Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
You and your peer review. News flash: Peer review is not the process you think it is. Peer review is rarely undertaken when it comes to government, military, or private programs. The information is tightly controlled and regulated meaning you require clearance to gain access. They just don't hand that out to anyone. It is why the same group of people are involved in many of these programs. They are cleared but still remain compartmentalized so they know just enough. If there is any review done to confirm beliefs or findings it will be done by another person who already has the clearance and access. The circle is kept tight so data doesn't leak.
This is why I doubt we'll ever see such evidence produced, unless something happens in a populated area where there are thousands of witnesses and they can save the vehicle or bodies before a recovery team has a chance to arrive and scoop things up. But then again, thousands of people witnessed and reported an aerial event across almost two states and that event was quickly swept under the rug. Never discount the power of the government, the mass media, and the stigma of being called a nutjob.
|
My insistence that someone other than the government that has lied about ETs for 90 years be required to verify if ETs exists is somehow unreasonable? That’s the standard of evidence that is required.
It may never happen but to believe conclusively without it would be ridiculous. If you want to that is your choice but to chastise someone for wanting real evidence before believing extraordinary claims is absurd. It’s a very convenient position to be able to state evidence doesn’t exist because it would never be released therefore the absence of 3rd party reviewed evidence which is stated to exist is not an issue.
Grusch’s testimony was such garbage and feels like someone trying to avoid purjury. Essentially he says I have no first hand information on anything related to UAPs but he has talked to people about it.
Grusch has his list of names so if congress is actually interesting in digging they can
Grusch testified to misappropriation of funds which congress has the power to investigate.
Grusch testified he knows people who have information that people were killed but doesn’t quite say it but heavily implies it.
Burchett asks Grusch if he has heard of anyone being murdered. The answer was
“I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities.”
That is not an acceptable answer to the question. That’s not a yes or a no.
If you compare what he states under oath to what he was stating in the press he is far less detailed and less certain.
Anyway highly disappointing