SignullGoneOfficer David Grush declares under oath for the first time that the US government is in possession of UFOs and non-human bodies.
Do you think the oath swearing lends credibility to the statements?
Considering the consequences of getting caught lying under oath to Congress, I personally believe it lends credibility to the person’s testimony. However, I understand that others may not feel the same way.
Proving he’s lying would be… difficult.
Or easy considering the evidence he is providing them in a closed door session or SCIF.
Is there any way to find out what sort of evidence he’s volunteered to present in a SCIF? From what I understood (not native English speaker) there were certain confirmations he’d only be willing to make in a secure location, but I didn’t catch any mentions of actual evidence.
To me it seems the statements he’s only willing to make in a SCIF was of the “Yes I can confirm that we have alien bodies.” type. That’s kinda already implicit.
BenDoubleUI believe he said he would volunteer names and government entities who were behind the spending and coverups. He also mentioned an actual answer to what “non-human biological” meant and where certain UAPs were being housed.
Yes, I heard he’d answer many of those questions you mention as long as it was in a secure facility.
If I told you I could make false claims and provide an example, would you agree that claims, statements and testimonies should not be considered as evidence? Keep in mind that I replied to someone claiming that Grusch had provided evidence.
Watch:
Spiro Agnew is the mastermind behind it all, it’s all done by Park Rangers and accountants residing in a compound three miles south of Disney World are responsible for hiding the spending. Non-human biological entities are cat-people and the UFO’s are all stored in the Denver Airport basements.
Sorry, but I said that “…he said he would provide evidence”. I did not say that Grusch had provided evidence. There’s a difference. Have you watched the hearing?
Sorry, but I said that “…he said he would provide evidence”.
My bad, I thought you said he’d volunteer certain knowledge and provide answers as a reply to my question about evidence. I got that impression from reading your reply:
I believe he said he would volunteer names and government entities who were behind the spending and coverups. He also mentioned an actual answer to what “non-human biological” meant and where certain UAPs were being housed.
This made me believe that you claimed he didn’t provide any evidence, which is exactly the point I was making.
There’s a difference. Have you watched the hearing?
I find your attitude belittling and counterproductive to my preferred human experience. I suggest we don’t interact any more. I wish you a nice life, prosperity and many revelations in the times ahead.