Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Anyone who claims to be in possession of alien materials but won’t let people analyze said materials can be dismissed as a liar.
Essentially they have the evidence to prove it’s true, the desire to prove it’s true, yet choose not to disclose. Once you do that you have lost credibility.
|
Things are a lot more complicated than you suggest when it comes to government and classified government projects. An individual may have intimate details of where evidence was, how it was stored, specifics to incidents, witnesses, and so on, but cannot produce physical evidence to case because of compartmentalization and segregation of duties. A manager may have access to information of parts of a program, but have zero access to something you would accept as evidence. I'd still take the manager as a whistleblower and then use appropriate means to try and extract the physical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
I totally see what you're saying, but if you're in the know, choosing to disclose is also a damn good way to ensure you likely never get to share information ever again. Once you breach that threshold, you could be putting yourself in culpable / ethical / legal turbulent waters. David Grusch is currently tightrope-walking this scenario right now.
For example, I have info about future sports and rec projects in Canada that I cannot disclose. Doesn't mean I don't want to, doesn't mean I don't have them, just means I'd get my hand severely slapped and could potentially jeopardize my reputation and career in my industry doing so. Not worth it - at least until I'm given an official green light to discuss.
|
This makes sense and would be consistent with a lot of business that are big or with government interests. You may have all the insights on the projects but don't have access to contracts and drawings and such. Doesn't make you a liar.