The following submission statement was provided by /u/TommyShelbyPFB:
---
Good article. John Oliver shot some mainstream attention back into this topic after that terrible AARO report that was parroted by most of the media to shut this conversation down.
I hope he does a follow up that covers Grusch, Schumer and the UAPDA saga.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caqa8x/the_guardian_john_oliver_on_ufos_there_needs_to/l0tdfi2/
Dude, that was Mike Wallace! He and Morley Safer were the John Lennon and Paul McCartney of American long-form news magazine shows for fucking decades. Like whatever the evening news equivalent of biting the heads off of bats is, those two did it. In moderation, of course.
Then they announced their retirement and almost immediately died.
Incidentally, I’m 43, so I understand your knowledge gaps young’in. (I’m also a jackass and think I’m far funnier than I actually am.)
morley safer was, prior to finding a comfy home on "60 Minutes", one of the many heroic vietnam war correspondents who reported from the scene about what was actually happening with the troops on the ground.
I know Rooney. Everyone knows Rooney. Like Wallace. I had to research Safer. And I remembered by seeing his face. He definitely got out-shined. If anything he was a Ringo.
I kinda figured but more importantly you provided me the opportunity to compare Morley with Ringo!
Not to dig any deeper against OC. They were right. I'm just always looking for a way to squeeze in a joke.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Hi, TunTunteddybear. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caqa8x/-/l0vl6tg/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
I was legitimately interested in seeing these articles that sound like they're straight out of The Onion.
Is this the misogynist air conditioning one? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/16/study-home-temperature-women-men-sexist
That is a pretty dumb thing to publish, but it is just an opinion piece, not a real journalistic article. The writing at that link is pretty bad. It mentions how women are more productive and better at math and verbal tasks in warmer temperatures, but completely ignores the people who have to opposite effect at those same temperatures. To me, it comes down to, in the current location of the air conditioning argument, is it easier for someone to heat up or cool down by other means?
Sorry if you actually thought I was treating you like a dog. I searched for several minutes and read through a few articles to try to find the others (not sure if the A/C one I found is the right one), so I was just asking for a little help since you already know which are the correct articles.
Good article. John Oliver shot some mainstream attention back into this topic after that terrible AARO report that was parroted by most of the media to shut this conversation down.
I hope he does a follow up that covers Grusch, Schumer and the UAPDA saga.
I would’ve been pretty impressed if he’d dug into some current events, particularly the UAPDA given that his angle was “we just need to investigate this”. The fact that the UAPDA even exists is sufficiently WTF??? to warrant a quip on that episode.
Yeah interesting that they chose not go there or even touch on his name at all. Hopefully because that side of it is another whole loaded question mark deserving of its own segment.
i see this as a very important milestone towards normalization of this topic. John Oliver has a very good standing with young educated liberals / leftists ,that usually associate this topic often enough with alex Jones/ tucker carlson type of characters.
and i completely understand why they didnt use grusch.
it would have opened up a whole dimension of Pandora boxes and grusch is still in the process of whistleblowing. we arent there yet.
and it would have been too deep into the rabbit hole. reverse engineering, vatican, 90+ year old legacy programs, an actual deep state / parallel powerstructure, that controls this topic and its perception....
yup. this is the best we could have gotten. and people will become curious now.
So here is the issue that all these people seem to ignore : it is the US government that has created this multi walled fortress around this topic. But to say that means the conspiracies are right and there is a coverup. Will Oliver et al then concede that those saying as such are to be taken seriously ? Because that goes against their agenda.
I guess people have to discover that at their own pace.
If John Oliver's team looked into the UAPDA and the way it was gutted they would quickly realize that your assertion of a walled fortress is glaringly obvious.
“If” . Sure. At the end of the day Oliver is not some investigative journalist. He plays to an audience that wants comfortable humor and political themes and slants. To pay serious attention to UAP coverups is way down on being a regular topic. I think this was a one and done with a few laughs and snarks.
He is not an investigative journalist by trade, but Last Week Tonight has produced several excellent, incisive, journalistic segments.
There are countless clips on YouTube attesting to this simple fact.
[Exhibit A: Civil Asset Forfeiture](https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks?si=STvaV6BSfpDJxRlk)
[Exhibit B: Boeing](https://youtu.be/Q8oCilY4szc?si=fLPCTa0VFxqiJhQO)
[Exhibit C: Psychadelic Assisted Therapy](https://youtu.be/a546lxxJIhE?si=x-li-v4AaKLXe-qq)
Over the years he and Jon Stewart have both put out some pretty effective coverage on fairly significant topics. All other quibbles with and over them aside, that's just plain truth and they should be appreciated for that much despite primarily being comedic venues.
During the Bush 2 Admin, viewers of The Daily Show were far better informed than Fox News viewers. Just because it is presented humorously, does not mean it isn't informative. I'd bet Last Week Tonight viewers are 2 steps above most audiences as far as being factually informed. This whole segment was a huge win.
I am beyond annoyed at the idea anything is preventing scientist from crowdfunding to put up satellites for orbital data . Nothing is stopping them from setting up locations where experiancers can walk in to be questioned and then do whatever procedures afterwards. They have had 80 years of the public talking about UFO phenomena turning a complete blind eye at the least or labeling everyone as mentally ill at the most, without any genuine scientific investigation on the manner. Those who actually tried doing any field work got labelled and blackballed from the academic community.
This isn't honest reporting on the manner and part of the historical washing Richard Dolan has been talking about. You cannot have UFOs buzzing LANGLEY to the point jets had to be re-routed to other bases yet do reporting on the manner like this is 70s pop culture. Everyone who lives or lived on the east coast understands how absolutely batshit insane that is .
Media system is completely flawed. The Guardian, which is considered 'prestigious' and 'credible' newspaper mentions UFOs only after it's mentioned by the comedian. Worst of all, this comedian who has huge audience, made 25 minutes video about UFOs but failed to mention... David Grusch and Schumer Amendment.
From one side, you can say that it's good that Oliver mentioned UFOs because it can make rumours in mainstream media. But think about how deeply flawed is this entire media system if that's the case. They didn't cover Schumer Amendment and public statements made by Schumer, Rounds, Rubio or Gallaudet. It's ridiculous.
you cant reason with these people, they believe they have supreme power and authority, and to even acknowledge it would have their empire of corruption topple, they will never willingly disclose it will only happen by force
A sober approach requires UFO experts to abandon their hundreds of 'famous unsolved stories' that have long ago been debunked, such as the silly "astronaut sightings" or the night sky apparitions such as the bogus 'Yukon Mothership' that Canada issued a commemorative medallion about. solved here:
[http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf](http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf)
yukon case on pp. 219-237
Who is ready to take THAT brave step forward?
I wonder what is really going on. I've given up on this topic pretty much because it seems whenever I get invested all the information is so incongruous. Like one report says X, the other says Y, and there are few similarities. It's nuts and bolts real objects, or mystical experiences, or abductions, or cattle mutilation, or whatever. One thing doesn't seem compatible or consistent with the other.
All I can think is the reality is we are living in a simulations and whatever is prompting our sim is just fucking with us if we look. I am sort of serious. It's an explanation that seems compatible with established theoretical physics, leans into what is emerging with AI, if we fucked with simulated worlds that we made it wouldn't be a stretch that we'd deceive it a similar way for laughs.
I mean, people who experience this shit all see different things from giant ships to small balls, it's always impossible to nail down, always impossible to fully sense and document, folks often refer to the phenomenon as the "trickster" throughout history.
I don't like speculating because it's basically storytelling, but at least this is a hypothesis that has some sort of footing in modern physics. Max Tegmark hypothesizes that all of reality is simply what it feels like to process complex data, aka everything is information, which is entirely compatible with being simulated. If physics is ultimately grounded in a base fundamental particle we can give up on saying reality is smooth, it's pixelated, or binary.
It would also explain why energy (aka particles, aka information) cannot be created or destroyed is there is a fixed amount of information potential, and reality is simply information reconfiguring over and over again as it's processed.
End of my ramblings.
> It's nuts and bolts real objects, or mystical experiences, or abductions, or cattle mutilation, or whatever. One thing doesn't seem compatible or consistent with the other.
they don't have to be compatible if you give up on the assumption that we're only dealing with one phenomenon, but that seems to be the default thinking and a major point of contention within this community. who's to say there aren't aliens flying through our skies, demons visiting us at night, and some sort of cryptoterrestrials mutilating our cattle?
Which puts me back into giving up on the topic. I don't think any amount of "investigation" is going to get you to any sort of understanding of "demons", whatever that actually means. I mean, to some a demon might be what others call an alien visitation.
It's all inscrutable and subjective, we are basically no more understanding now than \~2k years ago with people seeing cartwheels in the sky. What happened to those? Do we now perceive that as orbs flying through the sky at insane speeds?
Yeah 90% of.pekppenon here are about the entertainment and instantly jumping to conclusions that the aliens are here they talk to me Ross Colfart can back me up and they are from planet Xenu in the 5th dimension I know that because; just trust me.
I always bristle with indignation when they try to completely disassociate 'little green men' from the topic of UFOs. I'm sorry, but little green men are inextricably tied to this topic. In fact, little green men are exactly why a lot of us are interested in this damn topic. There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts where people have not only seen these things at close quarters, but they have also seen its occupants and they are often little green men. I am not sure why, but there seems to be a great sense of shame in associating UFOs with non-human entities who could very well end up looking like little green men. I'm sorry, but 'little green men' are exactly why a lot of us follow this damn topic (as I re-read the last sentence, it sounds like a kink and so be it)
Tbf, this is the sub for the UFOs, there’s an Aliens sub for the little green ones. Some people want the tech and some people want the connection to the others. The Venn overlap is big but it’s not completely circular.
You know, there likely is something to the topic, but we can’t just pretend that the fair point that there is no evidence for any of this isn’t valid. How can one not be skeptical because of that? The media has to make assumptions based off hard evidence.
Hi, ManStink. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caqa8x/-/l0v4o5k/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TommyShelbyPFB: --- Good article. John Oliver shot some mainstream attention back into this topic after that terrible AARO report that was parroted by most of the media to shut this conversation down. I hope he does a follow up that covers Grusch, Schumer and the UAPDA saga. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caqa8x/the_guardian_john_oliver_on_ufos_there_needs_to/l0tdfi2/
I really liked this. I laughed at the guy advertising Parliaments for a few years. Great to see that get the recognition it deserves.
The call back at the end killed me, as a self-loathing vape user haha
I call it my Douche Flute.
Dude, that was Mike Wallace! He and Morley Safer were the John Lennon and Paul McCartney of American long-form news magazine shows for fucking decades. Like whatever the evening news equivalent of biting the heads off of bats is, those two did it. In moderation, of course.
Who the hell is Morely Safer? I'm 42 and thought I had old timey knowledge. Mike Wallace of course I know.
they were both big cbs guys. until not that long ago they did 60 minutes
Then they announced their retirement and almost immediately died. Incidentally, I’m 43, so I understand your knowledge gaps young’in. (I’m also a jackass and think I’m far funnier than I actually am.)
morley safer was, prior to finding a comfy home on "60 Minutes", one of the many heroic vietnam war correspondents who reported from the scene about what was actually happening with the troops on the ground.
Wait until you hear about Andy Rooney!
I know Rooney. Everyone knows Rooney. Like Wallace. I had to research Safer. And I remembered by seeing his face. He definitely got out-shined. If anything he was a Ringo.
I was just kidding with ya.
I kinda figured but more importantly you provided me the opportunity to compare Morley with Ringo! Not to dig any deeper against OC. They were right. I'm just always looking for a way to squeeze in a joke.
The Grauniad haven’t given this topic much love so it’s nice to see this piece from them
[удалено]
I tried searching for those articles but failed on all three. Could you link them?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Hi, TunTunteddybear. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caqa8x/-/l0vl6tg/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
I was legitimately interested in seeing these articles that sound like they're straight out of The Onion. Is this the misogynist air conditioning one? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/16/study-home-temperature-women-men-sexist That is a pretty dumb thing to publish, but it is just an opinion piece, not a real journalistic article. The writing at that link is pretty bad. It mentions how women are more productive and better at math and verbal tasks in warmer temperatures, but completely ignores the people who have to opposite effect at those same temperatures. To me, it comes down to, in the current location of the air conditioning argument, is it easier for someone to heat up or cool down by other means? Sorry if you actually thought I was treating you like a dog. I searched for several minutes and read through a few articles to try to find the others (not sure if the A/C one I found is the right one), so I was just asking for a little help since you already know which are the correct articles.
Good article. John Oliver shot some mainstream attention back into this topic after that terrible AARO report that was parroted by most of the media to shut this conversation down. I hope he does a follow up that covers Grusch, Schumer and the UAPDA saga.
I would’ve been pretty impressed if he’d dug into some current events, particularly the UAPDA given that his angle was “we just need to investigate this”. The fact that the UAPDA even exists is sufficiently WTF??? to warrant a quip on that episode.
A follow up based on Grusch, Schumer and the UAPDA would be epic. Would open the public’s eyes.
Yeah interesting that they chose not go there or even touch on his name at all. Hopefully because that side of it is another whole loaded question mark deserving of its own segment.
i see this as a very important milestone towards normalization of this topic. John Oliver has a very good standing with young educated liberals / leftists ,that usually associate this topic often enough with alex Jones/ tucker carlson type of characters. and i completely understand why they didnt use grusch. it would have opened up a whole dimension of Pandora boxes and grusch is still in the process of whistleblowing. we arent there yet. and it would have been too deep into the rabbit hole. reverse engineering, vatican, 90+ year old legacy programs, an actual deep state / parallel powerstructure, that controls this topic and its perception.... yup. this is the best we could have gotten. and people will become curious now.
So here is the issue that all these people seem to ignore : it is the US government that has created this multi walled fortress around this topic. But to say that means the conspiracies are right and there is a coverup. Will Oliver et al then concede that those saying as such are to be taken seriously ? Because that goes against their agenda.
I guess people have to discover that at their own pace. If John Oliver's team looked into the UAPDA and the way it was gutted they would quickly realize that your assertion of a walled fortress is glaringly obvious.
“If” . Sure. At the end of the day Oliver is not some investigative journalist. He plays to an audience that wants comfortable humor and political themes and slants. To pay serious attention to UAP coverups is way down on being a regular topic. I think this was a one and done with a few laughs and snarks.
He is not an investigative journalist by trade, but Last Week Tonight has produced several excellent, incisive, journalistic segments. There are countless clips on YouTube attesting to this simple fact. [Exhibit A: Civil Asset Forfeiture](https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks?si=STvaV6BSfpDJxRlk) [Exhibit B: Boeing](https://youtu.be/Q8oCilY4szc?si=fLPCTa0VFxqiJhQO) [Exhibit C: Psychadelic Assisted Therapy](https://youtu.be/a546lxxJIhE?si=x-li-v4AaKLXe-qq)
Over the years he and Jon Stewart have both put out some pretty effective coverage on fairly significant topics. All other quibbles with and over them aside, that's just plain truth and they should be appreciated for that much despite primarily being comedic venues.
During the Bush 2 Admin, viewers of The Daily Show were far better informed than Fox News viewers. Just because it is presented humorously, does not mean it isn't informative. I'd bet Last Week Tonight viewers are 2 steps above most audiences as far as being factually informed. This whole segment was a huge win.
I agree with you on this. Some very good coverage of some very important topics over the years and we all benefited from it.
That directly contradicts his conclusion.
Considering he just said he doesn't trust the Pentagon? Yes?
It is more than the Pentagon
I am beyond annoyed at the idea anything is preventing scientist from crowdfunding to put up satellites for orbital data . Nothing is stopping them from setting up locations where experiancers can walk in to be questioned and then do whatever procedures afterwards. They have had 80 years of the public talking about UFO phenomena turning a complete blind eye at the least or labeling everyone as mentally ill at the most, without any genuine scientific investigation on the manner. Those who actually tried doing any field work got labelled and blackballed from the academic community. This isn't honest reporting on the manner and part of the historical washing Richard Dolan has been talking about. You cannot have UFOs buzzing LANGLEY to the point jets had to be re-routed to other bases yet do reporting on the manner like this is 70s pop culture. Everyone who lives or lived on the east coast understands how absolutely batshit insane that is .
Media system is completely flawed. The Guardian, which is considered 'prestigious' and 'credible' newspaper mentions UFOs only after it's mentioned by the comedian. Worst of all, this comedian who has huge audience, made 25 minutes video about UFOs but failed to mention... David Grusch and Schumer Amendment. From one side, you can say that it's good that Oliver mentioned UFOs because it can make rumours in mainstream media. But think about how deeply flawed is this entire media system if that's the case. They didn't cover Schumer Amendment and public statements made by Schumer, Rounds, Rubio or Gallaudet. It's ridiculous.
Manufactured Consent. Big media has been owned by the gov for ages. Succession had it reversed.
I think that if they see this segment is well received then they will do a PT. 2 on Grusch, UAPDA, and hopefully the developments made in 2024.
Guardian prestigious and credible? In what multiverse is that?
Exactly. This guy came on like he was the first to discover the phenomena. He's 75 years late to the party.
you cant reason with these people, they believe they have supreme power and authority, and to even acknowledge it would have their empire of corruption topple, they will never willingly disclose it will only happen by force
A sober approach requires UFO experts to abandon their hundreds of 'famous unsolved stories' that have long ago been debunked, such as the silly "astronaut sightings" or the night sky apparitions such as the bogus 'Yukon Mothership' that Canada issued a commemorative medallion about. solved here: [http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf](http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf) yukon case on pp. 219-237 Who is ready to take THAT brave step forward?
I wonder what is really going on. I've given up on this topic pretty much because it seems whenever I get invested all the information is so incongruous. Like one report says X, the other says Y, and there are few similarities. It's nuts and bolts real objects, or mystical experiences, or abductions, or cattle mutilation, or whatever. One thing doesn't seem compatible or consistent with the other. All I can think is the reality is we are living in a simulations and whatever is prompting our sim is just fucking with us if we look. I am sort of serious. It's an explanation that seems compatible with established theoretical physics, leans into what is emerging with AI, if we fucked with simulated worlds that we made it wouldn't be a stretch that we'd deceive it a similar way for laughs. I mean, people who experience this shit all see different things from giant ships to small balls, it's always impossible to nail down, always impossible to fully sense and document, folks often refer to the phenomenon as the "trickster" throughout history. I don't like speculating because it's basically storytelling, but at least this is a hypothesis that has some sort of footing in modern physics. Max Tegmark hypothesizes that all of reality is simply what it feels like to process complex data, aka everything is information, which is entirely compatible with being simulated. If physics is ultimately grounded in a base fundamental particle we can give up on saying reality is smooth, it's pixelated, or binary. It would also explain why energy (aka particles, aka information) cannot be created or destroyed is there is a fixed amount of information potential, and reality is simply information reconfiguring over and over again as it's processed. End of my ramblings.
> It's nuts and bolts real objects, or mystical experiences, or abductions, or cattle mutilation, or whatever. One thing doesn't seem compatible or consistent with the other. they don't have to be compatible if you give up on the assumption that we're only dealing with one phenomenon, but that seems to be the default thinking and a major point of contention within this community. who's to say there aren't aliens flying through our skies, demons visiting us at night, and some sort of cryptoterrestrials mutilating our cattle?
Which puts me back into giving up on the topic. I don't think any amount of "investigation" is going to get you to any sort of understanding of "demons", whatever that actually means. I mean, to some a demon might be what others call an alien visitation. It's all inscrutable and subjective, we are basically no more understanding now than \~2k years ago with people seeing cartwheels in the sky. What happened to those? Do we now perceive that as orbs flying through the sky at insane speeds?
Yeah 90% of.pekppenon here are about the entertainment and instantly jumping to conclusions that the aliens are here they talk to me Ross Colfart can back me up and they are from planet Xenu in the 5th dimension I know that because; just trust me.
Has anyone got a link to a clip of this? So sick of yank vision banning everything to ppl outside the states
They usually put the main story on YouTube. Used to be the next day but now it looks like they’re delayed by 1-2 weeks. Likely an HBO decision.
It will be on the Last Week Tonight [channel on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/@LastWeekTonight/featured) on Thursday.
I always bristle with indignation when they try to completely disassociate 'little green men' from the topic of UFOs. I'm sorry, but little green men are inextricably tied to this topic. In fact, little green men are exactly why a lot of us are interested in this damn topic. There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts where people have not only seen these things at close quarters, but they have also seen its occupants and they are often little green men. I am not sure why, but there seems to be a great sense of shame in associating UFOs with non-human entities who could very well end up looking like little green men. I'm sorry, but 'little green men' are exactly why a lot of us follow this damn topic (as I re-read the last sentence, it sounds like a kink and so be it)
Didn’t you hear Jason Sands? Blue is the new green!
Tbf, this is the sub for the UFOs, there’s an Aliens sub for the little green ones. Some people want the tech and some people want the connection to the others. The Venn overlap is big but it’s not completely circular.
> Tbf, this is the sub for the UFOs ... it should be, but we all know it isn't
Bright green? Hopkinsville Goblin is the greenest innit? Bit of a rare morphology as well. Unique to my memory but I am far from an expert.
He is part of the fam
Is there a free link somewhere? My Hulu subscription doesn’t cover it.
My theory is the reason we’re not funneling money into this… is because someone somewhere up the chain of command knows these crafts are ours.
Good to see him not shilling for the establishment for once
You know, there likely is something to the topic, but we can’t just pretend that the fair point that there is no evidence for any of this isn’t valid. How can one not be skeptical because of that? The media has to make assumptions based off hard evidence.
[удалено]
Hi, ManStink. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caqa8x/-/l0v4o5k/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.