Who were all these people? Some were average individuals with common interests in ufology, exopolitics, globalism, corruption, earthchanges, science and technology, and a variety of other interests. Some just enjoyed being part of a vibrant and unusually interesting community. Others were representative of various insider groups participating in observation and outreach projects, while still others were bonafide intelligence community personnel. All with stake in the hunt for truth in one fashion or another. Some in support of truth, and communication. Others seeking real disclosure and forms of proof. And others highly skeptical of anything or limited subjects. The smallest division of membership being wholly anti-disclosure oriented.
So where did these members vanish to? They had many options. There are almost innumerable other forums out there on the topics of UFO's or Exopolitics, the Unexplained, and Conspiracy Theory. Did they disappear into the world-wide network of forum inhabitants? Did some go find new homes on chatrooms or individual blogs? Did they participate in ufo conventions or other public events and gatherings? How about those who represented groups in special access? Or IC and military observers? Those with academic affiliations? Where did they all go and what would be the best way to reach out and extend an invitation to return?
And what constitutes a situation deserving of their time and participation? Is the archive enough? How exactly do people within the paradigm most desire to define a community? Is it amenities, humanity or simply population size for exposure? Most of the special guests have been emailed and have expressed that population size for exposure is what most motivates them. But not all. Long-time member Dan Smith has other priorities and values motivating his participation. Should this open opportunities for unattached junior guests who have experience and dialog to contribute to the world? How best to make use of OMF's time, experience and resources?
Many skeptics would like to see the historical guardian of discourse opportunity to just up and disappear; go into permanent stasis. They think that not everyone has a right to speak about their experiences and if there is no proof involved then there can philosophically be no value to discourse. I personally would respectfully disagree with them. Discourse has always been the prelude to meaningful relationships and meaningful mutual relationships have always been the prelude to exchanges of proof. In a contentious social environment with regards to communication vs disclosure how do we best re-establish a haven for those preludes? Is it only the "if we build it they will come" answer? Well considering OMF has been largely fully functional over the last four or five months this line of reasoning is not necessarily true. So what would be the best way re-establish this? Your suggestions are sought. Please comment.