I too have been read into special access programs, and I understand how Department of Defense classification systems and authorities work. His (David Grusch’s) testimony is 100 percent credible.
Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet
I too have been read into special access programs, and I understand how Department of Defense classification systems and authorities work. His (David Grusch’s) testimony is 100 percent credible.
Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet
I feel the opposite. Unfortunately both of us are working on incomplete information. We simply have very credible people saying fairly incredible things.
You replied to my pre-edit, but I’d be happy to expand on the point you quoted since we’re seemingly quite divided on how to view this.
So far I know of 0 officials or ex-officials that have come out with credible evidence, despite the increasing number of anecdotal testimonies. Not even official releases like the tic-tac/gofast etc. videos are generally considered proof of UFO’s.
Neither have civilians, but have for many decades, individually, told very similar stories to each other. This gives more credibility to “civilian individuals” as a group than the establishment that have kept this secret for so many years. Thus my assumed history with the official narrative is that it’s further away from the truth than observers and experiencers.
With incomplete information, we have to go on what we have. Experience. What is your experience with the official narrative regarding UFO’s… Trustworthy? Because Grusch isn’t a whistleblower in the classic sense, he’s gotten permission to share what he’s sharing AFAIK. Does that not make it part of the official narrative per definition?
Do we have any reasons to believe this is the first steps to a disclosure and just not another psyop - beyond some people saying “Trust me bro”? I don’t see it, but you have shown me things I’ve missed before so I’m not dismissing it.
Agreed
I would like to delve deeper into this topic because I am not entirely dismissing civilian testimony. In fact, I might be echoing or agreeing with your viewpoint. I believe the fact that millions of people across the globe, without any contact with each other and spanning history, are reporting similar experiences lends more credibility to the phenomenon being real.
When I made my statement, I simply meant that I generally perceive a high-ranking military or government official as a more reliable witness than an individual civilian. In my opinion, there’s a lower chance that such an official would be clinically unstable (though that might be too harsh a term), given their professional standing. Furthermore, it’s noteworthy that these individuals are willing to come forward when it appears they have everything to lose and little to gain, barring any undisclosed financial incentives.
I partially agree with this point, but I do want to provide a bit of pushback regarding him receiving permission. From a legal perspective, yes, the Pentagon did grant him permission. This was elaborated upon by Ross Coulthart in a recent ‘Need to Know’ episode.
Grusch was actually prepared for them to deny him the right to speak about it. He was ready to take them to court (which he was willing to do). This would have compelled some information to be brought before a court to investigate who was telling the truth. The only way for them to avoid this legal scrutiny was to allow him to discuss the matter in general terms.
I will attempt to find a link for reference. If I remember correctly, it was discussed in the first episode of ‘Need to Know’ following the NewsNation segment.
I believe we are somewhat in agreement here, although you’ll have to correct me if I’m wrong. Given all the information and what can be considered as ‘verifiable public evidence,’ there is something important to highlight. Some of us weigh the testimony from individuals differently than others, thereby leaning into one hypothesis over the others based on this differential attribution of credibility.
Currently, there are only three hypotheses (in my opinion) that we are unable to rule out:
I think it might be all 3. A psyOp. Some man made. Some non human. Although all 3 are frightening for different reasons.
I hadn’t considered this possibility. Things are rarely black and white, so your point seems quite plausible.
I think you’re pretty close to it. Original phenomenon exists, reverse engineering of the phenomenon exists and the cover-up of both exist.
I’d just love to know more about all three components, as some people say - Even if the UFO phenomena turns out to be a cover-up for something completely terrestrial… Well, at this scale and duration it’s probably still one of the biggest news stories ever.
Reliability can mean many things in this field. Observational reliability? I’d rather put my faith in a regular street cop to accurately observe and register something rather than a deskjockey. Trustworthyness? I agree they’re generally less likely to suffer mental illness - But would they generally be more inclined to have secrets to protect as a direct results of their high level official positions as well?
If we’re talking about the military complex, David Grusch is a man who was prepared to lay down his life in defense of his country. I’d say losing ones reputation is a small request compared to giving ones life. Would a “true patriot” be willing to lie and spend time in jail for it to protect his country? I believe so. It doesn’t even have to be a good cause, there’s also the possibility of the recent activity in the UFO field is a cover-up, a feint… And Grusch isn’t even in on it. Patsies and fall guys isn’t a new concept.
Please do, I’d like to hear the reasoning behind their argument. But please, if you share a podcast… Give me a timestamp! To me it comparable to Grusch threatening with telling mom, from what I’ve seen of the security complex they would have absolutely no problem with covering this up and disappearing Grusch long before he came into the public’s view.
Of course. Even accepting or denying just a small claim can have big impacts on the final conclusion, making us believe or assume vastly different things. But I think there has to be some sort of system for how we weigh different testimonies. I’ve tried to explain the reasons behind my way, not claim that it’s the only way. I hope you don’t feel I’m ignoring your often good arguments, just because I don’t always agree with your conclusions.