Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceres
Yeah but I can't help you if you're not digesting my repsonses.
I spent several paragraphs outlining how interconnected and consistent they all are and how if one cog goes then they all go. Grusch's testimony isn't only spectacular because of who he was (confirmed) nor necessarily because of what he's saying (long discussed in ufology circles), it's the fact he's backed up by so many key players and confirms their narrative too, on top of everything that's led to this point. It's called corroborative evidence. It's not a black and white science, it requires the ability to handle and balance incomplete information.
No you haven't. You're basically like Luckbox claiming media coverage on ufos is "different" somehow, while refusing to specify how. You're claiming Grusch's claims are somehow different but not showing how with validity. Grusch claimed to have talked to some people, so his claims are no different/significant than previous claims. It's not corroborative evidence, it's just other claims.
Quote:
You have to contextualise. This isn't Bob Lazar, some loner even your dad can tell he's not a proper physicist and the coumminty splits on whether he's legit. Or Corso some mad old git. This isn't even Luis Elizondo who only really came out originally saying 'we see strange things'. This is high stakes, the motherload level heart-of-governement disclosure: either ufology as it is understood by ufologists is real or it 100% isn't. We're going to find out, soon.
Corso was a LT Colonel. An army officer just like Grusch and Richard Doty. Lazar claimed to have worked at Area 51 just as Doty claimed to be part of a group that dealt with crashed alien craft. In the absence of proof, Grusch is currently no different. And Grusch's complaint is alleged harassment he received after making his claims, so even if it's stated there's "something" to his claims, this could be just re the harassment.
Quote:
By testifying in this way they're effectively trying to FORCE the governement to fess up one way or another. Either these guys are bullshit artists or they aint. They can't spin this ambiguity forever, and if that was the intent this only makes that less likely. Hardly the actions of grifters looking to surf the wave of ambiguity for an early retirement.
I'm currently going with they are actually bs artists. If proof emerges I'll happily change my mind as this would be the biggest development in human history. But currently I'm sceptical and calling bool-sheeit.
Quote:
You might disagree. Good, skepticism is good. But don't pretend there is zero argument just because you can't conceptualise it or approve of it. There are plenty of valid logical reasons, him being under oath is another one, why Grusch's testimony is game changing and exceptional. To pretend otherwise is just an opinion that ignores the facts.
Claims- especially claims with sfa to back 'em up- aren't compelling arguments at all.
So I reiterate that this isn't especially big news.