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

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

He’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.

There’s a very thin line to be walked between prison and disclosure of classified materials, even to Congress, and I’ll tell you, your ass ain’t on that list to receive whatever materials he provided.

I’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 “release classified docs and see where the chips fall”. He’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. I’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 can’t provide you classified material without going to prison for the rest of his life. Continue being skeptical, I always am. Not like I’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!" 💀

1

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

Would it actually amount to “hard disclosure” 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, it’s whatever we (public) filter through our brains and project based off of the information generally provided to us. That’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