Comment: I agree completely...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Law Enforcement conducting (see in situ)

I agree completely...

...with questioning everything, all sources, whether they would tend to tear down or reinforce normalcy bias.

I agree completely with the being prepared for anything approach.

I guess a picture that popped into my mind was Paul Revere riding around like a madman yelling that the British were coming. At what point do the warnings we hear cross from 'conspiracy theory' into something we actually take heed of? What would be the modern equivalent of the Paul Revere ride that would convince you that this type of thing was imminent?

I'm not trying to argue for or against this particular interview, just thinking of the broader question.

Another question: if a warning like this doesn't pan out by a particular date or month, does that necessarily mean the warning was invalid? Why would timetables for this kind of thing not be in flux based on various factors?

If an astronomer warns that there is a chance an asteroid could hit the planet, and it turns out that it misses by a certain margin, that doesn't negate the appropriateness or validity of the warning having been made at the earlier time, when things were not as clear. Someday an asteroid will hit.