Every time I hear the phrase "under oath" I mentally replace it with "pinky promise" because it all has tbe exact same amount of weight. There's no reason to assume someone is being truthful just because they promised you they aren't lying.

Then there is the technicality of "if they believe it is the truth then they aren't lying" so as long as other have convinced them enough for them to believe it, then they haven't broken their oath.

This is just meaningless elementary school behavior from adults and anyone that can't see that or thinks oaths and such symbolic social constructs are meaningful are not worth taking seriously.

[–] whiskyriot@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Unlike pinky promising, there are serious criminal penalties for lying under oath. It's perjury and counts as a felony and comes with up to 7 years in prison. Not to mention what it would do to your career, especially a career in the military/intelligence.

[–] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For those serious criminal penalties to happen, you’d have to prove that the testimony was a deliberate lie. So, once again, we’re back to proof. Besides, the guy with the most interesting testimony only offered up hearsay - things he was told by others. He didn’t claim to personally have seen any wreckage, alien bodies, etc.

Even reading about it felt like a waste of time. My sympathies to anyone who actually watched it live.

[–] lorez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

To me the most interesting one was the testimony, video and all the rest from the pilot of the tic tac incident.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so as long as other have convinced them enough for them to believe it, then they haven't broken their oath.

[–] whiskyriot@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. Grusch could have been misled and bought into lies/misinformation. But at the very least I think HE believes it or wouldn't be putting his career in jeopardy by reporting to Inspector Generals and testifying to Congress.

The above poster makes it sound like he is likely to be lying about it, which I think is a weak character attack and not arguing in good faith.

Don't forget, along with the oral and written testimony, Grusch supposedly provided enough evidence to the ICIG to warrant an "urgent and credible" threat.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 1 year ago

You can pinky swear to lie on a testimoy, but you can't testify to lie on a pinky swear.