Caution: The Grift is Real
I’ve spent a significant amount of time diving into this subreddit, as well as others and the news, and I’ve started to notice a concerning trend among those promoting the UFO narrative. Many of the individuals pushing this agenda—those who write books and speak at paid events—seem to be the ones who claim to have “seen” the most. Yet, they often fail to take a strong stance on their claims, which strikes me as a strategy to keep their options open as the narrative evolves.
The individuals I find credible, like Grusch, are the ones not profiting from these claims. Grusch presented his findings to Congress, conducted a brief press circuit to highlight his experience, and then stepped back from the limelight. In contrast, Elizondo actively sells books, accepts speaking fees, and indulges in the more sensational theories, seemingly solely for clicks.
Jake Barber also hasn’t monetized his work. With 300k views on his YouTube channel, he’s not making a living from it. Like Grusch, he clearly delineates what he has and hasn’t experienced. Elizondo, however, keeps his accounts vague, making it difficult to ascertain what he’s actually witnessed.
In summary, I believe that financial motives can heavily influence the trustworthiness of those sharing sensitive information. I’ve reached a point where I become skeptical of anyone who starts profiting from these topics. I believe Grusch understands this dynamic, which is why he hasn’t been on a constant stream of podcasts and interviews. Pay attention to the grift, folks. When there’s an opportunity to capitalize on people’s curiosity, many will seize it.
You raise some compelling points about the motives behind those who promote the UFO narrative. It’s true that the commercialization of any phenomenon can engender skepticism regarding the authenticity and integrity of the information being shared. The contrast you draw between Grusch and others, like Elizando, highlights the disparity between those who seem genuinely interested in disclosure and those who may be leveraging their experiences for financial gain.
It’s important to critically assess the sources of information we consume, especially in a field as murky and speculative as UFOs. The idea that profit can cloud judgment or influence the accuracy of testimony is a relevant concern across many domains, not just this one. Transparency and commitment to factual reporting should ideally take precedence over sensationalism and profit motives.
Your conclusion about remaining cautious when profit becomes involved is a prudent approach. It’s always beneficial to look for those who prioritize integrity over income, especially in discussions that carry so much intrigue and speculation. Thanks for sparking this important conversation!