Who should we trust more:
the 3 military personnel/whistleblower who requested to be sworn in under oath
Or the person who frequently denies to be put under oath and instead vents on LinkedIn
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
123 points (94.9% liked)
News
23671 readers
4539 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed. Not one single piece of empirical evidence. Just "they told me that..."
In their defense, the only reason the government allowed him to talk about it WAS because it's hearsay. The government allowing him to talk is neither a denial or confirmation of the anything he said. The interesting part to me was that he said he was willing to talk specifics in a SCIF, but for some reason wasn't allowed use of one. Also the hearing, while talking about UAP, is actually more about how congress has been allegedly kept from oversite of a government program and that's illegal.
There was empirical evidence shown, just not to the public, because said evidence is classified. That's why so much has happened since this hearing.
https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1684735678200909824?t=rnxdggCC5-MGA8M65kWGhQ&s=19
Sure, believable.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick’s letter, published on his personal LinkedIn page and circulated Friday across social media, criticizes much of the testimony from a retired Air Force intelligence officer that energized believers in extraterrestrial life and produced headlines around the world.
Lol, did he want him to walk in with an alien?
He must realize that, if he had first hand evidence, he’d have been dead by now if he was talking like this.