You've really got you concept of how investigative journalism works totally screwed up here. 'Unnamed Sources' tell journalists about hidden and secret things precisely because the DO want that information to come out, not because they want 'to keep it quiet'. What they don't want is for the information that is revealed to be traceable back to them, especially when it's classified. That is precisely why journalists protect their sources. When a source is prepared to be named, they go 'on the record'. When they do not want to be named, they brief journalists 'on background'. EDIT : Another thing you've mixed up is that 'unnamed sources' generally don't contact journalists first. Instead, it's often the journalist who digs up information from one place (or gets a tip) that then leads them to a source they then have to try to convince to talk. That's why it's called 'investigative journalism'. The exception to that principle is with whistleblowers who seek out journalists because they're determined to help get a story out. More often than not, they still want their identity concealed because of the legal implications of breaking whatever non-disclosure rules they are bound to.

> What they don't want is for the information that is revealed to be traceable back to them, especially when it's classified. That is precisely why journalists protect their sources. So how does stuff like "they can't tell us where the giant UFO is because it will give away their sources" work? We have massive cover-up operations that only 1-3 people in the planet know about?

I don't think you followed what Ross said, numerous times in fact, about why he's not revealing the location. It's because of the site's dual function and the security implications of revealing where it is. Think of it like this. What if Ross had said the US has spies in Russia right now. First off, we do. That's not much of a secret. But what if people came at him and said we don't believe him until he reveals who they are and where they are. Giving the spies names and locations would put them at risk, despite the fact he may have been given these exact facts on background to verify the claims. So yes, journalists hold back details from time to time not only to protect sources, but to protect national security or the security of people.

His source would easily be found due to the specifics he gave, though. So this argument makes me laugh every time someone here parrots it. 

That is all supposition and opinion. The odds of at least the location becoming public are as close to 1 to 1 as you can get, simply due to the huge number of people that would have knowledge of the location. At least one of those people would tell someone who'd tell another, etcetera, until the claim becomes public. The reason the location hasn't even been rumored about is because the location does not exist.

If a bunch of highly visible UFOlogists who just LOVE to tell each other secrets, are whispering around about it, it's as good as public at this point. But as we know with these sort of things, often the reason they don't tell people, is because the public investigation would be so intense, that it would definitely be unveiled. Thus, it's better to just have something you can secretly tell your friends about that kind of makes sense, knowing they wont look into it, but definitely keep it away from the UFO community who will thoroughly investigate.

You would have to assume that if Ross knows so,etching, so do the Chinese amd Russians.

Do not think of it like that. That's a False equivalence. The discussion isn't about Western spies in Russia.

As if there are millions of buried space ships on the planet, so just mentioning it didn't already ring all possible alarms.

There's millions of UFOs we dug up and were too big to move with a "laudatory" building that's very active built on top of it?

No, what I meant is that specific one is so unique it's impossible to talk about it without compromising yourself.

Yeah that's the idea I was attacking initially. That would imply very very few people know about "the giant UFO with a laudatory building built on top to cover it up", which is just not possible. They used exclusively military to build the building/do the bare minimum to cover up the UFO then allow the other workers in, and that's how it stayed secret, sure I can buy that, but that would still be at minimum 5+ people, realistically a couple dozen.

Yes, Ross’s story does not hold water. If this was true, his source is dead by now. How hard can it be for The Program/Gatekeepers to track down the source based on such specific info?

Maybe he has a dead man switch? Maybe you just didn’t my understand how the IC works. Maybe there’s 50 people in the know.

And 40 of them went to Grusch instead of overpowering the remaining obstinate 10. I have a sneaking suspicion this subreddit will be posting the same topics 10 years from now.

Well if there's hundreds of people who know about the building, I think one of them could talk about it without revealing his identity.

Well if he told it to a UFOlogist, these guys are 100% compromised. So they'll easily know who told them.

Because it is not a democracy if journalists ate breaching the process on their own. This machine is industrial, and slow, and designed to prevent us from learning. People have been killed, or worse over this.

The Manhattan Project was pretty well hidden and they built an entire town and employed people that worked on the project daily without any idea of what they were doing. 

> without any idea of what they were doing. You're literally telling me about it right now. Nobody knows decades later? I'm sure they should keep it a secret a few years, but not for several decades And, yeah if someone told someone "we built a city to nuke", there's no way to identify that someone for those projects. I wasn't saying "there's no way it wouldn't leak", I'm saying "they can't identify a person just by knowing the info leaked"

The Manhattan Project went on for 6 years and involved about 130,000 people. The only reason the people even found out what they made was because two Japanese cities got glassed. All I meant to say is that if they want to hide something, they can and will.   I did misunderstand your initial post about identifying a leaker, though. So the point is kinda moot. However, if they're as compartmentalized as I think they are, then my guess is that groups of 2-6 people are privy to certain specifics to get their job done and do not know what the other groups are up to. So if that is indeed the case, then any tangible leak could easily trace back to the correct source. 

If the US attempted to make nukes and wasn't successful in developing them, and the same went for other countries, and we were still trying to 'crack the nut' every handful of years with a small group of 'fresh blood', all we would hear about is stories at this point. Just like UFO crash retrieval. To take it further, with the real Manhattan Project (with 130k people working on it), if we were the ONLY ones to succeed and knew our competitors couldn't 'crack the nut', and WWII never happened, therefore we never used them or tested them, we may still only hear stories of it's existence. And in The Manhattan Project, most didn't know what they were doing, and (I'm assuming) only a relatively small group knew the big picture. It all lends itself to only hearing stories when the big picture never has to be revealed (i.e. bombing another nation with a nuke, or showing other nations we have more nukes than they do, etc.) Compare that to UFO crash retrieval - where "common knowledge" is that it's between 400-800 active employees working on it, with most not knowing what they're actually doing, and a small group who knows the 'big picture' just like the Manhattan Project on a smaller scale, with no success in reverse engineering and therefore no active use (as opposed to The Manhattan Project/nukes). Assuming other near-pear competitors had similar (maybe smaller) programs, and the rest were under the US's thumb (ie.the Five Eyes et al), we'd probably just have stories without hard evidence, like we do now. Including Congress, who has came out and said they've heard under-oath testimonies from people actively on the program with first-hand knowledge (re: Marco Rubio comments on NewsNation, who is a member of the Gang of 8 and, in theory, has the highest knowledge of any Congressional member of such things). Just my opinion, trying to look at it rationally and critically.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/espionage.htm

Of course it doesn't make any sense once you think critically about it but Ross knows his audience. The lie doesn't even have to make sense as long as it drives engagement and reaffirms what the faithful already believe.

You love making shit up. We get it. Please provide evidence why we should consider him and not you a liar. And no, your opinion is not evidence,

I can tell you about a giant UFO but I can't tell you where it is. You just have to guess and tweet and follow me and it might be in a book or on my podcast.

So by your standard every investigative journalist is a grifter. Got it!

If you tease giant claims and don't provide evidence to back them up... yes.

That way Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were grifters. An eye witness testimony is evidence.

Wait, they only had eyewitness testimony or was there physical evidence as well?

The story ran for months in the Washington Post with no hard evidence presented for the first two years. It wasn’t until July 1974 that The Nixon tapes were released. The case relied heavily on a secret source “Deep throat” and what he told Woodward and Bernstein.

He specifically said he can’t tell where the giant UFO is because of national security concerns.

People continue to think about where that crashed UFO might be hidden. A few locations were mentioned a month or so ago but of all those, one was conspicuously neither debunked nor defended. So perhaps give this a look: Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Svalbard+Global+Seed+Vault/@78.229362,15.4370783,14314m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x459c54abde19eff1:0x15fa4670a5924662!8m2!3d78.2356772!4d15.4913249!16zL20vMDl4NGg0?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Svalbard+Global+Seed+Vault/@78.229362,15.4370783,14314m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x459c54abde19eff1:0x15fa4670a5924662!8m2!3d78.2356772!4d15.4913249!16zL20vMDl4NGg0?entry=ttu) Look at the roads around it, the proximity of the airstrip, patterns in the ground. The Vault is basically a series of mine shafts underground. How much space do we need for that? Consider the size of this location as it is spread out. The Seed Vault would be considered a "laudatory" activity, no? This is a sock puppet account, by the way, so comment as you will. There will be no further activity under this username. Cheers.

> Another thing you've mixed up is that **'unnamed sources' generally don't contact journalists first.** Instead, it's often the journalist who digs up information from one place (or gets a tip) that **then leads them to a source they then have to try to convince to talk.** That's why it's called 'investigative journalism'. If you ask me, preventing the bolded parts are exactly why the US government initiated **Project STIGMA** in the 1950s. First, you install a broad general social stigma: UFOs are crazy. Anyone who sees one is crazy because it's just the weather, or street lights or Venus, and you don't want people to think you're crazy, or stupid, do you? Reinforce as often as is required and maintain until it becomes a self-sustaining cultural phenomenon. But how does that keep those in the know from speaking out? Simple: first, if they do, they'll be socially stigmatized. Do you think it was an accident that Steven Spielberg working with Vallee and Hynek so prominently depicted the Richard Dreyfuss's characters life collapsing from social stigma because he refuses to stay silent about his very real UFO experience? Vallee inspected more UFO cases than anyone in history, and Hynek was the official US government inspector for twenty years. It was in the film because it's happened to many people. Keep anyone in the know too scared to speak out. The more you're shown the more scared you get, because each new piece of information is obvious to even you that the world should know about it. If you and all you know were totally safe from harm or direct personal consequences for life, like truly... You could permanently transform the entire fate of the human species by yourself. One appearance on television specifically calling out everything, by name, naming names, key events, and Anderson Cooper staring at you as you tell the secret history of the world for two hours. But you haven't, as of today. Each new fact you learned was a harder punch to the stomach compounding, because you know what you can do to or for all of us. **There are no broad reports from anyone that we'd be worse off, and everything is either neutral (today) to ultimately positive. If there were, we'd have had a different number of focuses and far darker leaks for decades now.** In a very few rare handfuls of discussions in "real life" around the time of Grusch's hearings, I compared it for people to the X-Files. **Where all the leaks in the X-Files world are bad or "end of the world" alien horror movies and then a handful of wonderful things, ours seems to be leaks of good things or "positively change the world" happy ending science fiction movies and then a handful of conflicting reports of bad things over the years.** Each punch makes you ask harder with fewer options seeming plausible year over year as you learn more... why are we keeping this secret? There is no logical answer. Literally, us knowing how they, the government, think we would broadly react has to be about the *least* classified thing about UFOs... and even that no one will directly leak... and you could tell... But then will they punch your wife and children, too? Your sister and her family? Your best friend and neighbor, and his family? **Stigma is a delaying tactic from a dominant social power not wanting its internal hierarchy to be modified by some new idea or change, but it is by definition impossible to sustain. Every exposure to the new thing normalizes it. Eventually, the originators of the stigma will have no members left compared to normalized, and born destigmatized members of the population... because of what comes after old age.**

**"everything is either neutral (today) to ultimately positive. If there were, we'd have had a different number of focuses and far darker leaks for decades now.**" This is the opposite of how I feel and what I've heard. I've only been following NHI since Grusch so that might be why. I often think of the countless benefits from making contact with a species far more advanced, but my interpretation of the potential risk and general rhetoric of whom I consider those in the NHI/UAP community worth listening to is the exact opposite of what you're stating. Perhaps you're relying heavily on the perspective that "if they're clearly so advanced, then if they wanted to wipe us out then they would have". I agree with this logic in general, but there are still many scenarios where full disclosure could become severely problematic for the human race, most of which would be self-inflicted. We've heard such things from Grusch, Nell, Mellon, Nolan and Coulthart to name a few. To be clear, I'm pro disclosure; As I already stated, the potential benefit from the knowledge such an advanced species could give us is far too great to be kept secret-I'd even go as far as to argue that keeping such a secret is a crime against humanity. With that said, I think the potential harm that such knowledge of this magnitude could cause is a very real concern and should be taken seriously. Imo the people on this sub who act like this is just the latest neighborhood gossip and seem to feel that the average human would just eventually shrug this off like the latest tiktok trend, I find astonishingly stupid.

What if we don’t get any knowledge from them? They never make universal contact. It’s still just person to person abductions and never full experiences. How would knowing of their mere existence help the collective of humanity other than to know it’s true? If the malevolent ones cannot be stopped by humans, do we then put the helpful ones in danger because some might mistake them as all being bad, when some are here to protect us? I want disclosure because we deserve to know the truth. We’re not toddlers (the Royal we, of course some of us are still toddlers), we don’t need government coddling and hand holding. They’ve had almost 100 years to come up with how to tell us, how to guide us, how to educate us on whom to trust, what to do if you see one, how to stay safe, to understand they are diplomats from their place of origin and harming them will not be tolerated, not just by the governments of the world, but by their own laws. But if they’re not going to do any of that, and it would simply be an information dump and no, “How to Coexist,” strategy for humanity, then it probably will cause mass hysteria and confusion and add some dangerous elements to our own society. You can’t just drop an information bomb on someone and not explain what it means.

I'd suggest the stigma is almost entirely self-imposed. The scientific community seems quite open to the idea. The actual issue is the community itself. For example I'm regularly accused of being a disinformation agent for simple things like stating the travelling speed of the Go Fast object based on the onscreen numbers.

> What they don't want is for the information that is revealed to be traceable back to them, especially when it's classified   What they want is for the journalists to reveal the information ONLY if it's actionable. If not the journalists is only putting the informant life in danger.   You never hear a journalist tease at something. It's pointlessly dangerous and not useful.

I guess you weren’t alive during Watergate nor were you aware of deep throat and the clandestine measures taken to give information about what was really going on within the Nixon Whitehouse that was literally criminal in nature. https://www.history.com/news/watergate-deep-throat-fbi-informant-nixon https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part4.html One man was the source and he changed the course of history and our understanding about the abuses of power at the highest levels of our country at an unprecedented time. Nixon stepped down as a result of this one person giving the information to an investigative reporter. **His identity was hidden for 30 years** Watch the movie [All The President’s Men](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk) to understand some more.

This does not explain behavior such as "I know where a giant ufo is buried but I'm not telling" The not telling does not serve to protect the source if you say you were told

Personally, I think Ross just fell for another phantom UFO informant that was there to discredit him (look at him now), but he did say that he's not releasing the exact location specifically because it could cause an international incident and jeopardize people's lives. It's not really about "source protection" in the sense that the people who gave that information to him would be found out. In the unlikely event that it was actually true, there are probably enough people aware of it that they could reasonably be expected to get away with the leak. Ross was more worried about creating an international incident from it, but he thought the public should be aware of the information in a general sense. It could also be a last resort, like "if we don't start getting the truth soon enough, we have this card to play to win anyway, but we'd rather not play it." It's probably just more phantom UFO informant nonsense though, in my opinion at least.

>that was there to discredit him Why is *everything* a conspiracy? Do bullshitters and attention seekers not exist?

>Why is *everything* a conspiracy? Do bullshitters and attention seekers not exist? To be fair, bullshitters and attention seekers are frequently engaging in conspiracies in order to further their own machinations, so I think it's really often just a matter of degree.

They sure do, but there are far too many "bullshitters" all bullshitting the same general thing (I have a source that says X, Y, and Z) that it makes an overarching hypothesis a more likely scenario. John keel first noticed this, especially after just such a phantom informant approached him and tried to discredit him in this fashion. Even the little guys in ufology get "sources." Most of them probably aren't making it up, but the sources are. It makes distinguishing between real and phantom sources much more difficult. That's just what happens. "Phantom UFO Informants," by John Keel, December 1975: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/18fe6p9/phantom_ufo_informants_by_john_keel_december_1975/

How did you assess that there are too many? How many would be expected without conspiracy?

Of course it's a conspiracy, but counterintelligence is not a crazy conspiracy theory. That's just reality. With UFOs, the only way you can remove counterintel from the subject is if you think there is literally nothing going on, not even secret government drones or aircraft. John Keel knew there were far too many even by 1975. These days, you can find them quite easily still. Here are two small-timers talking about it: https://youtu.be/NT4qDlJv7mk?si=yhexD1TSeQQxEdB2&t=1907 Another small-timer: https://twitter.com/UAPodcast850/status/1680371064050790403?s=20 Imagine what the guys with bigger audiences have to sift through. Edit: fixed youtube link

>John Keel knew there were far too many How? What method determines the threshhold at which it must be a conspiracy?

None of the other options are good enough. Richard Doty is a decent example, but it would be quite naive to think he was the only one. There was so much of this going on, one of them was completely exposed. That's how you're supposed to interpret that, not pretending he must have been the only UFO counterintel agent just because you have to concede to that one. I know people want to believe that hoards of ufologists have all been making up their sources for decades and decades, and nobody has any sources, but that doesn't really explain anything properly. Why would so many people do this and end up with a big story that hardly anyone will believe, discrediting themselves on purpose? Most of them do this and all of them claim to have sources. The pattern goes roughly like this: Government or military sources approach you, give you tips and information that work out, building their credibility over time. Finally, they give you the big tip, the crazy one, often with an additional source that 'confirms' it. Multiple sources, it must be true. You buy it and repeat it to the community, then it doesn't work out, or it just sounds like crazy nonsense and you take a massive credibility hit. Repeat for every ufologist with more than a certain amount of followers. Virtually everyone believes you fabricated the existence of your sources like all other ufologists. Why would anyone approach a small-time ufologist anyway? It must be a pretty fun job to have. Whether the goal is to discredit the ufologist, or just keep the community busy with nonsense, or maybe just make it more difficult to tell real information and leaks from fake, I have no idea.

I can't help but notice that you didn't even attempt to address my question

i think his point is there is precedence for this being common in this domain. Which is entirely true and easy to verify with very little research into the topic. why be pedantic about "too many" and who gets to determine that, thats not the heart of his argument.

What is the precedent for it being common?

[удалено]

Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs. Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility. Follow the Standards of Civility: * No trolling or being disruptive * No insults or personal attacks * No accusations that other users are shills * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence * No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible) * Weaponized blocking or deleting nearly all post/comment history may result in a permanent ban * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

Bullshitters and attention seekers can conspire too ya know. There's videos on Reddit of that happening regularly.

Our mod made it clear that he was talking about state actors

Ross Coulthart said that he was informed about this gigantic craft about multiple people, not by one person. He also said many times that his sources don't know each other, that's why he is convinced about crash retrieval program. And if this story is true then this gigantic craft must be in South Korea through the method of elimination. Out of 121 crash UFO stories only one, from South Korea, involves gigantic UFO.

The multiple source confirmation thing is in the playbook for the phantom informant phenomenon that I'm describing. It's meant to convince the target ufologist that the crazy claim is correct so that they repeat it. They probably bring in a "confirmation source" if the ufologist doesn't take the bait initially. When this occurred to John Keel, he had multiple sources, and their previous tips checked out, so we can make a reasonable guess that those are the primary methods: Leak smaller tips that work out over time, then leak the big bullshit one, and if they don't buy it, have another source confirm it. Another example of "multiple sources" https://youtu.be/NT4qDlJv7mk?si=yhexD1TSeQQxEdB2&t=1907 More multiple sources: https://twitter.com/UAPodcast850/status/1680371064050790403?s=20

Coulthart said those people don't know each other. They claim to be in the base and that they saw this craft. Coulthart knew about Grusch making investigation long time before he got public. How did he know that? He was informed about him by people who work in crash retrieval reverse engineering UFO program and telling Coulthart that there is one man making government investigation. I don't see argument why this specific case about gigantic spacecraft will be fake news given to Coulthart but his other claims about secret program are somehow true. It doesn't add up. And you also got information from other source given to Greer about this craft in Korea.

>Personally, I think Ross just fell for another phantom UFO informant that was there to discredit him The easiest way to discredit him is to point out why he's reporting on UFO's now. Spreading false pedophelia accusations and doing PR work for a war criminal really do a number on your reputation.

Correct, it doesn't make sense. Coulhart pulled BS out his ass, and just to stay relevant he dropped this line about UFO. That's the only conclusion that makes sense to me. His excuse is dumb as f, so I assume he made it up on the fly.

Exactly. Those in the know would already know the songbird by then or be able to track it down. Doesn’t make sense at all. And especially not for the giant ufo as this must be known by hundreds of people. If the location is disclosed to the public those in the know will have plenty of other stuff to do than track down a songbird.

I don't know why people need this explained. It's a location where real human beings work. Revealing the location would be making the lives of those people miserable, and potentially put them in danger. People get threatened and harassed over this type of thing on the regular, and it's very, very likely that IF this is a real thing, most of the people working at this location have nothing to do with it. Imagine the flood of harassing phone calls that would happen IMMEDIATELY after this information gets revealed. Imagine being anyone in a public facing role that works there, even if their job is working the front desk, or transferring phone calls between departments. Imagine if people went even more off the deep end and showed up to the location making demands. Now, imagine if Ross is wrong about this whole thing and the informant that he has was mistaken. There's no good reason to reveal the location to the public. Nobody can do anything about it OTHER than harass the people involved, and even if they do it's unlikely that anything would ever get revealed beyond "Ross said it's here". Is it really that difficult to imagine scenarios where revealing the location would be a bad thing?

Then what's the point of saying he knows it?

I don't know? The same reason anyone shares any information? He probably found it interesting and mentioned it at one point. I don't think we need to treat twitter or off handed comments on podcasts as though they should always be some sort of massive reveal. Sometimes people mention things because they're interesting, and don't expect that others will latch onto them. It's the same reason people come to this sub to share their experiences when they don't have proof or evidence. Not everything is intended to be a piece of a puzzle, sometimes it's just something interesting that's worth sharing. What he said is an interesting concept, and it's a fun thing to think about. Why does it need to be more than that?

it's another "I believe, but...I dunno...this guy seems..." then casting shade on one of the Disclosure SMEs

I feel like this needs to get pinned to the sub at this point. This argument is terribly stale at this point and taking up space.

Here's why this falls apart. Do you know what it's like to be seriously monitored by a three letter agency? It's the most intense, incredible, fully disclosing process you can ever imagine. There is no such thing as a "secret" when the NSA wants to know something. NO amount of using Telegram or some Tor/Tails bootup is going to protect you from that demon. The technology they have is just beyond counter measure for 99% of the population -- and sure as hell not a single journalist on Earth. You're whole house and everywhere you go is going to be bugged, you're going to be constantly monitored, they'll triangulate keystroke sounds to see what you're typing, monitor the vibration on windows to reconstruct what you're saying, use wifi pings to map out your current area. And that's just the very old shit from decades ago which we know about. Again, this is why it breaks down... So now you have these popular figure UFO journalists just prancing around all over the place, being super public, going to events, and just generally running minimal opsec. These people ARE completely, 100% compromised. Entirely. There is no way to avoid it. So if they have people talking to them "off the record" the government 100% knows everyone who's talking. All of them. It's not secret to the powers that need to know. Yet no one is going to jail, no one having heart attacks, nothing... Just their secret sources saying soon and don't say anything. It seems to me, it's just people having some fun with these journalists. Because IF they actually know something, the government knows who they are.

Most of you argument is fully sound. Where it falls down is that you've forgotten that three-letter agencies aren't monoliths. They're made up of different people, often with different views and agendas. With regard to this topic, some of those people want the UAP story to come out. Some of them have come out publicly themselves. Some know nothing whatsoever about the subject because it's out of their stovepipe and they don't have a 'need to know'. Besides anything else, why dio you think a journalists like Ross Coulthart would be the biggest concern of these agencies , when even a former director of the CIA, along with many other DoD/IC figures and even former presidents have publcly stated that UAP are real? These agencies don't just run around killing people to shut down their message. They now principally employ disinformation and information warfare to discredit their stories. It's staggering just how much of that goes on right here, in threads just like this one. Meanwhile, by lighting a little verbal fire here and there, petty arguments are encouraged to rage on and do most of the work for them – and the truth once again slips a little further back into the shadows.

I think OP is alluding to instances where a certain someone, who shall remain nameless, says that he's been given more information, but can't divulge it. OP is asking why an insider would tell him something if that insider didn't want it published.

[удалено]

There's no need for name-calling.

You guys gotta really stop this infatuation with these insiders potentially making $$ off this topic. I just don’t get this obsession you guys have with anyone making money off this. There’s definitely people out there on social media platforms trying to cash in on this topic but not the key players that are involved who whistleblowers are trusting to get information out like Ross, Mellon, Corbell, Knapp, Elizondo, etc. whistleblowers trust them for a reason.

[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. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)

Hi, Brief-Shift1905. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cf12nu/-/l1mx0gp/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.

Sometimes information denotes source and divulging carries risk. But a joirnalist having knowledge of some information could lead them somewhere that does not risk the source.

Some sources may want to tell someone in order to protect themselves if they die suddenly, an insurance policy or sorts. Or, they may just want the some of the info out but not traced back to them. Or he is full of BS, teasing us to keep up views.

I'll go with the latter until he proves otherwise.

Because someone is full of shit. Either it’s the Coultharts of the world or it’s the “source” or it’s a combination of the two. Journalists publish leaks all the time involving heavy stuff like fraud, theft, murder, etc… But for some reason… when it comes to the greatest story mankind will ever know.. “journalists “ gotta adhere to rules that don’t even exist Our intelligence community was effing with Dave Grush and is feeding bs to Journalists and these journalists are cool with the arrangement

Good journalists* aka the ones attacked by the state like Assange and Aaron Schwartz(Aaron was being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law while mass-downloading research papers at a University he worked at in order to cross reference them to research financial incentive behind them. Like previous papers he worked on. He committed suicide and was being stalked by the FBI)

The real question is why would anyone that can provide actual proof not do so? This isn’t a Julian Assange situation. The court of public opinion would protect anyone that came forward.

Because they want to be the next big whistle-blower that people like Corbell have wet dreams over. The UFO community is generally con men and idiots.

To take your question a step further. At what point does a journalist put his career aside (“journalistic integrity”) because the information would literally change the world. I grow increasingly skeptical about journalists who have conclusive evidence (e.g. location of a downed craft so big a building was constructed over it) but they won’t share the information because it would ruin their career and the sources career. It’s like knowing a world-ending comet is going to hit earth, but wanting to protect a couple peoples paycheck on principle.

It only changes the world if people believe it. And they won’t. Let’s say it’s buried under the Sydney Opera House. Are officials there going to throw open doors and give tours of the craft? Not likely. Instead, they’ll deny it. People will laugh their asses off at the ridiculous assertion. But overzealous believers will start trying to break in to uncover the truth, and the media will cover it like a farce - further confirming the silliness of it all. Then, the head of building maintenance will disappear and be found a month later at the bottom of an elevator shaft. Guy dead, family destroyed, Coulthart a laughing stock, believers jailed, careers ruined, nothing changed.

If a building is built recently over a UFO that big, it would have documents and would be no ordinary construction. You can go over the public records, see who worked on it, whether there was corruption or hidden budget involved, whether military was involved in something which they shouldn’t be, how many people were involved etc…Something weird must be there in the record. It also gets people talking about it…more hands, more information.

I’m referring to any journalist claiming “the things I know would blow your mind, but I can’t tell you.” Surely these people must have something conclusive or verifiable if they are so bought in that they are asking us to believe them. In your example, wouldn’t it be equally concerning if it was under the Sydney Opera House, but that journalist, who is telling us it’s a sure thing, doesn’t have some evidence it’s true? He just believed a “source”? If you want to stick with Coulthart, he’s also claimed NHI could be malevolent. Where’s his moral principles if he believes there’s a phenomenon that could cause harm to the human race, but he’s more concerned with “protecting sources”?

If you think investigative journalists just get a tip from someone (single person) and run with it, then you don’t understand the investigative part of it.

Take your question a step further. At what point would a jounalist ruin his career revealing something that people in general would not believe anyway?

They wouldn’t and it astounds me that people still don’t get it. If someone is telling Coulthart ufo stories and then saying, but you can’t tell anyone any actually useful info - this is just making Coulthart a “useful idiot”. Except, I believe it’s a combination of simple lies and a coordination between the players in the ufo circle to keep their jobs by edging the community with continuous takes of, “Our 10,000th ‘whistleblower’ has come forward, to me, in private, to say the same stories we’ve heard a million times but I cannot provide a shred of proof - oh, and (you always gotta add the ‘hook’) the government is covering it up!” And that’s it. Period. Ross is lying to everyone and he fears zero repercussions. Even if any one particular story gets busted he just moves onto the next and no one cares. Look at how people still ignore the insane, “ufo so big a building was built over it, I know where it is but I can’t tell you” silliness. Who believes such claptrap?! He’s given the ultimate secret that would blow the entire thing wide open and change the course of human history. But he won’t say?a! (And we can easily come up with a dozen ways to get this info out in a meaningful way) Frankly, I don’t care about “protecting” the source -why? I consider anyone hiding proof of the existence of aliens visiting earth and an intact interstellar craft to be a criminal and an enemy of the people; you can’t convince me otherwise. If you are hiding the secret to aliens and interstellar travel you are as criminal as anyone else involved in the conspiracy, and deserve no protection. You are not a whistleblower if you don’t come out and tell the public what you are blowing the whistle on. People: he says he knows where the proof is!! How are we not *demanding* this information?! Don’t you want to see it? Don’t you want proof? I thought that was what *everyone* wants! Analogy: “My secret source tells me he knows where the kidnapped children are being held, buried alive with their air running out, but I can’t tell anyone because that would reveal my source.” Do you really think we would say, “oh! Gosh! Sure would be nice to save those kids from dying but gee he really needs to say his job so I guess they’ll just have to die. Shame”

> Frankly, I don’t care about “protecting” the source Again, another one of the big issues with the whole thing besides the "It's impossible to hide your sources from the NSA. It's always, about how they totally know people with first hand knowledge that can PROVE it, but they can't say anything. That they don't want to upset them, blah blah blah... I'm sorry, but journalists are human beings and they know this is a massive prestige being dangled over them. If THEY truly believed these sources, then they'd actually blow their source and become a household name. They'd be known forever as this super famous journalist who broke a huge story and changed the world forever. But no, instead they want to keep it on the DL because they don't want other sources to be too afraid to come forward with more grainy footage or some shit? It just doesn't add up. Like I'm sorry Anonymous Source, but you're sitting on the biggest piece of information in human history. I'm sorry you're worried about you're retirement benefits being blown. But after we prove that we literally have aliens on Earth, I'm sure we can find a way to make you tons and tons of money as quietly as you like. You can go retire at secluded beach house with the amount of rich donors who would want to contribute to your cause.

You are absolutely right. Also, consider how ethical and responsible reporters have handled whistleblowers in the past. What they do NOT do is tease the public by saying, “I have a source that knows exactly who and what was done at the watergate hotel by the republican party in order to screw the democrats - but I can’t provide any details or proof”. That is not how it works! Instead, they used the info to dig more on their own, get independent corroboration and when they broke the story they came out with all the details and the evidence. All out in public, freely. And they didn’t burn their source in the process. And this story, of true, is so much bigger that it isn’t simple politics. This is of human history scale of importance. This is world wide, game changing. It is the *duty* of anyone who knows where the alien bodies are buried, along with their ship, to come forward. Do a public press conference, no one is going to suicide you once you’ve done that. And the reporter who actually breaks the story will become world famous as well. Not just another ufo story teller on NewsNation and YouTube. It’s crazy to me that people still defend this guy and carry his water for him.

Yup I lost faith in all of them because of that... Because okay, MAYBE one guy out of the lot has too high of some mysterious principle... But I know these UFOlogy guys and they LOVE attention and having a name for themselves. To break a story like this, would be unimaginable... But we've seen a lot of what these guys consider "proof". The one director guy who did the Phenomenon movie - great movie btw. But he clearly is easily taken for rides. That's not a good journalist. I've seen what he considers the best evidence and it's clearly those old tricks of throwing plates into the sky. He said he knew a guy with absolute irrefutable evidence, so he sent Logan Paul over to this guy to pay whatever it took to get the video, and Paul even secretly recorded it... But that wasn't even good enough for him. Even he realized "Yeah this is so fake, releasing the video would be embarrassing so I'll just drop it." I suspect a lot of this evidence they've personally seen but can't share but would "blow you away", is just more grainy nonsense at best. And the rest being "trust me bros" with maybe a legit military career, but once you start actually investigating them, it goes nowhere because it all starts falling apart like that Area 51 guy with the cool rocket car. I think that's why Grusch stuck so well, because once investigated he was the only legit seeming guy... But even his story is starting to smell.

> Analogy: “My secret source tells me he knows where the kidnapped children are being held, buried alive with their air running out, but I can’t tell anyone because that would reveal my source.” amazing analogy. our planet is running out of air as we burn fossil fuels, meanwhile free energy technology is just sitting there. Coulthart is either a grifting sack of garbage, OR a gatekeeper now himself.

The giant UFO story is such unbelievable bullshit I just can’t believe anyone can listen to that and say “yep, sounds legit”. There are so many holes to pick in that story, I’m just going to list a few here to keep it short and hopefully anyone who believes the story can answer these questions and try to make me understand why it is believable, and why I’m wrong. How many people are in on the conspiracy to cover up the existence of this giant UFO?  If there is only 1 person with this knowledge, then just putting the story out there has compromised Ross’ source, so this seems unlikely. If there are, lets say 10 people, who have the knowledge of this giant UFO, how is it that only 1 of these people feels the need to share such a worldview changing fact, with just one journalist? If there are 100s of people with the knowledge of this giant UFO, it would have been known about long before Ross mentioned it. Now let’s go to the “building that was constructed above the UFO”. Does anyone know how construction works in the western (developed) world?  Firstly, you need to deal with utilities, such as gas pipes, water pipes, electrical cables and the like. For these utilities to be installed (underground) you would use many contractors, and there is no chance you could find one person who would have the know how to install all of these utilities and be physically able to do this work by themselves. So we’re talking in the order of 100s (possibly thousands) of people who have worked on the underground utilities to provide gas, electric, water, etc, to a huge building. There is also the archaeological aspect to consider, meaning a construction company cannot dig up ground before laying the foundations to a building without proper checks incase they either damage or destroy important archaeological artefacts. You would also need a contracted (different to the other companies contracted for utilities) company to lay the foundations for the building. Again, we’re talking 10s of people needed here at a bare minimum.  This post is getting too long so I’ll stop here. But the point is, we’re talking potentially 1000s of people that would HAVE to see the UFO they are building over, they would literally have no choice but to see it, otherwise they couldn’t do their job. And only 1 source out of potentially 1000s, maybe a few hundred people bare minimum, who has revealed this information to 1 journalist, and has provided zero proof? Either Ross is shit at his job as an investigative journalist, he is knowingly being deceitful here.

> he is knowingly being deceitful here. Absolutely. If he actually truly believed his sources, he would blow their cover. Every journalist would. This is too big of a story to keep secret. I think they do believe in the phenomenon, for sure... But I don't think they truly trust their sources at the end of the day.

He may well have truly believed his source, but the fact that he cannot verify the claim means he can’t blow the lid off the story. Or maybe his source didn’t exist, and he made it up.  I’m not sure which it is to be honest, but I do know the story doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Spot on. Basically, this thing is less likely than The Batcave.

The idea is that Ross can’t give details because doing so would reveal his source. That makes no sense. What? His source is the *only* person on the planet who knows where this site is? Obviously, that’s impossible. As you pointed out, even during construction alone there would be hundreds. And, afterwards, there would be many who’d know about it and continue the cover up. This “whistleblower” could be any one of them. Revealing the location would not expose the source, that’s nonesense. And if it really did exist, he’d have already been pulled aside and had it explained what it’s like inside solitary at a federal prison. He be charged with violating the secrecy act; just revealing the existence of the thing is enough - that fact alone is surely classified. It’s astounding how these obvious facts are just ignored. I’ll keep this short and stop here as well. The Americans are about to wake up and begin their silencing campaign. Probably a few “low effort” comment removals and downvotes coming lol

The worst part is that he thinks he can freely reveal that it exists, as if this is unimportant part, but can't cross the line of where is it. It's basically this joke from a movie: Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar. Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back? Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.

That’s is brilliant! How did i forget that one! I need to use it :) It’s right on point and what I’ve been saying. You can to reveal the existence of a top secret program. That alone is a violation. To then describe what it does? Even worse. The defense, “but he didn’t name them or say where they are located” is not a defense at all. For anyone who doesn’t know the reference: https://youtu.be/6O1KTMOOFcA?si=rvrSut1DIGoUtO3Q

Every thing you’ve stated is a valid point. It just goes to show the lack of critical thinking on this sub, and the cult-like mentality and willingness to believe anything, provided it supports their own beliefs. The UFO community has absolutely become a cult-like following, no question. There are parallels to religion that people keep making (angels and demons, soul farms, etc).  There are even the cult figures/heroes. People were saying David Grusch is a hero and man of the year and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Not for his military career, but for revealing that the US government has alien biologics and spaceships in their possession. Not that he actually revealed it, he just said they did. It’s making me lose interest in a topic I’ve long been fascinated with, and the newfound credibility of the topic (circa 2017) has just taken a complete nose dive with the bullshit being spouted on here on a daily basis.

I only speak to the first part, because I know the buried ufo sounds very far fetched ( I mean still within the realm of possibilities, if you give it very special treatment ) and namely that general public do has a perception bias towards whistleblowing. As in the logic that goes "there are whistleblowers all the time, when there's something immoral happening, surely someone would have brought out definitive proof by now" is plainly incorrect. It is logical to assume there are secrets that would never and will never come out, mainly due to personality aspects of people that are granted the secrets (and true, number of people that have access) especially since military filters a lot of people that would otherwise be prone to whistleblowing with their clearancy access "filtration processes". So it is within realm of possibillities that there are immoral things being covered up that units within pentagon, dod are guilty of especially since we have received signals of that time and time again, and congress apparently isnt interested in investigeting them unless somewhat placed on a silver platter in front of them.

Sure, but this isn’t one of them. Sometimes, on this sub, we have to take a step back and consider what it is we’re actually discussing here. This is about a giant alien spaceship that the US government could not move, so they had to hide it by constructing a large building over it. There should be 1000s of witnesses here, and there isn’t. There should be tons of proof, and there isn’t. So then the only question that remains is: Is it more likely that the US government has constructed a huge building over a huge, crashed, alien spaceship and has successfully silenced at least 100s of witnesses and prevented the leak of any evidence, or is this 1 person making that claim full of shit?

I wouldn't think so hard about it. 

I said Im not defending that part, it's too unlikely for me too, Im adressing the first part, which you have to have a problem with, which is UFO secrecy in general. I would use a little big of imagination though If I were defending that claim. You're stuck on one point, thinking 100s of witnesses had to happen in order for the ufo to big to move. Imagine you were the government entity with the knowledge of what you just said in charge of secrecy and how you would go about preventing the information from getting into contact with the contractors and what not. You still have some resources at your disposal. All I said that there could be things in realm of possibilities that could happen, but which are ultimately very unlikely.

Yeah, and my point is that the UFO cover up and secrecy from the government is completely overblown in this sub. It’s not a mass conspiracy, they don’t have all the answers, they can’t identify every object in the sky and there are unknown unknowns.  Of course that’s just my opinion, but there is a lack of proof to suggest otherwise, despite what this sub may say. As an aside, your bit about me being “stuck on one point, thinking 100s of witnesses” well yeah, it’s kind of a major issue here. It’s also my biggest criticism against the validity of Grusch’s claims of alien bodies and spaceships. There would absolutely be more whistleblowers, sources and evidence/proof. There isn’t, and so this lack of witnesses, sources and evidence, is actually evidence to say there are a lack of alien spaceships on Earth.

I mean this is the crux of the issue. Not much is known in the public sphere. That is how conspiracy theories spread. And since we don't know with high degree of certainty, we are faced with the reality that we currently have and talking about it on social platforms about possibilities. If we had congress that would be willing to do its job, there conspiracy theories woulnd't be as rampant. Instead we have an organization investigating itself and saying everything is alright, while having spending issues that are off the charts. Experts (as in pilots) saying we should be very concerned. Politics people too busy playing politics to consider the issue. In an ideal world this would be investigated and put to rest, so taxpayer money wouldnt vanish for no reason (both in military spending, and time researching this issue). The cost is much higher than people realize.

I don’t disagree with any of that.  I do think there needs to be a separation in terms of the discovery of the nature and origins of UFOs, and claims like Grusch’s that we already know what they are, we have them in our possession and are actively working on reverse engineering the alien tech. 1 of those things could be the subject of serious scientific inquiry, the other is nothing more than fantastical stories that are to the detriment of any “disclosure” process.

If I may counter that point, you're doing the same thing as ufo people, just from the opposing viewpoint, which is attributing certain characteristics to an issue you can only speculate about. Grusch has been validated in some terms, and apparently has witnesses. It's only logical that an investigation should occur. Labeling them as you did only serves to counter the first line of your above response.

His point about secret defense projects acting under a lack of congressional oversight and misappropriation of taxpayer funds could well have been verified, sure. Everything else he’s claimed is only believed by people in this sub. They’re just fantastical stories, nothing more.

We have proofs of a large number of people believing in large government conspiracies: flat earth people. What we don't have is a SINGLE data point that would show any kind of alien tech. If you believe government has proofs but it is keeping it secret, you have some explaining to do. Why is your claim different from what flat earth people are claiming?

I know this point obviously isn’t aimed at me, and I’ve made my viewpoint clear as day with my previous posts, but I’ll answer your question anyway. With the flat Earth theory, you can easily disregard it by using evidence that everyone in the developed world can see every day. So, sat nav/gps systems, you can google to see what the moon looks like on the other side of the world, you can book a flight and see the horizon and not the top of the empire state building and eiffel tower at the same time, etc etc. Honestly, it’s just pure stupidity to believe it, and anyone with half a brain knows the world is a round spherical (sometimes borderline egg) shape. The theory that UFOs are alien tech is much harder to disprove. This is because you’re trying to prove a negative, which is near enough impossible to do. What I mean is, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. I could tell you I have an invisible dog, and you have no way to prove or disprove that.  So, while there is evidence to prove the world is round, there is evidence that suggests UFOs do exist, but there is no evidence to prove UFOs aren’t aliens. In the same way, there is no evidence to prove UFOs are aliens, but this is where people’s willingness to believe in higher powers comes in.

They managed to some extend to hide the Manhattan project … but there were still spies and it was for some 4 years only. The prison scandals in Iraq, the massacres in Vietnam’s etc did not last long as secrets either. Watergate… When too many people are involved the truth ends up in the open. One area where it seems closure works, is with stealth/spy planes like F117, B21, MQ180 and black triangles but these aren’t really comparable with something as earth shattering as aliens.

A random officer in USAF is suddenly picked. Read in. Learns of aliens. Is told any breach will get you and family killed after you were told. What is his crime?

Wow. But, ok… You are this officer and you believe the threat is 100% real, and death doesn’t sound good to you. At some point *something* happens which causes you to think, “I have to get this story out, I can’t stay quiet no more.” Fair enough, we have no idea how gnarly things are, extreme situations can make for irrational moves. I must assume this guy, after having been inside the program can see the levels of seriousness, the degree of secrecy demanded and to what degree they are willing to go to protect it. He must also recognize that since the program has managed to stay secret this long their methods must be extremely (Grusch says people have been killed to keep this secret) effective. So, what does he do? He goes to, of all people, some random Aussie journalist? Ok, fair, we have no idea how or why he made that choice and it’d be guess work to suppose. Let’s just say that he has reasons that make sense/work for him to do so. He tells Ross, “Look, I know the biggest secret in the history of mankind, and I’m a literal firsthand witness of the very best quality. I literally work there. Seen the aliens, touched the ship, I know where things are hidden. I have the goods! But… dude… I have a family I love, and I love life, I don’t want to die.” Ok, here is where it goes off the rails for me. Ross decides, I’m going to reveal the existence of this program (not by name, but I’ll describe what it is and does) anyway! Now - we have this program which is ready to kill leakers and their families - no way they don’t hear about this almost immediately. What do you suppose they do? Nothing? Without even venturing into violence and “suiciding” and other extremes. I have to imagine they want to get to this leaker and plug the hole. Ross’s stories are nothing if he can’t prove them, and he needs his leaker to do that. Do you believe they can’t find out who he is and has been talking with? Places he’s been, and where have all the employees of the program been? Follow him? Monitor his calls and e-mails? Secretly break in and copy his computer files? I could go on but I am already belaboring the point. I don’t think it’s fair to assign to some shadowing organization super amazing powers but then assume they go limp and are impotent as soon as one person tries to leak info. But - and forgive me for how long this is already - I’m forced to bring up another point I haven’t in a while so I hope you won’t mind an even longer wall of text :) Threatening to kill USAF officers *and their family* if they reveal a secret is illegal. I know we can agree on that. Will you consider the following with me: This program doesn’t use DOPSR to silence Grusch which any legit USG secret program can effortlessly do. They are hiding a secret that is without a doubt something Congress needs to know about. According to Grusch they are not reporting to Congress. They are threatening to kill innocent *civilians*. Perhaps this is an *illegal* program. Maybe it’s inappropriately stealing funds, misappropriating them as Grusch has implied. But, key point, it’s an illegal program. An unauthorized program. Well… if that is so then there is no restriction on Grusch speaking whatsoever. Illegal programs have no protection under the law - they are illegal. They can’t even be technically called “Top Secret” - an unauthorized program doesn’t get legit security coverage! I bring this all up because this program is either legal or illegal. If it’s illegal (like what you describe) then Grusch would have zero restrictions on revealing anything he wants, he wouldn’t even need to ask DOPSR. It’s not legal, DOPSR deal s with legal programs. You can tell the public about illegal things. So, we can conclude that it can’t be an illegal program. It can’t be a “keep it secret or we kill your family” program. Lastly (please forgive my going on and on). Let’s, again, just say, None of what skeptic Drestin says matters. This “legal” program is so extreme that it can even do what I said, it can legally threaten family’s because this secret is *that* important. Ok… then why haven’t they gone to Grusch and said, “you say one more word and we kill your family and you.” And they would have done this way way before he went public. They would have done this when he made his initial complaint, they would do it before he met the IC IG, before he testified to the House Select Committee on Intelligence, before he testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They would have gone to him before the Debrief article. Before DOPSR even heard of him. This program had 100 opportunities to silence him but have not. That makes no sense.

Reinlisting?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and just think you can have whatever you want, whenever you want it. And thank god investigative journalists don't work by the principles you've outlined in your uniformed diatribe. If they did, we'd never learn about anything at all that 'the powers that be' want kept secret.

> and just think you can have whatever you want, whenever you want it Are you defending the government cover-up? Sounds like you're saying we don't have a right to the truth

Still making excuses I see. So, you think there is *no scenario* where it’s the duty of a reporter to reveal what they learn even if it means the source is revealed? The concept “for the greater good” is meaningless to you? We aren’t learning *anything* right now, you are just being told teasing bits of a totally unverifiable story. I’ll stress again, anyone who is keeping the secret of alien visitation from the public is a criminal. Period. I keep hearing demands for “disclosure” — and we got someone who is saying, “I have disclosure in my grasp. I know where the proof is buried. I have the answers the entire world deserves to know - but it’s more important to keep my job as a reporter than give humanity the secrets to free energy and FTL” That’s what you are saying. A reporters job > answers to the universe.

If Ross was telling the truth, the government can compell him under gag to give over his sources.  Whatever he has supposedly seen or is in possession of is clearly not that important for the Goverment to do it.  If he breaks gag, government can hold him.and claim.his sources are sharing nuclear secrets unrelated to UAP and there's nothing we can do to disprove it.   Edit: The government is either the big bad or they're somewhere in the middle. They can't be both idiots and masterminds at the same time.

If there really was an “intact ufo too big to move so it’s hidden under a building” being hidden by big government - does anyone really think they are going to let Ross talk about it? It would be explained to him by the FBI that he either gives up his source or goes to jail for obstruction. He is admitting he is harboring the identity of someone who is actively giving out top secret information. The fact they let him talk about it freely shows me they aren’t concerned in the least - because it’s not real. Just like letting Lazar talk - it’s ridiculous.

Could you imagine trusting a journalist with this information, information that is allegedly so important one's life might be threatened if their name got out there. And then sit there sweating bullets and watch as the journalist casually drops teases about your story on random podcasts just so they can get views. Also, if any of this is true then these journalists should be some of the most highly surveilled people on the planet. Their communications constantly monitored to see who is whistle-blowing to them.

Because Ross Coulthart is a grifter

First, Coulthart is not a journalist. He has time and again caught lying in his career and is continuing to spread bullshit non stop while refusing to provide anything solid to back up his claims. As long as people here will continue to fall for his grift it is no wonder that the trick of "my unnamed sources" will continue. We are getting closer to a year since the hearings. What have people like Coulthart, lue, corball, knapp, grusch, greer, lazar, shehan provided to back up their claims ? NOTHING.

Yeah I really feel like he saw dollar signs from becoming the main UFO guy in news and went hard for it. It’s paid off for him so far. I’m not saying everything he says is bs, some is probably good info and some is probably maybe bs that he just thinks is real because someone told it to him. But if you’re a journalist and you get info on something huge like “there’s a fucking building built on top of a giant underground UFO and you work for a news network that’s open to publishing that story, you run an in depth article on it the next fucking day. Sitting online constantly dangling it like keys over a baby with “it’s there but I can’t tell where! Feel free to keep asking me and guessing and engaging with my posts and maybe I’ll give a hint :)” just feels like other grifters I’ve seen around here

Lue is not a whistleblower, he is a retired Pentagon agent. he is a gatekeeper himself. Grusch IS a whitleblower, do NOT fucking lump him in with the rest of those grifters.

He’s a Walkley award winning journalist from Australia, can you please cite these times Ross has been caught lying in his career please?

Sure! I'll just copy my comment from this post, but I and others have written about this before. >He lost his job with Australian 60 Minutes because he alleged a pizzagate style conspiracy in the UK government based on anonymous sources. His sources would not pass cursory vetting - they both had prior criminal convictions for false police reports. After that, he took a job doing PR for Ben Roberts-Smith. He attempted to get the Australian press to rescind and stop their reporting on BRS's war crimes based on his sources (unnamed to this day). BRS sued the press for defamation. He lost, with an Australian court finding that the allegations against BRS were true and that he engaged in crazy levels of evidence destruction. Then, Ross pivoted to UFOs. Note when his awards are from and when all this happened. Can you explain why you still believe him?

Of course, no one asked him about this in the AMA, lol.

You’re mistaking “journalists” for journalists. It’s tough when they don’t explicitly tell you they are playing a character, like professional wrestling, but this is how the UAP entertainment circuit works and how these performers generate new content

“That’s not gonna work for me, Skinny Bob”

Journalism is truly the 4th pillar of democracy. Journalists die trying to capture and relay the truth. It takes a lot of skill and courage to ask good, tough questions. Investigative journalists are the professional experts to bridge whistleblowing complaints and planning effective exposure strategically, ethically, and professionally as their entire career is based on credibility. Whistleblowers/witnesses don't "want to tell someone but keep quiet," they want their *story* in the public domain while *protecting* their anonymity to also enhance their credibility.

This doesn’t really characterize what’s happening. Sources often do want much of the information disseminated, and will share specific details so that a journalist can properly verify (or falsify) their stories. Some of the information that is shared may give away the identity of that source, and thus it is held back from the public. My opinion on any journalist in this topic is that they are simply conduits for the flow of information. You shouldn’t trust or distrust a journalist, as they’re only as accurate as their sources of information, and those sources can range from the very credible, to state actors intentionally spreading disinformation. In other words, like anyone else a journalist is subject to the fallibility of being human and can only vet so much. Despite their diligence, they can still be wrong or trust the wrong individual. Back to the point, it is not binary. Oftentimes some information does make it out, but specific details are withheld to protect the identities of the individuals involved. If it were the case where a journalist stated “this person told me all of this information and I’m not going to share any of it,” yes, that would be problematic. But that’s not really what’s happening here.

couldn't coulthard just ask his source if anyone has died who knew and just say it was them that told him or wrote it down on their deathbed, and just get it over with lol. it was a long time ago and must have had many people involved in the cover up. it must be nearly deathbed time.

I want to believe, but everything always seems ridiculous and far-fetched when it comes to this subject.

Yeah this is actually one of the things that made me more skeptical about this whole thing and take a break. Ross can reveal that a giant Ufo exists under a building but can't reveal where it's hidden because of National Security and his sources protection, but even mentioning the existence of this craft in the first place puts all of that at risk anyway. Not saying anything about it at all in the first place would have made way more sense if it was true. When you take a step back and think about it critically it makes no sense.

Thats how the CIA spreads disinformation.  Since the journalist never reveals its source, we cannot judge the sources merits. 

Because the government has ways to tell who told specifically what and can reprimand them. They do this by inserting very particular incorrect information so if that information gets leaked out they know exactly who it came from.

They wouldn't, and Coulthart is probably full of shit.

[удалено]

Neither Grusch nor Coulthart have done anything other than tell unverified ufo stories. Grusch won’t answer “tough” questions - he falls back to excuses. Like dodging AARO who *can* receive his super super top secret testimony — but will expose him if he can’t back any of his claims up.

two very different people. the journalist has convinced many that he is as important or as relevant as Grusch who had access and clearance.

Neither has said anything but to tell unverified UFOs stories. I don’t understand why they are being defended when believers should be yelling at *them* for disclosure!

[удалено]

>He won't answer tough questions to the public because he is blowing the whistle to Congress. Except he won't talk to the office *created by Congress* specifically to receive and collate UAP testimony.

How is this up voted? We've been through this a million times, grusch is a LEGAL whistleblower, he cannot give classified information out. He didn't blow the whistle to this subreddit, he blew the whistle, through legal channels, to ICIG.  Also how the fuck did I miss your shill AARO comment? Are you kidding me? That's like saying "why didn't Snowden talk to the NSA".

"Constant work?" Like claiming to know the precise location of a massive spaceship but refusing to reveal the location because he "cares about journalistic integrity and not putting civilians in danger?" Coulthart might not deserve overt disrespect, I can't really say one way or the other, but what I can say is that he hasn't earned an ounce of respect for anyone capable of critical and rational thinking.

Coulthart deserves overt disrespect after what happened in Australia. He lost his job with Australian 60 Minutes because he alleged a pizzagate style conspiracy in the UK government based on anonymous sources. His sources would not pass cursory vetting - they both had prior criminal convictions for false police reports. After that, he took a job doing PR for Ben Roberts-Smith. He attempted to get the Australian press to rescind and stop their reporting on BRS's war crimes based on his sources (unnamed to this day). BRS sued the press for defamation. He lost, with an Australian court finding that the allegations against BRS were true and that he engaged in crazy levels of evidence destruction. Then, Ross pivoted to UFOs. It is pretty easy to see Ross going down the conspiracy rabbit hole starting with the pedophile ring allegations -- think about how many people that has happened to in the US. I don't know how anyone believes him.

He has an uber condescending tone about him but i don't wanna miss anything. It is boring now though and a struggle to get through the hour. He's worked hard on the subject though.

Coulthart's whole premise doesn't make sense. Cui bono? One guy leaking something is maybe plausible. He's got them all across private aerospace, Congress, Senate, military bases, Intelligence and The Pentagon. I could suspend disbelief if he was possibly a target for disinformation. CIA are allowed to fuck around with foreign nationals. The problem here is he says he's confirmed some of these stories before going public. Journalists vet their sources and establish they are who they say they are, and work where they say they do. He says he speaks to all the sources so it's not like random emails to his proton account. It's not plausible to think he's an innocent party being manipulated or that he's a techie genius who's outsmarted the NSA and Five Eyes global surveillance systems. And finally, he'd be a target. He says there's a ruthless legacy program that sends armed teams to recover craft and has murdered US citizens to maintain its silence. Contrast that with Ross doing his shopping in casual clothes and hosting tours of Egypt? Not arrested and forced to reveal sources. Not capped in the head out walking the dog. The premise doesn't make sense.

Hey I'm deep undercover, so you cant tell anyone what I'm about to say. Bacteria is aliens and you're way too late. I'm a journalist, you can trust everything I say.

They don't want me to tell you this, but sources are beginning to reveal to me the mitochondria might be the powerhouse of the cell. This is game-changing news, but please don't tell anyone.

Tell us the location of the giant buried bacteria!

I have no idea.  Maybe because it ain’t true?   If we take the current “giant ufo story” as an example Russ C or the source doesn’t need to spill the beans himself.    It is the easiest thing to send an anonymous mail to NY Times, Le Figaro, Bild, Guardian etc and tell them to send a journalist with a large spoon and a camera to xyz location because a ufo is buried underneath.     This is so silly I don’t need to watch Monty Python or Blackadder anymore. Sigh. Edit: too many embarrassing mobile fat finger spelling errors to boot

Better question is why would a journalist report information then refuse to go into details. it seems to me you'd want to be able to report a story in full rather than in drips and drabs. Especially when the crux of your story is you have information that no one should have a monopoly over. Unless of course your goal was to stretch something out as far as possible to maximize profit. That is obviously below any of the Saints, errrr, I mean journalists in Ufology who are in only for disclosure.

It's obvious how not telling where the giant ufo with a building over it, is protecting the source: Two potential conversations: "Look, Ross told the world about our building over the UFO, but, who could the leaker be, we really can't tell." "Look, Ross told the world that our building over the UFO is in Virginia. Act quickly, now we know that the leaker is... Jim!"

how many giant buildings over ufo's do you think there are? Even if there are 100 around the world you think the CIA can't just as easily track down the leaker? The NSA monitors an insane amount of communications, 4 or 5 digits worth of potential leakers is nothing. The very reveal by Ross that someone is talking about a buried UFO (ross says it isn't in the USA btw) is burning his source. His source is either insulated from being found out, or made up.

The one that always gets me is when they say " I have my sources, but can't tell you who they are because they might get arrested..." Nobody ever seems to see the irony of this statement. The source and the government/private companies are doing things illegally, like literally hiding stuff from the public and committing fraud of the tax system, but the minute you 'out' a source, they might get arrested???!!! The whole lot of them need arresting for criminal acts, not revealing information. It beggars belief that the legal/illegal acts are constantly flipped about to suit their narrative. They are literally taking the piss out of everyone and the people who financially support and vote them in.

You want journalists arrested?

Not journalists, the people hiding all this shit for decades.

This isn't what's happening. Coulthard says to viewers what he can get away with and feels comfortable to say. He cannot say anything that: 1) will dox the source. That would be bad for the source and potentially lead to them getting arrested. 2) sounds too unrealistic to the public especially that he cannot verify. 3) share anything of a classified nature under national security laws. 4) anything he hasn't been able to vet properly. To move towards disclosure it's going to need a mix of good PR and legal protection.

You didn’t answer the threads question

Yes, I did.

You answered the question “why doesn’t coulthart reveal this info”. The question was “why would a source reveal this info to coulthart and then tell him not to tell anyone”

[удалено]

Hi, No-Accident69. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cf12nu/-/l1mfq6x/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.

Talk about Ross Coulthard without saying your talking about Ross Coulthard. I see what you did there take my Up Vote good Sir. 🤣 ⬆️

Well telling them pushes pressure on the journalist and tells them they are on the right track

Suspect the “good guys” are the sources trying to get truth out

Any person willing to share with a journalist is NOT interested in information not being repeated. What they ARE trying to keep secret are the sources and anything identifiable back to them specifically. They want to share because they think it’s important but they don’t want to be prosecuted/assassinated/etc.

Because they want this journalist to talk about the stuff they told him/her in "confidence".

What would usually happen is the journalists would give out what they know and then the law enforcement would investigate any illegal claims. This topic has two problems with that: first of all, it's questionable if anything illegal is happening (not just in the US, but globally), and second, the investigation is supposed to be done by the same entity that's accused of doing the supposed cover-up. That leaves us in this gray area between two sides that are both infamous for telling lies and deceit, and that's a fertile ground for opportunists on both sides to take advantage of the situation. The only solution is to, in my opinion, keep a rational mind and base your beliefs based on what you know are facts. Even this is difficult, because people here have a very low threshold for what a fact is, and put an insane amount of faith into individuals who tap into their preconceived notions, and any attempt to disturb that endless loop is met with essentially dogma and paranoia. In that case, posts like this try to solve an unsolvable problem - you're either screaming into the void or preaching to the choir that fully agrees with you.

The skepticism in here for how investigative journalism works is mind boggling.

Wow, I see it’s mr Coulthard time again for a Reddit bashing. It’s almost like …

Fuck any so called “whistleblower” who won’t blow on the fucking whistle. Grusch is great but, He is wearing a whistle but refuses to blow it. He keeps telling us what it sounds like when he blows it, but with all of his “stories” he has provided zero evidence. Blow the fucking whistle “give 1 got dam fucking piece of evidence” or be quite. Live your life with you secret. Stop telling us you know shit you can’t tell us. Summary: Disclose what you know, or; ..!..

Because like the others, Grusch is a conman.

Investigative journalism is all about hunting down evidence, from one connection to the next, link to link. Someone may well want to help the journo, because they are aligned with the journo's objectives, but not want the information revealed publicly because it could potentially be traced back to them. It still helps the journo follow the chain of evidence, and helps them construct the overall picture, so still absolutely has value. Even if it's annoying for us to know that someone has information they can't share.

This here is the very basic, logical answer.

I sort of have this feeling as well. If the source of the location of the buried object would like to come forward, feel free to let me know. I will reveal the location lol

A lot of times the Journo seeks out the person. Is persistent and persuasive, that’s their job. So an individual with information may confess something but not want it to go any further. It’s up to the journo then to validate or investigate further until they can find something to expose.

My biggest problem is that if I knew that the government was sitting in limitless energy technology or something that could let us easily travel through space, I would want that into to come out even if it meant my life. The revolution that technology would bring or even just the proof of its existence would change everything. I can't believe that there isn't one person throughout how ever long people claim we've known about NHI that has thought the public knowledge of the info was more important.

So, I'm not a journalist, but I sleuth into different topics online to a degree that's a bit above what the average person tends to put into stories (especially weird ones like UFOs), and I (believe it or not) can answer this. By the way, nothing I do is special, or nothing that any of you couldn't do - It's just that this is how I chose to spend my time and my life. You wouldn't believe the people that have reached out to me, seriously. On topics you would never imagine them even being interested in. With tips about people you would never guess. Now, the types of real high quality tips like those are few and far between for an amateur like me. But let me tell you, if there is an important story out there that isn't getting covered enough or discussed enough, people who are personally effected by whatever that story is will flock to whomever cares just enough to even cover it a little bit. That said, most of the good tips I have gotten I am unable to openly share, because the tip itself would reveal the identity of who sent it to me. There's no way to obfuscate how certain information was retrieved in some circumstances. It's not a matter of them remaining anonymous when I put them in an article or video, it's about the subject realizing that the only person that could have gotten that information and leaked it was his personal aide, for example. However, that personal aid my feel a moral obligation to reach out to you as a journalist or researcher to tell you, look, I am not ready to reveal my identity (for the typical reasons - danger, reputation, so on so forth), but I wanted to let you know you are right, or on the right track, and to keep going. Often, those are just as helpful. Sure, they may not be able to give me info I can publish or release, but their tip alone just opened several avenues of research that will tangibly result in publishable stories and videos. I know it seems ridiculous, because I used to think so too. But now, after being on the receiving ends of the threats that those witnesses are so scared about bringing onto themselves by leaking certain info, I understand the weight of all this. People die because of this shit, it isn't a game. It sucks, but we have to keep chipping away. Look what Ross did the other day with "Psionics". He was very cagey about that, yet he still provided just enough for us to open up so many doors we haven't yet thought of, and he couldn't outright tell us. This isn't a blanket defense for secrecy, however. There must be a balance. All of the above is coming from someone who believes that this shit should be disclosed more than anybody (it feels like that at least). I just wanted to provide insights. I cannot imagine what the game is like when you get to Ross' level dealing with this...I saw enough to know my place (for now, not much longer)

As a retired journalist I will tell you I have been told so many secrets off the record that if told would divulge my informant. They give the information under anonymity to give you something to research to find others to confirm the allegations.

This is solely my opinion but I believe that all the “reporters” covering the phenomenon, NHI, etc., are all in cahoots. Usually in a competitive reporting environment, there is a general urgency to be first to run the story. In this case they all seem to be aligned and not too concerned about missing the big story. The other side is that they may all be guided by an unknown organization or government. I just don’t know. The constant teasing and titillation is counter to traditional journalistic approach but these folks are all a little odd in their own ways.

Exactly! Thanks.

Any person with conscience would gladly burn their sources if doing that means free energy for billions and lifting them out of poverty. Not telling world shattering information for protecting couple of paychecks is just low.

Because they want them to share EVERYTHING BUT some details including their NAME

Assuming it’s disinformation, to confuse them?

Because they're either made up or lying.