7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs
1206 readers
15 users here now
A community for civil discourse related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Share your sightings, experiences, news, and investigations. Everyone is welcome here, from believers to skeptics and everything in between.
New to Lemmy?
See the Getting Started Guide
Want Disclosure?
Declassify UAP offers a tool that automatically finds your representatives and sends them a prewritten message.
Community Spotlight
Featured Posts and User Investigations
Useful Links
- UAP Guide
- Disclosure Diaries
- UAP Timeline
- UFOs Wiki
- MUFON - Mutual UFO Network
- Investigate a Sighting
- Report a Sighting
Community Rules
- Follow the Code of Conduct.
- Posts must be on-topic.
- No duplicate posts.
- No commercial activity.
- No memes.
- Titles must accurately represent the content of the submission.
- Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).
- Common Question posts must include a link to the previous question thread if previously asked.
- Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
- Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.
Other Communities
If you're interested in moderating or have any suggestions for the community, feel free to contact SignullGone or HM05_Me.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I find it curious that this have seemingly been worked on for decades and that the book was published years before the recent hearings that brought up the incident again. It could either support the claim as an independent third party, but could as easily be the source of the claims as well.
That's a big concern for me. Either "everything" is true or nothing is seems to be one set of extreme outcomes. I mean what if it were all true? Mind blown.
I have to wonder if he's mixed in some things like this in this media interviews to have some plausible deniability. "Oh, yeah, I read that somewhere." As in "I was never divulging secrets publically, just relating things I believe to be true from the public domain". That doesn't mean he doesn't know the real info as well.
Edit: sorry, I wanted to finish this thought. What I am saying is when he got clearance to talk publicly about these things, he was cleared because nothing he said he wanted to discuss was classified. He could have easily cited various ufology books and articles as the source of his information. That leaves him free to speak to the media (raising awareness and ensuring he had a public profile) while also talking in SCIFs about the actual info.