I don’t have anything that would satisfy you in regards to this.
I respect your approach to our different standards. Only hindsight can tell us who had the best tools for working towards the same goals.
From my understanding there was roughly 11 hours of closed door hearings with congressional lawyers. The issue was getting people in the room with the right clearances to view the evidence. Again, reported on by the same journalists.
While I understand that journalists must protect their sources, there’s also the issue of “Just trust me bro”. In these grey areas I tend to view cases on the basis of lowest common denominator and in layers of confidence: I don’t see how closed door hearings necessarily mean presenting evidence, just that (at least) the topics and claims being discussed potentially have an impact on US national security? Of course this doesn’t exclude any presentation of evidence, up to and including marching out a genuine grey alien.
So I know it’s potentially some very serious stuff, I have reason to believe the validity of Grusch’ claims, it is possible evidence have been presented behind closed door and it is within the realm of possibility that this is the start of a partial and controlled disclosure and I cannot exclude that it straight up is the beginning of Disclosure.
With so many different claims in the UFO/UAP field, how do you find people you trust and find credible? I’m partial to Richard Dolan, as a UFO historian he has an academic approach - I can check his credible claims for myself in publicly available sources and after doing this enough times I have found I trust his information despite not always agreeing with his conclusion.
I’m also interested in the 2019 IG statement
After closer examination it seems the date is wrong. It is July 2021 and regarding “Confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress.” which seems more like actually blowing the whistle rather than complaining about the treatment he got as a whistleblower, described as “a whistleblower reprisal investigation” in the timeline overview linked below.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I must admit that I agree with much of what you are saying here. I agree with you on the point of Richard Dolan. He is another individual I like to follow for the reasons you mentioned.
As for finding journalists I find credible, I’d say that is an ongoing process. I’ll try to take some time and collect my thoughts on this.
I respect your approach to our different standards. Only hindsight can tell us who had the best tools for working towards the same goals.
While I understand that journalists must protect their sources, there’s also the issue of “Just trust me bro”. In these grey areas I tend to view cases on the basis of lowest common denominator and in layers of confidence: I don’t see how closed door hearings necessarily mean presenting evidence, just that (at least) the topics and claims being discussed potentially have an impact on US national security? Of course this doesn’t exclude any presentation of evidence, up to and including marching out a genuine grey alien.
So I know it’s potentially some very serious stuff, I have reason to believe the validity of Grusch’ claims, it is possible evidence have been presented behind closed door and it is within the realm of possibility that this is the start of a partial and controlled disclosure and I cannot exclude that it straight up is the beginning of Disclosure.
With so many different claims in the UFO/UAP field, how do you find people you trust and find credible? I’m partial to Richard Dolan, as a UFO historian he has an academic approach - I can check his credible claims for myself in publicly available sources and after doing this enough times I have found I trust his information despite not always agreeing with his conclusion.
After closer examination it seems the date is wrong. It is July 2021 and regarding “Confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress.” which seems more like actually blowing the whistle rather than complaining about the treatment he got as a whistleblower, described as “a whistleblower reprisal investigation” in the timeline overview linked below.
https://www.papooselake.org/david-grusch-timeline
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I must admit that I agree with much of what you are saying here. I agree with you on the point of Richard Dolan. He is another individual I like to follow for the reasons you mentioned.
As for finding journalists I find credible, I’d say that is an ongoing process. I’ll try to take some time and collect my thoughts on this.
Thank you for the link. I’ll take a look.