Reminds me of the BBC announcing a UK ground force was on its way to Goose Green during the Falklands War. They also revealed Argentine bombs were hitting RN warships but no exploding. The Argentine pilots were releasing their bombs from too low an altitude and they weren't having time to arm before hitting their targets.
Agreed, didn't say he did. Having both watched the UAP hearing and read its transcript multiple times, my recollection is Grusch was extremely conservative in what he revealed in that public setting. The bottom line was to point out in response to @MapperGuy that someone could get into trouble even for "spilling the beans" on a nonexistent program/project if in doing so they revealed classified data/information in the process.
It does not make sense. I worked for on contracts funded by DARPA. If I stated tomorrow that there is an illegal bigfoot program but in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA I would be in trouble.
That's what your former IC IG legal counsel is for.
Had never really thought of that. I'm pretty sure I can name many of the nations with which the US have no extradition treaty. Those that would offer anything approaching a Western standard/style of living would probably be beholding to the US, and therefore subject to pressure from the US to deport or otherwise silence anyone attempting to release highly classified information of any kind. Conversely, countries where such an individual would be beyond the reach of the US government would be nations the whistleblowers wouldn't want to go to.
Just because you have an extradition treaty doesn't mean you automatically extrodite. We refused to send some alleged criminals to the US just last week.
There are a number of nations that will not extradite criminals to countries where they face the death penalty.
I saw a couple of tropical islands on the list I'd be willing to investigate further, should the need ever arise... just sayin'.
Is there any evidence that Elizondo is contemplating fleeing to a country with no extradition treaty with the US? If not this discussion is off topic.I saw a couple of tropical islands on the list I'd be willing to investigate further, should the need ever arise... just sayin'.
That doesn't make sense. It's ok to break your NDA because Charles McCullough, previous Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is your lawyer? Actually I'm sure the aforementioned lawyer advised him against this. No offence meant but on this topic you seem to disagree in advance and form your logic after that decision. That's the only explanation for what you said.
Mr McCullogh should be able to draft a release in such a way that the illegal program is characterized without revealing facts legally covered by the NDA. This lawyer is definitely able to craft statements that are both meaningful and legal, if that is at all possible.
Do you have sources for that claim?
Sure I do speculate, but I do not believe for a second Lue didn't know the answer to that question he was asked, i think he just knew the answer would look worse than the
What are those two degrees?
So I realized Greenstreet's 1966 publishing date must have been incorrect. The funny part is that there is a 1966 version of the article but it was published in IEEE Spectrum, a public journal! You can follow this link to the original paper to confirm it's the same article as the later version, the difference being the NSA version had some extra paragraphs referring to those 1971 meetings. (Scroll down to the section written by Lambros D. Callimahos, the author named in the NSA version).External Quote:
The SUN article shown is dated February 2022.External Quote:
That's an easy answer. The report was written in 1966, when SETI just about got started:External Quote:
Article: Soviet astronomer Iosif Shklovsky wrote the pioneering book in the field, Universe, Life, Intelligence (1962), which was expanded upon by American astronomer Carl Sagan as the best-selling book Intelligent Life in the Universe (1966).[17]
Lue Elizondo is consciously keeping that date from his audience, because even the date of the SUN publication would disprove his own point, much less the fact that the author of that report died in 1977. We've talked above on whether Elizondo is trustworthy, and this is just one more example why he isn't: he has consciously decided to keep information from his audience in order to mislead them into agreeing with his opinion.
Greenewald reported on this 2 days after the article released by the Sun. Greenstreet is just rehashing an old story.
Article: 1:12
called the sun, but also the entire story got very much a big boost in exposure on fade to black
with jimmy church the other night when he was interviewing luis elizondo
now i was surprised to hear that mr elizonda would bring up such a document
....
4:45
i know mr alizondo was asked by jimmy church
for a chronological context when was this document written. it was not stated in either the article or on Fade to Black
5:01
because it's not recent, although the
5:03
article [in The Sun] absolutely makes it seem like it's recent
It wasn't today. From the Twitter video clip [0:00]:
The SUN article shown is dated February 2022.External Quote:
Even if Elizondo didn't know when the report was originally released, his use of "now" is deceptive. The conversation "now" is Grusch, and even that news article predates that, as well as last year's UAPTF hearings!
You previously asked for evidence that studies detailing the anti vax autism claim make an impact, now you seem to be asking for claims that other whistleblowers have previously come forward and circumvented their NDA to provide information. This isn't debunking at this stage, it's contrarianism. I disagree with you about some things and because of that you seem to question things accepted in mainstream science and history.
Supporting your assertions with evidence is required according to the Posting Guidelines.
Indeed which one? It is not realistic to provide evidence as to a precise metric by which a paper refuting anti vax claims has "made an impact". This isn't a question which makes sense in relation to to a scientific article. It actually arose from my simply describing my involvement in scientific debunking.
So your two examples are Felt who did it anonymously and Snepp who was not prosecuted as you claim but lost a lawsuit which means he didnot circumvent the consequences.
.
I think you're misunderstanding. Where did I say they circumvented the consequences? I stated that they circumvented their NDA in such a way (anonymous reporting ect) that the government was spurred on to investigate.
Most, if not all, NDAs (all the ones I have signed) include a section outlining consequences for non compliant.disclosure. You cannot circumvent the NDA without circumventing the consequences.
For the record, your claim was:
The context is of course whether a UFO study would be a waste of money or not.
Yes. However, we have been discussing blowing the whistle on illegal operations. The Saigon evacuation may have been incompetent, but it was not illegal, and writing about it did not exempt Snepp from his NDA.
Article: Second witness: Dr. David MacMichael
David MacMichael was an expert on counter-insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and Latin American affairs, he was also a witness because he was closely involved with U.S. intelligence activities as a contract employee from March 1981 – April 1983.
Well, again you're mentioning consequences. However, we're agreeing that disclosure is not a painless process. We also seem to be agreeing that the posters just stating "disclose or don't" are looking at this from a simplistic viewpoint.
McMicheal was called to appear in court as a witness wasn't he?
I have a BS in General Biology with a focus on microbiology. I also have a Masters of Public health with a focus on toxicology and drinking water treatment.
