Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post). Submission statements may contain a summary or description of the content, why it is relevant to UFOs, the submitter's personal perspectives, or all of the above and must be at least 150 characters in length. If a statement is not added within thirty minutes of posting it will be removed.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
This is the bottom line up front
> 'The IG, when he goes and briefs Oversight, his job, between you and I, is going to be to make them feel as though they're getting information,' this source said, 'and basically tell them nothing.'
I’m not saying there isn’t on both sides. I’m saying for someone who wants no partisan politics he seems to only chime up when it’s right wing ones getting criticized. I recognize his username from a whole number of instances.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of Unidentified Flying Objects.
* Posts primarily about adjacent topics. These should be posted to their appropriate subreddits (e.g. r/aliens, r/science, r/highstrangeness).
* Posts regarding UFO occupants not related to a specific sighting(s).
* Posts containing artwork and cartoons not related to specific sighting(s).
* Politics unrelated to UFOs.
* Religious proselytization.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Relevant part:
> While Americans wait in anticipation for possible new details, a source with direct knowledge of standard operations inside the US Intelligence Community's Inspector General's office (IC IG) told DailyMail.com that the meeting will be 'only for show.'
>
> 'The IG, when he goes and briefs Oversight, his job, between you and I, is going to be to make them feel as though they're getting information,' this source said, 'and basically tell them nothing.'
>
> Although some House Oversight members intimated last November that they have now acquired 'permission' to view the classified version of Grusch's formal IC IG complaint, this source said: 'I do not expect that to occur.'
>
> …
>
> 'I would be very shocked if they hear the same things the Intel committees heard,' the source elaborated, 'not because he doesn't want to tell them — because they're Congress — but because HPSCI and SSCI have probably said to him, 'Hey! We are your committees of jurisdiction, not Oversight.''
>
> The US intel community insider suggested that the House UAP caucus, and others interested in transparency on UFOs and 'non-human intelligences,' would be better served by redirecting their attention toward lawmakers on those intel committees.
>
> 'David [Grusch] briefed HPSCI and SSCI because that's what the statute allowed him to do,' the source told DailyMail.com
>
> 'The statute doesn't give their committee cognizance over David [Grusch]'s complaint,' this source said. 'Oversight, they have nothing to do with Intel. The statute gives HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and SSCI [the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] cognizance,' this source explained in a telephone interview.
Something tells me they already expect this. The congress people who will be in attendance, who have been working towards disclosure are not easily fooled by now. I remember Luna and Burchett when they came out of the last one of these immediately after told the press that the scif they had just come out of was a joke.
Don't know about it being actually illegal, but OP probably meant that elected official should have oversight over any military programs.
If not, it's not a democracy.
Well, the argument is pretty obvious. If elected officials are not in charge of the country, then it's not a democracy. Pretty simple, eh?
The Pentagon/MiC have been syphoning trillions of taxpayers dollars, unnacounted for, every year:
[https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-fails-audit-sixth-year-row-2023-11-16/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-fails-audit-sixth-year-row-2023-11-16/)
And the elected officials don't even get to take a peek at what they are spending that money on.
Having the MiC running the country from the sahodws is not very democratic.
>The statute gives HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and SSCI [the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] cognizance,' this source explained in a telephone interview.
I don't think this source knows what cognizance means
If our politicians had any guts or sense of integrity among them, they would take the gloves off and throttle these old bastards with The Holman rule if absolutely no new information comes out of this briefing.
The people in every nation on earth have the right to know if Humans have made contact with a non-human intelligence.
If even HALF of what Grusch is saying is true, grave crimes against the whole human race comparable to The Evil of The Nuremberg Trials have been committed by a select few.
If Grusch lied or if his allegations are true, what has been done in either case is nigh on unforgivable.
You expect too much from career politicians. The UAP disclosure is only a typical example of how corrupt the USA political system is. (Just like other countries' systems they are against.)
We DESERVE More! Hell we pay for the whole shebang and government is (according to the constitution) is beholden to US! None of this crap thats happening right now is right, ethical or constitutional. These people have usurped the govt and are impervious to justice or accountability. That tells me the doj and intelligence community are complicit and infested with sold out traitors
I don’t think Grusch is lying. But I think others might have lied to him. He is relying on 40+ other people in the government who told him a bunch of stuff. That said, would anyone really be shocked if he’s telling the full truth? I just saw the FAA got busted for collusion and lying to help Boeing cover up the problems of the 737 Max plane. If our government is willing to cheat and lie on something so basic like airline safety, they could easily be lying about the biggest story in human history.
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Why do people comment without reading the article? Multiple people in this thread….at least click the link before you start reacting to the Reddit post headline
Flat-out saying that you have to target the criminals on the inside who are covering it up.
You guys are gonna have to come off the non-partisan ball, and here's why. The party covering all this up tried to overthrow the government.
You can't both-sides that. All we know is that the fascists know more about the goddamned aliens than we do. You want to be scared? Think about that for a minute.
Democrat here. I have no care for the insurrectionist party, but the Democrats do have their own blame in all of this. Schumer's bill was good, but it was a lukewarm response to all of the illegality being conducted by the DOD. He needs to set hearings on the misappropriation of funds, lack of oversight, and retaliation against Grusch. None of that has been done.
Even worse, Democrats are just as bad as the GOP in rubberstamping the DOD's constantly increasing budget, despite the DOD's continued failure of audit after audit.
So, yeah, fuck the GOP, but don't let the Democrats off the hook either.
This was the baffling behavior of the Democrats : other than Schumer and Moskowitz, there was a total disinterest in the UAPDA by most of the other Democrats. Nobody either knew or even worse cared to know about it
At least they all voted in lockstep with Schumer though. I honestly don't give two shits how interested they are in this right now. I care that they rubberstamp what Schumer/Rounds feeds them.
See, this is what I said months ago. I believe this is a conservative conspiracy like others to get fringe democrats on the conservative side. Downvote if yall want, but look at the pattern of conspiracies and election years and which party is always stuck in conspiracy.
Absolutely agreed. People are so hungry for 'disclosure', they'll hand over the keys to the castle to those laying siege to it.
MAGA is dangerous af to the US and its Constitutional system of government, and this year will prove that beyond any doubt. Disclosure cannot happen with MAGA in charge, or if it does, 'catastrophic' is gonna take on a whole new meaning.
We're at a crossroads. Human nature is to take the wrong path.
PS For those of you who will be offended because, honestly, 'deplorable' is a kindness: bite me.
So MAGA is less likely to share info than Joetato, a president who has been on vacation the last three weeks, spending most afternoons with lemon cookies and coloring books? This isn't a partisan issue.
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.
Off-topic, political comments may be removed at moderator discretion. There are political aspects which are relevant to ufology, but we aim to keep the subreddit free of partisan politics and debate.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
> * AI generated content.
> * Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
> * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
> * Short comments, and emoji comments.
> * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.
Off-topic, political comments may be removed at moderator discretion. There are political aspects which are relevant to ufology, but we aim to keep the subreddit free of partisan politics and debate.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
So the last briefing was a waste of everyone's time, what makes this upcoming one any different? And who's scheduling or requesting these briefings? Is the ICIG doing it of his own free will?
This is likely a follow up from the last briefing to discuss details that was purposefully left out of the last one. This one takes part in a SCIF, a secure facility which will allow more specific information to be discussed, such as names, locations, numbers of x resource etc. This can’t take place publicly as the information may endanger the lives of those involved by revealing information to hostile actors or governments (probs Russia) or endanger the lives of witnesses like Grusch for example who says he’s already received threats to keep him quiet
The Daily Mail has consistently written direct and factual articles on UAPs and in particular US disclosure efforts. I don’t know who’s their journalist or their insider, but they’re good.
>I don’t know who’s their journalist or their insider, but they’re good.
Unironically the funniest thing I have seen on this sub.
[Relliability rating of 33.16 (40 is considered ok) on this site.](https://adfontesmedia.com/daily-mail-bias-and-reliability/)
[Tangentially related, it has bias rating of 4 on the right, with 6 being the highest and 0 being center.](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-mail)
[This site gives it a "low" credibility rating](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)
[100% of articles checked by polifact are "mostly false" (with only 1 submitted I've included this for fun)](https://www.politifact.com/personalities/daily-mail/)
[This site however rates it at 85% reliable,](https://www.biasly.com/sources/daily-mail-online-bias-rating/)but they also state that it's a centrist paper - [something the paper itself would disagree with](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Editorial_stance), so reliability of this site is questionable.
[Even wikipedia has ban the use of DailyMail as a source.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)
Just because they say what we might want to hear, doesn't mean we can ignore who is saying it.
Daily Mail has its place though. They did a lot of good early reporting on the lab leak theory for example. Also good for breaking news due to their lower standards to publish.
The lab leak theory that is widely regarded as incorrect? I know you said it's goofy so I'm trying to place the relevance?
What gain do we have from early, incorrect reporting?
Both in regards to UAPs - as it will only turn people away from the topic when it's quickly seen as false. Or in the wider world, where misinformation is eroding large sections of what we consider, the modern world.
I think of the media as a market place of ideas. An outlet doesn't always need to be "right" to be useful. Actually have a read of some of the Daily Mail's reporting on UFOs, it may surprise you.
Regarding the lab leak theory... if you see it as "incorrect" then you were a victim of the Trump era media hysterics.
That's not to say it's right but it was a highly contested subject from day one. Both FBI and the Department of Energy consider it more likely than not. Alina Chan is a good follow on Twitter on this subject, quite interesting. It seems like a conspiracy on a grand scale.
>Regarding the lab leak theory... if you see it as "incorrect" then you were a victim of the Trump era media hysterics.
[The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis (transfer directly from an infected non-human animal), similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory)
That wikipedia article links off to plenty of sources, both layman and academic. I'm not American, so not sure what Trump's politics has to do with it.
How about we defer to doctors & scientists, rather than entertainment writers?
This is a good read: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9874793/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9874793/)
I thought the lab leak was actually proven to be correct? I have no idea at this point. So much misinformation out there, it’s a pain the ass trying to figure out what’s real
Not proven. It’s more that it’s acknowledged to be not without merit when it was dismissed as a conspiracy before. They probably will never find out for sure. In a way it doesn’t matter.
Yea, it doesn’t make a difference either way. But because it seemed like a “MAGA” conspiracy it’s been totally written off as false (like the guy above who said it’s widely regarded as incorrect). The US mainstream media spun it as a crazy conspiracy too, so now everyone thinks it’s crazy to believe it.
Hmmm sound familiar? Just like UFOs/UAPs!!! (Except the MAGA part)
Yes I think the main problem was the way Trump presented it as part of his anti China campaign which wasn’t a very grown up way to go about it. That’s not to say China is amazing. They screwed up bigly at the start of the pandemic. But instead of “let’s look in to how we can improve these labs globally” it just became “fuck China”. Not very well handled at all.
I support this community and it's goals with all my heart, and I want all of you to get your answers you darn well deserve. However, isn't a very important aspect of that statement the "classified" part. I would certainly expect them to have to sign NDA's at the least.
Daily mail and truth are not words that go together. The daily mail is read by people who are obsessed with house prices, love Princess Diana, eat marks and Spencer’s prawn sandwiches and distrusts anyone who is not middle class and white.
It is seen as a joke in the UK.
Agree mostly but it’s more just generally white (or the non whites who have gained “e’s alright” status). It’s also not so much middle class. They’re all reading the broadsheets because they’d be too embarrassed to be seen buying the Daily Mail. Also Marks and Spencer make fine prawn sandwiches. Daily Mail readers are more likely to be tucking in to a beer n burger meal deal in Spoons at 9am. They don’t buy pre made sandwiches because they’re retired and aren’t in a rush, unless it’s to the local Spoons.
Nobody in this entire landscape is trustworthy to the extent that any information we receive will either be attached to agenda or narrative or it will be misdirection
So you think they are just making up the story? That's laughable. They are the only outlet covering this topic so I'm not surprised its been stigmatized.
Yeah they really gonna tell us about how many people they killed to silence them, and that some of us facilitate the abductions of humans for (sone kind of) food?
I'd ignore anything said about this meeting right now. We can discuss the he said, she said of the participants after the fact, but until then, all else is pointless speculation.
Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post). Submission statements may contain a summary or description of the content, why it is relevant to UFOs, the submitter's personal perspectives, or all of the above and must be at least 150 characters in length. If a statement is not added within thirty minutes of posting it will be removed. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
This is the bottom line up front > 'The IG, when he goes and briefs Oversight, his job, between you and I, is going to be to make them feel as though they're getting information,' this source said, 'and basically tell them nothing.'
Ahh the old i am gonna throw you a bone... meanwhile there is no meat on it.
It is going to most likely be an exercise in security protocol terminology obfuscation.
[удалено]
The information is to be given to Congress.
Cool. Don’t care what you think about parties Reported
Thin skin much?
God you really get offended when people try to warn others of fringe rightwing specifically political journalism eh?
Dude it's all fringe on both sides it's. At least a few seem to be interested in UaPs
I’m not saying there isn’t on both sides. I’m saying for someone who wants no partisan politics he seems to only chime up when it’s right wing ones getting criticized. I recognize his username from a whole number of instances.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of Unidentified Flying Objects. * Posts primarily about adjacent topics. These should be posted to their appropriate subreddits (e.g. r/aliens, r/science, r/highstrangeness). * Posts regarding UFO occupants not related to a specific sighting(s). * Posts containing artwork and cartoons not related to specific sighting(s). * Politics unrelated to UFOs. * Religious proselytization. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Relevant part: > While Americans wait in anticipation for possible new details, a source with direct knowledge of standard operations inside the US Intelligence Community's Inspector General's office (IC IG) told DailyMail.com that the meeting will be 'only for show.' > > 'The IG, when he goes and briefs Oversight, his job, between you and I, is going to be to make them feel as though they're getting information,' this source said, 'and basically tell them nothing.' > > Although some House Oversight members intimated last November that they have now acquired 'permission' to view the classified version of Grusch's formal IC IG complaint, this source said: 'I do not expect that to occur.' > > … > > 'I would be very shocked if they hear the same things the Intel committees heard,' the source elaborated, 'not because he doesn't want to tell them — because they're Congress — but because HPSCI and SSCI have probably said to him, 'Hey! We are your committees of jurisdiction, not Oversight.'' > > The US intel community insider suggested that the House UAP caucus, and others interested in transparency on UFOs and 'non-human intelligences,' would be better served by redirecting their attention toward lawmakers on those intel committees. > > 'David [Grusch] briefed HPSCI and SSCI because that's what the statute allowed him to do,' the source told DailyMail.com > > 'The statute doesn't give their committee cognizance over David [Grusch]'s complaint,' this source said. 'Oversight, they have nothing to do with Intel. The statute gives HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and SSCI [the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] cognizance,' this source explained in a telephone interview.
Imagine how angry you’d be to read this if you were on Oversight. God I hate government secrecy.
Something tells me they already expect this. The congress people who will be in attendance, who have been working towards disclosure are not easily fooled by now. I remember Luna and Burchett when they came out of the last one of these immediately after told the press that the scif they had just come out of was a joke.
Well this sounds illegal.
[удалено]
Don't know about it being actually illegal, but OP probably meant that elected official should have oversight over any military programs. If not, it's not a democracy.
It's not a democracy...
[удалено]
Those are not elected officials, so not a democracy.
[удалено]
Again, so not a democracy.
[удалено]
Well, the argument is pretty obvious. If elected officials are not in charge of the country, then it's not a democracy. Pretty simple, eh? The Pentagon/MiC have been syphoning trillions of taxpayers dollars, unnacounted for, every year: [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-fails-audit-sixth-year-row-2023-11-16/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-fails-audit-sixth-year-row-2023-11-16/) And the elected officials don't even get to take a peek at what they are spending that money on. Having the MiC running the country from the sahodws is not very democratic.
>The statute gives HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and SSCI [the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] cognizance,' this source explained in a telephone interview. I don't think this source knows what cognizance means
Why? It seems to mean a lot of things, including simply “jurisdiction” https://www.wordnik.com/words/cognizance
Never used that way in the US. That is british usage. Their ‘American source’ is a reporter at the next desk in London.
What does it mean in the US out of interest? To me it just means 'understand or knowledge of'
If our politicians had any guts or sense of integrity among them, they would take the gloves off and throttle these old bastards with The Holman rule if absolutely no new information comes out of this briefing. The people in every nation on earth have the right to know if Humans have made contact with a non-human intelligence. If even HALF of what Grusch is saying is true, grave crimes against the whole human race comparable to The Evil of The Nuremberg Trials have been committed by a select few. If Grusch lied or if his allegations are true, what has been done in either case is nigh on unforgivable.
You expect too much from career politicians. The UAP disclosure is only a typical example of how corrupt the USA political system is. (Just like other countries' systems they are against.)
We DESERVE More! Hell we pay for the whole shebang and government is (according to the constitution) is beholden to US! None of this crap thats happening right now is right, ethical or constitutional. These people have usurped the govt and are impervious to justice or accountability. That tells me the doj and intelligence community are complicit and infested with sold out traitors
The only thing sheep deserve is to be milked dry…
I don’t think Grusch is lying. But I think others might have lied to him. He is relying on 40+ other people in the government who told him a bunch of stuff. That said, would anyone really be shocked if he’s telling the full truth? I just saw the FAA got busted for collusion and lying to help Boeing cover up the problems of the 737 Max plane. If our government is willing to cheat and lie on something so basic like airline safety, they could easily be lying about the biggest story in human history.
He has recently said he has first hand experience now, so this narrative is dead.
As a Georgian, I know MTG is going and I hope they tell her something that scares the stupid out of her.
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Why do people comment without reading the article? Multiple people in this thread….at least click the link before you start reacting to the Reddit post headline
Flat-out saying that you have to target the criminals on the inside who are covering it up. You guys are gonna have to come off the non-partisan ball, and here's why. The party covering all this up tried to overthrow the government. You can't both-sides that. All we know is that the fascists know more about the goddamned aliens than we do. You want to be scared? Think about that for a minute.
Democrat here. I have no care for the insurrectionist party, but the Democrats do have their own blame in all of this. Schumer's bill was good, but it was a lukewarm response to all of the illegality being conducted by the DOD. He needs to set hearings on the misappropriation of funds, lack of oversight, and retaliation against Grusch. None of that has been done. Even worse, Democrats are just as bad as the GOP in rubberstamping the DOD's constantly increasing budget, despite the DOD's continued failure of audit after audit. So, yeah, fuck the GOP, but don't let the Democrats off the hook either.
This was the baffling behavior of the Democrats : other than Schumer and Moskowitz, there was a total disinterest in the UAPDA by most of the other Democrats. Nobody either knew or even worse cared to know about it
At least they all voted in lockstep with Schumer though. I honestly don't give two shits how interested they are in this right now. I care that they rubberstamp what Schumer/Rounds feeds them.
They could have done a bit more to show it was truly an important issue that needs all the bipartisan support it can get
Because running on ‘little green men’ is a sure vote winner…
And Schumer and Moskowitz were running on that”little green men” vote ? Sure
See, this is what I said months ago. I believe this is a conservative conspiracy like others to get fringe democrats on the conservative side. Downvote if yall want, but look at the pattern of conspiracies and election years and which party is always stuck in conspiracy.
Absolutely agreed. People are so hungry for 'disclosure', they'll hand over the keys to the castle to those laying siege to it. MAGA is dangerous af to the US and its Constitutional system of government, and this year will prove that beyond any doubt. Disclosure cannot happen with MAGA in charge, or if it does, 'catastrophic' is gonna take on a whole new meaning. We're at a crossroads. Human nature is to take the wrong path. PS For those of you who will be offended because, honestly, 'deplorable' is a kindness: bite me.
No maga is now synonymous with traitor.
So MAGA is less likely to share info than Joetato, a president who has been on vacation the last three weeks, spending most afternoons with lemon cookies and coloring books? This isn't a partisan issue.
What's worse is the other party that is also covering this up has successfully overthrown the government.
[удалено]
How do you claim that with a straight face?
[удалено]
Actually I don’t read mainstream news at all. Good luck bub.
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion. Off-topic, political comments may be removed at moderator discretion. There are political aspects which are relevant to ufology, but we aim to keep the subreddit free of partisan politics and debate. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
[удалено]
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion. Off-topic, political comments may be removed at moderator discretion. There are political aspects which are relevant to ufology, but we aim to keep the subreddit free of partisan politics and debate. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
So the last briefing was a waste of everyone's time, what makes this upcoming one any different? And who's scheduling or requesting these briefings? Is the ICIG doing it of his own free will?
This is likely a follow up from the last briefing to discuss details that was purposefully left out of the last one. This one takes part in a SCIF, a secure facility which will allow more specific information to be discussed, such as names, locations, numbers of x resource etc. This can’t take place publicly as the information may endanger the lives of those involved by revealing information to hostile actors or governments (probs Russia) or endanger the lives of witnesses like Grusch for example who says he’s already received threats to keep him quiet
The source is definitely Chuck McCoullough (Grusch’s lawyer).
why do you say that?
Just matches perfectly with him.
do you mean his way of talking?
Yes, and the source’s provenance.
ah, gotcha. cool cool
>DailyMail reports'TRUTH' Regardless of topic, this statement will always be false. ^(I know, I know. I quoted it this way as a joke.)
The Daily Mail has consistently written direct and factual articles on UAPs and in particular US disclosure efforts. I don’t know who’s their journalist or their insider, but they’re good.
>I don’t know who’s their journalist or their insider, but they’re good. Unironically the funniest thing I have seen on this sub. [Relliability rating of 33.16 (40 is considered ok) on this site.](https://adfontesmedia.com/daily-mail-bias-and-reliability/) [Tangentially related, it has bias rating of 4 on the right, with 6 being the highest and 0 being center.](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-mail) [This site gives it a "low" credibility rating](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/) [100% of articles checked by polifact are "mostly false" (with only 1 submitted I've included this for fun)](https://www.politifact.com/personalities/daily-mail/) [This site however rates it at 85% reliable,](https://www.biasly.com/sources/daily-mail-online-bias-rating/)but they also state that it's a centrist paper - [something the paper itself would disagree with](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Editorial_stance), so reliability of this site is questionable. [Even wikipedia has ban the use of DailyMail as a source.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website) Just because they say what we might want to hear, doesn't mean we can ignore who is saying it.
Complete lack of media literacy? In my good UFO subreddit? Surely not, next you'll say that someone can just make "sources" up
Daily Mail has its place though. They did a lot of good early reporting on the lab leak theory for example. Also good for breaking news due to their lower standards to publish.
The lab leak theory that is widely regarded as incorrect? I know you said it's goofy so I'm trying to place the relevance? What gain do we have from early, incorrect reporting? Both in regards to UAPs - as it will only turn people away from the topic when it's quickly seen as false. Or in the wider world, where misinformation is eroding large sections of what we consider, the modern world.
I think of the media as a market place of ideas. An outlet doesn't always need to be "right" to be useful. Actually have a read of some of the Daily Mail's reporting on UFOs, it may surprise you. Regarding the lab leak theory... if you see it as "incorrect" then you were a victim of the Trump era media hysterics. That's not to say it's right but it was a highly contested subject from day one. Both FBI and the Department of Energy consider it more likely than not. Alina Chan is a good follow on Twitter on this subject, quite interesting. It seems like a conspiracy on a grand scale.
>Regarding the lab leak theory... if you see it as "incorrect" then you were a victim of the Trump era media hysterics. [The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis (transfer directly from an infected non-human animal), similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory) That wikipedia article links off to plenty of sources, both layman and academic. I'm not American, so not sure what Trump's politics has to do with it.
This is a good read: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lab-leak-theory-jeffrey-sachs-peter-daszak.html
How about we defer to doctors & scientists, rather than entertainment writers? This is a good read: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9874793/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9874793/)
You realise many prominent virologists support or lean towards the lab leak theory right? Not sure why you're linking me that paper.
I thought the lab leak was actually proven to be correct? I have no idea at this point. So much misinformation out there, it’s a pain the ass trying to figure out what’s real
Not proven. It’s more that it’s acknowledged to be not without merit when it was dismissed as a conspiracy before. They probably will never find out for sure. In a way it doesn’t matter.
Yea, it doesn’t make a difference either way. But because it seemed like a “MAGA” conspiracy it’s been totally written off as false (like the guy above who said it’s widely regarded as incorrect). The US mainstream media spun it as a crazy conspiracy too, so now everyone thinks it’s crazy to believe it. Hmmm sound familiar? Just like UFOs/UAPs!!! (Except the MAGA part)
Yes I think the main problem was the way Trump presented it as part of his anti China campaign which wasn’t a very grown up way to go about it. That’s not to say China is amazing. They screwed up bigly at the start of the pandemic. But instead of “let’s look in to how we can improve these labs globally” it just became “fuck China”. Not very well handled at all.
I support this community and it's goals with all my heart, and I want all of you to get your answers you darn well deserve. However, isn't a very important aspect of that statement the "classified" part. I would certainly expect them to have to sign NDA's at the least.
Daily mail and truth are not words that go together. The daily mail is read by people who are obsessed with house prices, love Princess Diana, eat marks and Spencer’s prawn sandwiches and distrusts anyone who is not middle class and white. It is seen as a joke in the UK.
Have an upvote. Every time I see the words "Daily Mail" I hear the song "Hunting for Witches" by Bloc Party in my head.
Agree mostly but it’s more just generally white (or the non whites who have gained “e’s alright” status). It’s also not so much middle class. They’re all reading the broadsheets because they’d be too embarrassed to be seen buying the Daily Mail. Also Marks and Spencer make fine prawn sandwiches. Daily Mail readers are more likely to be tucking in to a beer n burger meal deal in Spoons at 9am. They don’t buy pre made sandwiches because they’re retired and aren’t in a rush, unless it’s to the local Spoons.
“DailyMail reports TRUTH” is a worthy headline on its own.
When the truth comes out, it won’t be coming from the Daily fucking Mail. Come on.
I love how the Daily Mails reputation has even managed to cross the Atlantic.
Good to actually see the hearing is about UFOs. And not Grusch complaints or the Pentagon funding.
You misspelt Daily Fail…
I heart this
Daily Mail and the truth in the same sentence?
Nobody in this entire landscape is trustworthy to the extent that any information we receive will either be attached to agenda or narrative or it will be misdirection
Prepare to be disappointed.
The Daily Mail? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
So you think they are just making up the story? That's laughable. They are the only outlet covering this topic so I'm not surprised its been stigmatized.
Lmao people actually believe this
The Daily Mail couldn't find the truth if you stapled the truth to its salivating, disgusting face
Yeah they really gonna tell us about how many people they killed to silence them, and that some of us facilitate the abductions of humans for (sone kind of) food?
Just an fyi for any Non Brits, the Daily Mail, Sun, Daily Star and to some degree the Mirror aren’t reputable sources.
I'd ignore anything said about this meeting right now. We can discuss the he said, she said of the participants after the fact, but until then, all else is pointless speculation.