Окончательно!!! Историю Груша сообщают серьезным тоном на The Hill!!!


[https://thehill.com/opinion/4038159-stunning-ufo-crash-retrieval-allegations-deemed-credible-urgent/](https://thehill.com/opinion/4038159-stunning-ufo-crash-retrieval-allegations-deemed-credible-urgent/) Хотя The Hill не является WaPo или NYT, тот факт, что они относятся к этому серьезно, является отличный знак того, что мы на правильном пути к долгожданному воскресенью!

48 комментариев для “Окончательно!!! Историю Груша сообщают серьезным тоном на The Hill!!!

  1. Feel like this was important:

    » To eliminate potential ambiguity regarding such an extraordinary development, a knowledgeable source confirmed to me that the intelligence community inspector general found “allegations that there is a [UFO crash retrieval] program [to be] urgent and credible.”

    While this was obviously touted as a big part of The Debrief article, I did see some people contend that this was either some like inferred legal speak, or that it was suspect that the article never attributed the quote to someone. And others thought, including myself that it was just about the actual apparently retaliatory acts that Grusch suffered for whistleblowing not about the crash retrieval program allegations.

    But if this author confirmed from his own source that it was actually the Inspector General speaking about the crash retrieval program being credible and urgent, that is a very significant clarification.

  2. This opinion piece (as u/WesternAtmosphere395 pointed out) reads like a roller coaster, jumping between skepticism and then trust in almost every paragraph. Definitely interesting, though indeed not yet the smoking media gun I crave to see.

  3. >Some critics have questioned how, if such information is so highly classified, the Pentagon cleared Grusch to make these explosive statements.
    >
    >However, logic suggests that if a UFO retrieval and exploitation effort operated illegally, as is alleged, it would be unknown to the Pentagon’s censors. After all, if the pre-publication review office were “read in” to such activities, it would likely have been exposed long ago.

    I am so, so glad this point was made. I feel like, along with several other points made in this article, this point was being massively overlooked among the skeptics out there.

  4. > a knowledgeable source confirmed to me that the intelligence community inspector general found “allegations that there is a [UFO crash retrieval] program [to be] urgent and credible.”

    Ohhhh if it weren’t for those brackets I would be losing my mind right now. For the first time it’s reported that the *cover-up* is not the urgent and credible threat, but the program’s existence itself is both urgent and credible. Holy shit.

  5. This was written by a dude who regularly argues with Mick West on twitter. I don’t even disagree with him, but let’s not act like this is some outsider journalist reporting.

  6. Not surprising considering it’s a sister publication to NewsNation (they’re both owned by Nexstar Media)

    Still good to see though, people see The Hill as legit

  7. Still stuck under their opinion section:

    «THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL»

    This is the bare minimum of coverage many of the bigger outlets are willing to give right now.

  8. I’m a little new to this stuff but why do people still act like ufos aren’t a thing?? I thought we had blatant video evidence from pilots and whatnot that has been confirmed and declassified. Were those debunked or are people just hard headed? So many people still acting like it’s so far fetched that things exist and could be in our possession

  9. Not that I want over-the-top reporting, but I like that this article uses terms such as «monumental» and «earth-shattering». This is the first article that recognizes the possible scope and scale of what all of this might mean.

  10. I don’t get it; in the one news segment I saw, they said that he had asked for permission to do the interview and alerted the DOD to the answers he intended to give, and that they gave him permission to do the interview while stating that does not imply they endorse the information as true.  So, is this a «whistleblower» or not?  If he’s a disinformation agent, which seems likely to me in light of that, then he’s not even aware that he is, because the whole point would be to make it seem like he’s divulging information he shouldn’t, and once he asks for permission and is granted it, then it just becomes a DOD-sanctioned release of information, which they could have just made themselves.  Unless those idiot journalists were wrong or something.

  11. What’s going down on Sunday? I’m not really involved with UFO/UAP communities, but I like whenever you dudes get excited about stuff because it give me something to look out for :)))) also I was talkin about this stuff with one of my coworkers who’s much more into this stuff (ironically he hadn’t heard about Grusch) and he recommended the Weaponized podcast? You guys have any opinions on if it’s worth peepin?

  12. It’s an opinion piece and at top says it doesn’t represent the views of The Hill and is opinion.

    It still only all links back to one source, The Defender.

    This is one of the most important things in the history of our species. We need more than an article from The Defender.

  13. Still waiting on more credible news agencies to pick it up since The Hill and NewsNation who broke the story are both owned by Nexstar Media Group as noted in this article.

    “Grusch also gave an exclusive interview to Ross Coulthart of NewsNation, which like The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media Group.”

  14. Opinion story, not the Hill proper, they’ll let anyone say anything that drives clicks in opinions.

    Also, the author is biased AF. He compares Grusch’s process to the pentagon papers. This is a false comparison on at least the following grounds:

    1: Ellsburg leaked through the press, and waited until the post had finished confirming things, had read all the documents, and was 100% ready.

    2: Ellsburg brought 47 volumes of documents with tons of specific proof, acted outside of established legal process, and specifically ensured that the public would see the documents instead of his testimony.

    3: Ellsburg specifically ensured the times would publish 134 pages of summaries including ones hand written by high ranking pentagon staffers as proof.

    4: The story wasn’t hyped up or pushed heavily — They published and waited for the public to start to care.

    5: The government immediately tried to stop the documents.

    6: The pentagon papers, despite all the hype, did not reveal any critical secrets at the highest level, they just confirmed issues and showed that nixon was a criminal.

    7: The government wasn’t concerned about Ellsberg for the public issue, but the other knowledge he had concerning our (overzealous and completely unstable) nuclear command and control policies.

  15. 》To eliminate potential ambiguity regarding such an extraordinary development, a knowledgeable source confirmed to me that the intelligence community inspector general found “allegations that there is a [UFO crash retrieval] program [to be] urgent and credible.”《

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *