In-your-face media bias regarding UAPs

I thought I'd share with you something I observed today, which I thought was remarkable. Browsing YouTube video recommendations late this evening, I first clicked on a months-old video of a NASA press conference on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), which NASA has been officially investigating. In it, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, head of the investigative team, discusses two types of UAP cases. The first is that of seemingly metallic spheres that, somehow, move and manoeuvre without any signs of propulsion or control surfaces (go to timestamp 2:18):

As you can see, Dr. Kirkpatrick:

  1. Shows a video of one such sphere, as recorded by an MQ-9 'Reaper' military drone. The sphere shown moves fast, in a controlled, non-ballistic trajectory, despite the absence of any visible means of propulsion or control surfaces. It clearly isn't a floating balloon.
  2. States that this is just 'a typical example of the thing we see most of; we see these all over the world'—i.e., there are many other cases on their records, some more 'enigmatic' than the unclassified video shown;
  3. Proceeds to say that these spheres make 'very interesting apparent manoeuvres' (this is a significant acknowledgment, as balloons and craft without control surfaces shouldn't be able to manoeuvre at all).
Clearly, Dr. Kirkpatrick is acknowledging that there are UAPs 'all over the world' for which there is no prosaic account, even though there is no doubt about their existence and capabilities; they've been captured on film and by other sophisticated, military-grade data collection instruments.

Here is a more detailed video showing the sphere:

Dr. Kirkpatrick then shows another video clip, of a case that, although apparently anomalous, does have a prosaic account and represents no mystery at all. There are thus two types of cases: those that are genuinely anomalous, such as the spheres, and those that can be accounted for prosaically.

Literally a couple of videos later, during my lazy evening browsing, YouTube recommended a clip showing how CNN reported on this NASA press conference and Dr. Kirkpatrick's presentation:

Notice how CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Tom Foreman, mentions only the case that can be prosaically accounted for; there is mention neither of the first type of case Dr. Kirkpatrick talked about, nor of the extraordinary video of the sphere—let alone a replay, which was obviously the most journalistic significant and news-worthy part of the whole press conference. With clearly dismissive tone and body language, Foreman proceeds to state that the UAPs are "measured with all sorts of crazy instruments out there." Should we construe this as meaning that an MQ-9 'Reaper' military drone, one of the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering platforms in the skies, is a dismissible "crazy instrument"?

I found it striking that CNN wouldn't even mention the spheres or replay the remarkable video that had just been declassified. They just replay now-old videos the Pentagon released years ago. The smirking commentary and laughter seem to have higher journalistic value than the very clear, concrete evidence discussed in the press conference; more value than NASA's explicit admission that there is a genuine mystery here. This is extraordinary; I mean, not only the video of the sphere and NASA's acknowledgment, by also CNN's coverage of this press conference.

It's difficult for me to imagine that this kind of coverage isn't a deliberate editorial attempt at perception manipulation and narrative control. Which raises the question: Why is there a need for such kind of manipulation?

How interesting, isn't it?



  1. This is why I don't go to CNN or any other major news outlet for real information. It's a shame that it takes so much effort just to find an inkling of the truth.

  2. I see it as in the following quote:
    "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you. And then they build monuments to you."
    People controlling mainstream media try to uphold mainstream paradigm, but since they're struggling with providing facts, they can only afford laughter. I think the possibility of uap existing has the power to shatter their worldview and they are scared of that.

  3. Maybe they do it simply because they can...or they can't help themselves? It's a time honored media tradition after all. Only recently (last 30 years) is the public becoming a bit more aware of the manipulation without the "crazy conspiracy theorists" label completely sticking.

    1. The public has been becoming more aware because the problem has been getting worse. Over the years, government and corporate power have been tightening their grip on MSM. One example of this I’ve noticed is 60 minutes. Decades ago they did serious investigative journalism. I rarely turn them on these days. I haven’t seen them do anything in recent years that challenges mainstream narratives.
      I don’t recall the details, but, at least in the US, legislation has been passed which has facilitated this process.

    2. I'm not convinced it's any worse now than it was in the past, just that people are more aware (could be wrong). How could it not have been at least the same or worse in the past when it was easier to hide info from the public? The internet and social media have created new avenues for delivering and acquiring info unlike ever before (for better or worse), essentially competing with traditional standard media as influencers (and winning)

    3. Unknown - I thought the discussion was about the mainstream media. Yes, the internet and social media have been a godsend with regards to this issue, and that’s why they’ve been competing and winning. It also explains efforts to suppress information on these forums. With regards to US mainstream media, a lot has gone wrong over the last few decades. Here’s a few highlights:

      In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

      1996 Telecommunications Act - ostensibly opened up competition for telephone, broadcasting, and Internet services. My understanding is that resulted in consolidation of mainstream media from 50 companies to 6.

      Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 effectively allowed the government to propagandize the American public.

      The US and New Zealand are the only 2 countries in the world to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. This has given them a powerful hold on the media, since they are now providing the majority of their advertising revenue.

    4. Yes - it's still about the MSM. My comment was simply to say that when the MSM had more free rein, they had greater influence (as opposed to now where they have competition for influence). Even with the competition and increase public skepticism, they still can't help themselves when it comes to in-your-face bias. That's my perception anyway.

  4. Seems obvious the DoD is trying to control the narrative through mainstream media. The ability of these outlets to cover future defense stories would likely be stymied unless they play ball on the UAP topic, and that means minimum coverage and downplaying anything anomalous. The reason? My guess is there has been a massive cover up, and its revelation could bring down previously trusted institutions, and even lead to wide scale reform of how our planet is governed. There are a lot of people in privileged positions with a lot to lose.

  5. It all seems very smug and delibarate, indeed. But sometimes I wonder, if these people simply just are terrified of reality - and this is their way of coping with it All.

  6. It's fear. The actual truth of things is so ontologically jarring that nobody knows how to get ahead of it in some sort of public discussion.

    What's beyond all of this is far more shocking than what anyone is ready for, and people think that means we shouldn't be told, but that's just making it worse.

    1. Whilst that is true, I don't think that is the main reason now. I think there has been much wrongdoing in the name of keeping crash retrievals and the NHI presence secret, which in turn was allegedly in the name of national security and weaponizing the technology to "keep us safe" from our enemies. The thinking being that Russia and China were/are allegedly doing the same thing. So yet another arms race. Sigh.

      There is also a desire for business as usual among the elites, as there is evidence that there has been suppression of technologies that could transform our planet, move us away from fossil fuels, and that this is part of the cover up.

      People are going to be extremely angry that this has all been withheld from the populace, including the vast majority of elected officials around the world. There is a real possibility of major institutions, particularly within US and other governments, being sent into disarray when the depth of the lies and deception become known. Major reform will be needed to restore public confidence.

      So naturally there is a lot of pushback from those that don't want any of this to happen. Fortunately it seems there are more insiders that what this secret out now, than there are those able to contain it.

  7. Bernardo,i would like to ask you one question about Carl Jung.I think in the future genetic treatment is gonna play a huge role.How do you think is it gonna influence the life of humans?I know you have read a lot of Carl Jung and he was a big proponent of the natural unfolding of a man's life,his course through dreams,synchronistic events,his suffering and everything else.Do you believe that in the future we will be able to control the expression of certain genes that are helpful for the society?I mean genes that are preventive of diseases and for example genes that are gonna be associated with the hero archetype(against laziness...)...I don't know, i mean how will nature react ,will it still try to manifest its edifice,regardless, as it already is or will it strike with diseases(symbolic in their nature) such as cancer ...?What do you think about it?And one last question is how would Jung react to it?I think Jung would be against it.He was a naturalist and he wouldn't want humans to mess it up.But he was also a scientist and he would like to alleviate the human suffering .What is your take on that?

  8. "Why" indeed - pick your favorite conspiracy theory - my two bobs worth is that it is essentially being driven by technology especially the E variety they don't realise that another Carington type event will consign it to history!