Related to the Hill piece from yesterday, here is the author Marik von Rennenkampff on NewsNation elaborating on his article. I do like that he breaks it down to one of two routes here, and that his interested as a writer - much like Ross Coulthart - has grown over the years after looking deeper into the subject.
Obviously primary evidence is key, but I think to watch is when there's enough pressure and time applied here, if the right evidence is coming to the public to prove it all one way or another. Or at least something with smoking gun believability to convince people. I believe Chuck Schumers language in the next defense bill may end up forcing this hand.
Also, I am very curious about the level of ontological shock if it is revealed there is retrieval programs and an NHI. What do you all think?
I think aliens existing will change nothing. Even distrust in government won’t change. They obviously could intervene but choose not to. So if things are generally non-interventionist it’s meaningless
We are also apparently miserable failures at successfully reverse engineering things as our current inventions don’t appear to have gaps and the tech mentioned this far dates to pre speculated ufo dates.
It really boils down to the government lied to protect national security. That’s what they have always done. I don’t see the shock.
Curious how many skeptics actually watched the hearing and heard what those men had to say under oath?
I do prefer these debates when people at least have taken in what is being said and by whom.
I watched pretty much the whole thing and all I got was "he told me this, he showed me that", the whole idea of a whistleblower is that their protected, so either show some proof or go back to your momma's basement.
The reverse engineering is either a laugh or their awful at it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I'll see if I can post this simply enough so Lanny can follow along: if a whistleblower is supposed to expose illegal acts, and whistleblower legislation is intended to protect those who do so, what is the illegal act here? My point, which you have continually misinterpreted, is that there are no revelations of wrongdoing, nor even any intimations there might be. Secrets aren't inherently illegal, and you can't get around secrecy laws by hinting and alluding to those secrets in a way that threatens their revelation.
Further, it doesn't matter if someone is registered as a whistleblower, if they don't actually blow any whistles. This is a simple concept. It is not a controversial concept. If there was something illegal to expose, Grusch would be able to expose it, wouldn't he? Isn't that the entire point of whistleblower protections?
Which seems more likely: he's prevented from telling what he knows because "reasons"'; or he doesn't have any evidence, nor convincing leads on evidence of anything illegal?
In conclusion, you can save more references to legislation that doesn't apply. Unless, of course, you can point to a law that makes concealing aliens from the public illegal.
PS: I'm certainly not being respectful in this thread, or any others, of opinions based on wishful thinking and motivated reasoning. I don't care if people aren't respectful of my opinions either, as I've made clear before. Challenging core beliefs is challenging the person, as we are an amalgamation of our beliefs, experiences, and relationships, and thus conflict can become uncomfortable.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I'll see if I can post this simply enough so Lanny can follow along: if a whistleblower is supposed to expose illegal acts, and whistleblower legislation is intended to protect those who do so, what is the illegal act here? My point, which you have continually misinterpreted, is that there are no revelations of wrongdoing, nor even any intimations there might be. Secrets aren't inherently illegal, and you can't get around secrecy laws by hinting and alluding to those secrets in a way that threatens their revelation.
Further, it doesn't matter if someone is registered as a whistleblower, if they don't actually blow any whistles. This is a simple concept. It is not a controversial concept. If there was something illegal to expose, Grusch would be able to expose it, wouldn't he? Isn't that the entire point of whistleblower protections?
Which seems more likely: he's prevented from telling what he knows because "reasons"'; or he doesn't have any evidence, nor convincing leads on evidence of anything illegal?
In conclusion, you can save more references to legislation that doesn't apply. Unless, of course, you can point to a law that makes concealing aliens from the public illegal.
PS: I'm certainly not being respectful in this thread, or any others, of opinions based on wishful thinking and motivated reasoning. I don't care if people aren't respectful of my opinions either, as I've made clear before. Challenging core beliefs is challenging the person, as we are an amalgamation of our beliefs, experiences, and relationships, and thus conflict can become uncomfortable.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
Clearly you are struggling to understand the concept that whistleblowing in the intelligence community can’t be done in public and has to go through appropriate processes.
If you watch the video of Coulthard discussing Grusch, he makes the point that Grusch isn’t really a whistleblower because everything he is saying has been reviewed and approved. He also made the point that because it’s approved to say publicly doesn’t mean that it is necessarily true.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 08-05-2023 at 12:29 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Again, not strictly true. His intent to go public and the content he was intending to share was reviewed to determine if it breached any specific security classifications or breached national security. What he was allowed to share publicly was deemed to not be in breach of those rules. However, the material he disclosed in closed session for his whistleblower complaint was covered by security classifications and could not be shared publicly. The review body made no adjudication on whether his claims were true or false.
His complaint, from July 2021, comes down to: "I believe information about aliens is being hidden from Congressional oversight and I am being persecuted for that belief." He made his representations to the authorized authority, after which no action was taken, which indicates his allegations weren't found credible enough to pursue. Whistleblowing process completed: no results.
Now, in 2023, he has taken his complaints public to a congressional committee, asking that he be allowed to reveal his previous testimony - testimony already found to be insufficient to prove any wrongdoing. It does not seem likely he will be granted that permission, so, again, I ask: is it more likely his evidence is being suppressed, or that it isn't evidence of anything?
There is much to gain politically for all the committee members should they be the ones to uncover a conspiracy of this magnitude (especially for Gaetz, who bloviates constantly about the 'Deep State' like the froth-mouthed lunatic he is), so what is stopping them? There's a 'whistleblower' right there, willing to put whistle to lips if given the word! Let him tootle, I say! Tootle for freedom!
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Did he basically say that about Kirkpatrick or did he actually say that? Because that would be a pretty specific shot at Kirkpatrick. (It is kind of funny that Lanny got indignant about jammies not knowing the facts and then immediately followed it up by saying Grusch was a member of the AARO, which apparently he was not).
What specific reason would Kirkpatrick have to lie, as a physicist whose job and motivations are similar to Grusch’s?
Still curious about the answers to these questions, especially the first, as when I looked up the most recent BBC article I saw nothing about “he said he worked WITH AARO in his capacity as an employee of the NRO and not directly as a member of the AARO team. He has always stated this. Also basically stated that Kirkpatrick is using semantics to distract from the issues being raised.”
The bolded seems like a specific claim, but this is all I could find from the interview: “Dr. Kirkpatrick oversaw our activities and what we were doing and the money we were spending. I never said I was a part of the core team, so I believe it was just lost in translation, or misconstrued.”
So, now I’m wondering if Grusch did actually accuse Kirkpatrick of trying to use semantics to distract from the issues being raised, or not.
I’m still not sure why Grusch, who is apparently brave enough to be a whistleblower, wouldn’t go to AARO to report any intimidation if it was actually happening.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that on one hand, the AARO was ALSO in the dark and having stuff hidden from them, and on the other, they are actually liars and denying have found anything because _______.
Pretty sure even a number of believers think his claims are a reach.
He lost me at biologics and aliens harming people. It's too much of a leap from Fravor and Graves and wades too close to sci-fi movies actually being accurate, which I seriously doubt.
But agencies seeking retribution, sewering careers and ongoing secret programs? Yeah sure I can see that.
What's your opinion on the Tic Tac / Gimbal videos released by the DoD, the creation of AARO, and the Congressional Hearings of Ryan Graves, David Fravor and David Grusch? There's been quite a bit of activity in this subject since 2017.
That none of it contains evidence that aliens have visited the earth?
Maybe we can make this easier - I'm asserting there are no aliens on earth because there is no evidence that has been presented/confirmed by a 'legitimate' body. Some people appear to be claiming there ARE aliens on earth.
So this is simple, you prove to me that they're here - or give me your singular best piece of evidence, and we'll go from there. What's the one thing that would convince me that my thought that there is no evidence of Aliens on earth is incorrect?
I assert Bigfoot is real. Please read;
"The Bigfoot Book: The Encyclopedia of Sasquatch, Yeti and Cryptid Primates"
"Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend"
"The Legend of Bigfoot"
And then tell me why you still think its not real. Pretty time-consuming way to deal with this right?
It’s disappointing to hear you say that last part. I mean sure, that happens…you get some crossover, definitely.
But it feels like this is a very bipartisan issue with some very astute minds on both sides of the equation. I wouldn’t draw those same parallels and I’ve been heavily researching this since 2017.
It’s a deep mystery that involves so many layers. It’s not just about “UFO’s are aliens!” There is just so much more to this.
This is a bit vague... both irrational democrats & republicans think vaccines kill people - so vaccine denial is 'bi-partisan' then?? I'm not sure that's how that term works.
I think there are things out there that require a leap of faith. Aliens are on earth, Dems are pedophiles, the deep state/men in black are controlling things, etc. I find it extremely difficult to engage in 'alien belief' without somehow not skirting other strange/irrational beliefs.
Could you point me to an astute mind (I think we probably both have to agree on that...) who asserts Aliens are or have been present on earth, with a reason for saying that beyond 'this guy once told me....' or 'I once saw something I can't show...'.
That none of it contains evidence that aliens have visited the earth?
Maybe we can make this easier - I'm asserting there are no aliens on earth because there is no evidence that has been presented/confirmed by a 'legitimate' body. Some people appear to be claiming there ARE aliens on earth.
So this is simple, you prove to me that they're here - or give me your singular best piece of evidence, and we'll go from there. What's the one thing that would convince me that my thought that there is no evidence of Aliens on earth is incorrect?
I assert Bigfoot is real. Please read;
"The Bigfoot Book: The Encyclopedia of Sasquatch, Yeti and Cryptid Primates"
"Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend"
"The Legend of Bigfoot"
And then tell me why you still think its not real. Pretty time-consuming way to deal with this right?
I've asked that before here, and you just get link dumped 4 hour podcasts and walls of text, which led me to the conclusion what you are asking for doesn't exist. So you are then forced to accept that aliens aren't here, or follow the other road using words like "belief", which doesn't really make it any different that religion. Several of which believe in aliens, too. Choose your path as you wish.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Sorry guys, I'm probably not being productive to how this conversation is supposed to go - I was surprised to find it and that people actually believe in this stuff.. I'm probably not engaging with an open and honest approach... because... I can't. Its silly. My bad for coming in here and pooping on this fun . Feel free to ignore me and engage the folks that actually want to get in the weeds on this.
When the day comes, I will eat alien crap on a livestream to support Calgarypucks new taxes to the Kang/Kodos redevelopment fund.
The Following User Says Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:
This is a bit vague... both irrational democrats & republicans think vaccines kill people - so vaccine denial is 'bi-partisan' then?? I'm not sure that's how that term works.
I think there are things out there that require a leap of faith. Aliens are on earth, Dems are pedophiles, the deep state/men in black are controlling things, etc. I find it extremely difficult to engage in 'alien belief' without somehow not skirting other strange/irrational beliefs.
Could you point me to an astute mind (I think we probably both have to agree on that...) who asserts Aliens are or have been present on earth, with a reason for saying that beyond 'this guy once told me....' or 'I once saw something I can't show...'.
I think one of the common things people assume when they read this thread, is that we are arguing FOR aliens.
Personally - I'm not at all. I think that's one of the least likely scenarios.
I am intruiged by this mystery, whatever that may be. Either there is something flying around in our skies and there is a massive cover up, or there are lies upon lies upon lies being told, and for what reason?
That's what I meant when I said this is so much deeper than the alien thing. I think a lot of people like to point to that as to why this is ridiculous and shouldn't even be talked about.
Throw the aliens out the window completely. there is still plenty here to unpack.
. Feel free to ignore me and engage the folks that actually want to get in the weeds on this.
