The good news is that this story is buried online and most comments from subscribers are critical of WaPo’s decision to publish their article.
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
22 points (95.8% liked)
UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs
1330 readers
1 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's reassuring. Hopefully, their subscriber base encourages them to cover this topic with the seriousness it warrants.
Personally, I don't believe the media's reporting will make a difference. Whatever David Grusch said behind closed doors in a classified setting is either true or not.
Although, I must say, if more articles emerge smearing David Grusch, one has to wonder why. If he isn't telling the truth, one would assume he would simply be ignored. Media outlets attempting to discredit him only make it seem like something is being concealed.
Precisely.
While I do agree with you, the vast majority of people are not open to what he's saying so this will contribute to their ability to dismiss him.
He testified to these things under oath. He should be prosecuted for lying to a congressional committee. This isn't going to happen which will cause unconcious cognitive dissonance in the general public who is aware of the testimony.
When these planted stories discredit him, people can think he's just a nut that it would be a waste of time to charge with lying to a congressional committee.
The Washington Post has released the article. It implies that NewsNation is primarily driven by financial interests in covering this story (though it's worth noting that financial motives are common among journalists). The article highlights Klippenstein's disclosure of Grusch's past struggles with alcoholism and questions the origins of his information. On Twitter, most of the reactions criticize the reporter, and numerous users are sharing the "I stand with Grusch" graphic.
I love this. Like every other news outlet are these altruistic truth seekers. Yes, there is a financial motivation. That's how news media stay in business. They report information people are interested in.
The other thing is that there is really no connection here between his News Nation appearance and congressional testimony. I mean, yes, there is some relationship there between Corbell/Knapp and Coulthart/Zabel but there's so much more going on here, like his prior career, maybe?
To play Devil's Advocate, it is conceivable that those guys are all working together to "produce" this whole thing like a crazy guerilla reality tv show. Let's assume that. Now, what is Grusch's motivation to go along? The only explanation if all of that is true is Grusch is the most gullible human being on the planet and was convinced to play along here for a share of, what, exactly? Podcast ad revenue? Publication rights? Split five ways? Come on.
Meanwhile, we have to assume his entire career was some Forrest Gump situation for him to be this foolish and still have done what he's done.
Look, I have no idea what's really going on here but the more slings and arrows they hurl at him, the more it's looking like something real is backing his testimony.
I'm fully prepared to find out there isn't (e.g. he admits it was all a ruse and the other people involved were in on it) but right now my mind is far more open to the possibility that there's something there than it was a couple months ago.
At this point, the idea that all these people are involved in a conspiracy to concoct this narrative, and have the ability to convince Congress to draft legislation around it, seems less plausible than David Grusch being truthful, especially given the sightings that have been reported since WWII.