Долгая странная история Америки о разоблачителях НЛО

That last bit in the article is an opinion. What is «the best evidence?» Grusch has corroboration, both currently (because others came forward), and past corroboration: [hundreds of whistleblowers and leakers preceded him](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/).

From a historical perspective, there is no precedent to this aside from cases in which the whistleblowers’ claims turned out to be true. When you get more than a few credible whistleblowers who make specific claims (hundreds is way more than a few), the odds that the claims are generally true increase significantly. The more who come forward, the less likely it’s false. A good example that I like to cite is unethical mass surveillance. Prior to Snowden, there were at least 5-6 whistleblowers, a couple leaks from telecommunications companies, and at least one individual from the FBI who seemed to [accidentally admit it](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston) on CNN. For instance, some of those whistleblowers were [covered by 60 Minutes in the year 2000](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdm78zcv8o). We don’t have hundreds of bigfoot whistleblowers or hundreds of whistleblowers for anything at all. Just UFOs.

*Could you* have denied all of this and claimed unethical mass surveillance was nonsense and that these whistleblowers were nutjobs? Sure, but would it have been reasonable to do? Only if you weren’t aware of how credible the claims were. There was too much corroboration, so it was arguably already proven at that point. I think that’s what is happening here. People perceive that alien visitation is extraordinarily unlikely, but this is just an opinion. For all we know, such a thing could be extremely likely. Some scientists have said as much, such as Michael Hart. Just because other scientists claim it’s unlikely doesn’t mean it’s true. This therefore could be a reasonable claim just like it was reasonable to allege unethical mass surveillance prior to Snowden.

One objection might be «but governments couldn’t possibly cover that up, so yes, it is still unlikely.» However, you can actually [demonstrate that a UFO coverup took place in the US.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup/). And it wasn’t a very good one because we can demonstrate it. Additionally, not all governments are covering it up to the same degree. [Some governments have admitted that UFOs are real and that they could be extraterrestrial.](https://np.reddit.com/user/MKULTRA_Escapee/comments/zs7x28/the_various_levels_of_ufo_transparency_around_the/) A huge conspiracy is only unlikely if there aren’t any leaks. People forget that hundreds of whistleblowers and leaks have already come out.

(For anyone who thinks conspiracies are unlikely or uncommon, that is a myth. Here is a [List Of Proven Conspiracies.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/lopc))

Aside from that, there is also corroboration that alleged materials from UFOs display unusual properties. For instance, according to Garry Nolan, two of the ~ a dozen samples he’s analyzed turned out to have unusual isotopic ratios. Sure, that doesn’t make it completely undeniable yet, but it’s additional evidence. At some point, people are just going to have to accept that this looks literally exactly like a true, yet super leaky conspiracy.

Based on my limited focus, who are the favorite ‘NASA whistleblowers’ that readers trust, based on what level of verification?