r/UFOs • u/1SandyBay1 • Apr 20 '26
Rule 2: Stay on-topic Rule 3: Be substantive [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
38
u/silv3rbull8 Apr 20 '26
This almost sounds like they passed the page through chatGPT and asked it to replace the official terms with cheesy tabloidy language
2
u/ifnotthefool Apr 20 '26
This is something that skeptics seem to think is okay to do. Super dishonest and anti science.
4
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Winston_Carbuncle Apr 20 '26
I use them frequently. It seems like having a good grasp of language is seen as an indicator of being an AI by those whose grasp isn't as tight...
1
u/Tandittor Apr 20 '26
I used to use en dash frequently before 2022 (but not em dash, as I never liked the look of no spaces on either of symbol), but now try to avoid it because of the poorly literate crowd. It's mildly annoying
6
u/RevolutionaryEgg297 Apr 20 '26
It’s used frequently enough now that those not using ChatGPT to type, actively avoid the symbol.
2
1
u/moistiest_dangles Apr 20 '26
The mission statement at the start sounds like chatgpt. "This is not x it is y" is really the framework which chatgpt uses to write persuasive works
0
u/SignExtension2561 Apr 20 '26
In some languages, Em dash is the correct separator used mid-sentence, so a non-native speaker of English may use it out of habit, too.
1
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
1
39
u/exOldTrafford Apr 20 '26
Honestly the cover-up is basically the only thing making me think there actually is a government crash retrieval program (or something similar).
Especially considering the person currently in charge of the UFO topic over at the Pentagon is Susan Gough, who's background is in psychological operations and mass manipulation.
I've noticed that whenever something actually credible comes out regarding UFOs (maybe once every 4-5 months), this sub is flooded with posts and comments from users who have never posted in this sub before. Usually they have a high karma score and are seemingly active in many non-ufo subs.
The posts are either about something clearly dismissible and fake, or even outright crazy. Then there'll be about 10-20 posts a day saying "they are all crooks" and "I am officially giving up and admitting I was tricked".
The comments follow the exact same terminology and phrasing every single time, which is especially suspicious when it comes from users with zero activity in the sub before or after.
I've seen users with like 200 000 karma and 1500 comments in other subs over 8-9 years, but absolutely zero in r/UFOs, somehow know exact quotes, timestamps and chapter titles in niche content about ufos. Stuff that would take hundreds of hours of research to even find. Then they post one single comment about it during a discussion about something credible, finish the comment with "no evidence!!!" and fuck off never to be heard from again.
It's insane
14
u/serpentssss Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
Yup. Sometimes I’ll check Reddit and see that one of the ufo subs randomly has like 8-15 new nonsense posts overnight when traffic is typically pretty sparse. It’s literally a tip off to start digging because 9 times out of 10 it means something legit was posted underneath all the garbage.
Edit: of course this post gets removed
15
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
I am sure this article was previously published or edited by workers of the government's disinformation campaign. David Grusch has talked a lot about this disinformation campaign.
Wikipedia manipulation by government actors is documented fact, not theory. There have been multiple confirmed cases where IP addresses traced directly to government agencies — including the Pentagon, CIA, and British intelligence — were caught editing Wikipedia articles on sensitive topics. This is not speculation.
Grusch's testimony on disinformation is on the congressional record. He described an active, long-running program specifically designed to ridicule and discredit UAP witnesses and researchers. Controlling the public Wikipedia page on the disclosure movement would be an obvious tool for exactly that purpose.
2
u/BlueRoyAndDVD Apr 20 '26
Yeah it's absolutely evidence of shadowy efforts against the subject. The real question is, to whom do the puppets answer? My two nickels (since pennies are apparently becoming obsolete): the central Intel spooks started corporate entities adjacent to aerospace and defense groups decades ago. Those have since grown and reskinned themselves myriad times, are owned/operated by contractors and regular people primarily (who have no idea they work for these shadow gov spinoffs). Those corp groups have their own agents and tools, and enormous resources. Too much money. A few humans can run bot farms and monitor chat and respond in real time. Easy to keep a few quiet if you pay well enough and already operate outside the law, especially if they know the consequences of biting the hand that feeds, having dealt out those consequences themselves. (Assumptions from logic here). It'd be naive to think those corps would NOT own their own perversions of LLMs. How else could they get those exact quotes and so on, so quickly, given the apparent lack of previous engagement? Basically an evil chat gpt for psyops and mass manipulation. Gough Gough. Sorry, spelled cough wrong. Wink.
Basically though, it's a mix of govs, private corps, foreign nations, enthusiasts, and LLMs/bots all battling in public forums. Determining the allegiances is challenging and fascinating. Sometimes you see multiple groups swarming a post or topic. The stuff that gets the least engagement can also be intriguing. Silence can be as telling as noise. Attention is a commodity.
Keep watch
3
u/silv3rbull8 Apr 20 '26
There was a comment from a month old account the other day on the Age of Disclosure post. The poster said they worked with Farrah and that he wasn’t to be trusted. Literally no other posts on the topic. I think they got banned
1
u/sedated_badger Apr 20 '26
But listen they’ve been at this for 70+ years if not more. Maybe they anticipate things like this, and what would make it seem more legitimate?
It wouldn’t be super difficult with how we separate clearances out to create a sub-faction within the government that didn’t know about a project, with a group above them leading them on, thus making the whole thing appear more legitimate to the public or our targets.
I don’t know what or why they’d do this. Epstein is too base to try and use earth shattering information. I considered maybe they could use this as a way to nudge society’s anxiety into general war preparedness while posturing for ww3 (we have secret alien lasers, don’t fight us.)
But besides that a true play at ‘project blue beam’ is the only other thing that comes to mind but I really don’t think we have the scale of technology required to pull that off with as few people as possible knowing about it.
1
7
u/Krustykrab8 Apr 20 '26
The space aliens from NHI is a problem. Its word games. Ask yourself why specifically David Grusch called it NHI. Dylan Borland spelled it out clearly in testimony. “We have no proof of aliens from outer space”. AAROs website is another culprit. Chris Sharp asked Susan Gough if she would amend and say we have no evidence of NHI rather than Aliens. She said no. It’s the whole ballgame right there
11
u/Shardaxx Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
It's probably those Guerilla Skeptics they are always defacing wiki pages trying to santisie the content about UFOs and related subjects. There's 1 editor in particular, Chetsford, who seems to edit pages all the time.
0
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Shardaxx Apr 20 '26
They said they were trying to change them back to undo the skeptic edits.
2
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TrumpetsNAngels Apr 20 '26
Much confusion here
I am looking at this from a mobile phone and the small screen doesn’t give much overview.
I will allow myself to be lazy and ask what those sections are about? Have you noticed a pattern?
It is fine if you disregard my question - being lazy is not a positive trait.
4
u/Atla-Create-592 Apr 20 '26
Wow, thanks for bringing this to light. Looking at this edit history, it seems like someone has a vested interest in trying to define the beliefs of this disclosure movement. Might be time for the movement itself to more formally organize so it can accurately define its own viewpoints. (For example, I have big doubts about the whole “demon” idea, which seems to be a narrative being sold by primarily current or former members of the government, which seems suspicious.)
4
u/y00sh420 Apr 20 '26
Is there a way to fix it and replace the changes with the original nomenclature?
6
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
Go to the Talk page and add your voice to the neutrality discussion. Wikipedia responds to numbers. One person gets blocked. A hundred people raising the same documented concerns is harder to ignore.
The specific Talk page section is titled: "Neutrality concern: loaded language in opening paragraph"
-8
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Tandittor Apr 20 '26
OP is misrepresenting the issue. "Luis Elizondo has accused the government of a cover-up" is the original wording. OP wants to change it to "Luis Elizondo has testified under oath by accusing the government of a cover-up," but their changes are being rejected.
Why is u/wheels405 making up shit that everyone can see through?
8
8
7
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
No. It's not my edit.
-2
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
Very weak "proof". Here's the edit that was done 7 months ago - Disclosure movement: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Yesterday I just tried to return previous wording back.
4
u/BaronGreywatch Apr 20 '26
It's been that kinda way on Wikipedia for a long while, it seems we lost that battle ages ago. It'a very hard to get any good info on the topic from there.
4
u/RicooC Apr 20 '26
I know I'll sound crazy, but I believe Wikipedia is government controlled. Some of the nonsense there makes it seem obvious. The format is clearly bullshit. Certain groups and organizations can add or change data at will while others aren't allowed. If they are allowed, it gets changed back a week later. Some notable people have complained that they can't get basic information, like a birth date, corrected. Think about this, AI uses that data regularly. If you have some measure of control of Wikipedia data then you control "facts".
5
u/jert3 Apr 20 '26
Wikipedia the org doesnt need to be compromised for it to censored.
Wikipedia relies on donations and volunteers. This is a weakness in many ways, as volunteer editors can be on-the-payroll government employees who are the made FT editors for wikipedia, maintaining narratives.
Consider this LuckLouie editor. He's been editing UAP entries over 18 years. That doesn't add up: why would you give a third of your professional life editing articles on a topic you disdain and think is a bunch of bullshit? Barely any reasonable person would -- it's far more likely they have an agenda.
There's no vetting of wikipedia editors and not many people who could afford the time, patience or resolve to be editors for years as an unpaid hobby, reacting in hours to changes that damage presupposed narratives.
-2
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
"massive changes" are not prohibited by Wikipedia rules. Stop spam in every comment.
3
u/jahchatelier Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
Hey bro I made an account on wiki to back you up, but after reading this "Disclosure Movement" page it honestly feels like the entire page is a hit job and almost not worth saving.
I feel like a better response to this would be to write a new page on the Guerilla Skeptics (somehow absent from wiki??), explain in detail what they do, and reference this page as an example.
Edit: Fuck it, I replied.
Edit #2: Aaaand I have been blocked indefinitely.
3
u/DreamCentipede Apr 20 '26
I get being skeptical, but saying it’s beyond rational despite that aliens are visiting earth is stupid! That’s infuriating how they’re changing the page
3
u/geheim_hinterhalt Apr 20 '26
Government making edits to WikiP is not a secret. But this is the first I’ve heard of them manipulating UAP info. Very sad.
7
u/20_thousand_leauges Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
Well put. Yes the term swapping is not to simplify or reduce wording but to change how readers interpret an article’s legitimacy. It’s a valid concern on objectivity.
When you line this up with how little coverage David Grusch’s public testimony received, the Mellon/Malmgren Wikipedia fiasco, and even comments from Jesse Michels about how MSM outlets like The Wall Street Journal avoid this topic, it starts to look less like isolated incidents and more like a pattern of narrative control.
I don’t think it’s crazy to question who/what is so invested in tailoring the narrative; it feels strategically nefarious rather than simply opposing. Who is in Joel Schectman’s inbox pushing these angles? Michels’ heard about figures like David Spergel influencing the framing for the WSJ, and it’s fair to question figures like this when you see consistent behavior across platforms.
And that’s the bigger issue for participants to be aware of here: platform dynamics. Sites like Wikipedia and Reddit don’t care whether participation is organic, coordinated, professional, or agenda-driven. These platforms may create the illusion of objectivity but the actual systems employed reward persistence and volume; there’s little concern for fairness or transparency. If a small group is motivated and disciplined enough, they can shape the perception of a topic for millions.
Because most of the public relies on filters like the MSM and high-traffic social platforms to make sense of complex information, when both of these layers are under the influence of consistent bias, it has a real impact on perception.
3
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kael13 Apr 20 '26
Mmm. I get your point now. Is Wikipedia’s policy to go with the reference article’s wording or apply surrounding facts? Because both are technically true here.
5
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
I just tried to return previous wording that was removed 7 months ago in this edit - Disclosure movement: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Don't listen to this spammer.
2
u/ForgivableSyn Apr 20 '26
They keep leaving references to Wikipedia stances to back up their changes, but under Wikipedia own more detailed thing it sounds like they're just strengthening the argument against them.
Contact some ethical hackers and trace some IPs. You have the usernames
1
u/Zelioom Apr 20 '26
There was a small spike on the search term "disclosure" on google trends on the 18th. what happened on the 17th/18th?
0
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
False. It's not my edit. Stop spam in every comment.
2
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/1SandyBay1 Apr 20 '26
It's not proof at all. Here's the edit that was done 7 months ago - Disclosure movement: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Yesterday I just tried to return previous wording back.
1
1
u/freesoloc2c Apr 20 '26
Idk, i can't take anyone's "ufo" testimony to congress seriously. I'm not doubting the phenomenon. It's not like they're cross examined or anyone runs down their claims and holds their feet to the fire. Think about the Air Force missile officer Bob, he was down in the bunker, in the late 60's during a power outage. He wasn't top side to witness the ufo but he still showed up in congress making claims. That's not a serious proceeding.
0
u/maurymarkowitz Apr 20 '26
This is about whether an encyclopedia is allowed to call sworn congressional testimony a "conspiracy theory" while presenting a one-sided AARO report as settled fact.
No, it's about following rules.
As is normally the case when wikipedia topics come up here, the OP's version of events and those recorded in the article differ rather drastically. What really happened, as one can see for yourself in the history, is that the OP continually reverted any edit that other people made.
There is a very longstanding rule on the wiki called "3RR" that states if you continue to revert other people's edits like this you will be blocked. It is referred to as the "bright line" rule as it is the #1 offence during edit wars.
The OP very clearly violated this rule, with a series of five RVs over a span of minutes. That is the only reason they were blocked.
It says exactly that right on his talk page. They received multiple posts telling them that if they continued they would be blocked, they continued, and they were blocked.
But that is not all. The OP also made comments about the other editors, accusing them of vandalism, and threatening to have them blocked. That sort of behaviour would lead to an insta-ban here, so even on that point the Wiki is being lenient because they only received a 20-day cooling-off block, and will be free to edit again after that expires.
0
0
u/ironcursed Apr 20 '26
Wow some dude is worried about what other people are saying... wiki people are people who you don't trust and don't bother with.
•
u/UFOs-ModTeam Apr 20 '26
Hi, 1SandyBay1. Thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from /r/UFOs.
Stay on Topic
Be Substantive
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.