4 ms·
My experience has been the same. While I find the publicly available evidence rather lacking, I don't feel comfortable dismissing the testimony of high-ranking
by david-gpu 3y ago
My experience has been the same. While I find the publicly available evidence rather lacking, I don't feel comfortable dismissing the testimony of high-ranking intelligence officials and would like their claims to be investigated seriously.
As for the general public, their thinking appears to largely boil down to "if something as big as this was true, we would already know about it", together with the circular "there has never been any solid evidence, therefore everybody knows this is bullshit, therefore anybody who talks about it is a kook or a fraud, therefore it is not worth investigating".
I hope either Avi Loeb's Galileo project or the UAP Disclosure Act included in the NDAA 2024 bill will bring some clarity to the subject over the next couple of years.
There are rumors of witnesses coming out later this year with first-hand knowledge of reverse-engineering programs, but I doubt the general public will be swayed by testimony alone.
- tsimionescu 3y agoWe have no credible evidence of aliens, and plenty of rock-solid evidence that high-level intelligence officials can lie to congress publicly with no repercussions (Iraq WMDs). The equation seems pretty simple.
- david-gpu 3y agoThen why not have Congress investigate the very specific claims he made to the ICIG (locations, people, companies, projects) and send him to prison if he was lying? Why the passive "it must be false do let's refuse to do anything about it, including bringing him to justice" attitude?
- tsimionescu 3y agoBecause his claims, at least the public ones, we're actually very vague, and an investigation is very likely to not find the things he's claiming, but also not be able to rule them out to a level where he could be indicted (beyond a reasonable doubt). So there is very little upside to the huge waste of money and time.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Then why not have Congress investigate his claims and send him to prison if he was lying? Because Congress is neither the investigatory institution for things that may result in prison nor the entity that makes determinations of guilt in such cases, Constitutionally?
- david-gpu 3y ago> Because Congress is neither the investigatory institution for things that may result in prison nor the entity that makes determinations of guilt in such cases, Constitutionally? Lying to Congress under oath is a felony. Grusch testified under oath to Congress. He could be indicted and sent to prison. I would appreciate a little bit of charity in the interest of having a friendly conversation.