this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
25 points (96.3% liked)
UFOs
2684 readers
1 users here now
This community is for discussion surrounding UFOs and Extraterrestrials.
Rules
- Be your own moderator
- Think before you post or comment, and use your common sense about what is acceptable. This is a community space and should ultimately be community-driven. Be the community you want to see here.
- If you are here because you want to make fun of or grandstand over all of the silly people who believe that UFO/UAPs may exist, you are not welcome. Just block the community and go about your day.
- Be Civil
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills/agents. If you have some kind of evidence of this, please report instead.
- No hate speech or abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing.
- No summarily dismissive comments (e.g. "Swamp gas.").
- Posts must be related to UFO/UAPs
- Avoid duplicate posts
- Link posts should contain the linked content and a submission statement
- Submission statements should contain a summary of the content, why it is relevant to UFOs, and optionally personal perspectives.
- For short-form content, such as tweets, include the entire text.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. The piece is slanted and that's immediately obvious to anyone who watched the hearing.
Grusch said multiple times that he was ready and willing to share more detailed information in a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) and said he could provide a specific and detailed list of names of departments as well as individuals who have firsthand knowledge, indicating who would be hostile and who would be receptive to the inquiry.
The fact that some organizations choose to omit key details only means they're hostile to the subject matter. CBS News did something similar and led with the anchor and correspondent's smug and thinly-veiled opinions masquerading as credible reporting.
If a senior person in the Pentagon, supported by multiple senior (sometimes very senior) people, is saying under penalty of perjury that there needs to be an investigation into allocation of funds and obstruction of congressional oversight, and he's willing to name names in a way that preserves confidentiality, it seems like that's worth reporting on.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with or saying the piece left out here. Yes as I just said Grusch claimed to have details, but so far we don't have any evidence of that besides his word. Certainly worth looking into, with the rubber hitting the road in this SCIF sessions in terms of whether he has anything real.