05-30-2024, 01:53 PM
When I think about it, it seems that the practices of the political appointees within the Intelligence communities are now casually abusing the trust they have been granted. Information of any kind that falls under the heading of "classified" or "restricted" is available to them in the course of their 'assigned' responsibilities... but the process of making use of that information "outside" the work seems to be more important than the processes and rationale which made them classified in the first place...
So what do they do? How can they use it?
In order to free it up for 'exploitation' the information must be declassified... a process that is structured to allow all pertinent affected offices and agencies to have input on it's declassification. It takes a "justification" to be on record and someone has to "bear the burden of responsibility" for it's request to be released. The information has to be reviewed by all parties, all of which must be formally identified and notified before the review can take place. The intersection of communication must occur almost simultaneously, and each must respond. All of this takes time, and must be diligently recorded...
Or,
They can just "leak" it. Instantaneous and without consequence. Just find or 'create' an individual to serve as "leaker" freeing the 'declassifier" from meaningful accountability.
Why do you think these "experts" seem to come out of nowhere to reveal what they have? Who allowed that to happen, and why isn't it the subject of official review?
In short, it's because they are sourced from "political appointees" who are themselves practically unaccountable.
Add to that the ridiculous perversion of 'declaring' them to be "journalists of media" who automatically are free to deny attributing their information source, and these "communications officers," "consultants," and "associates of intelligence services" are free-standing fonts of whatever they are selling under the guise of 'secrets.'
I have yet to see even ONE such person who I find unquestionably beyond doubt. (Often, you can even infer their agenda easily.)
Were I in some magical universe where I was an investigator of such things... they should run away from me... I know what to ask... I know that world... it's never what you see in the media, (or worse, Hollywood.)
In the case of UAP/UFO topics I have a hypothesis... it's the money. More money. For contracting defense entities mostly... Since they own the media outright... it fits the bill (pun intended.)
So what do they do? How can they use it?
In order to free it up for 'exploitation' the information must be declassified... a process that is structured to allow all pertinent affected offices and agencies to have input on it's declassification. It takes a "justification" to be on record and someone has to "bear the burden of responsibility" for it's request to be released. The information has to be reviewed by all parties, all of which must be formally identified and notified before the review can take place. The intersection of communication must occur almost simultaneously, and each must respond. All of this takes time, and must be diligently recorded...
Or,
They can just "leak" it. Instantaneous and without consequence. Just find or 'create' an individual to serve as "leaker" freeing the 'declassifier" from meaningful accountability.
Why do you think these "experts" seem to come out of nowhere to reveal what they have? Who allowed that to happen, and why isn't it the subject of official review?
In short, it's because they are sourced from "political appointees" who are themselves practically unaccountable.
Add to that the ridiculous perversion of 'declaring' them to be "journalists of media" who automatically are free to deny attributing their information source, and these "communications officers," "consultants," and "associates of intelligence services" are free-standing fonts of whatever they are selling under the guise of 'secrets.'
I have yet to see even ONE such person who I find unquestionably beyond doubt. (Often, you can even infer their agenda easily.)
Were I in some magical universe where I was an investigator of such things... they should run away from me... I know what to ask... I know that world... it's never what you see in the media, (or worse, Hollywood.)
In the case of UAP/UFO topics I have a hypothesis... it's the money. More money. For contracting defense entities mostly... Since they own the media outright... it fits the bill (pun intended.)
