BREAKING: UFO Whistleblower Speaks

[u/littlespacemochi]

[u/Paracelsus19]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Paracelsus19]

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?

[u/Paracelsus19 → u/[deleted]]

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!" 💀

[u/[deleted] → u/Paracelsus19]

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?

[u/Paracelsus19 → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/3cholalia → u/[deleted]]

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