So UFOs aren't a theory anymore - but we still don't know what they are

Without going to jail ? If you are found out to have revealed classified you go to jail as a traitor. Period.

Grusch mentioned people have been killed and he himself and family were threatened.

If its anonymous what exactly is any reporter to do ? "Sir we been given an anonymous tip off theres a UFO hidden at Edwards Air Force Base". Well done son, dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

Strange that you havent listened to his deposition where he claimed that there was an ongoing investigation and couldn't get into the details, pretty standard stuff where serious acusations are being made.

Hows the latter day church of the flying saucers coming along your greyliness ?

And in those 16 years I've heard "disclosure is coming soon" or "the truth is about to come out" a lot.

I don't think these new claims about the conspiracy getting proven are going to fare much better.

Notice how you guys keep trying to sound confident, but no one is giving a specific time frame about when this is supposed to happen.

If someone stood up and repeated a whole bunch of paranormal stories, making "serious accusations" that e.g. ghosts had murdered human beings - with no evidence for any of it.

Would you be taking them seriously? Of course not.

But put that person in a suit, in a formal setting, having worked for the government, using pseudo technical speak, and all of a sudden it's "wait, there must be something to this"

This man

Forensic psychologist and body language expert takes a look at a Grusch interview

Forensic psychologists are credible, which is why they work with criminal investigation and the criminal justice system, the analysis is objective and final opinions are left entirely up the viewer.

Posting whacky responses/videos don't dispel the glaring red flags nor make them go away.

It's not evidence of an "alien spacecraft", it's simply the view of an expert on the credibility of someone doing an interview

So to sum up:

1. Grusch hasn't provided any evidence of his claims
2. It's possible he's lying

It is new. I suggested before that Grusch was simply gullible, believing hearsay with no corroboration and then reproducing it. Now it's possible he is lying on top of that.

It's one thing to naively be passing on stories, it's another to be lying to the world.

He's going to release an op Ed where he won't be under oath, won't have any consequences for lying and is unlikely to meet any direct challenge or difficult questions.

That's convenient.

We do know that he believes and passes on false stories. So you must agree he's either gullible or lying.

This is part of the grift I think.

Gruash claims to be about to provide first hand knowledge. So when it comes out as just another pile of nothing, either having no actual details or anything verifiable, he can claim that if he went into details he'd be killed.

It's a very easy out for him.

Keep in mind Grusch wasn't revealing anything classified, everything was cleared, so he was free to give details. He wasn't actually "whistle-blowing".

Also intelligence officers in the US DoD are a dime a dozen. Right now, any of us (as a US citizen) could apply for a starting job as a GMI analyst, pass the poly, get that, pass probation and you're already handling top secret information. Then just sit and wait for a gravy train opening in a UAP/UFO post.

You don't even need that, just look at the guy from the Youtube video earlier, a chemist, who was randomly offered a job in some UFO study. Now he appears in Youtube videos hinting at "aliens" and the supernatural. The UFO circuit exists for anyone who has had any of those types of jobs and that circus doesn't require actual evidence. One minute you're the chief scientist on a UAP report, the next you're appearing on 'Ancient Aliens' and 'The Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch'

What a bizarre response.

I'm just pointing out that 1. he is only presenting his "first hand experience" when he is at no risk of consequences. And 2. he presents a false story under oath.

These are red flags to me and most reasonable people. You don't see the issue.

I 100% believe in aliens .... there just is no way Earth can be the only planet of trillions+ planets out there with life ... I also believe in UFOs .... but do not believe in aliens having visited earth in recent times ... I believe though Earth life as we know it were originally aliens ... but do not see any evidence of aliens visiting since then ...

Like we never visited any other planet I feel other civilisations are equally unable to visit us ... maybe that is how it is intended ... UFOs are definitely likely to be from Russia if seen in the West and from the West if seen in Russia ... countries between the 2 will see both Western and Russian 'UFOs' ....

I got a book for a loan ... would not buy one ... off of a friend who is a self styled UFOlogist ... it is the story of the author driving along a remote road .. it had to be remote! ... and then seeing a bright light his car coming to a halt and then being escorted by 3 little green men to a flying saucer ... then brought to some other planet ... then tested and asked questions in that galactic language known as English! ... author said they were friendly and hospitable with earth like food and wine offered!! ... and brought back home .... clearly 100% sci fi ...

UFOs are man made spycraft simple as ... aliens exist almost for sure but there is no evidence of them coming here apart from ourselves ... a comet or something did bring life here which proves life is somewhere else as well ...

Agreed, he could still be telling the truth. So when you said " I called out Grusch, and I was right." You were actually wrong, you can't prove anything he said was false or that he was lying.

King you can present no credible evidence that Grusch is presenting a false story under oath. Your red flags are just in your head.

You have presented NOTHING that is credible I'm afraid. Similar evidence presented for a UFO encounter would be thrown out.

So maligning Grusch as gullable is simply circular reasoning. QED.

We know, unfortunately its just not credible

That means that Grusch may still be correct in his allegations and a GOOD investigator. To assume otherwise would lead you to a circular conclusion that he is gullible.

In this instance Grusch is making the claims. Try not to get lost here.

Any evidence presented backing up his claims is claimed to be not credible

Likewise all evidence thus far presented that his claims are false are not credible.

Still with us or are you still confused ?

That's some bizarre logic there...

Sorry where did I say that. Feel free to quote me or like King will you suddenly lose the ability to quote.

Annoying isn't it. Ask DohnJoe he is excellent at declaring evidence non credible.

So far we have DohnJoe

Robinph

would change views if :

King Mob what would sway your opinion ?

Ah OK. So the evidence I presented isn't actually not credible, you were simply declaring it so because you believed that you were mimicking Dohnjoes arguments.

Very strange tactic.

There's no definitive evidence, that's the issue. It's all weak or subjective evidence. Which in the long term works against the theory.

For example, if 20 new pieces of footage of UFOs/UAPs were released tomorrow, we know they would all consist of blurry/unclear footage because that's what the real issue is here, footage/data that can't be identified

Pilots are always going to see things (weather balloons, weather phenomena, drones, etc) that they can't identify at the time. Cameras are always going to capture artifacts, gimbling issues, lens distortions and countless other phenomena that can't be fully identified at the time (or even later). And so on.

The problem is when people leave logic behind and make the leap to "it must be aliens", which has shown it can pervade even the deepest levels of government with someone like Grusch.

Is Fravor and the other pilot lying? That's proof.

This is just self delusion I'm afraid. Your evidence is not credible.

When did I say that please quote me, I think I may have said "one of the best examples"

Another example of circular reasoning based on a false asumption, I already said I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, at this stage you are just trolling.

You never said what is required for you to change your mind King .. what is credible evidence in your mind ?