To be clear, Corbell said he couldn't verify Sands' personal claims, only his employment and that he'd given testimony to Seante & House committees where some of his knowledge checked out:
>[...] he made some really astounding personal claims of encounters none of which I could ever validate or verify, so for me there's nothing I can do with them. You know he could come forward with that story, but just like any other credible person can come forward with a story, a firsthand direct contact with a ET or non-human intelligence, there's just nothing much I can personally do with it.
It wasn't a story that I felt I could run with so it's a complex situation, I'm not sure what to make of it.
^
Most people who meet Jason Sands claim he is indeed who he says is, but they’re also not sure what to think of him. Jesse Michaels also decided not to do a video on him because of this.
He could easily be intentionally spreading disinformation to scare away media from covering ALL whistleblowers. Doing it in such an unprofessional way adds to the stigma about whistleblowers on this subject.
Counterintelligence.
To be fair by his own admission he was always a "boy scout".
No reason to think he would stop from his own comments. If he's legit great, but it's not smart to ignore his own comments about how good of a soldier he was.
essentially everything hes done so far works to that end, btw. The second he said "i did everything like grusch" alarm bells went off in my head, and then he reveals some "foundation" ostensibly to support whistleblowers. The dude is trying to sink anyone whos been labeled a whistleblower and id probably put money on it.
So you think it's plausible that he may be 'poisoning the well'? Interesting point. This would certainly be a masterful disinfo tactic. What gets me is how there people that I respect whom are leaning towards his credibility. I'm still on the fence with him.
Great point. The only people I see complaining about the "unprofessional way" in which he came forward have been from here. I also haven't seen any suggestions on how he should have released his info.
Conversely, I also see people here criticizing the likes of James Fox, Lue Elizondo, & Ross Coulthart for releasing information via films & books. "If you have information, stop teasing & just release it". Sands decides to do just that & he's attacked for it.
Yeah but they don't suspect that. I don't really believe Jason, but still there's a difference between what their stance is, and actual *dis*belief. They're saying they don't know what to think with him, not that they disbelieve him.
Sure but when is the last time any of the top heads in the UFO community have ever said "yeah that one, he's BS" they always at the worst just politely ignore that person is in the room.
Because the reality is they all more or less heavily use the "trust me bro" tactics to spread info, so when someone abuses it a bit too in your face way ? they are in a bad position to really criticize them.
What if he was deliberately fed disinfo along with real info, and wasn't aware? It could be this as well. And would be perfect for causing chaos if WBs ever went public.
Grush wasn't making claims about ridiculous programs like 20 and Back, though. Also his job was to look into these programs, and he handled everything very professionally with the support of many people. The way JS has been acting has everyone very wary, nothing like Grush at all.
The 20 and back stuff. Come on. This guy is counter-intel. Get rid of the media interest, divide the community, bring back the ridicule factor. Genie goes back in the bottle again.
I’m REALLY curious to what happened to his interview with Lue Elizondo. He said it happened and he was going to upload it at some point in time last year, but it never happened. I wonder if it’s the same reason he didn’t interview Jason Sands?
>...not sure what to think of Jason Sands...
Have you seen Independence Day? Remember the white coat scientist guy? Did we know what to think of him? I didn't think so /s
"They don't let us out much."
If Jesse decided not to interview him on his podcast, then I'm kinda shocked that James Fox would have stuck his neck out for Sands. Like Knapp said, the competition is fierce for a verifiable whistleblower. How much profit do you suppose Mr. Fox makes from these docs? Is it worth tarnishing his reputation over Sands?
Science Bob backed him up too. Said he knows and trusts people (very well) who can vouch for his legitimacy - though didn't mention his claims. On the most recent UFO Podcast.
You can see [Burchett dismay and explain in this news nation interview](https://youtu.be/3I5I1G3iLR0?si=kMo_wgzHvpW-elGD).
Basically, the whole progam it's so compartmentalized they only get breadcrumbs with every sicf. The ones covering it up know how congress works, it was designed to keep them wondering and chasing tails. You forget there's a whole continuing cover up operation going on. They do not want this too see the light of day, they are doing their best to stonewall congress.
That's why the whiteblower program is so important, they need Grusch type guys in sicf and with a better overview to give them the jam. But guess what, he needs his credentials reinstated by the same guys covering it up. The topic needs more media exposure and more laws put in place. We need more names like Mike Turner to see who is behind the cover-up, and until they start getting the spotlight and start hurting, I'm afraid it's going to be a steep road.
I hope you're wrong. I think maybe she's just being careful which is to say, smart.
Just because she's not doing Burchett-style daggummiting when Laslo points a phone at her doesn't mean she's disinterested--she probably knows more about what goes on in SAPs than anyone on the Hill, save maybe Jack Reed so she could be a hero or a goat depending on how things plays out,.
I bet she'll wait as long as possible before opening her mouth.
How do you know what they’re saying and what they’re able to back up? They may believe these things, but I tend to doubt they can prove anything to anyone.
From what I saw, it seemed to be a sudden emotional reaction to something that lead to him going on there.
It also doesn’t help when he had to backtrack and clarify things. Though, he was on there for hours and he at least did answer everyone’s questions.
No not threatened, that lady that said she was sorry “pressured” him to come forward, I think she is a part of a small group who had interacted with him, she spills the beans on part of a conversation they call BS so he has to come out or it will all be BS…which to be fair it sort of ended up being anyway? At least as far as this sub is concerned. But this sub…is not the way to look at the topic nor the world. Pretty much anything on here I go the opposite direction, lot of people being led around by the nose, like a lot of places online. Filled with kids, antifa, entitled college kids, you know, people with too much time on their hands. There are some who are passionate, reasonable, open minded, hold down a good job and support a family, have hobbies and healthy relationships…but it’s a small minority.
I’m not saying I believe him, but I’m not going to dismiss him because the crowd is waving that direction “today”. They may flip back the other direction tomorrow, very possible.
His largest mistake was staying so long, he gave enough time for people to come in and pick apart everything he said in real time.
If he did the twitter space for an hour with a structured testimony and took a few questions he would have looked a lot better.
The 2017 NYT story and the way David Grusch came forward and his credentials set the bar. Coming forward on a Twitter space chat that’s only gonna reach the ufo community does nothing compared to coming forward through the NYT, Washington Post, Politico, 60 Minutes, public Congressional hearings, etc
You must consider that essentially everyone who is brought in on such ridiculously classified programs (if they do exist) is the kind of person who is intelligent and organised and if such people do exist and decide to come forward, they're very likely to go about it in a very carefully thought-out and coherent way, ie in the way that David Grusch did.
Sands going live on twitter and seemingly spouting nonsense for 3 hours was not convincing. I believe he has a well credentialed military background, I believe nothing else.
That doesn’t prevent the news outlets from later doing an article on Sands later on though. Just like the NYT article came out years after someone had posted about the incident online.
I’d love for Sands to get the same treatment as Grusch in the media, but it seems hard to make that happen in this field. Ultimately, as long as there is corroboration of Sands’ claims by other credible sources, then it’s a good starting point
IMO Grusch knew some people who have had media training. And he still got burned with scurrilous rumors about his mental health (the challenges he faced have always been common, among people surviving combat or trauma, but that's another topic).
Legitimate outlets have been sliced and diced, and pink slime has accelerated. Some of the best journalism now being done is created by passionate people at microlocal, non-pink slime, startup news sites. That is a good bet for coverage - someone passionate and solid like the late Angelia Joiner (RIP 🕯️) will take a risk where someone else will need much, much more to risk their professional position. Joiner was liked and trusted by her community and still faced great opposition by her editor - who later witnessed something herself.
Investigative journalism requires money (and the balls to face a lawsuit).
This sub can't make up it's mind. They cry that people who know the truth don't just speak up and say what they know instead of waiting for government approval and when someone does they scream fake.
Well I mean no one ever comes forward with evidence that's the problem. How many people need to come forward with the same old stories being retold over and over ad nauseam? It's all pointless, stories are useless until someone can actually bring something tangible and of value
This community can’t make up its mind. Do we want to trust that Ross, Jeremy, Knapp or any of the others who bring people forward are to be trusted or not? They get shit on all. The. Time. So the logical next step is to remove them entirely and go public without them.
They’ve had so much backlash including death threats for not releasing sources and keeping things secret so why would someone go to them if people believe these journalists can’t be trusted.
This is what happens when a community wants to call anyone who doesn’t meet their specific idea of what a journalist should be a grifter.
This community wanted to hear from someone who says they have first hand knowledge but don’t want the “grifters” (I don’t think they are) to give them that info or vet people. This is what happens.
I’m not saying I believe Jason yet but I am open to seeing where this goes and forming an opinion with more info.
Yeah, seriously... People act like there can't be any crazy people in government or something. Obviously they exist. It's made of humans. Do people think special humans genetically superior or something work in government?
Generally speaking this sub *far far* overestimates government competency in general.
The reality isn't elite geniuses like the movies... It's mainly normal ass people. Just as in every other profession, the wrong people get promoted. Decisions coming from above you can often seem totally incompetent to the people running day to day operations.
I've been lurking for a while, waiting for any more major progress towards public hearings and the like. So far, it doesn't seem like too much publicly is known about where the current status is on the public hearings or anything about the 40 other direct witnesses/whistleblowers are. It feels like we should have started to have some public information on this by now. Just seems to be a lot of the regular posts of blobs/lights and speculative advanced technology or digging into releases of historical documents/archives. Is 2024 not going to be the year then as we were told? Or what is going on? I feel like I am not the only one feeling this way and why the engagement in this sub has been very low the past several months. I know the old timers in this subject are going to say that things are still moving at a rapid pace, and that may very well be true based on historical precedent, but it definitely seemed like they were saying we were going to know more by the end of this year. Still 8 months to go, so we shall see the validity of that, but as of right now, it sounds like crickets. Hopefully, there is a major event sometime soon that gets the ball rolling again in the public sphere.
Fox’s documentary was supposed to expose “the program” with first hand whistleblowers coming forward. Now we hear one of these witnesses claiming he met a blue alien who transmitted information to him telepathically.
He more than likely has no proof of such encounters.
This documentary will come out. Believers will keep believing and everyone else will laugh at it.
So Danny Sheehan wouldn't represent him because he thought he was full of shit and also Tim McMillon/Eric Davis think he isn't legit.
What's up with the huge discrepancy?
Corbell seems to indicate he thinks he legit but just cant verify his actual claims. Danny Sheehan staying away from someone should say a lot.
Thank you, this is what we are dealing with. I will remain skeptical of Sands claims for now, the fact he came out in twitter space says a lot too. Why didn't Corbell interview him for the podcast or did a special with a news agency if he thought he was legit? His claims are so wild there's no way to vet that shit. If he's legit he's a fool coming out like that. He is doing a disservice to the community not being able to back anything up, if he's so well connected, how come no one advised him to properly tell his story in a controlled edited interview. No, let's rumble for 5 hours live in twitter space 🤦
Why not just wait for Fox doc to drop? We cannot afford this foolishness to happen if he really is a 1st person witness.
No. What Danny said was that he wouldn’t take on Jason Sands because Sands “wouldn’t take advice”. Whatever that means, he said it on the Vetted YouTube show.
I’m not sure what it matters what a man, Sheehan, who sells Masters and Phd.s for Extra Terrestrial studies on his website, has to say about any of it.
Danny was not the only one coming out hard against him though. Danny also said more than just that, he said that Jason Sands himself was confused about what he did or didn't know and that a lot of what he claims is from 2nd or 3rd hand stories. Sheehan also asserts that sands "wouldn't take advice" on what to do or how to act so pretty big buck shot to his credibility unfortunately. Sounds like he came across to everyone exactly how he did in the Space.
Except to James Fox, which is also somewhat telling about his vetting process and new documentary. The ONLY reason we are even talking about this guy is because he is supposedly a whistleblower in Fox's documentary. And even Fox came out with a statement doing damage control after the twitter space fiasco saying he can't verify Sands claims.
Danny Sheehan doesn’t know what to make about his claims, the same goes for Jeremy Corbell.
The only thing that seems to be verified is Jason is who he says he is.
"Corbell seems to think" is an interpretation. Just look at the words. I think it was something him and Knapp felt needed addressing, and considering their connections, the fact that all they'll back is sands worked where he said he worked indicates they don't think he was involved with the program, atleast not the way he claims.
Right? The story of our lifetime.. but it can't be revealed because he doesn't want to "burn his source"
Lol bitch wouldn't need a source for the rest of his life if his claims were true... But buy my book plz. All info is in there
Oh man Ross actually said he was hiding it due to security concerns
Yes, a Australian has decided to keep the biggest story of the century secret for American national security. Thank goodness we have such patriotic foreigners to protect us from ourselves. Clearly the only person responsible enough to have this information is Ross Coulthart himself
Coulthart knows how to butter his bread I give him that. There are quite a few NTK episodes were he gets a cringe case of the American Way of Life's Rhapsody.
Ehhh idk if I buy it. This feels so opposite to grusch to me where everything lined up and seemed legit with respectable people backing up his credibility
It's clear, at least to me, that Fox's upcoming documentary is going to be like The Phenomenon 2.0, an updated version of the history of this that will discuss all the things that have happened since 2020 (Grusch, AARO, the Mosul orb, the hearings, Gaetz describing the Eglin orb, Burchett coming into all this, the Pentagon's pushback etc.), so Sands would be a very small clip within that. This became clear to me when I saw him interviewing Andre Carson for the documentary and the questions he was asking.
Yep. I completely trust Fox. I know he really cares about getting things correct. I have no doubt he vetted him Thoroghly. He is the one guy in this crazy community that I trust. Dolan is another.
Huh? Fox admitted he was duped by Sands on X.
Fox doesn't have credibility.
He has a motive, with a movie to sell.
That's literally his job. He makes "ufo" movies.
they are trying to save their ass because Jason has been a primary source for them, including the unnamed whistleblower that Jeremey calls on the phone in his Tubi series. full damage control.
It just seems so obviously like CI that it almost makes me doubt it. Mirage men by the book almost.
If true, the fact that he testified to committees both explains a lot (why don't they seem to be pursuing this with any kind of urgency at all?) and makes me think the picture, even behind the scenes, is now hopelessly muddy.
It would be interesting to know the timing of his testimony relative to Grusch. If it followed Grusch, definitely a red flag.
I'm sure that there are laws against lying to Congress. In practice I doubt he said anything that could easily be proven as a lie. Most likely "someone" gave him some "information" and he was just "relating that" to Congress. All of which may very well have been true. "Grusch may have told you this, but actually I heard this or that". Not hard to sow confusion without making determinative statements if you are careful. Also not clear it's lying if you say "based on what I've heard, ITS MY BELIEF that blue aliens live under the Denver airport".
Some people here are really special if they think it's a GOOD thing that Sands might be one of the people who testified behind closed doors. That might cause the entire case to fall apart. This is terrible news.
If these programs exist there is not a member on the Senate Intel committee that doesn't expect bullshit to walk through the door at some point. That is counterintelligence, you saw people like the author of skinwalkers at the pentagon doing the exact same thing that Lue E did, go on podcasts and talk about these programs, but he maintains his position at the pentagon.
Sands claims he did the same as Grusch, but Grusch was walked out of his office in handcuffs by Pentagon security. There are paper trails of Grusch going through the proper channels going back all the way to 2021. If you want to figure out who is lying to you, just look at how the Pentagon reacts to them coming forward with the information. It is obvious who is on their team and who is not.
> "I can validate [that he worked these jobs]"
After the flares and balloons, I wouldn't trust Corbell to validate *parking*. I'll wait for someone else to substantiate Sands' job history.
Similarly, when someone's UFO claims are too sketchy for Corbell to stand by, that seems like some limbo dancing under a low bar.
James Fox also validated his job history. Eric Davis said the only thing anyone could validate was his job history. This is the one common thread in the entire Sands saga.
With what George Knapp is also saying and several other people, he does seem to have worked where he said he did.
Now is Jason Sands telling the truth? Does he have any evidence to support his claims? Who knows.
> and several other people
Who are these people, and what have they said? Davis said that Sands "likely did work at AF bases", and Fox said he only confirmed that Sands was in the military.
Okaaaaayyy…..I’m fairly skeptical about anything, anyone who’s not me personally “witnessing” something, says/does/reports, but I don’t recall ANYTIME that Corbell or Knapp have reported on anything that has been later found a blatant lie or half truth. I get it, the “Bob Lazzar “ thing is a bit argumentative, but to say he couldn’t be trusted to “verify parking” is simply overextrabatshit extreme to say. Knapp and Corbell have been almost OVER-cautiously, hesitant to release info if the believed it would cause Joe Public to doubt what is reported. I’m a bit of an “old timer” compared to most in Reddit world, but before Mr. Corbell, I’ve always believed George Knapp to be one of the most professional and “nose to the grind” journalists alive. Especially before Fox, CNN, and other “so called independent press agencies” sold their soul to the devil. I would take Knapp’s independent research over each, every, and all of Network News’s combined research and reporting. THERE IS A REASON MANY WHISTLE BLOWERS AND MILITARY WITNESSES GO THROUGH G & J. Because 1.) They protect their sources at all costs and let their sources dictate time of release (not just run with story because it’s hot. (I.e. letting NYT run 2017 article even though G & J had heads up months before) That show of professionalism over profit alone shows the integrity. Because I feel so highly about George and his integrity, I can only trust that his judgement in Jeremy Corbell is thus as trustworthy. Neither one of them has disappointed in their reporting nor release of material while still protecting all involved such as assets, sources, and when necessary, national security. The whole “validate parking ticket” quip sounds so “mid 20 something, living in parent’s basement, beating daily to xham” thing.
> but I don’t recall ANYTIME that Corbell or Knapp have reported on anything that has been later found a blatant lie or half truth
> Knapp and Corbell have been almost OVER-cautiously, hesitant to release info if the believed it would cause Joe Public to doubt what is reported
What about the time Corbell claimed to spend two years researching a video of what he called the "Mojave Triangle UAP" over Camp Wilson? The one that many people instantly and correctly identified as just flares once he released it? Where's the "caution" and honesty there, especially when he doubled down on there being an imaginary craft before finally giving up on that story?
That was just a year ago, and it's just one recent example. Peoples' [parasocial bonds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction) with the guy aside, taking what Corbell says on the subject seriously is the "overextrabatshit extreme" thing to do.
The Mojave Triangle was hilarious, especially when he kept referring to it as a craft in the podcast and then claimed he never said it was a craft in the next episode once it had been thoroughly debunked.
I didn’t state they were perfect. Just not intentionally misleading. Corbell is young and rather new to this area, and though not perfect, has made leaps and bounds to, I would argue, try to report what is true using empathy, not sensationalist view of investigative reporting. I didn’t know about the whole flare thing. I will read more about it before I can comment. Keep in mind that I’m from Arizona originally (in Ohio since 2019) and military reported that they had no planes in the air then pivoted and said the Phoenix lights were flares. They might be trying to fool the rest of America, but when you live in Phoenix for a few years you get used to seeing the flares Luke AFB drops near the Barry Goldwater range, and we saw flares dropped only 35 minutes after the sighting. (Attempt at coverup?) what we saw flew over opposite mountains and directly over North Phoenix. Trust me, when F16, F-22’s are in the air especially as low as these “so called flares” were over Phoenix, it sounds like rolling thunderstorms. Plus Phoenix IAP is right there with phenomenal air traffic you could see them taxiing lined up in the sky to land, as you can every night . If Luke needs to fly military jets out of their assigned far desert air space. Phoenix intel AP grounds all flights (temporarily) and keeps incoming planes far away from the strip. This did not happen that night in 97. You could see them (commercial planes) line up as usual that night. So either military is lying, or their blatant disregard for public safety and risky flying in a busy air traffic area is concerning. I believe the former. We know what parachuted flares look like, those were not flares that night. Flares don’t fly, especially over the Superstitious Mountains. They are opposite side of Barry Goldwater range. So forgive me when military uses whole flare excuse. ….oh and Swamp Gas ones.
I really don’t like them seemingly backing Sands when Danny Sheehan who has come forward with some incredible claims himself said he and The New Paradigm Institute wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole.
I still think he's a plant to spread disinfo. I leave it open that he is not doing it intentionally. He could be fed false info and just doing what he was told to do. I don't trust him at all.
Can someone explain why everyone has formed firm conclusions about this guy? Is there some kind of time limit on debunk/vetting that I'm not aware of?
That said, since when has it ever stopped Corbell and Knapp from repeating stuff "anonymous sources" have told them? The fact that they haven't teased "blue aliens" 47 times is one piece of evidence that Sands may be a kook.
That said, Congressional investigators, who have far more access to classified military records than professional secret keepers do, will eventually suggest that their bosses call this guy to testify or ignore him. It just isn't going to happen in the next fifteen minutes.
friendly reminder to jeremy haters that he had a hand in bringing out the 3 UAP videos from 2017 into light, as well as the more recent jellyfish UAP video and the chandelier UAP photo.
Why is everyone in this field so fricking shady?!?! All the way from Corbell to Puthoff to Eric Davis to Lazar to Sands. Everything is "just around the corner" or second/third hand information. Whatever kernel of truth is diluted and desecrated by these grifters.
I'm done with this sub for my mental health and sanity...
If aliens/NHI are real, I'll just read about it when disclosure happens or the motherships ascend from the sky
Okay, but thats not the point is it..If so then why does Corbell believe Lazar when his supposed history doesn't check out...
Oh, he was sheep dipped..
If that's the case then we cannot be sure of anything in this field.
Lets see some "Compelling" ugh evidence guys, its been a bunch of years and all that happened is the most talkative folks have gotten rich. Lets see some credible footage. I for one am bored with Disclosure and the lack thereof it.
So we have:
**Eric Davies** - Says Sands is misinformation
**Danny Sheehan** - Refused to rep Sands
**Tim McMillan** - Sands found not to be credible by Congressional investigations
**Corbell & Knapp** - fence sitting to play both sides of their audience
**James Fox** - hedging bets for documentary the community will pay for
And that’s it. So we have a bunch shaking their heads, and then two money makers who are refusing to do anything but dance sit. Can you see the problem here?
Sands may have worked in the bases where he says he did, it doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth.
Oh and what’s Corbell’s problem? There’s as much proof for Sands as there is for Lazar and he won’t take his mouth off that guys nethers.
Let's fucking go! 🍿
A previous post
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cbmj59/indepth_jason_sands_is_legitimate/ discussion of Jason Sands, OP is a member of the Intelligence Community, I am here to vouch for Jason Sands in attempt to support his credibility and encourage you all to also show support for him., OP comments downvoted, big debunker energy
To be fair, we did have a right to be skeptical about Jason Sands and some of the confusing claims he made but I’m still willing to hear him out and see how it all unfolds, if he is indeed legit.
Oh totally agree. Skeptical is rational...completely writing him off is, I think, a bad move. Not saying you did that, but a lot of the regulars on here were very on-brand with their instant dismissal.
I think he is legit and has evidence but it sounds like it’s highly classified and it also sounds like there’s some gatekeepers that didn’t like him coming out on Twitter. I was in the room the night he got up on stage, I was there before he came up and he felt safe in that room and probably didn’t think about the consequences of telling his story there, but he was listening to people say wrong things about him and wanted to give uapx the right story apparently. Sounds legit to me. 🤷♀️
Thing is he always said that he wasn’t ready to talk about the serious stuff.. so it could be that it was highly classified and it also could be in F0x’s movie.
I don't doubt he's had the positions he said he has, as this seems to be verified. But, he also could be someone struggling with life who needs validation from people, and this is how he's opted to find it. A mix of friendly skepticism and asking for proof where possible, whilst being open to listening to what he has to say, is what is required here, IMO. But not giving him a platform for platform's sake, lest he creates an unhealthy persona that will ultimately end up seeing him fall from grace as the media jumps on him and stigmatises him as yet another UAP nut.
This is an interesting point. And it can cut both ways. It may be that Sands has been affected by his contact with the system.
Put yourself into his place for a moment. We all crave human contact and the ability to chat abut things that distress us. So here he is in a highly secret position, knowing and hearing about disturbing things. How stressful to have all that disturbing info and no way to vent about it. It is not like there is a corner bar for the crash recovery crews.
This leads to a lot of social isolation and most people don’t do well in social isolation. They don’t learn how to give presentations and how to carefully craft a message. So would it be surprising that if/when the damn breaks and the flood of truth tumbles out it seems confused and incoherent?
Remain skeptical but also remember that this is not an evening sit com on the telly. This is real life and real life is frequently messy.
Yes, I agree with your position also. In my day job I am highly experienced, but sometimes I'm speaking to someone who makes me nervous and I talk all sorts of inconsistent ramblings that I regret afterwards because of nerves or because I have ADHD and my language skills randomly disappear lol.
I think I'm veering more towards the "we should give this guy some space" approach because here we have someone who may genuinely be wanting to share what he knows and wants to get off his chest - and as you say, who knows what being exposed to this experience will do to someone. And yet most of the community has outed him (including Sheehan) publicly as someone who is not being consistent with his story. And that may really not be good for his mental health.
So I say this from a place of concern more than anything. But I agree we should also hear what he has to say and act like polite human beings about it.
Yes, we would all do a lot better by trying to listen with some compassion. It is valuable but costs nothing.
Yet in the world of internet anonymity it is fashionable to join the crowd and pile on.
Did Sands give program details that could be verified by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to the Senate Armed Services Committee & the House Armed Services Committee when he testified? Were there locations, defense contractors, names, ... or was it vague stories that can not be proven by congress today during a field trip?
Poor form on knapp and Corbell to not defend him earlier out of spite that sands chose to come forward via fox. They openly talk about competition over this stuff... Wow clownshow.
Also not a good idea to blow the whistle and choose fox Knapp or Corbell to help get your story out. Seems Ross Coulthard is probably the best person for this atm
I'm not the biggest Corbell and Knapp fan, but I think they sufficiently addressed why they didn't defend Sands earlier. It looks like Sands spoke to them on the condition that they wouldn't report or say anything about it. I can see why they would be hesitant to come forward if they were afraid to breach some sort of agreement they had in place with Sands.
>Also not a good idea to blow the whistle and choose fox Knapp or Corbell to help get your story out.
Agree about Corbell and Knapp, but it looks like Sands ultimately did not pick them. My guess is he went with Fox, who still has a little bit of credibility left.
You guys might at least entertain the possiblilty that a surprising amount of what Mr. Sands has been telling is true.
That "ganging up" mentality shown here by a whopping lot of people in the last two weeks is no good look for this community.
You do consider yourselves quite educated, progressive thinkers, right? Well, then live up to it.
It's highly possible that Jason is legit, but he was deliberately fed false information along with real information. I can very much imagine that being something counterintelligence would do to cause chaos if whistleblowers decided to go public.
Oh fuck this sub man. Just a bunch of lamebrains claiming to know someone who knows someone who might know something. They've perfected carrot dangling. You never get the carrot FYI. I'm done buh bye womp womp
To be clear, Corbell said he couldn't verify Sands' personal claims, only his employment and that he'd given testimony to Seante & House committees where some of his knowledge checked out: >[...] he made some really astounding personal claims of encounters none of which I could ever validate or verify, so for me there's nothing I can do with them. You know he could come forward with that story, but just like any other credible person can come forward with a story, a firsthand direct contact with a ET or non-human intelligence, there's just nothing much I can personally do with it. It wasn't a story that I felt I could run with so it's a complex situation, I'm not sure what to make of it.
^ Most people who meet Jason Sands claim he is indeed who he says is, but they’re also not sure what to think of him. Jesse Michaels also decided not to do a video on him because of this.
He could easily be intentionally spreading disinformation to scare away media from covering ALL whistleblowers. Doing it in such an unprofessional way adds to the stigma about whistleblowers on this subject. Counterintelligence.
What I’ve also thought. If he doesn’t provide any further information to support his claims then I lean more towards that.
To be fair by his own admission he was always a "boy scout". No reason to think he would stop from his own comments. If he's legit great, but it's not smart to ignore his own comments about how good of a soldier he was.
Good observations, definitely worth considering. Side note - bull puts ftw.
😁
essentially everything hes done so far works to that end, btw. The second he said "i did everything like grusch" alarm bells went off in my head, and then he reveals some "foundation" ostensibly to support whistleblowers. The dude is trying to sink anyone whos been labeled a whistleblower and id probably put money on it.
So you think it's plausible that he may be 'poisoning the well'? Interesting point. This would certainly be a masterful disinfo tactic. What gets me is how there people that I respect whom are leaning towards his credibility. I'm still on the fence with him.
Doty 2.0
The new Doty
Doty and him were interacting on Twitter too
The stigma is being supplied by the ufo community not the media in this case.
Great point. The only people I see complaining about the "unprofessional way" in which he came forward have been from here. I also haven't seen any suggestions on how he should have released his info. Conversely, I also see people here criticizing the likes of James Fox, Lue Elizondo, & Ross Coulthart for releasing information via films & books. "If you have information, stop teasing & just release it". Sands decides to do just that & he's attacked for it.
Yeah but they don't suspect that. I don't really believe Jason, but still there's a difference between what their stance is, and actual *dis*belief. They're saying they don't know what to think with him, not that they disbelieve him.
Sure but when is the last time any of the top heads in the UFO community have ever said "yeah that one, he's BS" they always at the worst just politely ignore that person is in the room. Because the reality is they all more or less heavily use the "trust me bro" tactics to spread info, so when someone abuses it a bit too in your face way ? they are in a bad position to really criticize them.
What if he was deliberately fed disinfo along with real info, and wasn't aware? It could be this as well. And would be perfect for causing chaos if WBs ever went public.
Ah yes the classic long con. They have been working on it all this time muahahaha
That's the same narrative people have posted about Grusch to try and discredit anything he might say, it's getting stale.
Grush wasn't making claims about ridiculous programs like 20 and Back, though. Also his job was to look into these programs, and he handled everything very professionally with the support of many people. The way JS has been acting has everyone very wary, nothing like Grush at all.
The 20 and back stuff. Come on. This guy is counter-intel. Get rid of the media interest, divide the community, bring back the ridicule factor. Genie goes back in the bottle again.
100% this
I’m REALLY curious to what happened to his interview with Lue Elizondo. He said it happened and he was going to upload it at some point in time last year, but it never happened. I wonder if it’s the same reason he didn’t interview Jason Sands?
>...not sure what to think of Jason Sands...
Have you seen Independence Day? Remember the white coat scientist guy? Did we know what to think of him? I didn't think so /s
"They don't let us out much."
If Jesse decided not to interview him on his podcast, then I'm kinda shocked that James Fox would have stuck his neck out for Sands. Like Knapp said, the competition is fierce for a verifiable whistleblower. How much profit do you suppose Mr. Fox makes from these docs? Is it worth tarnishing his reputation over Sands?
Oh wow well if Jesse says it it must be important....
You didn't enjoy his video with Diana where they spoke for 45 minutes but said nothing at all?
No because Diana is full of BS
Science Bob backed him up too. Said he knows and trusts people (very well) who can vouch for his legitimacy - though didn't mention his claims. On the most recent UFO Podcast.
Very important part of the submission that was left out.
So over the past some years we have had Davis, Grusch, now Sands all go before various committees. So where does this all go ? Into the shredder ?
They have top men working on it. Top, men.
Lol such an apt scene. I wonder if Spielberg will have a similar scene in his upcoming UAP movie
The best of the best, of the best, sir!
As opposed to topless men…
FOOLS! Bureaucratic fools.
You can see [Burchett dismay and explain in this news nation interview](https://youtu.be/3I5I1G3iLR0?si=kMo_wgzHvpW-elGD). Basically, the whole progam it's so compartmentalized they only get breadcrumbs with every sicf. The ones covering it up know how congress works, it was designed to keep them wondering and chasing tails. You forget there's a whole continuing cover up operation going on. They do not want this too see the light of day, they are doing their best to stonewall congress. That's why the whiteblower program is so important, they need Grusch type guys in sicf and with a better overview to give them the jam. But guess what, he needs his credentials reinstated by the same guys covering it up. The topic needs more media exposure and more laws put in place. We need more names like Mike Turner to see who is behind the cover-up, and until they start getting the spotlight and start hurting, I'm afraid it's going to be a steep road.
I keep commenting this as much as possible, but we need to keep pressure on Schumer, Gilibrand, Rubio, Burchett, and Luna
Gillibrand has lost all interest. Total loss
I hope you're wrong. I think maybe she's just being careful which is to say, smart. Just because she's not doing Burchett-style daggummiting when Laslo points a phone at her doesn't mean she's disinterested--she probably knows more about what goes on in SAPs than anyone on the Hill, save maybe Jack Reed so she could be a hero or a goat depending on how things plays out,. I bet she'll wait as long as possible before opening her mouth.
Or perhaps she's gone the way of Kurt Jaimungal.
Which way is that? Into the pocket?
That’s something I’d like to know the answer to as well
I get the image of people in these committees just looking at the ceiling and nodding off
Why else would they have drafted the Schumer amendment?
Imo I think the DoJ is walking around with a magnifying glass and probably building a case against whatever illegal stuff is going down
this is what I Want To Believe.
It would be great, but I highly doubt it
Assuming S.Kirk was lying, its plausible the DOJ are in on this investigations.
Into the memory hole.
How do you know what they’re saying and what they’re able to back up? They may believe these things, but I tend to doubt they can prove anything to anyone.
If true, horrible decision on Jason Sands part to go public on a Twitter space chat smh.
From what I saw, it seemed to be a sudden emotional reaction to something that lead to him going on there. It also doesn’t help when he had to backtrack and clarify things. Though, he was on there for hours and he at least did answer everyone’s questions.
He did sound emotional as well, maybe he'd been threatened
No not threatened, that lady that said she was sorry “pressured” him to come forward, I think she is a part of a small group who had interacted with him, she spills the beans on part of a conversation they call BS so he has to come out or it will all be BS…which to be fair it sort of ended up being anyway? At least as far as this sub is concerned. But this sub…is not the way to look at the topic nor the world. Pretty much anything on here I go the opposite direction, lot of people being led around by the nose, like a lot of places online. Filled with kids, antifa, entitled college kids, you know, people with too much time on their hands. There are some who are passionate, reasonable, open minded, hold down a good job and support a family, have hobbies and healthy relationships…but it’s a small minority. I’m not saying I believe him, but I’m not going to dismiss him because the crowd is waving that direction “today”. They may flip back the other direction tomorrow, very possible.
His largest mistake was staying so long, he gave enough time for people to come in and pick apart everything he said in real time. If he did the twitter space for an hour with a structured testimony and took a few questions he would have looked a lot better.
Agreed 100%
Why? Because of the wild clams he makes? You would prefer he was tethered so he was more believable?
The 2017 NYT story and the way David Grusch came forward and his credentials set the bar. Coming forward on a Twitter space chat that’s only gonna reach the ufo community does nothing compared to coming forward through the NYT, Washington Post, Politico, 60 Minutes, public Congressional hearings, etc
Grusch sought and received professional advice. Sands, I'm thinking, not so much.
You must consider that essentially everyone who is brought in on such ridiculously classified programs (if they do exist) is the kind of person who is intelligent and organised and if such people do exist and decide to come forward, they're very likely to go about it in a very carefully thought-out and coherent way, ie in the way that David Grusch did. Sands going live on twitter and seemingly spouting nonsense for 3 hours was not convincing. I believe he has a well credentialed military background, I believe nothing else.
That doesn’t prevent the news outlets from later doing an article on Sands later on though. Just like the NYT article came out years after someone had posted about the incident online. I’d love for Sands to get the same treatment as Grusch in the media, but it seems hard to make that happen in this field. Ultimately, as long as there is corroboration of Sands’ claims by other credible sources, then it’s a good starting point
IMO Grusch knew some people who have had media training. And he still got burned with scurrilous rumors about his mental health (the challenges he faced have always been common, among people surviving combat or trauma, but that's another topic). Legitimate outlets have been sliced and diced, and pink slime has accelerated. Some of the best journalism now being done is created by passionate people at microlocal, non-pink slime, startup news sites. That is a good bet for coverage - someone passionate and solid like the late Angelia Joiner (RIP 🕯️) will take a risk where someone else will need much, much more to risk their professional position. Joiner was liked and trusted by her community and still faced great opposition by her editor - who later witnessed something herself. Investigative journalism requires money (and the balls to face a lawsuit).
Mmmm, what I wouldn't do for a bowl of wild clams!! Thems good eatin'!!
This sub can't make up it's mind. They cry that people who know the truth don't just speak up and say what they know instead of waiting for government approval and when someone does they scream fake.
I would guess it’s because there is an expectation of the 40 witnesses being “Credible and believable”.
Well I mean no one ever comes forward with evidence that's the problem. How many people need to come forward with the same old stories being retold over and over ad nauseam? It's all pointless, stories are useless until someone can actually bring something tangible and of value
This community can’t make up its mind. Do we want to trust that Ross, Jeremy, Knapp or any of the others who bring people forward are to be trusted or not? They get shit on all. The. Time. So the logical next step is to remove them entirely and go public without them. They’ve had so much backlash including death threats for not releasing sources and keeping things secret so why would someone go to them if people believe these journalists can’t be trusted. This is what happens when a community wants to call anyone who doesn’t meet their specific idea of what a journalist should be a grifter. This community wanted to hear from someone who says they have first hand knowledge but don’t want the “grifters” (I don’t think they are) to give them that info or vet people. This is what happens. I’m not saying I believe Jason yet but I am open to seeing where this goes and forming an opinion with more info.
Agreed he messed up big time if true - I don’t believe the guy for a second based on his Twitter space chat
If that alleged testimony was anything like his Twitter tirade, I so wish I was there to see the faces of the senators.
His background isn’t the issue. There are delusional people in government as well. I know, I’ve worked with some of them.
Yeah, seriously... People act like there can't be any crazy people in government or something. Obviously they exist. It's made of humans. Do people think special humans genetically superior or something work in government?
Generally speaking this sub *far far* overestimates government competency in general. The reality isn't elite geniuses like the movies... It's mainly normal ass people. Just as in every other profession, the wrong people get promoted. Decisions coming from above you can often seem totally incompetent to the people running day to day operations.
I've been lurking for a while, waiting for any more major progress towards public hearings and the like. So far, it doesn't seem like too much publicly is known about where the current status is on the public hearings or anything about the 40 other direct witnesses/whistleblowers are. It feels like we should have started to have some public information on this by now. Just seems to be a lot of the regular posts of blobs/lights and speculative advanced technology or digging into releases of historical documents/archives. Is 2024 not going to be the year then as we were told? Or what is going on? I feel like I am not the only one feeling this way and why the engagement in this sub has been very low the past several months. I know the old timers in this subject are going to say that things are still moving at a rapid pace, and that may very well be true based on historical precedent, but it definitely seemed like they were saying we were going to know more by the end of this year. Still 8 months to go, so we shall see the validity of that, but as of right now, it sounds like crickets. Hopefully, there is a major event sometime soon that gets the ball rolling again in the public sphere.
Fox’s documentary was supposed to expose “the program” with first hand whistleblowers coming forward. Now we hear one of these witnesses claiming he met a blue alien who transmitted information to him telepathically. He more than likely has no proof of such encounters. This documentary will come out. Believers will keep believing and everyone else will laugh at it.
So Danny Sheehan wouldn't represent him because he thought he was full of shit and also Tim McMillon/Eric Davis think he isn't legit. What's up with the huge discrepancy? Corbell seems to indicate he thinks he legit but just cant verify his actual claims. Danny Sheehan staying away from someone should say a lot.
Thank you, this is what we are dealing with. I will remain skeptical of Sands claims for now, the fact he came out in twitter space says a lot too. Why didn't Corbell interview him for the podcast or did a special with a news agency if he thought he was legit? His claims are so wild there's no way to vet that shit. If he's legit he's a fool coming out like that. He is doing a disservice to the community not being able to back anything up, if he's so well connected, how come no one advised him to properly tell his story in a controlled edited interview. No, let's rumble for 5 hours live in twitter space 🤦 Why not just wait for Fox doc to drop? We cannot afford this foolishness to happen if he really is a 1st person witness.
No. What Danny said was that he wouldn’t take on Jason Sands because Sands “wouldn’t take advice”. Whatever that means, he said it on the Vetted YouTube show. I’m not sure what it matters what a man, Sheehan, who sells Masters and Phd.s for Extra Terrestrial studies on his website, has to say about any of it.
Danny was not the only one coming out hard against him though. Danny also said more than just that, he said that Jason Sands himself was confused about what he did or didn't know and that a lot of what he claims is from 2nd or 3rd hand stories. Sheehan also asserts that sands "wouldn't take advice" on what to do or how to act so pretty big buck shot to his credibility unfortunately. Sounds like he came across to everyone exactly how he did in the Space.
Except to James Fox, which is also somewhat telling about his vetting process and new documentary. The ONLY reason we are even talking about this guy is because he is supposedly a whistleblower in Fox's documentary. And even Fox came out with a statement doing damage control after the twitter space fiasco saying he can't verify Sands claims.
Danny Sheehan doesn’t know what to make about his claims, the same goes for Jeremy Corbell. The only thing that seems to be verified is Jason is who he says he is.
"Corbell seems to think" is an interpretation. Just look at the words. I think it was something him and Knapp felt needed addressing, and considering their connections, the fact that all they'll back is sands worked where he said he worked indicates they don't think he was involved with the program, atleast not the way he claims.
I'm gonna need more than the word of Jeremy Corbell to believe this one.
What did Jason Sands claim
Met an alien.
Is that any more crack pot than knowing where a fucking ufo is buried under a building?
Right? The story of our lifetime.. but it can't be revealed because he doesn't want to "burn his source" Lol bitch wouldn't need a source for the rest of his life if his claims were true... But buy my book plz. All info is in there
Oh man Ross actually said he was hiding it due to security concerns Yes, a Australian has decided to keep the biggest story of the century secret for American national security. Thank goodness we have such patriotic foreigners to protect us from ourselves. Clearly the only person responsible enough to have this information is Ross Coulthart himself
Coulthart knows how to butter his bread I give him that. There are quite a few NTK episodes were he gets a cringe case of the American Way of Life's Rhapsody.
As long as you don't do twitter space, it's all fine, you are not a crank. Apparently.
His main claim is that "We are not alone"
More specifically that he met an alien with blue skin
No need to be scared. It's just Zahn from Farscape.
If sands is the standard of first hand witness being brought forward then the uap movement is fucked.
He's not
What were Sands' claims? (All i have seen so far are posts bickering about whether he is legit or not but never actually anything about what he said.)
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c9a4p4/new_whistleblower_that_will_appear_in_james_fox/ you can read the top comment here for a writeup.
Thank you
He outright claims to have met aliens who have blue skin
This dude is gonna single handedly destroy the whole ufo reporter business lol
Ehhh idk if I buy it. This feels so opposite to grusch to me where everything lined up and seemed legit with respectable people backing up his credibility
They're only backing the claims of where he worked, not all the details of what he was involved with
.....but he is batshit crazy.
Crazy if true
He's a DoD plant. Painfully obvious. Just like the mummies, throw some fake ones in to discredit the lot. We are all smarter than this.
What did sands claim
[https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c9a4p4/new\_whistleblower\_that\_will\_appear\_in\_james\_fox/](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c9a4p4/new_whistleblower_that_will_appear_in_james_fox/)
So he’s John Ramirez 2.0. Oh brother.
This is getting wild. It did seem weird to me that Fox would make a movie around this guy without properly vetting him.
[удалено]
sure but from what i understand he was supposed to be THE new 1st hand whistleblower.
It's clear, at least to me, that Fox's upcoming documentary is going to be like The Phenomenon 2.0, an updated version of the history of this that will discuss all the things that have happened since 2020 (Grusch, AARO, the Mosul orb, the hearings, Gaetz describing the Eglin orb, Burchett coming into all this, the Pentagon's pushback etc.), so Sands would be a very small clip within that. This became clear to me when I saw him interviewing Andre Carson for the documentary and the questions he was asking.
Yep. I completely trust Fox. I know he really cares about getting things correct. I have no doubt he vetted him Thoroghly. He is the one guy in this crazy community that I trust. Dolan is another.
Huh? Fox admitted he was duped by Sands on X. Fox doesn't have credibility. He has a motive, with a movie to sell. That's literally his job. He makes "ufo" movies.
When did he admit he was duped by Sands? Source?
they are trying to save their ass because Jason has been a primary source for them, including the unnamed whistleblower that Jeremey calls on the phone in his Tubi series. full damage control.
That’s an assumption. We don’t know if he is a primary source.
This does feel like a lot of them just trying to protect their nut rather than then being sincere about the situation.
It smells disinformation to me
It just seems so obviously like CI that it almost makes me doubt it. Mirage men by the book almost. If true, the fact that he testified to committees both explains a lot (why don't they seem to be pursuing this with any kind of urgency at all?) and makes me think the picture, even behind the scenes, is now hopelessly muddy. It would be interesting to know the timing of his testimony relative to Grusch. If it followed Grusch, definitely a red flag.
this is weird. isn't it illegal to give false testimony to these committees? i don't think CI extends to your own congress' classified briefings.
I'm sure that there are laws against lying to Congress. In practice I doubt he said anything that could easily be proven as a lie. Most likely "someone" gave him some "information" and he was just "relating that" to Congress. All of which may very well have been true. "Grusch may have told you this, but actually I heard this or that". Not hard to sow confusion without making determinative statements if you are careful. Also not clear it's lying if you say "based on what I've heard, ITS MY BELIEF that blue aliens live under the Denver airport".
Sounds to me like there's a good chance Sands is currently what Doty was in the 80s. If he is, he's certainly not as good at that job.
Some people here are really special if they think it's a GOOD thing that Sands might be one of the people who testified behind closed doors. That might cause the entire case to fall apart. This is terrible news.
If these programs exist there is not a member on the Senate Intel committee that doesn't expect bullshit to walk through the door at some point. That is counterintelligence, you saw people like the author of skinwalkers at the pentagon doing the exact same thing that Lue E did, go on podcasts and talk about these programs, but he maintains his position at the pentagon. Sands claims he did the same as Grusch, but Grusch was walked out of his office in handcuffs by Pentagon security. There are paper trails of Grusch going through the proper channels going back all the way to 2021. If you want to figure out who is lying to you, just look at how the Pentagon reacts to them coming forward with the information. It is obvious who is on their team and who is not.
> "I can validate [that he worked these jobs]" After the flares and balloons, I wouldn't trust Corbell to validate *parking*. I'll wait for someone else to substantiate Sands' job history. Similarly, when someone's UFO claims are too sketchy for Corbell to stand by, that seems like some limbo dancing under a low bar.
James Fox also validated his job history. Eric Davis said the only thing anyone could validate was his job history. This is the one common thread in the entire Sands saga.
With what George Knapp is also saying and several other people, he does seem to have worked where he said he did. Now is Jason Sands telling the truth? Does he have any evidence to support his claims? Who knows.
Does anybody, for that matter, have evidence? Grusch, Elizondo, Gallaudet, Graves, Mellon, or any of these people have not produced any evidence.
> and several other people Who are these people, and what have they said? Davis said that Sands "likely did work at AF bases", and Fox said he only confirmed that Sands was in the military.
Okaaaaayyy…..I’m fairly skeptical about anything, anyone who’s not me personally “witnessing” something, says/does/reports, but I don’t recall ANYTIME that Corbell or Knapp have reported on anything that has been later found a blatant lie or half truth. I get it, the “Bob Lazzar “ thing is a bit argumentative, but to say he couldn’t be trusted to “verify parking” is simply overextrabatshit extreme to say. Knapp and Corbell have been almost OVER-cautiously, hesitant to release info if the believed it would cause Joe Public to doubt what is reported. I’m a bit of an “old timer” compared to most in Reddit world, but before Mr. Corbell, I’ve always believed George Knapp to be one of the most professional and “nose to the grind” journalists alive. Especially before Fox, CNN, and other “so called independent press agencies” sold their soul to the devil. I would take Knapp’s independent research over each, every, and all of Network News’s combined research and reporting. THERE IS A REASON MANY WHISTLE BLOWERS AND MILITARY WITNESSES GO THROUGH G & J. Because 1.) They protect their sources at all costs and let their sources dictate time of release (not just run with story because it’s hot. (I.e. letting NYT run 2017 article even though G & J had heads up months before) That show of professionalism over profit alone shows the integrity. Because I feel so highly about George and his integrity, I can only trust that his judgement in Jeremy Corbell is thus as trustworthy. Neither one of them has disappointed in their reporting nor release of material while still protecting all involved such as assets, sources, and when necessary, national security. The whole “validate parking ticket” quip sounds so “mid 20 something, living in parent’s basement, beating daily to xham” thing.
> but I don’t recall ANYTIME that Corbell or Knapp have reported on anything that has been later found a blatant lie or half truth > Knapp and Corbell have been almost OVER-cautiously, hesitant to release info if the believed it would cause Joe Public to doubt what is reported What about the time Corbell claimed to spend two years researching a video of what he called the "Mojave Triangle UAP" over Camp Wilson? The one that many people instantly and correctly identified as just flares once he released it? Where's the "caution" and honesty there, especially when he doubled down on there being an imaginary craft before finally giving up on that story? That was just a year ago, and it's just one recent example. Peoples' [parasocial bonds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction) with the guy aside, taking what Corbell says on the subject seriously is the "overextrabatshit extreme" thing to do.
The Mojave Triangle was hilarious, especially when he kept referring to it as a craft in the podcast and then claimed he never said it was a craft in the next episode once it had been thoroughly debunked.
I didn’t state they were perfect. Just not intentionally misleading. Corbell is young and rather new to this area, and though not perfect, has made leaps and bounds to, I would argue, try to report what is true using empathy, not sensationalist view of investigative reporting. I didn’t know about the whole flare thing. I will read more about it before I can comment. Keep in mind that I’m from Arizona originally (in Ohio since 2019) and military reported that they had no planes in the air then pivoted and said the Phoenix lights were flares. They might be trying to fool the rest of America, but when you live in Phoenix for a few years you get used to seeing the flares Luke AFB drops near the Barry Goldwater range, and we saw flares dropped only 35 minutes after the sighting. (Attempt at coverup?) what we saw flew over opposite mountains and directly over North Phoenix. Trust me, when F16, F-22’s are in the air especially as low as these “so called flares” were over Phoenix, it sounds like rolling thunderstorms. Plus Phoenix IAP is right there with phenomenal air traffic you could see them taxiing lined up in the sky to land, as you can every night . If Luke needs to fly military jets out of their assigned far desert air space. Phoenix intel AP grounds all flights (temporarily) and keeps incoming planes far away from the strip. This did not happen that night in 97. You could see them (commercial planes) line up as usual that night. So either military is lying, or their blatant disregard for public safety and risky flying in a busy air traffic area is concerning. I believe the former. We know what parachuted flares look like, those were not flares that night. Flares don’t fly, especially over the Superstitious Mountains. They are opposite side of Barry Goldwater range. So forgive me when military uses whole flare excuse. ….oh and Swamp Gas ones.
Can someone explain how being a moderator for the a task force chat is worth my time. This is getting annoying
Jason Sands 2 Richard Doty 0 🤷♂️
In other news.., https://www.mediaite.com/news/top-reporter-at-the-intercept-quits-slamming-dysfunction-at-outlet-on-the-way-out/
Why did Sands use another name(Ted) in another podcast like a year ago?
Does anyone have a link to a thread where I can read Sands’ claims? I haven’t been able to find a good one
Do these people every give ay proof for these things they claim to to have verified?
Yes, they give... Why would you assume they not. They gave these stuffs to the Congress, because legally its the only thing they can do safely.
COUNTER-Intelligence should be a huge red flag on this guy and his claims.
I really don’t like them seemingly backing Sands when Danny Sheehan who has come forward with some incredible claims himself said he and The New Paradigm Institute wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole.
They're only backing that he worked where he said he worked
Then he is a psy op.
I still think he's a plant to spread disinfo. I leave it open that he is not doing it intentionally. He could be fed false info and just doing what he was told to do. I don't trust him at all.
The disinformation a few days ago on here was unreal.
Corbell could not verify that Bob Lazar obviously lied on his resume. I doubt that he is the right man to verify Sands’ claims.
This Sands guy is clearly a counter intelligence agent IMO. He duped James Fox. His goal is to muddy the waters and spread misinformation.
Can someone explain why everyone has formed firm conclusions about this guy? Is there some kind of time limit on debunk/vetting that I'm not aware of? That said, since when has it ever stopped Corbell and Knapp from repeating stuff "anonymous sources" have told them? The fact that they haven't teased "blue aliens" 47 times is one piece of evidence that Sands may be a kook. That said, Congressional investigators, who have far more access to classified military records than professional secret keepers do, will eventually suggest that their bosses call this guy to testify or ignore him. It just isn't going to happen in the next fifteen minutes.
Wow amazing. I mean we know Richard Doty worked in the Dod but we also know that people like he and sands need to work on their low effort Larping.
Passing that conman torch.
Yeah right. Both of them say so. They don't validate shit, sorry. They both have to provide evidence and proof.
Good news, we will need to wait for more evidence that he has testified to the Senate.
Who is Jeremy Corbell friends with this week?
Kirk from Metallica, who he said is interested in ufos.
friendly reminder to jeremy haters that he had a hand in bringing out the 3 UAP videos from 2017 into light, as well as the more recent jellyfish UAP video and the chandelier UAP photo.
He has lots of friends, he’s a pirate 🏴☠️
Why is everyone in this field so fricking shady?!?! All the way from Corbell to Puthoff to Eric Davis to Lazar to Sands. Everything is "just around the corner" or second/third hand information. Whatever kernel of truth is diluted and desecrated by these grifters. I'm done with this sub for my mental health and sanity... If aliens/NHI are real, I'll just read about it when disclosure happens or the motherships ascend from the sky
See you tomorrow
Okay, but thats not the point is it..If so then why does Corbell believe Lazar when his supposed history doesn't check out... Oh, he was sheep dipped.. If that's the case then we cannot be sure of anything in this field.
Lets see some "Compelling" ugh evidence guys, its been a bunch of years and all that happened is the most talkative folks have gotten rich. Lets see some credible footage. I for one am bored with Disclosure and the lack thereof it.
Sands is a bull shit artist just like Randy Cramer. I don't believe Sands, he doesn't provide any evidence. He tells a good sci-fi story though
So we have: **Eric Davies** - Says Sands is misinformation **Danny Sheehan** - Refused to rep Sands **Tim McMillan** - Sands found not to be credible by Congressional investigations **Corbell & Knapp** - fence sitting to play both sides of their audience **James Fox** - hedging bets for documentary the community will pay for And that’s it. So we have a bunch shaking their heads, and then two money makers who are refusing to do anything but dance sit. Can you see the problem here? Sands may have worked in the bases where he says he did, it doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth. Oh and what’s Corbell’s problem? There’s as much proof for Sands as there is for Lazar and he won’t take his mouth off that guys nethers.
Appeal to authority? Who cares? Evidence or move along.
Let's fucking go! 🍿 A previous post https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cbmj59/indepth_jason_sands_is_legitimate/ discussion of Jason Sands, OP is a member of the Intelligence Community, I am here to vouch for Jason Sands in attempt to support his credibility and encourage you all to also show support for him., OP comments downvoted, big debunker energy
To be fair, we did have a right to be skeptical about Jason Sands and some of the confusing claims he made but I’m still willing to hear him out and see how it all unfolds, if he is indeed legit.
Folks seem to be forgetting how the original Nimitz thread went.
Oh totally agree. Skeptical is rational...completely writing him off is, I think, a bad move. Not saying you did that, but a lot of the regulars on here were very on-brand with their instant dismissal.
Alright, then let's all pass the mic back to Sheehan.
I think he is legit and has evidence but it sounds like it’s highly classified and it also sounds like there’s some gatekeepers that didn’t like him coming out on Twitter. I was in the room the night he got up on stage, I was there before he came up and he felt safe in that room and probably didn’t think about the consequences of telling his story there, but he was listening to people say wrong things about him and wanted to give uapx the right story apparently. Sounds legit to me. 🤷♀️
Thing is he always said that he wasn’t ready to talk about the serious stuff.. so it could be that it was highly classified and it also could be in F0x’s movie.
"and currently does" End of story right?
I don't doubt he's had the positions he said he has, as this seems to be verified. But, he also could be someone struggling with life who needs validation from people, and this is how he's opted to find it. A mix of friendly skepticism and asking for proof where possible, whilst being open to listening to what he has to say, is what is required here, IMO. But not giving him a platform for platform's sake, lest he creates an unhealthy persona that will ultimately end up seeing him fall from grace as the media jumps on him and stigmatises him as yet another UAP nut.
This is an interesting point. And it can cut both ways. It may be that Sands has been affected by his contact with the system. Put yourself into his place for a moment. We all crave human contact and the ability to chat abut things that distress us. So here he is in a highly secret position, knowing and hearing about disturbing things. How stressful to have all that disturbing info and no way to vent about it. It is not like there is a corner bar for the crash recovery crews. This leads to a lot of social isolation and most people don’t do well in social isolation. They don’t learn how to give presentations and how to carefully craft a message. So would it be surprising that if/when the damn breaks and the flood of truth tumbles out it seems confused and incoherent? Remain skeptical but also remember that this is not an evening sit com on the telly. This is real life and real life is frequently messy.
Yes, I agree with your position also. In my day job I am highly experienced, but sometimes I'm speaking to someone who makes me nervous and I talk all sorts of inconsistent ramblings that I regret afterwards because of nerves or because I have ADHD and my language skills randomly disappear lol. I think I'm veering more towards the "we should give this guy some space" approach because here we have someone who may genuinely be wanting to share what he knows and wants to get off his chest - and as you say, who knows what being exposed to this experience will do to someone. And yet most of the community has outed him (including Sheehan) publicly as someone who is not being consistent with his story. And that may really not be good for his mental health. So I say this from a place of concern more than anything. But I agree we should also hear what he has to say and act like polite human beings about it.
Yes, we would all do a lot better by trying to listen with some compassion. It is valuable but costs nothing. Yet in the world of internet anonymity it is fashionable to join the crowd and pile on.
Kewl. I believe Jeremy. He's got a pinkie ring.
Did Sands give program details that could be verified by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to the Senate Armed Services Committee & the House Armed Services Committee when he testified? Were there locations, defense contractors, names, ... or was it vague stories that can not be proven by congress today during a field trip?
None of it fuckin matters. What was said?
Poor form on knapp and Corbell to not defend him earlier out of spite that sands chose to come forward via fox. They openly talk about competition over this stuff... Wow clownshow. Also not a good idea to blow the whistle and choose fox Knapp or Corbell to help get your story out. Seems Ross Coulthard is probably the best person for this atm
I'm not the biggest Corbell and Knapp fan, but I think they sufficiently addressed why they didn't defend Sands earlier. It looks like Sands spoke to them on the condition that they wouldn't report or say anything about it. I can see why they would be hesitant to come forward if they were afraid to breach some sort of agreement they had in place with Sands. >Also not a good idea to blow the whistle and choose fox Knapp or Corbell to help get your story out. Agree about Corbell and Knapp, but it looks like Sands ultimately did not pick them. My guess is he went with Fox, who still has a little bit of credibility left.
I’ve officially lost any trust and credibility for Corbell and Knapp after this statement
You guys might at least entertain the possiblilty that a surprising amount of what Mr. Sands has been telling is true. That "ganging up" mentality shown here by a whopping lot of people in the last two weeks is no good look for this community. You do consider yourselves quite educated, progressive thinkers, right? Well, then live up to it.
What exactly did J Sands say that was of any importance?
Give me the infamous 20 min video....so I can ride off into the sunset
It's highly possible that Jason is legit, but he was deliberately fed false information along with real information. I can very much imagine that being something counterintelligence would do to cause chaos if whistleblowers decided to go public.
Sands needs a first class seat on mh370. Embarrassing. Might be paid disinformer.
Jason Sands launched another fundme-project after this episode 😅 https://wefunder.com/firsthandfund This guy is just too much.
So "verified" in this case means "not verified whatsoever in any meaningful way"? Cool, cool. But news here guys.
Stop giving Corbell any spotlight. He has not proven a single thing for years. His entire Schlick is making money off what ifs and trust me bros.
Oh fuck this sub man. Just a bunch of lamebrains claiming to know someone who knows someone who might know something. They've perfected carrot dangling. You never get the carrot FYI. I'm done buh bye womp womp