this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
963 points (96.6% liked)
Memes
45643 readers
1153 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They didn't. They did confirm ufo sightings but there's nothing said on aliens/extraterrestrial origin.
Grusch has sworn under oath that there are departments in the government that have actual alien crafts and bodies.
Every time I hear the phrase "under oath" I mentally replace it with "pinky promise" because it all has tbe exact same amount of weight. There's no reason to assume someone is being truthful just because they promised you they aren't lying.
Then there is the technicality of "if they believe it is the truth then they aren't lying" so as long as other have convinced them enough for them to believe it, then they haven't broken their oath.
This is just meaningless elementary school behavior from adults and anyone that can't see that or thinks oaths and such symbolic social constructs are meaningful are not worth taking seriously.
Unlike pinky promising, there are serious criminal penalties for lying under oath. It's perjury and counts as a felony and comes with up to 7 years in prison. Not to mention what it would do to your career, especially a career in the military/intelligence.
For those serious criminal penalties to happen, you’d have to prove that the testimony was a deliberate lie. So, once again, we’re back to proof. Besides, the guy with the most interesting testimony only offered up hearsay - things he was told by others. He didn’t claim to personally have seen any wreckage, alien bodies, etc.
Even reading about it felt like a waste of time. My sympathies to anyone who actually watched it live.
To me the most interesting one was the testimony, video and all the rest from the pilot of the tic tac incident.
I agree. Grusch could have been misled and bought into lies/misinformation. But at the very least I think HE believes it or wouldn't be putting his career in jeopardy by reporting to Inspector Generals and testifying to Congress.
The above poster makes it sound like he is likely to be lying about it, which I think is a weak character attack and not arguing in good faith.
Don't forget, along with the oral and written testimony, Grusch supposedly provided enough evidence to the ICIG to warrant an "urgent and credible" threat.
You can pinky swear to lie on a testimoy, but you can't testify to lie on a pinky swear.