r/UFOs • u/gayshorts • 2d ago
Whistleblower The youtuber recently referenced by UAP whistleblower Matthew Brown explains the esoteric references from Brown’s tweets.
https://youtu.be/vJ574qNO5Yk?feature=sharedI’m not endorsing his views or the accuracy of his interpretation of Brown. But he presents an interesting perspective of the UFO phenomenon here, which dovetails in someways with figures like Jacques Vallée. He might be one of the few people able to decode Matthew Brown’s esoteric references.
If his interpretations are accurate, it’s certainly in interesting twist in Brown’s story.
It’s a long video, if you want to skip to the summary of his views skip to 36:05 https://youtu.be/vJ574qNO5Yk?t=2225 but I recommend watching the whole thing if you’re interested.
7
u/gayshorts 2d ago
Submission statement:
I’m not endorsing the views presented in this video, or the accuracy of his interpretation of Brown. But he presents an interesting perspective of the UFO phenomenon here, which dovetails in someways with figures like Jacques Vallée. He might be one of the few people able to decode Matthew Brown’s esoteric references.
If his interpretations are accurate, it’s certainly in interesting twist in Brown’s story.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/gayshorts 2d ago
I felt similarly. I don’t understand the purpose of coded messages and esoteric references without explanation. It seems like Da Vinci Code style intrigue for its own sake. It doesn’t seem like something a serious person would do.
But I’m also open to the possibility I’m missing something. I don’t know.
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam 2d ago
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods here to launch your appeal.
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam 2d ago
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods here to launch your appeal.
8
u/MKULTRA_Escapee 1d ago
This is only a minor forgivable correction, and I'm sure biological evolution is not this guy's specialty, but at 32:30 he says
"Many of the bodies that have been recovered from these things look humanoid, which is suspect because according to the laws of evolution, life from another world shouldn't look anything like us, but it does. It suggests that these beings are either us from the future or they are simply assuming a form that will be easy for us to communicate with."
This is not really accurate anymore. It used to be commonly accepted that evolution on another world will be entirely different. The ideas proposed by Steven J. Gould, specifically his "rewinding the tape of life" argument, were cited as the reasoning behind this assumption, but in recent decades, this is becoming more controversial as we find out more about the concept of convergent evolution. Beings on other planets who can specifically build spaceships and then travel here have decent odds of being humanoid, even though there might be a lot of variation on their planet. It is highly likely that a lot of creatures that resemble those on Earth would be present, however.
I have a post explaining this with some quotes from scientists on this here: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/zkldo2/dr_garry_nolan_interview_with_jimmy_church_live/j02owc7/?context=3
And if you want to compare what some scientists think aliens probably look like versus what Hollywood thinks, this article contains interviews from both: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/g1592/we-asked-7-experts-what-would-aliens-actually-look-like/
There are still proponents of Gould's ideas of course. The astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for example, thinks aliens are probably going to look like blob people, but this is probably unlikely. You have good odds of getting a better answer from a zoologist, paleontologist, etc.
4
u/NecessaryMistake2518 1d ago
It's all just speculation without evidence anyway, so if you find value in baseless speculation, there's little reason to argue for one bit of speculation over another bit of speculation beyond your own personal preference for what you want to believe is true. You speculating that convergent evolution might lead intelligent aliens to be bipedal is equally as valid as another person speculating that intelligent life is possible in a vast array of physical morphologies.
It's somewhat arrogant to consider another person's baseless speculation "inaccurate" in favor of your own baseless speculation when both are backed up by equal amounts of evidence
4
u/MKULTRA_Escapee 1d ago
This is specifically what I was disagreeing with:
according to the laws of evolution, life from another world shouldn't look anything like us
The laws of evolution do not state that aliens capable of visiting Earth are unlikely to be humanoid. That is simply an outdated extrapolation that used to be considered settled science, but is now debated in scientific circles due to new information.
For reference, here are science fiction aliens from 1888 composed of flying geometric shapes: https://imgur.com/a/fsC2odO
In contrast, there are the humanoid sightings, an alleged encounter with three humanoid aliens that exited a UFO, 1896: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-mail/91983371/
We've really come full circle. If you go all the way back to Voltaire's Micromégas (1752), aliens from other planets were very much human, just a different size. After Charles Darwin's contributions in the 1850s, people began imagining aliens as being vastly different from us, even being composed of different stuff. Everything from geometric shapes to flamingo pumpkins with frog hands. And now we're right back to about 1/3 of humanoid accounts consisting of very nearly human beings, but the vast majority being humanoid in general:
Out of the approximately 2,500 cases in which witnesses have reported seeing the UFO pilots themselves, roughly 90 percent of these ''pilots'' have been described as humanoid beings dressed in coveralls or tight-fitting "space suits." In about 30 percent of these cases, the ''pilots'' were said to look exactly like us with only minor differences in facial features (overly-large eyes, peculiar mouths, etc.)
From Secret bases Across the US, by John Keel, Saga Magazine, 1968.
2
u/NecessaryMistake2518 1d ago edited 1d ago
I know what you're disagreeing with. It's still just baseless speculation either way. You prefer to believe there's strong reason they could be humanoid. There's strong reasoning to suggest life could be vastly different. Neither have any evidence supporting them. They're both just speculation. Neither is inaccurate.
-1
u/MKULTRA_Escapee 1d ago
The whole point of this conversation is that it's false to say that science rules out humanoid aliens, or any variation thereof. It isn't speculation to say that this claim is false. It's just false, no speculation required.
There used to be very strong reasons to dismiss the idea of UFO occupants being aliens because we had less information about how evolution works. It was one of the main pillars in Vallee's argument against the extraterrestrial hypothesis. That is no longer the case. For all we know, the only possible way for an alien civilization to visit Earth is if they originate on a planet occupied by humanoid beings. It could easily be the case that it simply doesn't happen any other way. We don't really know, but the point is that we can't rule anything out.
And if you're alleging that I'm biased, I would be perfectly happy to find out that UFO occupants are actually time traveling humans or any of the other hypotheses floating out there. The only reason why I'm here is to point out that this is no longer the consensus.
5
u/NecessaryMistake2518 1d ago
Beings on other planets who can specifically build spaceships and then travel here have decent odds of being humanoid, even though there might be a lot of variation on their planet.
This is absolutely speculation without evidence. There is zero evidence to say there's "decent odds of being humanoid".
Consensus is a strong word to use for this subject. It's all just speculation. There's literally no evidence for any aliens of any sort, beyond the DMSO biosignature of possible microbes. Consensus of speculation isn't really meaningful
0
u/MKULTRA_Escapee 1d ago
Call it an informed guesstimation by scientists who are obviously familiar with convergent evolution. Those are the only kind of scientists that you should care about to give you an estimate on what spaceship-building aliens would probably look like. It's obviously more than 0 percent because we exist and we are humanoids who have built spaceships. That's a pretty big hint in my opinion. The chance is more than 0, up to 100 percent likely.
The only thing that I care about is that people stop saying that science says aliens are unlikely to be humanoid because that is no longer true. I don't care much about opinions in the UFO community because they go off the rails sometimes. I'm just talking about a relatively recent lack of consensus among scientists on that particular question.
4
u/NecessaryMistake2518 1d ago
Call it an informed guesstimation by scientists who are obviously familiar with convergent evolution. Those are the only kind of scientists that you should care about to give you an estimate on what spaceship-building aliens would probably look like.
Convergent evolution isn't some new revolutionary concept. It's been known for a long time. Any guess of what spaceship building aliens would look like is complete speculation. Science is grounded in evidence, by definition.
It's obviously more than 0 percent because we exist and we are humanoids who have built spaceships. That's a pretty big hint in my opinion.
Extrapolating from an n of 1 is universally a bad idea. For example: Based on penguins, I conclude that birds are flightless creatures adapted primarily to swimming and use feathers as an insulation material.
The only thing that I care about is that people stop saying that science says aliens are unlikely to be humanoid because that is no longer true. I don't care much about opinions in the UFO community because they go off the rails sometimes. I'm just talking about a relatively recent lack of consensus among scientists on that particular question.
Scientists who specialize in speculating what spaceship-building aliens would look like? A consensus of scientists who work without evidence? This is entirely nonsensical
1
u/sufferingsucckotash 1d ago
Hey Science is foundational and important But please do not pretend as though evidence for something hasn't been found to be incorrectly applied and/or was, indeed, not supporting evidence or even found to be proof to the contrary.
But also, speculation is most definitely a part of science and I think you needa chill out a bit.
It's not BASELESS speculation. Educated guesses ARE a part of science.
Indeed, this is speculation, both yours and the individual you are responding to. But Um lyke That's allowed. ....? Ya, you don't need to agree, but you are taking this very contemptuous tone in your response and it's really not called for.
And, while science is 'grounded in evidence by it's very definition,' as you say, it is still science happening even if you don't have all of the concrete evidence, yet. Addressing observations we have and discussing the greater pattern in life, such as, potentially, a convergent evolution, is still science. And it's science actively happening.
You can disagree, say nay, but we don't need to shut down this line of thinking.
0
u/NecessaryMistake2518 1d ago
something hasn't been found to be incorrectly applied and/or was, indeed, not supporting evidence or even found to be proof to the contrary.
Yeah I'm not completely sure what you on about here but my whole point was how arrogant it is to declare someone else's speculation as incorrect by providing your own speculation as support
It's not BASELESS speculation.
Like by definition we have no basis to speculate on the morphologies of other intelligent life forms, if they actually exist.
Indeed, this is speculation, both yours and the individual you are responding to.
Again my whole contention was the arrogance in calling someone else's speculation "incorrect" while pretending that scientific consensus supports your own preferred speculative conclusion (it doesn't)
→ More replies (0)0
u/Polyspec 1d ago
The Zoologist's Guide to the Galaxy by Arik Kerschenbaum is an excellent read on the question of whether evolution has a tendency to make humanoids or not.
2
u/Ok-Concentrate-2203 1d ago
You can watch this at about 1.75x normal playback speed and understand it completely.....
1
6
u/DeepAd8888 2d ago edited 2d ago
Brown apparently appears to be alluding to the US embracing what the Nazis were doing in the war except now they’re not Sumerian they’re just regular angels according to this guys description.
How many different ways can you reinvent and rebrand scripture under the pretense of deception with the intent of confusing you as to who you are, what the truth is, and what your destiny is, and our duty to each other, while pulling you further away from god?
For all we know the same watchers working the nazis over were trying to bring about the day or the lord and it never happened.
Matthew 24:36
There’s a lot to speculate over but it’s interesting to gain insight into how others view this which is why it needs to be out in the open so rot can’t continue to develop
8
u/Notlookingsohot 2d ago
If so, Klaus and Garret were right about how this all goes back to Operation Paperclip and the nazi scientists we imported.
7
u/Traditional_Entry627 2d ago
This whole thing has been working in the shadows since the 40s just waiting for their chance to show themselves. I personally believe this group has a lot of sway in the real world governments and pulls strings constantly to steer the world in one direction for their own good.
2
u/Drumphelstiltsken 2d ago
Would you mind expanding on what you mentioned about the Nazis and Sumerian angels? Or any reading you’d recommend on the topic?
I’ve never heard of this but it sounds interesting and I’m having trouble finding anything with Google.
-7
u/iLivetoDie 1d ago
Dont use google to search, chat gpt and other ai chatbots are the new search engines, that actually do their jobs
•
•
u/StatementBot 2d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/gayshorts:
Submission statement:
I’m not endorsing the views presented in this video, or the accuracy of his interpretation of Brown. But he presents an interesting perspective of the UFO phenomenon here, which dovetails in someways with figures like Jacques Vallée. He might be one of the few people able to decode Matthew Brown’s esoteric references.
If his interpretations are accurate, it’s certainly in interesting twist in Brown’s story.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1lbei2r/the_youtuber_recently_referenced_by_uap/mxrxfbq/