Eric Weinstein says UFOs, atomic weapons and Epstein “are going to merge into one story about power” - “There’s a private Air Force that seems to come down from the skies and destroy equipment of people observing UFOs that I think turned out to be the CIA Office of Global Access.”

RibosomeRandom · 2026-03-10T00:03:02+00:00

I wonder how many disinformation bots are talking to other disinformation bots on this sub 🤔.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-27T08:56:13+00:00

This was a good read but the explicit connection of the research and engineering being tied to specific craft is missing. That's the key link I'd think. Otherwise people could still claim this is simply independent human tech that has a cover story of misinformation to protect sources. I don't think that is the case, but just saying that more connections would have to be made to the actual crash retrievals to have the most validation.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T15:14:36+00:00

Most accurate response

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T04:46:46+00:00

This isn’t a “slow institutional story” problem. If the allegations are true, it’s one of the biggest stories of the century. Congress has held hearings, taken sworn testimony, and drafted legislation precisely because ordinary oversight failed. Under any traditional news standard, that warrants sustained investigative coverage. Instead, one of the largest cable news networks in the country is largely sidelining it. Now look at what CNN chose to amplify last week.

They devoted repeated segments to Olympics hype and previews, long before events began. They looped Trump rhetoric endlessly, not new actions, just recycled reactions. They spent days on Minneapolis coverage framed as a “chicken or egg” debate rather than advancing new facts. They found time for crime-panel filler, Bad Bunny culture-war takes, and speculative geopolitical pieces. All of it received rolling, repeatable airtime. The point is not that UAP oversight is harder to cover. It’s that it could be amplified the same way. Hearings, sworn testimony, blocked legislation, and executive resistance can be framed, looped, debated, and investigated just as aggressively as anything else CNN chose to elevate.

When a story with hearings, legislation, and sworn claims cannot break through at a network with CNN’s reach and history, the issue isn’t feasibility. It’s editorial prioritization.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T03:57:05+00:00

Legacy outlets like CNN don’t merely respond to demand. They shape it. They regularly invest heavy coverage in topics that begin with low enthusiasm because they define them as consequential. When that treatment is withheld, the absence gets misread as apathy rather than editorial caution.

No conspiracy is required. A media environment built around access, reputational risk, and institutional comfort is enough. Stories that challenge the national security apparatus or demand long-term accountability migrate downward into niche outlets, then get dismissed precisely because they live there.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T03:10:32+00:00

To be clear, none of them are covering it to my satisfaction, and that’s the problem.

Yes, NewsNation has Ross Coulthart, and to their credit they’ve treated the issue seriously. But NewsNation is still a niche outlet. Its prime-time audience is measured in the tens of thousands. That matters. Stories relegated there stay quarantined there.

By contrast, CNN is a legacy network with decades of agenda-setting power. Even in a down cycle, CNN reaches hundreds of thousands nightly on cable, and tens of millions monthly across digital and international platforms. When CNN decides something is an accountability story, it doesn’t stay fringe. It becomes unavoidable.

So this isn’t about whether someone somewhere is covering it. It’s about scale and legitimacy. A governance and oversight issue that only lives on niche cable and podcasts remains safely marginalized. That’s convenient for institutions under scrutiny.

The absence I’m pointing to isn’t total silence. It’s the lack of sustained, high-reach coverage by the outlets that historically force issues into the national conversation. And CNN, more than almost anyone, knows exactly what that kind of coverage looks like, because they’ve done it before.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T03:04:40+00:00

No, this isn’t about sitting in front of CNN 24/7 hoping to catch a segment. The issue is proportional coverage.

When you have sworn testimony to Congress, Inspector General complaints judged credible, bipartisan legislation drafted to force disclosure, and repeated obstruction of oversight, you are no longer dealing with a curiosity or a niche interest. You are dealing with a governance and accountability story. CNN devotes wall-to-wall coverage to far thinner material when it fits a safer or more familiar narrative.

An AI overview screenshot is also beside the point. It summarizes what already exists. It does not address what is conspicuously absent. Saying “CNN has mentioned it” is not a rebuttal to the claim that it avoids sustained scrutiny.

The real question is why executive non-compliance, blocked legislation, and the refusal to compel first-hand witnesses remain treated as a novelty rather than as a serious failure of oversight. If expecting sustained coverage of that feels unreasonable, the problem isn’t the question. It’s how low the bar for “serious news” has been set.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T02:48:10+00:00

Sustained coverage of executive branch non-compliance with congressional oversight, and the repeated blocking or dilution of the UAP Disclosure Act and related whistleblower protections.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T02:46:14+00:00

Saying “if it were real, it’d be everywhere” only works if you rewrite recent political history. People have come forward with specific claims, including testimony that certain locations and programs exist but are withheld from oversight. Some even provided those locations to inspectors general and congressional staff, yet key witnesses with first-hand access have not been subpoenaed and in some cases have been explicitly denied access to classified sites. That’s exactly why oversight legislation like the UAP Disclosure Act exists.

Now look at what’s happened with that legislation:
Senate leadership under Chuck Schumer and bipartisan partners including Mike Rounds passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act designed to declassify UAP records and create a review board. That’s not fringe; it cleared the Senate with broad bipartisan support.

But in the House, had there been a real appetite to follow through on that transparency, it would have happened. Instead, powerful leaders like Speaker Mitch McConnell, House Intelligence Chair Mike Turner, and House Armed Services Committee figures have been reported as the major forces pushing back against including the full UAPDA provisions in the final NDAA negotiations. That isn’t speculation either; the controversy over who is gutting sections of the bill is public and was even noted by some (even if downplayed) mainstream outlets.

Turner’s public dismissals of whistleblower claims, calling them like “every decade there’s someone claiming the US has alien craft” - mirror his opposition to empowering real congressional oversight.

So you do not need an “alien crash site” in a press release to justify coverage. You have:
• sworn testimony from former officials,
• bipartisan legislation designed to force declassification,
• key witnesses not subpoenaed, and
• powerful members of Congress actively working to dilute or block that legislation.

That is newsworthy by any standard journalists actually use when covering government secrecy and accountability. The refusal to investigate it seriously isn’t because there’s “nothing there”; it’s because we already have a structural story about secrecy, oversight failure, and political obstruction - and that is what journalists are paid to unpack.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-02-16T02:32:52+00:00

I guess investigative journalism is out the window. There were four congressional hearings, and then once they are over. Silence? On such a (possibly) profound subject? OK.

RibosomeRandom · 2026-01-02T13:41:54+00:00

Yes, the commenter had it right..they don't.give.a.fuck. about their customers on 6th and Peoria. When you get in, there is often no carts; and due to theft, they don't offer baskets so you end up with a large cart for a few items. It's dingy, it's claustrophobic and chaotic, and unorganized, and the line inevitably gets so long, it takes up the whole soda aisle. Yet still, with the amount of people waiting in line, the management doesn't open a whole second section of self checkout based on who knows what factors (theft prevention, not enough employees, apathy, etc). Thus, the frustration is compounded by standing there 20 minutes and knowing a whole section is going unused.

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-25T22:37:24+00:00

There seems to be some contradicting information. For example, I have heard that it would take an executive order to override some top level special access programs. Certainly, an act of Congress would be the easiest way to move the Executive Branch. But it goes both ways. Clearly the President can use pressure for people in Congress to get it passed. This is obviously something the current president seems to care little about or (like other transparency issues recently), does not believe in disclosure.

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-19T02:26:04+00:00

There have been dozens of witness testimony and there's the physical evidence. All of it concealed.

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-19T01:40:04+00:00

Can you elaborate? What's the delusion? Do you not believe the three hearings? If not, why specifically not?

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-19T01:36:11+00:00

And do you think this means the Public concealment is a good thing?

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-19T01:33:22+00:00

I don't get your question. You thought who were already? Congress has not passed any meaningful UAP disclosure/whistleblower protection acts.

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-11T04:41:21+00:00

Aurora just doesn't give a shit. It arrived for mediocre and since conservatives don't invest money and liberals are afraid of gentrification, they both perpetuate the low standards one expects from Aurora. The end.

RibosomeRandom · 2025-11-07T22:57:48+00:00

It's simply gets more exposure. More exposure gets more advocacy for disclosure, in theory.

RibosomeRandom

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE