46am

on Dec 23rd, 2017, 2:22pm, Cliff-67 wrote:
"Balloon...?" grin


wink


Sorry, bad choice of metaphor...... tongue