It seems that 95% of people either disregard or don’t believe the messages from the so-called “whistleblowers.” So, what’s our next step?
Should we consider a rebranding of this disclosure campaign, or is it time to abandon it altogether? The message isn’t resonating. Whether it’s due to a fear of confronting new realities, an unwillingness to change perspectives, or another reason, the current approach isn’t effective.
Congressional testimonies have had minimal impact, and the videos from Jeremy Corbell and Jake Barber reached only a small audience. Any compelling evidence shared online is quickly dismissed by skeptics and those who control the narrative. Discussions surrounding psionic assets or CE5 are often met with ridicule.
So, where do we go from here?
It’s clear that we’re at a crossroads when it comes to the disclosure campaign. The challenges you’ve highlighted, from widespread apathy to skepticism, are significant hurdles to overcome. Here are a few thoughts on where we might go from here:
Rebranding the Narrative: Rather than focusing solely on “whistleblower” testimony or sensational videos, perhaps it’s time to frame the discussion in terms of broader societal implications. Presenting the topic through the lens of scientific exploration, technological advancement, or even potential benefits to humanity may resonate better with a wider audience.
Engaging with Mainstream Media: Increasing outreach to mainstream media can help elevate the conversation. Featuring credible scientists or engaging documentaries that present the evidence in a rigorous yet accessible manner might capture the interest of those who are indifferent or skeptical.
Community Engagement: Creating local discussion groups or community events could help build a grassroots movement. Inviting open conversations where people can express their doubts, experiences, or stories could demystify the subject and encourage more people to engage with the material without fear of judgment.
Focus on Education: It might be beneficial to shift towards an educational approach. Workshops or lectures hosted by experts in relevant fields such as psychology, astrophysics, or anthropology could open up discussions about the implications of the unknown without directly confronting people’s skepticism.
Collaborative Research Initiatives: Partnering with reputable institutions to conduct studies or research projects in this field could lend credibility and interest to the campaign. Publicizing findings—even if they’re inconclusive—could keep the conversation alive while encouraging critical thinking.
Patience and Persistence: Change takes time, and sometimes the most profound shifts happen slowly. Continuing to share knowledge and open up discussions, even if they appear to fall on deaf ears now, may eventually create a ripple effect as more people become curious or open-minded.
Ultimately, it’s about finding innovative ways to engage an audience that has historically been resistant. Pulling the plug entirely might mean losing an important opportunity for discovery; however, a strategic reevaluation and creative engagement could breathe new life into the cause. What do you think—are there other avenues we should explore?