The Fermi Paradox is a thought experiment, it's not a physical law of the universe. There are big, essentially made-up assumptions that have to be plugged into the formula to end up with the answer of "there's probably lots of aliens out there". I think we probably both agree on those assumptions being reasonable, but they are not proven. For these reasons, I simply do not agree that it's relevant at all in this discussion.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about the existence of an alien civilization, or even specifically that aliens have visited Earth in modern times. Rather, the big question is about whether aliens are visiting Earth and some humans know about it, but are keeping it a secret. That is the core of what people like Grusch are claiming. To prove this we need both evidence of alien life existing (already a huge claim, one of the biggest questions science has yet to tackle) and evidence of a human conspiracy.

Theoretically this must be happening in other countries, too, right? If not, that means there's only been very limited incidents and not the hundreds to thousands of incidents over decades that UFO apologists claim. Except all of this is also tied into the UAP sightings which we now know are pretty widespread... looking at the full picture, things start to collapse under their own logic.

I don't know why you think the fermi paradox is somehow a good argument when I don't even deny the possibility of alien life. Please stay on topic and don't accuse my of something I haven't said, thanks.
Your other point is nothing but a bunch of could've would've. Just like the hearing and the previous statements, which were basically the same.

Yes, sometimes credible people turn out to be totally wrong. Does that mean we should not investigate and either vet or debunk their claims, should we not listen to credible people because they sometimes go nuts or are totally incorrect?

Again, you continue to derail and bring up straw man arguments that I haven't even said. Also, the burden of proof is still on him, especially when "we" cannot prove or let alone disprove any of his claims. That's why I consider this to be a nothingburger until there's actually some proper evidence of anything claimed.

Yeadon sounds a lot like Dr. Wakefield, the other totally wrong discredited medical person who they love to cite because he justifies their irrationality.

There have been plenty of people like Yeadon, in and outside of the medical field. It's just one example that I was able to think of right now because of how recent it was and how much of it made the rounds at the time too. There's people sitting in governments who did and continue to do the same thing, for whatever their reason may be.

The reason the Fermi paradox, (@be_excellent_to_each_other thanks for bringing it up,) is a paradox is because our mathematical estimates regarding extraterrestrial life says it is likely, yet we have not conclusively observed any.

The reason people think the Fermi paradox is a paradox is because they assume insanely optimistic values for L in the Drake equation.

Grusch is documented as being in a position where he could have access to the sort of classified information he claims to, and his background suggests he could interpret said information reasonably as it pertains to this. He has been vetted by congress. Although it is certainly not conclusive, what we do know about him corroborates with what we've heard so far.

But doesn't all his knowledge come from second-hand accounts? If so, why should his opinion matter any more than anyone else who's read someone's account of being abducted and probed by aliens? Working for the government and having access to classified material doesn't make his claim any more legitimate if all he's doing is reading stories written by others. It's the appeal to authority fallacy in a nutshell.

I love when people throw a little tantrum that they're 'done'. People that are really 'done' don't have to fuss to anonymous strangers about how done they are ;)

It would be an appropriate comment if we’d just had a congressional hearing about Jesus showing up at the superbowl with Prince’s guitar

The comment is a perfectly valid comparison- we have congressional hearings about religious nonsense all the time. The Prince\Kid Rock part was a goof but are you seriously unaware of how often Jesus and 'Gods will' are cited in congressional session?

So if you heard religious kookery in a hearing and then said 'Well, if God really did bring that hurricane to punish gays it would change humanity's relationship with religion and science' - that would be a deeply, stupidly, asinine statement. So it's just like you adding your half-cent to the UFO kookery. Not sure you can follow that but thought I'd lay it out for you just in case.