“The sheer number of reports, whistleblowers and stories of unidentified anomalous phenomena should raise real questions and warrant investigation and oversight. And that’s why we are here today,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said in his opening statement. "UAPs, whatever they may be, may pose a serious threat to our military or civilian aircraft. And that must be understood."
AOC was there and did ask a question that provided the only name of a possibly involved department.
If anyone's reading this, I would recommend watching the hearings. It was very serious for everyone, on both sides of the aisle. The partisanship was left at the door, and the allegations were serious.
People probably don't believe the whistleblower, I understand. Regardless, accusations of serious government fraud from someone of his tenure should be investigated. You don't give up your whole career over a possibility of fraud or more.
Not necessarily, but I do think that if there's a big UFO coverup dating back half a century, it's obviously highly compartmentalized, and probably more tightly controlled than your run-of-the-mill top secret (or even SCI) documents. Trump's a clown, it's obvious he's a clown, and the people who control such a hypothetical UFO program would do everything in their power to prevent such a clown from 1) becoming aware of their program, and if necessary 2) gaining access to information about their program.
I have often wondered what the definition of "need to know" (one of the requirements for being read into classified information) is for a President, a temporary government employee.
Two presidents claimed to have seen a UFO. Both never declassified it. One even ran on that promise. Barack Obama and his wife are producing a documentary about a famous UFO event currently. If there is a UAP program, the presidents are not told about it, probably because of the possibility of a mishandling of that information, that's what I think. If, of course, you think it exists at all.
Your clear bias and overly emotional responses makes me dismiss want you’re trying to say. Can you try rephrasing everything in a clear and data driven approach?
18 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] threadIf anyone's reading this, I would recommend watching the hearings. It was very serious for everyone, on both sides of the aisle. The partisanship was left at the door, and the allegations were serious.
People probably don't believe the whistleblower, I understand. Regardless, accusations of serious government fraud from someone of his tenure should be investigated. You don't give up your whole career over a possibility of fraud or more.