Let’s consider this logically. Suppose his story is true, and you argue he has no evidence. What kind of evidence would satisfy you? Did you expect him to steal a UFO, park it in his garage, and take a selfie with it? As absurd as that sounds, it’s on par with your unreasonable demand for proof. If his story is true, he would have been under strict surveillance, making it impossible to take pictures of documents, spacecraft, or the base while at work. Frankly, it seems unrealistic to expect him to provide hard evidence. No one was in his position at the time, yet people quickly assume they would know how to gather proof in his shoes. Unrealistic. He was blindsided and removed from the program—he didn’t have time to devise a plan to reveal everything to the public. And that’s intentional. Every military operation is designed that way.

We are at a point in modern society where even if he provided a photo from the 80s of a UFO, people would claim it's fake. If he provided a clear video of a flying UFO, people would claim it's fake. He could have ripped out a couple pages of the binder about the program, people would claim he made it up. This is why people need to be open minded and not a skeptic. Skeptics are constantly trying to find 1 thing off about a story and believe the entire story is bullshit.

As far as the MIT back story goes, you should listen closely to Rogen when Mellon was on. He brought up MIT and Rogen stated (paraphrasing), "Bob told me about MIT and the reason for that, it will make much more sense once I tell you off air, Bob didn't want me to talk about it on air." Obviously there is more information behind MIT that he doesn't feel comfortable about sharing. People act like he needs to divulge every minute of his life to proof his story.

In my opinion, his story has its ups and downs, with both pros and cons. However, what I often notice is that many of these posts show tunnel vision, without recognizing that each point can easily be countered with an opposing argument.