[please forgive my poor English]
(Interesting, and intriguing thread, thanks. On such a topic, I always try to listen only to scientists, officials or former officials, or "serious" journalists interviewing the latter and the former.)
From the interview of David Sheehan* (
post #87 from Andro), I understand that a Disclosure Amendment could be voted on in the next 2 years,
If voted (there seem to be some strong opposition to it), that amendment would
protect whistleblowers (officials, or former officials) from retaliation after disclosure (that, for instance, there would exist a program of retro-engineering of non-human aerial vehicles crashed on Earth, as David Grush contends, etc).
So I do
not understand why David Grush (former official with apparently first class track record)
already took the risk to "[...] turn[...] whistleblower [and] has given Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin" (as Ron pointed an article of TheDebrief.org, in
post #79). Why those revelation
without protection, especially if waiting 2 years more after the amendment has been voted, could fully protect them?
Rem: I did not watched the video in
post #85 (first public hearings in 55 years).
Does Grush (and other's) revelation sounds to you like a "controlled disclosure", monitored by some officials working into the deep state?(otherwise, wouldn't David Grush, and others, have had a car accident before going to his interview/the hearing?).
*and, indeed, "his allegation that the U.S. government is interrogating a live alien today goes wildly² beyond anything I have ever heard claimed by anybody ever before.", as Ron said (I squared the '
wildly' ).
