As a long-time lurker and first-time poster brought here by the 2017 New York Times article “Glowing Auras and Black Money,” I’ve seen some incredibly thorough research on display from many Redditors, complete with excellent context, video and document links, and solid sourcing. On the other hand, I’ve also come across fascinating accounts with little to no vetting provided. We all have different thresholds for what we consider fact, and my inner journalist wants to emerge and offer some helpful advice when sharing remarkable information.
First and foremost, we need the 5 W’s and the one H: who, what, when, where, why, and how. A story is only as good as its source, and without verifiable sourcing, it’s just another tale. Also, It’s essential to understand the three main types of sources:
1. Primary Sources: Direct from the event or person, such as interviews, official documents, or live events. These are gold for journalists because they are the origin of the information.
2. Secondary Sources: David Grusch falls into this category as one who was appointed to debrief individuals with direct knowledge of a US government crash recovery program. A secondary source can provide analysis or commentary about primary information, like interviews, scholarly articles, or biographies. Useful for adding depth.
3. Tertiary Sources: These aggregate or distill information from primary and secondary sources, such as encyclopedias or textbooks. They’re great starting points but proceed with caution. Redditors posting links, articles, and videos would be Tertiary.
When researching or gathering an otherwise incredible story, it’s essential to vet and validate as much as possible about the source, including their identity, occupation, service record (if applicable), and how they came across the story and why they want to tell it. What’s their motive? What do they stand to gain or lose?
Authenticity. Are they who they claim to be? Identification documents and additional witnesses or sources that can validate the authenticity of their identity, occupation, and the event they’re sharing are key. Can they be verifiably placed at the location during the timeline presented? Who was with them? Will these colleagues be available for interviews or comment? These individuals will also need to be vetted to confirm their presence at the same event. This is especially critical when dealing with a person whose identity and occupation are verified, but their experience is not. Sometimes, there simply isn’t enough available information, which is why journalists may lose interest and choose not to publish a story. One need only look at the divisive Dr. Greer, who has made some notable missteps while validating his own sources, ultimately hurting his credibility within the community.
More than one source. Additional sources are vital not only to verify an individual and their occupation but also the veracity of their claim. The now-publicly-available information on the US intelligence source named “Curveball” serves as a prime example of how a sole source can be harmful. Curveball, a German citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, was the sole source for US intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. He claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had WMD manufacturing on mobile platforms, which turned out to be complete nonsense. The invasion severely damaged US credibility on the international stage for years to come. A career journalist would be finished if something like this happened with one of their stories.
Motive, Veracity, and Red Flags. Consider the source’s motive for coming forward. Curveball, for example, profited directly from passing false intelligence to the US. Further investigation revealed other red flags, but it’s important to note that not all flags indicate a source is fabricating a story. What may seem like a red flag to a casual reader could be a motive for coming forward. Take Michael Herrera, for instance. While I don’t know if he’s telling the truth, I’ve read comments suggesting he had a lackluster career and received a general discharge under honorable conditions (i.e., was kicked out of the service or otherwise failed to fulfill his minimum obligations). Some took this and immediately labeled him as a poorly disciplined soldier and fabricator. However, to a journalist, discipline problems don’t necessarily indicate lying; in fact, they could be seen as a positive indicator that he doesn’t easily comply with authority, partially explaining why he might ignore an NDA and come forward to speak.
It can go both ways. Whistleblowers may have disciplinary issues within their occupation, be eccentric, and struggle with cultural adaptation, which again lends to their disposition to step forward in the first place. A well-adjusted, highly decorated, and well-liked individual who has integrated into the culture of their work environment (the whistleblower the public wants) is less likely to come forward and break an NDA because they have more to lose. Thus, we see that the casual investigator is more likely to accept a whistleblower in good standing than an occupationally dysfunctional one. Those motivated to discredit a whistleblower will immediately turn to their occupational and mental health record without looking further, considering that sufficient evidence of the story’s veracity.
I recommend withholding judgment for as long as humanly possible while continuing to gather additional information. For example, I’ve seen a comment pointing out that Herrera’s team didn’t have radios, which many military members find implausible and immediately discount his story based on that fact alone. The journalist in me wants to withhold judgment and see if I can debrief others who worked under the same circumstances and location as when the event occurred and investigate what TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures) were used by marines operating in the area, and why, if at all, a team would go out without radios. Different teams in different operating environments assess risk to mission in different ways. I absolutely question this, but I want more information.
Separating Fact from Speculation. I’ve noticed a common occurrence where interviewed whistleblowers seamlessly transition from speaking with authority on the 5 W’s of what occurred to what they believe it all means. This shift is often so subtle that it can confuse listeners about what is being presented as fact versus speculation.
For example, in Michael Herrera’s story, he mentions intercepting human trafficking, specifically crates being moved onto a craft allegedly containing people. However, he never explicitly states that he personally saw people inside these containers. In fact, he reveals that a person he met later, who heard his story, was the source of this human trafficking information. It appears that Herrera accepted this as fact and incorporated it into his narrative, but a trained ear will recognize that this detail is not part of Herrera’s firsthand experience. It has been overlaid by Herrera from another account that we are unable to independently verify.
Sources often make this transition from recounting events they experienced directly to sharing second-hand information or speculation while still speaking with authority on the matter. Skeptics usually pick up on this and see it as proof that the source is fabricating events. It’s the journalist’s job to separate eyewitness accounts from speculation, which is why they may omit unverified portions from an article.
James Sands notoriously blended the two to such an extent that many have already written him off as a fabricator. The key takeaway is to stick to the verifiable facts “the story”, or risk falling into this trap.
Risk: Lastly, as a reader, consider the cost to the whistleblower. The risk of whistleblowing must be considered when evaluating their story. Even outside UAP circles, whistleblowers undergo incredible stress when disclosing information to the public. Look no further than recent Boeing whistleblowers on aircraft manufacture and safety. They become ostracized, sometimes bogged down in legal disputes, can lose their employability, and experience spiraling mental health issues. It’s a thankless job. Some manage to profit, but I would argue this is the exception to the rule. It takes courage to step forward.
Again, if you take anything away from this: Who, what, when, where, why, how?
I’d love to hear from anyone who disagrees, and why.
Keep searching.
submitted by /u/EmergencyResident652
[link] [comments]