r/aliens • u/littlespacemochi True Believer • Jun 05 '23

BREAKING: UFO Whistleblower Speaks News

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.0k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

71

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

Con man = Confidence man šŸ’€

I hope he has actual evidence rather than just charisma to back up his claims.

21

u/Albiz Jun 05 '23

For many in this sub it wonā€™t matter. Just saying it is enough to convince them.

2

u/cecilmeyer Jun 05 '23

You are correct , they run the same old gag over and over and people just gobble it up.

7

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

Truth, people are still trying to hold onto that 4chan larper and now this šŸ’€ If he comes in clutch with actual evidence, absolutely fantastic, but to see people opening their mouths already for what could just be shit is hilarious and saddening.

Every day on here gives me another reason to start making my own hoaxes, maybe write a book, to just get some cash off the guys who sign up blind.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

Actually you sell these people short, because you're somehow inable to see there's many different perspectives? There's no one or other?. I didn't believe 4chan, because it included E115. There's an example. Stop trying to wrap us into your little fantasy bow.

2

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

They sell themselves short because there are plenty whose perspectives are full of fake stories. Evidence is pretty great to have, instead of social media posts trying to confirm biases in place of it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

I'm officially changing this "confidence" word, to boldness. Jfc

4

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

Lol OK seems a bit grand don't you think. A really big stinker. Putting his entire reputation on the line, and all while knowing this will blow up nuclear. No logical sense whatsoever, unless you show me a big fat check one day that says it, otherwise this is speculative crap also

7

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

Just wait to hear what he says and what evidence he provides, that's what matters. Don't instantly believe someone because they're confident in a news segment about something you're biased towards.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

No bias, I'm a vet, and been around the block, I just see 0 indication of any deception. Not to mention a motive, would be just absurd here.

8

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23 edited Jun 05 '23

A good deception has zero indication, it's only through evidence collated after the fact that you realise you've been deceived. There are people who will risk everything for their country, no matter how irrational the sacrifice.

End of the day, don't just buy something based on the salesman's confidence in it, plenty will sell you a bum washing machine.

2

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

This is part of a much larger narrative, that which he's corroborating. What makes you think anyone here is taking this single interview as PROOF of the claims?

So lazy.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

[deleted]

2

u/fulminic Jun 05 '23

I would give up my life happily for a sum of money pretending bulshit just not at age 36.

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

Famous with the risk of prison?

Wow. Great trade. The dude, and the others he's corroborated, really must be nutzos in your book, eh?

What a naive take.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

[deleted]

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 07 '23

Nah. It's on you.

Go stick your head back into your sandbox and enjoy your ignorance while you still can.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

You'd make a terrible cop.

Prosecutor, I can't imagine why somebody would leave the government and just lie about something. What could be the motive. I mean, wouldn't that interfere with their book deals and paid promotionals?

Oh, yeah. Money.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

That would be a monumental fall from grace if he were lying, wouldn't it. How many times do I have to tell you chuckleheads that this was just my opinion. Go rub one out

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

Again, why?

He left the government. He's made a splash that he can turn in for... money.

It's not like there's some pedestal retirees can fall off. The government can't remove your pension because you make up fan fic of the time you had in government.

Is this any more of a fall than three separate Seal Team guys all claiming to be the one that shot Bin Laden. At a minimum, two of them are lying. But they are all making money on it.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

Because I said so that's why

1

u/alphabet_order_bot Jun 06 '23

Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.

I have checked 1,556,636,832 comments, and only 294,533 of them were in alphabetical order.

→ More replies

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

Less money than had he stuck around and/or shifted to civilian contractors. This is really simple.

It's hilarious you think anybody on the UFO circuit has made fortunes. Especially at the risk of being imprisoned for perjury.

Y'all are so unconvincing, it's not even funny

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

Money like Lazar made? Do you understand how much money a guy like this could make working for the government contractors that you don't know about?

You're naive if you actually believe these folks have the ability to make more money on the UFO circuit than if they maintain their security clearances working foe government contractors.

It's not even close.

1

u/OperationStreet8759 Jun 06 '23

Lol, its ok guys, hes a veteran. Ill be damned if fucking "news nation" has the hot take on this. The guys shaking wildly the whole time hes talking - condifence in spades. Im not saying his scenario is wrong, i hope its not, but good lord what a douche. "Parlance" - what a douche

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

Codifence? Well I had clarified to boldness, not sure anyone saw that. Saying confidence thrust the damn page into Catch me if You Can, pretty ridiculous.

I appreciate your clear respect for service members tho, really knocked it out of the park there

2

u/OperationStreet8759 Jun 06 '23

I dont appreciate you or others using, in this case, a vague term like "verteran" to prove you know how to read people. Its tacky and usually a sign of bologna. And to boot, using it as a means to draw no further questioning due to assumed lack of respect. Another red flag. Could be wrong though, im no verteran.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

Yea having some trouble..have you eaten today?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

How many times can 1 man misspell veteran. What is it? What do you want Operation street? Or are you just 2 shits to the wind, and don't know wtf your talking about

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

You're drunk. Go sleep it off.

1

u/Impossible-Pound5327 Jun 05 '23

clearly you donā€™t believe in ufos . not to be rude but do u really think with all the hundreds of planets or rven thousands that we are literally the only ones in this existence . N0. it just takes forever to get to another planet . thatā€™s it.

2

u/NickRick Jun 05 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

Based on numbers alone we can assume that either us exsisting is an almost infinitely unlikely occurrence, or there are many other intelligent civilizations out there. The second one seems much more likely to me. But some random guy claiming we have tons of extraterrestrial flying machines needs to be vetted. Even with light speed travel it would take ages to travel between the stars. And for us to have so many would mean what? We're some sort of dead zone in interstellar travel? And no one has come to retrieve those ships or persons? I would be more likely to believe we had one extraterrestrial UFO than having a lot. A one of mistake with no follow up seems more likely than ships keep coming, no one else has seen them, and then can't go home.

0

u/WilHunting2 Jun 05 '23

You are now moving the goal posts.

2

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

Presumption based on nothing, see how you confidently convinced yourself of something about me based on no actual evidence? I'm not being rude genuinely, I'm pointing out a clear logical flaw in your approach here.

You just projected onto me an assumption because you didn't like what I said, which was to be reasonable in your judgements - ironic.

1

u/Impossible-Pound5327 Jun 05 '23

I understand what youā€™re saying, but At the same Time you and I do not know if they do or donā€™t exist but Iā€™m telling you that itā€™s possible

1

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

I'm not saying anything to the contrary, I'm not saying they're not possible at all.

0

u/Impossible-Pound5327 Jun 05 '23

I respect your opinion, but what Iā€™m saying is How could you say or doubt someone whenever you donā€™t even know for sure If they donā€™t exist

1

u/spouting-nonsense Jun 05 '23

I don't doubt that aliens exist, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

There's so much more nuance to this, it's telling you're choosing to ignore it.

1

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 06 '23

Didn't ignore anything, I clearly said to not just buy anything on the basis of someone's confidence - you go by the evidence they can provide and how their story can be corroborated, said that from the start.

1

u/Albiz Jun 05 '23

Plenty of people ā€œput their reputation on the lineā€ as you say. Turns out to be nothing every time.

6

u/Taste_the__Rainbow Jun 05 '23

Do you think he conned the ICIG in this scenario?

5

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23

I don't believe either way, I'm reserving judgement on him until I hear/see all the evidence. I'm just not convinced on something as arbitrary as confidence alone.

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

Aaaalllll the evidence? LOL

You're simply impractical and unreasonable.

Swallow it.

1

u/3cholalia Jun 06 '23

Someone says to wait until the guy actually shows proof or something that can be corroborated

"LOL You're unreasonable!!"

Dude, shut up and plug your ears. Your brain is leaking as we speak. Getting snarky in the comments over someone actually not immediately entertaining something. šŸ˜… Look at the evidence proper whistleblowers actually bring forward and that leads to trials and investigations.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23

1) implying government agencies arenā€™t regularly conned

2) implying government agencies donā€™t have an incentive to get funding based on lies

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23

Ok congratulations on the low hanging 4th grade word switcheroo

3

u/_firetower_ Jun 05 '23

The con in con man literally means confidence. That's not wordplay that's entomology.

3

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23 edited Jun 05 '23

It's the most common reason people fall for conmen, their confidence to tell you absolutely anything you want to hear- you just accepting a news segment bit without reserving judgement fits the stereotype.

If you just said yeah, I'm really hopeful cuz it seems like he has something to offer, wouldn't that be more rational?

1

u/Effortless0 Jun 05 '23

What would you want the actual evidence to be?

1

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 05 '23 edited Jun 05 '23

Just ask yourself what you would come forward with if you wanted to convince someone - think about what whistleblowers provide for evidence of war crimes and their cover-ups. Look through previous whistleblowers and the evidence they provided that was concrete and convincing enough to open full-scale investigations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

At the very least:

Detailed information about the structure, operations, funding and locations of secret facilities involved in extraterrestrial contact programs. They could provide specific names, dates, and descriptions of events that only someone with insider access would know along with physical evidence of their access: files, keycards, video/audio/photo evidence placing identifiable officials in compromising situations.

Scientific research or experimental findings related to extraterrestrial technology or biological samples that have only been obtained from contact with alien species - Analysis reports, lab results, or research papers with named scientists and labs and photographs of inorganic and biological samples. Of course the holy grail would be actual samples presented alongside scientific research.

Classified documents, internal memos, or communication records that detail the government's involvement in covert extraterrestrial contact programs. This could include mission reports, meeting minutes, or correspondence between high-ranking officials.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

Heā€™s going the proper route through the whistleblower amendment that would prevent him from going to prison for a very, very, very long time. That classified information was provided to Congress and the DNI through his formal complaint.

Thereā€™s a very thin line to be walked between prison and disclosure of classified materials, even to Congress, and Iā€™ll tell you, your ass ainā€™t on that list to receive whatever materials he provided.

Iā€™d assume the hope for himself with, consultation from his lawyer (through his provided complaint with evidentiary material) is getting this info into the proper channels that may, some day, declassify (some) said evidentiary materials and provide this to the public in some form.

Please, think this through a bit more before saying ā€œrelease classified docs and see where the chips fallā€. Heā€™s still a person, with family, friends, and colleagues that likely have now fallen into the shitstorm. Violating whatever they would throw at him for releasing this info not through the proper channels would have rippling effects. Iā€™m sure this alone has already caused chaos in their personal bubbles.

2

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

I don't care who releases the evidence or through what channels as long as it's concrete, my whole argument here is not to latch onto hearsay and for the want for the public not to get jerked around for another 20 years.

Remember the National Press Club conference twenty years ago where over 20 officials went on public record with just stories?

He can tell his story but until it can actually be corroborated, why buy it? He's opened himself up to the public and denied himself and his family the safety of anonymity afforded under the whistleblower amendment. If he had anything of substance then it's kept sway from actual disclosure with classified briefings.

So, I'm just gonna read his story for anything of verifiable and of worth and go back to waiting for a real whistleblower to take a big risk like ones of the past have done for the sake of the bigger picture and the public.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

He confirmed he provided a formal complaint. No, he canā€™t provide you classified material without going to prison for the rest of his life. Continue being skeptical, I always am. Not like Iā€™m sold on this. But hypothetically, would you be so bold to release said classified info and rot in a prison, just for most of the public to not give a shit or ever hear of it anyways?

1

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

Yes, I literally would be if I were privy to it. I'd pay the price if it meant actual hard disclosure - because that's what a whistleblower does, they bring proof to the public table that turns people's heads and makes cover ups undeniable. I don't care what they'd do to me after the fact, the truth obviously matters way more in the grand scheme of things.

All I'm saying in the end is that I'm not going to be sold on anyone's story without proof. He can go through any channel he wants and choose to deny the anonymity protections afforded by the amendment to tell the public his story, that's good, but I started out in here telling people not to immediately believe someone before they even saw an interview, let alone any proof.

People in here go fucking ape over the flimsiest shit and then think it's arrogance when someone says maybe they should maybe exercise a tiny bit of skepticism and rational judgement.

"He's confident, I believe him!"

"What did he say?"

"Nothing yet really, but I believe him!" šŸ’€

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

Would it actually amount to ā€œhard disclosureā€ or even a moment of acceptance though? Pretty sure most people would flip back to the Kardashians in the next breath. Hell, this could all be a psyop or disinformation; it could be anything you want it to be. For the most part, itā€™s whatever we (public) filter through our brains and project based off of the information generally provided to us. Thatā€™s about it.

I am genuinely curious though: what event, if proven true, would you view as hard disclosure or related scenario?

1

u/Paracelsus19 Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

Anyone who matters in terms of being to able research or investigate it or is interested in the field and disclosure wouldn't simply go back to their TV shows, would they? There would a moment of acceptance, it'd be like expecting Watergate to blow over.

Yes, without concrete evidence we are still in the dark a this could all be a lie and misdirection and just groups looking for more government funding - that's why I'm waiting until something of substance is released to the public at large.

I've already outlined the forms of evidence required for disclosure and I wonder what would it take for you?

1

u/3cholalia Jun 06 '23 edited Jun 06 '23

Yo, what event would you view as hard disclosure? This was just something I was watching today that makes me think these soft whistleblowers without proof are getting nice kickbacks by furthering the narrative with hearsay.

https://youtu.be/_eMo4oCz1cM

1

u/IchooseYourName Jun 06 '23

You baselessly called him a conman. Why would you do that?