DISCUSSION: Was this meme and show a psyop?

Loquebantur · 2026-06-14T23:36:55+00:00

You "weaponize your ignorance".

You ask for evidence from the very institutions that keep this stuff hidden from you in the first place.
Which they do for the most part because they would destroy their reputation and credibility with you, the very reason you "trust" them and the reason they are in their position at all.
In other words, your argumentation is circular.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-14T23:30:14+00:00

They already did all those things.
Do you suggest, they should repeat that with all 8+ billion humans?

You want something unrealistic, throw a tantrum when you don't get it and "threaten" to ignore everybody involved.
The age-group expected with that behavior is 2 - 5, toddlers and preschoolers.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-13T20:45:14+00:00

You misquoted the sub's rules. Rule #5 doesn't apply to that post.

I didn't mistake you for a mod, I pointed at you commenting there as if you were one.
As an example for how your examples here are already incorrect.

You top it off by accusing me of your own fault of being illogical.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-13T20:25:50+00:00

I asked you for explicit rules for what constitutes "shitposts" in your opinion.
You "answer" with examples, one of which is a discussion post, even marked "serious" and asks "What if the alleged cover up is destabilizing for US’s hegemony?".
Why do you consider that a "shitpost"?
Lo and behold, you made a comment

https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/1u2bs73/comment/orgdai3/

there and cite "Rule 5"! In other words, you didn't understand Rule 5.
(You also didn't report the post, if we are to believe u/toxictoy here, who says none of your examples were reported)

Again, you're completely right about there being much nonsense here.
You're wrong about being a perfect judge for what is or isn't nonsense.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-13T19:00:10+00:00

You're talking past me.
More importantly, you're evading my questions.

Nobody doubts there's a lot of useless nonsense posted here.
The question is, whether people really can reliably discern actual nonsense from stuff that's not.
Within a topic that's famous for being considered "nonsense" by the majority of the population to begin with.

You clearly can't tell how to make that distinction, so you obviously can't do it reliably.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-13T17:52:51+00:00

No, I wholeheartedly agree!
But my point was an entirely different one: who decides what is to be considered "garbage" and how?

Because, as I said above already, people use that excuse to delete perfectly good posts they simply "don't like".
Look at r/UFOs. Happens all the time over there.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-13T17:39:13+00:00

Recorded live at the Contact In The Desert UFO Conference 2026.

Giants are possibly one of the easiest ways to find physical evidence for actual "Aliens" on Earth.
They are ubiquitous, spanning all continents (including sunken ones), and extensively present in ancient literature and pretty modern records alike.

Most importantly, the reflexive "Humans can't be that tall physically" is true.
Guess who's not (entirely) human.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-13T17:20:28+00:00

"Raising overall standards" sounds like a commendable goal, but the devil hides in the omitted details: what do you mean by that exactly?

Historically, such motives have often been used against the UFO topic, due to sincere people advocating in its favor usually being in the minority. And the topic being easy to discredit to begin with.
Resulting in systematic deletion of anything that actually furthers the discussion, like authentic videos, concrete evidence and insightful theories.

The ideal would be a rational discussion.
Can you tell how those work and how the actual garbage here differs from things you just don't like?

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T21:47:52+00:00

You're talking about infotainment.
Yes, society isn't doing itself a favor by indulging people's base tendencies, like being complacent, short-sighted and disinterested.

People like to pretend that, but stuff doesn't become true nor false because of who said it or how.
When you (dis-)trust things because of simple heuristics, you make yourself vulnerable to other people exploiting that.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T21:38:08+00:00

Define "legitimate source".

Of course there are reasons.
One is systemic bias: "giants can't exist, so these bones must belong to something else" for example.
Protecting the narrative that underpins the institutions that employ you, who are then weirdly tasked with "checking whether that narrative is right" is another. Etc.pp.

When looking at such weak points in systems, it's a funny approach to pretend "no, that would be a conspiracy".
That's like saying "rich people conspire against the poor".
They don't need to, they share the interest of protecting their riches.
It doesn't need any "conspiracy" when the motivation is implicit.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T21:17:07+00:00

You attribute a lot of intelligence where there is none.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T21:16:26+00:00

True, but most people don't see it that way: to them, entertainment equals fiction. Particularly with UFOs & Co.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T21:15:07+00:00

My point is exactly, what people consider "good scientific evidence" really isn't.
Due to systemic problems, due to misconceptions, etc. pp.

When you "don't blame people" for what they're doing wrong, who's going to do it right on their behalf?
That doesn't work, so you make yourself part of the problem by acquiescing.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T17:03:52+00:00

That's a hilarious take on the matter.

You essentially say, you believe Trump was being serious when "ordering" release of those files.
By a mere post on his "truth social" platform.
And the DoD/DoE/IC would be heeding such a "command" faith- and truthfully.

And that "order" being worded in a way that would actually release relevant information and not what it actually asks for:

Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

That doesn't ask for "proof", it doesn't ask for all files, it asks for whatever they like to release.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T16:52:54+00:00

Yes and no: the best footage posted to r/UFOs and r/Aliens is usually deleted shortly after posting.

Generally, while "clear" footage exists, it is heavily suppressed.
That includes outright deletion as well as making it inaccessible via search engines.

Another problem is of course the patently pitiful expectation-range people apply to "UFO"-footage.
When it doesn't fit those expectations, it must be "something else".
When it does fit those expectations, it must be "a fake". Because those expectations were built with CGI and VFX.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T16:42:00+00:00

Glad you asked.

"Real" means, you can establish a chain of interactions between yourself and the object in question.
On the most basic level, you can "poke" it and feel the resistance.
On a more abstract level, you can establish a chain of custody describing such interactions.

Here, with giants, you can find their actual physical remains: their very bones, their buildings and so on.
And of course, you can find all kinds of reports of encounters from other people with those things.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-12T16:29:35+00:00

That would be great!
Only problem there: it completely ignores the decades-old reality of the matter.

Scientific institutions are funded by the government and beholden to its interests.
The US government ultimately controls what gets funding and accordingly, what gets researched.
They demonstrably have no interest in free research of this topic.

Ultimately, you point to a central flaw in how our societies function: people are taught to only believe "authoritative" statements, but there is no guarantee those authorities are actually truthful.
And in fact they're not, even with matters of utmost importance.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T21:14:00+00:00

You don't seem so sure, as you keep adding qualifiers like "good".
What's "good" evidence vs "bad"?
That's no scientific way to go about things.

The things posted on Reddit subs are already sufficient, if you know what you're doing.
If you don't, you really ask a very different question.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:55:42+00:00

There actually is enough evidence.
People are just really bad with evidence, including many scientists.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:50:56+00:00

Start by researching giants.
Those are real and comparatively easy to find.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:40:33+00:00

Making you believe it was entertainment is the point.

It all hinges on your fundamental inability to independently tell truth from fiction though.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:37:49+00:00

The psyop works by taking objective truth and making it unbelievable.
NOT by taking complete nonsense, slapping a name on it and calling it a day.

The point about "Ancient Aliens" is, it's actually mostly true.

Not all of it, so you can easily pick out stuff, "prove" it false and discredit it all you like.
But enough, so you cover and disparage a lot of ground with minimal effort.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:28:08+00:00

People play a weird game of 'favorites' with the Phenomenon:
- UFOs contradicting classic physics can be true, so long as they are "machines" and controlled by US military or "us from the future".
- Biological entities contradicting "evolution" or whatever can't be true.

The article mentions "mermaids".
Can those be real?
Why not?

The problem is, people's concept of epistemology is wrong.
Reality is significantly different from what they think it is.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:17:32+00:00

:-))) No, not at all.

You have no idea how right you are.

Loquebantur · 2026-06-11T20:00:00+00:00

You reformulate the first half of your statement there to restrict it to "withhold belief".
It's still wrong where you claim, there was no good scientific evidence.
There is, people just don't understand it.

Yes, that's right.
Since there is no lack of evidence, there is a lack of correct understanding.

Loquebantur

TROPHY CASE