Michael Schellenberger

Rank 44 of 47
|
Score -102
FromDeathToLife
@optionski
·
17d
@shellenberger "..the slide censors two of the three potential explanations for UAPs." Why isn't Advanced US Technology one of the 2 censored?
12/4/2025, 6:39:39 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
17d
Thank you, @theblackvault for your work over the last 30 years petitioning the government to reveal more of the things it is unnecessarily and illegally keeping secret. You don't get enough credit.
John Greenewald, Jr.
@theblackvault
·
17d
I fully support and advocate for removing the redactions on the below documents I got through FOIA. And there are many more just like it.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
17d
Take a close look at this document. Everything you need to know about UAPs (UFOs) you can learn from it. It's a slide from a presentation by the Pentagon's UAP Task Force.

You might wonder what we can learn from a document that is so heavily censored, or redacted. That's exactly
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
Marco Rubio says he has no "way to verify” the “spectacular claims” made by “people with high clearances.” But if the Nat. Sec. Advisor lacks access to classified intel, and cannot tell if officials are lying, then it's up to Trump to reveal what the government knows about UAP.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing government transparency and the classification of information related to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs). It questions the internal handling of classified documents and the potential for U.S. technology to be involved, reflecting on the broader issue of government secrecy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and raises a legitimate question about government transparency. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity, focusing on institutional actions rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about the implications of classified information. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    It engages in constructive dialogue by questioning and agreeing with the possibility of compartmentalization without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]