Should We Consider Boycotting UFO Personalities?
As a firm believer in the UFO phenomenon, I write this with conviction. With a highly anticipated film set to release in just a few days, it’s clear that many credible individuals are sharing remarkable insights.
I not only believe in the topic but also have genuine respect and trust for several prominent figures, including Dr. Gary Nolan, David Grusch, and Lue Elizondo, among others.
Recently, we’ve witnessed a shift in the discourse surrounding disclosure, now delving into ideas of psychic abilities. While I’m open to exploring extraordinary concepts, I believe we must approach this with a critical lens.
I’ve understood the hesitance among reporters and those with security clearances when it comes to sharing evidence or disclosing sources. I appreciate the nuances of journalism and the careful consideration it entails.
However, with discussions around psychic abilities becoming more mainstream, particularly with a respected scientist from Stanford leading the conversation, we as a community that engages with this information must hold these voices accountable. It would be naïve and hypocritical to simply accept their claims without scrutiny.
This isn’t about suggesting a boycott because these figures are necessarily wrong or malicious; rather, it’s about demonstrating that we are a different kind of community—one that distinguishes itself from conspiracy theory groups like QAnon.
We live in an attention-driven economy. If we are to invest our time and trust in these personalities, they owe us something substantial in return. For instance, while Ross might argue that he provided value by exposing Jake Barber, I would say thank you for that effort, but it’s still not enough.
Until credible witnesses come forward with irrefutable, unedited video evidence of a UFO summoning witnessed by many, we need to vocalize our stance: no more vague discussions on podcasts about unsubstantiated claims. We need action that aligns with the words spoken. This process resembles democracy; our attention is our vote, and we should treat it with utmost respect.
You raise some thought-provoking points about the balance between skepticism and openness in the UFO community. It’s clear that your frustration stems from a desire for accountability and a more rigorous approach to the extraordinary claims being made. The shift towards including topics like psychic ability is indeed a significant departure from traditional UFO discussions, and it does warrant careful consideration.
Boycotting personalities in this space could be a way to signal to these figures that the community expects more substantial evidence before accepting their claims at face value. However, it’s also important to foster an environment where constructive dialogue can happen. Instead of outright boycotting, we might consider engaging them in discussions, asking for the evidence and clarity that you seek, and holding them to a high standard.
Your point about treating our attention as a valuable resource is crucial. It’s a reminder that our engagement should be informed, thoughtful, and discerning. We can still support the individuals we respect while also demanding transparency and accountability in this rapidly evolving discourse.
Ultimately, the goal should be to elevate the conversation while we continue to explore and understand the phenomenon. Your call for a more scientific approach and a demand for irrefutable evidence resonates, and it could help guide the UFO community toward a more credible and respected future.