What are your thoughts on people who withhold evidence? (Stephen Greer & others)

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

Hello family. Long time lurker, first time poster.

I was listening to Stephen Greer on a podcast recently – I know folks have a lot of *mixed* opinions about him and some of his claims – but I’d love to get reflections from any of you on one specific thing he discussed, in regards to having a heap of evidence that he’s apparently holding on to as an ‘insurance policy.’

He described how he’s got documents, names, photos, dates and locations of various events that would fully prove government cover-up and conspiracy to be true regarding the US’ possession of alien craft, alien bodies, and more. BUT – he’s holding all this evidence as an insurance policy, in case he gets killed, in which case he says all that evidence would automatically be shared publicly across the internet.

I’ve heard other UFO researchers/known figures in that space say similar things – that they know/have in their possession various important pieces of evidence but they can’t share it because they’re scared for their life, so they’re keeping it secret as *leverage* in case they get assassinated etc.

My question for the room – assuming their evidence is absolutely 100% authentic and truly the bombshell material that would “change everything” (as I’ve heard Greer and others say explicitly) do you think it’s their responsibility to just SHARE that stuff??

Or – still assuming they’re telling the truth – do you believe Greer is making the right move by not sharing “bombshell” evidence for some reason? I guess his life would be the reason, according to him, because if he did share the evidence he has, his life would be in danger?

Just trying to understand the psychology of why someone would purposefully withhold ‘bombshell’ evidence that could ‘change everything’ – because the skeptic in me immediately assumes they don’t have a scrap of ‘bombshell’ material, but it’s a smart business move to continue popping up in podcasts and interviews in order to sell books or seminars or documentaries etc.

But maybe I’m missing something completely, in which case please educate me on why I’m ass-backwards wrong about this, I’m down to learn. Much love!

submitted by /u/brentpella
[link] [comments] 

Read More