1 Don't feel the need to break down the article by @HolmanJenkins. Another lazy effort 2 feed WSJ readers a bunch of bs from an ignorant writer. His previous article:
Putin & #UFO Sightings
The debate over UAP may herald not alien visitors but destabilizing new weapons systems.
Putin & #UFO Sightings
The debate over UAP may herald not alien visitors but destabilizing new weapons systems.
https://twitter.com/todd_mcmurtry/status/1586360836326658048
2 I think troublesome, black tech weapons are a big part of this but, IMO, it all traces back to a non-human source. That's something Jenkins probably can't handle so he writes as if the suggestion of anything "alien" is an outlandish idea. He'll have 2 deal w/reality eventually.
3 What Todd M. was referring to:
"Five years have passed since an alleged military intelligence whistleblower disclosed details of secret Pentagon UFO efforts, w/o any apparent consequence for breaking his oath."
If Lue had broken his oath, he'd be in orange right now.
#liars
"Five years have passed since an alleged military intelligence whistleblower disclosed details of secret Pentagon UFO efforts, w/o any apparent consequence for breaking his oath."
If Lue had broken his oath, he'd be in orange right now.
#liars
4 If guessing if @WSJ & @HolmanJenkins don't retract & Lue sues 4 defamation, the argument will be:
We said alleged whistleblower. We insinuated he never broke any oath bc there was no oath 2 break.
True journalist would dig & easily find that 2B false. How will a jury see it?
We said alleged whistleblower. We insinuated he never broke any oath bc there was no oath 2 break.
True journalist would dig & easily find that 2B false. How will a jury see it?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
