Explore UAPverseDisclosure routing

More Than Persuading Humans

Disclosure as a problem that might not be aimed only at us: Brown's ordinary job description for an alien conversation, the difference between interest and liking, and Pasulka's question about who is being prepared.

A waiver that sends honest witnesses to designated representatives is still a human-to-human route. Brown keeps opening a different door: disclosure might involve more than persuading humans, and an alien conversation might come with an ordinary job description. This trail follows those takes, then the one where being interested in us would not automatically mean liking us, and it crosses to Pasulka asking who is getting us ready. The crossing is mine. The two conversations do not cite each other.

The labels do one job: they tell you whether a connection is in the source record, is the same account turning up twice, is my grouping, or is my guess. None of them turns two takes into proof of each other.

The trail at a glance

Documented, stop 1 to stop 2: Brown stays on the same problem: if the conversation is not only for us, it can still arrive wearing an ordinary job description.Documented, stop 2 to stop 3: Same interview: interest, contact, and motive stay separate. Liking is not included in the job.Thematic, stop 3 to stop 4: Here the trail crosses to Pasulka. Her preparation question and Brown's motive split both ask who the audience of the event actually is. Separate sources; the resemblance is the point.Hypothesis, stop 1 to stop 4: My join. If disclosure is not only persuasion of humans, 'who is being prepared' is the other half of that sentence. Neither source writes it that way.1More than humansMatthew Brown2Job descriptionMatthew Brown3LikingMatthew Brown4PreparedLue Elizondo &Diana PasulkaDocumented, stop 1 to stop 2: Brown stays on the same problem: if the conversation is not only for us, it can still arrive wearing an ordinary job description.Documented, stop 2 to stop 3: Same interview: interest, contact, and motive stay separate. Liking is not included in the job.Thematic, stop 3 to stop 4: Here the trail crosses to Pasulka. Her preparation question and Brown's motive split both ask who the audience of the event actually is. Separate sources; the resemblance is the point.Hypothesis, stop 1 to stop 4: My join. If disclosure is not only persuasion of humans, 'who is being prepared' is the other half of that sentence. Neither source writes it that way.1More than humansMatthew Brown2Job descriptionMatthew Brown3LikingMatthew Brown4PreparedLue Elizondo & Diana Pasulka
Documented
The connection is in the source itself: the same passage, the speaker carrying one idea into the next stretch of the conversation, or the speaker making the link himself elsewhere in the same conversation. The record supports the link; it doesn't prove the claim.
The same figure, account or claim turns up in more than one source. That's the story travelling, not two independent witnesses.
Thematic
My grouping. Different sources asking a similar question, placed side by side because thinking about them together is useful.
Hypothesis
My proposal. A join that neither source makes; I'm making it, and I say so where it happens.

Open the depth viewThe same trail map with a third axis. Nothing here changes the trail.

The stops

  1. Stop 1 of 4More than humans

    Matthew BrownAgreements

    Disclosure might involve more than persuading humans

    The interview ends with a possibility that changes the familiar cover-up story.

    Read the takeHear it 3:25:35–3:28:18

    Opens YouTube in a new tab at the start of the range.

  2. Stop 2 of 4Job description

    DocumentedWhy this comes next

    Brown stays on the same problem: if the conversation is not only for us, it can still arrive wearing an ordinary job description.

    Matthew BrownCommunication

    An alien conversation with an ordinary job description

    The oddest part of the Dan Sherman story might be how much it sounds like a job.

    Read the takeHear it 1:16:56–1:20:51

    Opens YouTube in a new tab at the start of the range.

  3. Stop 3 of 4Liking

    DocumentedWhy this comes next

    Same interview: interest, contact, and motive stay separate. Liking is not included in the job.

    Matthew BrownNonhuman motives

    Being interested in us would not automatically mean liking us

    Michels asks Brown about loosh, presenting the idea that human suffering might be valuable to another intelligence.

    Read the takeHear it 2:11:22–2:15:54

    Opens YouTube in a new tab at the start of the range.

  4. Stop 4 of 4Prepared

    ThematicWhy this comes next

    Here the trail crosses to Pasulka. Her preparation question and Brown's motive split both ask who the audience of the event actually is. Separate sources; the resemblance is the point.

    Lue Elizondo & Diana PasulkaWhy her, and what are we being prepared for?

    Who is getting us ready for this?

    Elizondo says he is bringing religious leaders from different traditions into these conversations.

    Read the takeHear it 24:38–28:36 Hear it 1:15:30–1:18:55

    Opens YouTube in a new tab at the start of the range.

Every connection on this trail

  1. DocumentedStop 1to Stop 2

    Brown stays on the same problem: if the conversation is not only for us, it can still arrive wearing an ordinary job description.

  2. DocumentedStop 2to Stop 3

    Same interview: interest, contact, and motive stay separate. Liking is not included in the job.

  3. ThematicStop 3to Stop 4

    Here the trail crosses to Pasulka. Her preparation question and Brown's motive split both ask who the audience of the event actually is. Separate sources; the resemblance is the point.

  4. HypothesisStop 1to Stop 4

    My join. If disclosure is not only persuasion of humans, 'who is being prepared' is the other half of that sentence. Neither source writes it that way.

The labels do one job: they tell you whether a connection is in the source record, is the same account turning up twice, is my grouping, or is my guess. None of them turns two takes into proof of each other.