Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office.
“with absolutely no substantiated proof”.
“Unsupported claims that ignored contradictory evidence”
It seems like he’s more upset about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories rather than conspiracy theories themselves.
Groups of people have worked together to do things in secret(conspiracies), but if there’s no proof or contradictory evidence of a particular plan, the continued belief in and resources spent on said unsubstantiated conspiracy is frustrating.
Don’t sufficiently substantiated theories cease to be conspiracy theories?
They technically do, but in practice, the word “conspiracy” often has the connotation of being untrue, regardless of being substantiated or not.
People tend to equivocate conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
A conspiracy can’t be true, it’s crazy to believe in, until it’s substantiated, and then it was always true and never crazy to believe in in the first place, so it becomes referred to and remembered as a mundane footnote instead of a conspiracy.
It’s very important to note here that the ICIG (Office of Intelligence Inspector General) who far out ranks Kirkipatrick and the AARO rated the whistleblowers claims urgent and credible.
Several Congress members then held a classified meeting with the same ICIG and determined that Gruschs claims have validity.
It’s a quite misleading to say this is entirely based on false information and claim it’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory that we shouldn’t be wasting resources on.
That’s a great point I was unaware of, thank you.
Do you have a relevant link?
Unfortunately not many reporters are reporting on this sincerely besides TheHill and Newsweek, although it’s slowly becoming more sincere.
Here’s an opinion piece that describes the situation when it originally started last year and contains a pretty accurate non biased overview.
Most recently there was a SCIF held on January 10th with the UAP caucus, and the IG regarding the Grusch claims. NY times article where some Congress people substantiating a few of Grusch claims.
Also a very important to note, in general this is a very non-partisan issue (Republicans are definitely the most outspoken though). A UAP bill was put forward by Chuck Schumer in December to be included in the NDAA, which would declassify UAP materials that didn’t expose national security, and force all UAP materials to be returned to the US Government. It was unfortunately gutted by the House during negotiations (specifically by Congressmen lobbied by defense contractors). Take that as you will, but I think the fact that this is being discussed to be codified in law and not entirely hidden behind the executive branch with zero oversight is great for both the public.
Those are both interesting articles, thanks, although the first is written assuming the reader has so much knowledge about what’s been going on between the intelligence community and congressional disclosure and oversight that I’ll have to read it again a few times to really understand what he’s saying.
I also think it’s great that the extraterrestrial question is at least being discussed and investigated with some form of earnestness, even if in classified meetings.