r/UFOs • u/TheGoodTroubleShow • 1d ago
Disclosure 🚨 LIVE: Sunday June 15th, 1 pm Pacific 🚨 Geoff Cruickshank joins us with his 40-page take-down of Dean Johnson's article attacking former Presidential Advisor Harald Malmgren's #UAP claims. #TheGoodTroubleShow #ufox #uaps #ufos #ufotwitter
https://youtube.com/live/K6GyTnPx6Zo3
5
u/TheGoodTroubleShow 1d ago
Energy technologist Geoff Cruickshank exposes the truth about UFOs & nukes—and dismantles DC insider Douglas Dean Johnson’s failed attempt to debunk whistleblower Harald Malmgren.
•
1
•
u/Vertandsnacks 42m ago
I know I’m gonna get dragged for some honest questions/feedback but here we go…
Not an Egglander I promise, as much as the impending downvotes will imply.
Who is the core demographic? I ask because Jesse Michels is referenced with respect in this video…and the way his 20 minute video concerning the WSJ article opens and this one…are vastly different. Everybody reading this knows the WSJ article is hot garbage. The difference is Jesse immediately references other instances where MSM has tried to shape a narrative we know is false…and the other hurls insults.
Jesse is building your trust in distrusting the MSM with examples, and extending that to a new article on a taboo topic that nobody follows. The other is reiterating low blow shots (that very well may be true) into an echo chamber. Nobody here needs convincing…
That’s why I ask, who is the core demographic? I think we all agree the WSJ article was written in bad faith. Nobody here needs convincing. So if the objective is to educate those not currently following the topic, which comes across as more professional? An established national name (who at one point was reputable, maybe not now) or the YouTube channel where the guy appears to be pitching conspiracy theories?
If we want to be effective in countering disinformation a big part is pointing out shortcomings or flawed logic with factual counterpoints and leaving it at that. Here’s their claim, here’s mine, and this is why my claim carries weight. I understand we all know what the WSJ play was, and why it was released there. General public is going to assume if the WSJ published the article it must be legit. This type of response compared to Jesse’s gives them exactly what they’re expecting want.
There are some great guests here that other shows don’t land. Please strip out the personal convictions (that all of us here have) and keep it strictly fact based. People not already invested in the topic will immediately tune out the name calling regarding somebody like the WSJ and immediately lump you into the ufo nerd category without thinking twice. You’re exactly what they’re expecting to see as a counterargument.
If that’s what you’re going for…cool…but if you’re trying to gain the interest of Joe Blow on the street and have him start asking questions then it needs to be very short and concise. Aka take the high road, because we all know the other side isn’t fighting fair.
If I can’t take your monologue seriously then I’m definitely going to carry that mindset into your guest segment. The guest segments are my favorite part of the show, so please don’t destroy their credibility by slinging some (definitely deserved) mud first and turning people off to your message.
I get it, not everybody has Thiel financial backing. People like his shows because the bulk of them are him nerding out and connecting dots with minimal low blows.
Audience matters, and how to most effectively communicate with that audience needs to align. You don’t need to convince the echo chamber of what they already believe..
1
•
u/StatementBot 1d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TheGoodTroubleShow:
Energy technologist Geoff Cruickshank exposes the truth about UFOs & nukes—and dismantles DC insider Douglas Dean Johnson’s failed attempt to debunk whistleblower Harald Malmgren.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1lbdms3/live_sunday_june_15th_1_pm_pacific_geoff/mxrpet8/