Comment by ricksunny
13 hours ago
I'm picking up a lot of projection in this reply;
• To know what keywords get UAP podcasters drooling, you must have watched your fair share of UAP podcasts.
• Your comment is the only one so far to make the association between the article's keywords & UAP, implying that you are yourself making the same association that someone interested in watching UAP podcasts would be making, in which case..:
• ...what is the difference between you and the would-be viewer of the next UAP podcast you are warning away?
> • To know what keywords get UAP podcasters drooling, you must have watched your fair share of UAP podcasts.
They’ve been coming up on the front page of Reddit several times this year. I’m in agreement with the OP and I’ve only casually observed those threads
Another confirmation. I see it in my /r/all list fairly frequently. I am neither subscribed, a reader of said posts, or a believer in any of that (or at least, i avoid belief until it feels there is reasonable supporting evidence).
Though i don't recognize all of the terminology of OP, so perhaps that disqualifies my observation.
Besides reddit front page, this stuff also appears in enough other pop culture podcasts and the occasional NYT expose that it's out there in the popular zeitgeist. Unfortunately, here it's just my science immune system flaring up on a random internet board.
Also, between the "could this be used for vehicles" parent comment and that downvoted interdimensional energy transfer comment below, it doesn't take a Aliens-Did-the-Pyramids Guy to see what dots were starting to be connected... I might as well be the one to flag it explicitly and earn some imaginary internet points.
But who knows, maybe I'm actually the goberment disinformation agent trying to keep all this under wraps...
I have no exposure to UAP media but the first thing that came into my head was, “like some oddball theory of how a classic ufo works from the 70’s.” That and the send $5 for paper on the secrets of antigravity ad from the back of Popular Science magazine back then.
Even if your implication is correct (GP is a would-be viewer), doesn’t mean they’re wrong..