US Soldiers Share The Truth About What "Fighting For Your Country" Actually Means
Former Air Force pilot Brandon Bryan is one of the first ever United States drone operators to speak out against what has been happening overseas for a number of years now, which is the murder of countless innocent lives.
Bryan served as a sensor operator for what's known as the "Predator program" from 2007 to 20011. He was responsible for manning the camera on the unmanned aerial vehicles that carried out attacks overseas before leaving active duty in the Air Force, and, as Democracy Now reports, was actually given a certificate that credited his squadron for more than 1,500 kills.
The US clearly encourages and rewards this type of activity. Think about that while you consider what is still happening around the world, including in Syria.
Below is Bryan's recounting of his first-ever lethal drone strike and the impact it continues to have on him to this day:
I didn't really understand what it meant to kill at first. It was horrible. The first time was horrible, the second time was horrible, the third time was numbing, the fourth time was numbing, but of course the first time sticks with you the longest.
The Ones Pulling The Triggers & Giving The Orders Need To Stop
Kudos to Bryan for doing his part to shed more light on the atrocities being committed overseas. It really hits home a specific message, and a specific solution. That solution is for the human beings giving these orders and the the human beings following these orders to stop listening. If we want this mess to stop, a shift in thinking needs to take place. We are being used as tools. But just imagine what would happen if every human being on the planet refused to participate in war. What would our world look like then? While you could make the argument that intelligent robotic aircraft would take over, that still begs the question, who is making this aircraft? At the end of the day, there is a human being behind these killings. We are the cause, and at the same time we are the solution.
This is why we say change needs to come from within, and as more soldiers wake up to the truth about these wars, I have to believe that more of them will put down their weapons.
Shooting For No Reason
Brandon Bryan is not the only solider to speak out about this issue. Ethan McCord, a US soldier who served in Iraq, has revealed some disturbing truths about the life of a soldier in the Wikileaks video "Collateral Damage."
In the video above, Bryan describes how the civilians being killed are seemingly indiscriminately labelled as dangerous, even though clearly they are not.
"So we're looking at this thing, these people, and uh, it was like, almost instantaneous that someone was like, 'confirmed weapons … you're cleared hot.' "
Ethan McCord expresses the same thing in the video below:
"If you feel threatened by anybody you're able to engage that person. Many soldiers felt threatened just by the fact that you were looking at them, so they fired their weapons on anybody who was looking at them because 'I felt threatened.' We were told that if we were to fire our weapons at people, and we were to be investigated, 'officers would take care of you.' "
"This happens on a daily basis. I've watched … [the destruction of] vans full of children who were in the way when an IUD went off. The destruction of the Iraqi people happens on a daily basis."
Brainwashing Young Soldiers
When a person signs up to supposedly 'serve their country,' they are most likely doing so with the best of intentions. They believe they are making a positive impact on the world, defending their country from radical terrorists. Many of these soldiers are completely unaware of truth behind the global war on terrorism and the so-called enemy they are going after.
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States." — Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook
This is precisely why a number of professors, politicians, and experts from around the world recently gathered to warn us about the global agenda being enacted by the Western military alliance.
The global war on terrorism is a US undertaking, which is fake, it's based on fake premises. It tells us that somehow America and the Western world are going after a fictitious enemy, the Islamic state, when in fact the Islamic state is fully supported and financed by the Western military alliance and America's allies in the Persian Gulf. . . . They say Muslims are terrorists, but it just so happens that terrorists are Made in America. They're not the product of Muslim society, and that should be abundantly clear to everyone on this floor. . . . The global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity." (source) (source)
If you believe that these terrorists are being funded and armed by the United States and other governments (along with the hand that controls them all, which is comprised of the major banks), then you need to ask yourself why. What is the logical explanation for such illogical actions? It seems clear that they wish to incite panic and fear to distract us from the reality that they are fabricating these events — all in order to justify the infiltration of other countries for their own, selfish motives. And this is something that more soldiers, and everyday citizens, need to realize.
Are soldiers really fighting for freedom, or are they fighting for elitist agendas under the guise of patriotism and a global terrorist threat? Patriotism is propaganda, and when combined with the fictitious, manufactured, terrorist threat, it makes one believe that there is something to defend, something to fight for.
In his paper "Consent Without Consent: Reflections on the Theory and Practice of Democracy," Noam Chomsky quotes and adds to some important revelations by Edward Bernays:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society." To carry out this essential task, "the intelligent minorities must make use of propaganda continuously and systematically," because they alone "understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses" and can "pull the wires which control the public mind." Therefore, our "society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda," another case of "consent without consent." Propaganda provides the leadership with a mechanism "to mold the mind of the masses" so that "they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction." The leadership can "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers." This process of "engineering consent" is the very "essence of the democratic process."
(Pages 10 & 11)
There is also the pressure these soldiers face when they are in the military. They have no choice but to take orders from other brainwashed (I do not mean for this term to have a negative connotation here, we are all brainwashed to some extent) soldiers who outrank them.
Just as Ethan McCord stated in the Wikileaks video above:
"We were told by our battalion commander to kill every m***** f****** on the street. Many soldiers would not do that. We decided we were going to shoot into the rooftops of buildings because if you didn't fire, the NCOs in your platoon would make your life hell."
A survey conducted at Chicago's Loretto Hospital shows that only 40 percent of healthcare workers will take the COVID-19 vaccine once it's available to them.
Why does vaccine hesitancy not only among people, but healthcare workers seem to be growing larger and larger every single year?
What Happened: Earlier this month Dr. Nikhila Juvvadi, the chief clinical officer at Chicago's Loretto Hospital, said that a survey was administered there to healthcare workers in December regarding who would get the COVID-19 vaccine and who wouldn't. The survey found that 40 percent of the hospital staff said they would not get vaccinated and 60 percent said they would.
Juvvadi said that, "in her hospital, a lot of that hesitancy is based on minority groups' deep-rooted mistrust of vaccinations and other large-scale health care programs; "I've heard Tuskegee more times than I can count in the past month – and, you know, it's a valid, valid concern."
In 1972, a government whistleblower, Peter Buxton, revealed that for the previous forty years, beginning in 1932, both CDC and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted the so called "Tuskegee Experiment" to study the progression of untreated syphilis in impoverished African-American men in rural Alabama. Public health regulators lured illiterate sharecroppers with the promise of hot meals, funeral costs and free health care from the U.S. government. According to the Centers for Disease Control, which took over the study in the early 1960's, none of 299 syphilitic sharecroppers were ever told they had the disease. CDC purposefully withheld penicillin after the antibiotic became a proven treatment in 1947. CDC actively prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs elsewhere. CDC's victims in that study included numerous men who died of syphilis, 40 wives who contracted the disease, and 19 children born with congenital syphilis.
When, in 1966, Buxton sent a letter to government regulators complaining about the ethics and morality of the study, CDC reaffirmed the need to continue the research until all subjects had died and been autopsied. To bolster its position, the CDC sought, and gained support for the study's extension, from the American Medical Association (AMA).
Buxton finally told his story to my uncle, Senator Edward Kennedy in July of 1972. Senator Kennedy convened Senate hearings, at which Buxton and HEW officials testified and CDC finally terminated the study. – Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Why This Is Important: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine hesitancy in general is nothing new. Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it. At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County's frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials, and fewer than half of the hospital workers at St. Elizabeth Community Hospital in Tehama County, Calif., were willing to be vaccinated. You can read more about this story here.
Roughly 55 percent of surveyed New York Fire Department firefighters said they would not get the coronavirus vaccine, the Firefighters Association president said last month.
A recent survey by Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly a third of health care workers across America would probably or definitely would refuse the vaccination.
A recent Gallup poll showed that only 58% of Americans plan on getting the COVID vaccine when it's available. An October poll conducted by Zogby found that nearly 50% of Americans have concerns about the safety of the coming COVID vaccines.
Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new, and it's been an issue prior to the COVID vaccination. A number of studies point this out, for example, a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection in 2017 titled "Addressing vaccine hesitancy: the crucial role of healthcare providers" is a great example.
Another one published a year before titled "Vaccine hesitancy and healthcare providers" is also a good example. One of the authors of this study, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference on vaccine safety at the end of 2019.
The other thing that's a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That's a huge problem, because to this day any study I've seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I've seen globally is the health care provider. (More information and links to the conference here)
There are many studies regarding vaccine hesitancy, and if you go through the literature the main causes seem to be a lack of trust for pharmaceutical companies and various concerns about vaccines that have yet to be answered. Aluminum, for example is one. The adjuvant is blamed for adverse reactions and injuries, and science is and has been raising cause for concern for many years.
A recent publication in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by one of its associate editors, Dr. Peter Doshi, titled " Pfizer and Moderna's "95% effective" vaccines—let's be cautious and first see the full data" calls into question these claims by the COVID vaccine manufacturer. I thought I'd post it here in case you were interested in reading it. It raises a few of many issues as to why some people are hesitant as well.
When it comes to a lack of trust, this is completely understandable, is it not? For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that's accessible in PubMed titled "Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR."
Concerning conflicts of interest, specific to the COVID-19 vaccine also seem to be raising concerns. According to Kamran Abba, executive editor of the BMJ and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "The UK's pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines." Perhaps this is why other therapies and treatments that have shown success have been brushed off, ignored and in some cases labelled as "fake news."
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled "fake news" by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)
Another recent article published in the BMJ by journalist Paul D. Thacker highlights the conflicts of interest that exist between the United Kingdom's COVID-19 advisors, which also seems to be a common theme around the globe. Based on my research this seems to be a global phenomenon.
A few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the Spider Papers. The scientists outlined great corruption that happens at "all levels" within the CDC.
The Takeaway: Vaccines are not a one size fits all product, in the US alone nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children, and a number of studies are calling into question their safety.
For the most part anybody who is concerned about vaccine safety is usually dubbed an "anti-vax conspiracy theorist." Concerns that many scientists, doctors and people are bringing up with regards to vaccine safety are never really acknowledged or addressed, which brings me to my next point.
Why do we have such a hard time discussing controversial topics? Why are things always made out to seem so black and white? Why are we so polarized in our beliefs to the point where we can't look at another viewpoint that challenges our own? Why can't we understand why some people disagree with us and why they feel the way they do?
Should freedom of choice not always remain?
Donald Trump did not pardon Wikileaks' Julian Assange in the final hours of his presidency.
What does it say about our world of those who expose immoral and unethical actions by powerful people and institutions are locked up, censored, silenced, tortured and ridiculed?
What Happened: In a slew of pardons and commutations issued during the final hours of his presidency, Donald Trump did not pardon Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently posted a tweet from former Maine State senator, Eric Brakey, that reads as follows: "The Failure to pardon Assange, Snowden and Ulbricht is a great final act of cowardice and submission to the Deep State." Deep state refers to the influence and sway that various powerful people, corporations, financial institutions and more have on political policy and decision making around the world. These days many people believe that America, for example, no longer represents a democracy but rather a 'corporatocracy' so to speak.
Snowden also reacted to the development by tweeting that he was "not at all disappointed to go unpardoned by a man who has never known a love he had not paid for. But what supporters of his remain must never forgive that this simpering creature failed to pardon truth-tellers in far more desperate circumstances."
When it comes to Julian Assange, we are talking about a man who exposed a number of immoral and unethical actions by several governments. Wikileaks exposed, in great detail, the corruption that plagues these 'institutions' as well as the corruption that lives amongst dozens of powerful corporations that control almost every aspect of our lives, from food, to health, to energy resources and more.
In response to the leaks made by Assange, and other people like Snowden for example, the US government's classic response was and still is that by leaking the information they did, they put America in harm's way. They often say this citing the fact that they leaked classified information.
Today classified information doesn't seem to be classified for national security purposes. Instead, "national security" seems to be commonly cited in order to justify the concealment of information that threatens various corporate, financial and political Agendas.
JFK warned the citizenry about "an announced need for increased security" that would be "seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment." This is what's happening today.
When it comes to Julian Assange I like to share a hard-hitting quote that always comes to mind every time I write about him. It comes from Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.
Why This Is Important/Final Thoughts: The silencing and straight ridicule of truth and/or information that again, threatens various political, corporate, financial and elite agendas is commonplace today. I've said it before and I'll say it again, today we have a digital authoritarian Orwellian "fact-checker" patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn't, deciding for the user what they are allowed to see and what they aren't allowed to see. Censorship of people like Assange and organizations like Wikileaks has really ramped up. Independent media outlets, (like Collective Evolution), and what seems to be thousands of scientists, doctors, journalists, academics and people who simply present information, evidence and opinions that go against the grain are having their social media accounts removed. This is why we here at Collective Evolution are encouraging all of our followers to join our Telegram account. It's a censorship free platform.
Assange has been subjected to extremely inhumane conditions and torture. What's happening with him is not only sad, but it's truly alarming and what's even more concerning is that many people don't have any idea about it. He is being completely ignored by the mainstream media and whenever they do cover it, they do so with the perception that he actually did something wrong. Did he? They've run an absolute smear campaign on him.
I came across an interesting post by activist Greg Bean. In it, he brings up Johannes Gutenberg, the man who first introduced the printing press to the world.
He writes about how that single act created a free press, which gave birth to the concept of freedom of speech, and how the two are "inextricably linked; printing is a form of speech."
Gutenberg's invention started the Printing Revolution, a milestone of the 2nd millennium that initiated the modern period of human history including the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution, and began the knowledge-based economy that spread learning to the masses. Such mass communication permanently altered the structure of society. Removing control of information from the hands of the powerful and delivering it into the hands of the disempowered.
The broad circulation of information, including revolutionary ideas, in many languages, undermined Latin's dominant status and the authority previously held by those trained in Latin, it transcended borders, threatened the power of political and religious authorities, increased literacy breaking the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning, and bolstered the emerging middle class. It increased cultural self-awareness and cultural cohesion and undermined the authority of distant rulers and high priests.
WikiLeaks' threat to the powerful was recognised and every effort was, and is, being made to criminalise anonymous leaking, which would be akin to criminalizing Gutenberg's printing press, but there is not much chance this criminalisation will succeed.
I suggest you read the full piece as it makes some very interesting points.
For the latest updates on Julian Assange, we strongly recommend following them on Instagram. You can also check out their website as well.
Is Mainstream "UFO Disclosure" A "Psyop" For A "False Flag" Alien Invasion? – I Doubt It
Mainstream UFO disclosure is taking off and the subject is no longer taboo. There's a common narrative in the field suggesting that because mainstream media is presenting the topic the way they now are, the phenomenon represents nothing but lies.
Does mainstream media cover real events and attempt to manipulate the perception of the masses regarding such events? Are there powerful groups of people out there who want to control the narrative when it comes to the topic of UFOs?
Collective Evolution has been covering the UFO/extraterrestrial (see UFO article archive here) phenomenon since our inception in 2009, and one common theme we've come across many times in the "truther" community, for lack of a better word, is the idea that some very powerful people are planning to stage a "false flag" alien invasion and that this subject is full of deception. This article will discuss the possibility and plausibility of a "false flag" alien invasion as well as the claim that mainstream UFO disclosure represents nothing but deception.
Is Mainstream UFO Disclosure Deception? As many of you reading this probably already know, the UFO topic has been and is being completely legitimized within the mainstream. The subject is no longer taboo, and institutions like the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and multiple governments around the world have admitted that these objects are real. Not only that, but collectively they've released millions of pages of previously classified documents detailing the reality of the phenomenon. These documents include radar tracking data, high ranking military testimony, stories of unknown objects that have been retrieved, photographic evidence and much more. We're talking about objects performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of aerodynamics that can perform maneuvers no known aircraft is capable of performing. Video footage of unidentified objects have also been released by multiple governments, and coverage from CNN and the New York Times, for example, also further this point.
So is this all some sort of great deception? If you believe it to be I ask you this, why would governments and intelligence agencies around the world, for decades, completely ridicule this topic and encourage people to view it as a "conspiracy theory?" Why would they deny the phenomenon for so long? The same organizations who are now giving a tremendous amount of legitimacy to the topic are the same ones who, according to former CIA director Roscoe Hillenkoetter, initiated an "official campaign of ridicule and secrecy." If you want to deceive a population and make them believe UFOs are real you don't use ridicule and constantly tell the population that these objects are not real. Furthermore, you don't push the idea that those who believe in UFOs are crackpots. If you wanted to deceive the public about UFOs this would be completely counterproductive.
The statement by Hillenkoetter is quite easy to see if one goes back and studies the literature and lore surrounding ufology and the way it's been covered by mainstream media for decades. This ridicule campaign has also been corroborated by multiple "insiders" with backgrounds within intelligence. Richard Doty, a former member of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, for example, claimed that his job was to actually spread disinformation within the UFO community, making it more difficult for anybody within these communities to arrive at any kind of truth.
Despite these ridicule efforts by intelligence agencies and governments, the evidence suggesting these objects are indeed and were real, in my opinion, has been quite evident for a very long time. It's a shame that for something to be legitimized in the minds of the masses it must be covered in a certain way by mainstream media outlets. This is still a big problem on our planet and it's a concern that mainstream media can have such an influence on human consciousness.
So Why So Much Mainstream Media Coverage All of a Sudden? If It's Not Deception, What Is It? In my opinion, the idea that these objects are real became so obvious that mainstream media had no choice but to jump on the train, so to speak. Not only do we have all of the evidence mentioned above, but perhaps the best piece of evidence are people's own personal experiences. My own experience with UFOs for example has fueled my interest in the topic for quite some time now, and it seems that the next step to take is to listen to people who (claim to) have had experiences.
There is a lingering idea out there I often come across, and that's the idea that anything mainstream media covers must be and is completely false and represents deception. I do understand this perception given the fact that mainstream media, in my opinion, has largely been a mouthpiece for the corporate and political establishment. I've written in depth about why I feel this way before, and presented whistleblower testimony as well as documents that've been released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing the very close connection these media outlets have to governments, intelligence agencies and big powerful corporations.
My observation over the years has been that mainstream media does indeed cover real events and stories but is in many cases constantly engaged in manipulating the perception of the masses for such events. We see this all the time with geopolitical issues, like major terrorist attacks for example. On one hand you will have Western media blaming a terrorist organization like ISIS, and on the other you will have foreign media claiming it was a "false flag" attack perpetuated by the West. This would mean that Western governments, or factions of it, would be funding terrorist organizations, arming them or in some cases creating events and carrying out attacks and blaming it on a terrorist organization. In turn, this would allow them to justify the invasion of a foreign country under the guise of good will for ulterior motives.
Could we be seeing the same thing with the topic of UFOs? Are there people who gain gain from narrative control and perception manipulation? Is mainstream media coverage of UFOs an attempt to control our perception of the phenomenon? Is this more likely the explanation rather than an elite group of people completely fabricating the phenomenon? Having been a researcher of the subject for more than fifteen years, I can tell you that the topic is extremely vast and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. It opens pandora's box and it becomes extremely complex as more and more questions continue to emerge. What we receive from mainstream media and/or government/government affiliated agencies will no doubt be a sanitized version of truth in my opinion. We cannot make the mistake of characterizing the behaviour of these objects based on the selected few cases that will be released into the public and beamed out by mainstream media. We cannot allow our perception of the phenomenon to be given to us by government or mainstream media. As with most other topics it's important to do our own research and investigation instead of relying on information from what seems to be such unreliable sources.
An Unnecessary Threat Narrative? A False Flag Alien Event? One thing I've noticed so far with regard to mainstream UFO disclosure, and I am sure others have as well, is "threat" narrative. The idea that these objects represent a possible threat and are therefore a big time national security issue that deserves serious attention. Having studied this topic for a number of years, one thing remains quite obvious as I am sure is the same for other researchers in the field, and that's the fact that the behaviour of these objects has never really constituted a threat. There's nothing they have really done, at least in the majority of cases, that represents the justification of the threat assumption. These objects are constantly performing evasive maneuvers to avoid our air-craft, and furthermore they've been documented not only for decades, but for thousands of years. If some type of threat was imminent, it would probably have already happened by now, no?
I want to draw your attention to a recent statement made by Dr. Jacques Vallee on the Joe Rogan show.
We have to stop reacting to intrusions by UFOs as a threat, I mean that's the whole thing behind this new task force, as much as I respect, you know, the task force, my colleagues and I want to cooperate with them to the extent that we can bring information or resources to what they do. But there is more, this is not, should not be looked at specifically as a threat…With the phenomenon that we observe if they wanted to blow up those F18s they would do it. Obviously that's not what it's all about, and this idea of just labelling it all as a threat because it's unknown, that's the wrong idea.
Vallee is an astrophysicist and a computer scientist. The subject of UFOs first attracted his attention as an astronomer in Paris. He subsequently became a close associate of Project Blue Book's J. Allen Hynek and has written several books on the UFO enigma. He is currently a venture capitalist living in San Francisco. Vallée co-developed the first computerized map of Mars for NASA in 1963. He later worked on the network information center for the ARPANET, a precursor to the modern Internet, as a staff engineer of SRI International's Augmentation Research Center under Douglas Engelbart. He's clearly a very intelligent man who knows a lot about the phenomenon, and someone who I as a fellow, younger UFO researcher have been following for a long time.
With this quote above, he shares the feelings I've been putting out in written form for many years, that perceiving the activity of these objects as a threat is the wrong way to go. It's interesting because through his work he's also brought awareness to the disinformation campaign that surrounds this subject, something I've also covered for many years and touched upon earlier in this article.
In his book, "Forbidden Science 4" for example, Valle explains how he came into possession of documents showing that forced "UFO abductions" were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. Again that's one of multiple examples.
It goes to show how complicated this issue is and how hard it can be to arrive to any type of truth and draw conclusions.
The "task force" he mentions in the quote above refers to To The Stars Academy, who is working with the US Department of Defense, and has been for quite some time, to disclose the reality of the UFO phenomenon to the public. The military jets he refers to comes from an encounter released by this organization in cooperation with the Pentagon. Again, it's important to ask why a threat narrative may exist. Is it to receive more funding? To profit off of the UFO topic in some sort of way? To profit off of and gain control and access to technologies that may be better off in the hands of the public?
If there's one thing I can tell you, and I am sure Vallee and many others would do the same, stories from the public as well as many other 'high ranking' people regarding this phenomenon are littered with positive stories about benevolent beings who are concerned about the direction we (the human race) are heading. This is quite commonplace and does corroborate with the activity these objects (UFOs) demonstrate in many ways. That being said, it's important to mention that the field also has stories about with appears to be malevolent stories. In either case there is an overwhelming amount of corroboration from supposed experiencers.
Related CE Article: A Question About Extraterrestrials On Everybody's Mind: Are They A Threat?
False Flag Alien Invasion? What about the idea of a false flag alien invasion? Personally, I believe this would be extremely hard to pull off and I don't think the resources and cooperation that would be required to pull off such an event exist. Sure, there's no doubt that a false flag staged event could be plausible, especially given the fact that it seems governments and "the powers that be" have had access to this technology for decades. This would involve a few objects, or perhaps just one in my opinion and it would be covered by media outlets worldwide. Again, according to Vallee as mentioned above, the CIA was staging alien abductions in Central America. Is a false flag alien invasion a possibility? Sure. I would argue however that it's not a probability. The only "false flag" type of event that would happen with UFOs, I believe, and is possibly currently happening is mainstream media simply attaching a threat narrative to the phenomenon using already existing footage and evidence that's been released to the public.
Many decades ago Wernher Von Brauns mentor Hermann Oberth, the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the 'father of Spaceflight' stated his belief that "flying saucers are real" and that "they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries." He wrote these words in "Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World", The American Weekly, Oct 24, 1954. At the time, academics like Oberth were well aware of the UFO phenomenon.
Apparently, Braun was the one who first warned of a false flag alien invasion. This was expressed by Carol Rosin. Rosin was the first female corporate manager of Fairchild Industries. A space and missile defence consultant who has worked with various corporations, government departments, and intelligence communities, she worked closely with Wernher Von Braun shortly before his death, specifically on the subject of space-based weapons. This claim is corroborated by Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, as expressed in a Wikileaks dump a few years ago.
According to Rosin, a threat narrative would be attached to the UFO phenomenon for the purpose of building space based weapons.
And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We're going to have to build space based weapons against aliens,' and all of it, he said, is a lie.
The Takeaway: As I said before and have said many times, this topic is extremely complex and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. At the very least it forces humanity to expand its consciousness and consider truths and possibilities that were never considered before. Based on my research and experience, the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not so much about "them" as it is about "us" and our relationship with the planet and all life that resides on it.
If anything, I believe the more we explore this topic the more it will coincide with more people questioning the way we live on this planet, why we live the way we do and what exactly it is that is preventing us from thriving. One thing is for certain, humanity has the potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive.
We have the solutions, that's not the problem, the issue seems to be the consciousness behind these solutions and innovations. Do we use groundbreaking technology, for example, to profit, gain more power and build weaponry? Or do we use it for the good of the whole? Are our systems set up to put people, compassion, understanding and empathy first, or are we still ruled by greed, the lust for power, control and other factors that dominate the ego. Perhaps the topic can help us understand a little more about ourselves and what we are, because we still have so much to discover.