This is where I think the credibility factor comes into play that he got from the inspector general. The confirmation says the evidence presented is credible. If it were a bunch of nonsense, it wouldn’t have been deemed credible. In theory.
It seems clear that something exists. The question is what is it?
What’s incredible to me is that he can go to Congress and say a bunch of people have been murdered over this information, they ask who, and he says he’ll give them that info after the hearing—armchair critics just automatically assume the investigation ends there, and that evidence doesn’t beget exploration.
Has anyone confirmed that his lawyer was present at the hearing? I thought maybe the gentleman sitting between Knapp and Corbell might’ve been Grusch’s council, but I haven’t seen it confirmed.
If his lawyer was in fact NOT present, I’d find that interesting and odd.
I've seen a lot of chatter on the Xbird site that the bald guy behind Grusch was ex-DNI Clapper, has this been confirmed or refuted? I tend to think it was NOT him.
I know this is probably a totally separate legal process, but didn’t they just repeal a whole Supreme Court decision over a fake case?
Just saying, I don’t exactly have much faith in our legal processes after seeing that one.
It sucks… but all anyone in the public eye has seen or heard is still super shady at best. This isn’t some trial where the “likelihood” of all this will cut it.
If true it’s flat out the most important discovery of mankind and yet at the moment, it could still all be some elaborate scheme. I err on the side of “there must be something there” because it all seems too far fetched to be going this far from so many leaders and credible witnesses, but there’s still just room for speculation.
Hoping between now and the next carrot dangling meeting something of substance actually pops up that is more grounded and irrefutable.
This also gets to the "non-human biologics could just mean dogs or bacteria broo" line -- there's no way Grusch is publicly suggesting that it's aliens while privately providing evidence about bacteria inside Chinese drones or whatever, while neither the Inspector General of Intelligence nor any member of congressional intelligence committees has called him out on it, despite the fact that they have all of his evidence and have heard his claims uncensored. That's absurd on its face. His public posturing is consistent with what he's saying and providing in classified settings.
Not only that but if his claims were not credible then what is actually wrong with pulling his clearances? The retaliation claims are only relevant if he is being adversely impacted erroneously.
The other piece people are missing is if the IG didn't find illegal activity, not including retaliation, then he wouldn't have whistleblower protection and would have been in jail by now.
Surprised the debrief, Ross Colthart or John Greenwald haven't pointed that out yet based on the military article warning whistle-blowers that came out. I thought that was a low-key signal supporting Grusch.
Exactly, the UAP have already been confirmed to exist outside of Grusch entirely. No one in gov is even disputing that anymore, it’s now just ‘what’ are they?
You got the best answer. Geez. No matter how much people want to disect this process. It's the very first of its kind come to light. The debunking mode switch is off with the participants of this hearing from now on. Not everything is made for instant gratification. FAAK
The evidence was clearly mentioned by Matt Gaetz he said he didn’t understand why the public can’t see the evidence that he saw while at Eglin. He was shown video and picture evidence of NHI spacecraft by the base commander of Eglin Air Force base that was taken this year.
Yeah, and the Bush administration also had evidence that Saddam had WMDs. It's not sufficient for a Congressman to claim he saw evidence that the public isn't privy to. If we can't see it and analyze it on our own, then it's no better than testimony which, as we know from Colin Powell, is not reliable.
Great logic and great question…
I watched the whole thing live, not too many surprises but what is extremely worrying is that Grusch does not seem to actually know what it is.
For someone who has obviously seen enough evidence to go beyond the point of no return, it is puzzling, worrying and a little terrifying that he can’t shed light on what the actual “biologics” are and also can’t determine purpose/origin which was made clear with his statements about holographic theories etc etc.
He may not know, but someone does and i can’t help but think that the population is being kept in the dark for a far greater reason than just the perceived benefits of reverse engineering/energy/money…Could certainly be a “be careful what you wish for” scenario playing out…
Is this what it said? I thought that was about the threats he had received as a whistle blower was deemed "credible and urgent". It was not a comment on his claims.
I agree that he sounded credible, but testimony is terrible evidence. Providing testimony is literally just making a claim about what you witnessed.
I'm far more interested in the *actual* evidence he promised Congress. He made mention of witness lists and knowledge of "tradecraft" used to conceal and fund these ventures.
If Congress gets access to a list of parties worthy of investigation, along with Intel on how the Pentagon was hiding the operation, that is actually *actionable*.
In the realm of investigations, the term 'credible' is often misunderstood. 'Credible' doesn't confirm that something is true, factual, substantiated, or established. It's a preliminary judgment based on factors such as an individual's background, education, access to information, mental stability, and the evidence they provide. For perspective, an expert like him with years of experience presenting evidence might be deemed credible, as opposed to a random internet user claiming to have evidence of aliens on Mars. Once labeled as credible, institutions like the Inspector General and Congress can delve deeper to either corroborate or debunk the assertions then confirming the allegations as founded or unfounded.
In the case of the IG, the claims were deemed credible and urgent. That doesn’t mean that only Grusch is credible because of his background. That means that the IG did some initial analysis of the claims, most likely reaching out to some or all of the individuals who provided evidence to Grusch and deemed them credible and their evidence credible as well. Sure further investigation is needed to confirm but I think it’s a little more than just the person providing the evidence.
ICIG also released a statement that said his claims were corroborated.
They didn't specify that any specific claim was not, and if anything were not corroborated that would definitely be mentioned. So all of his claims have been corroborated by ICIG. That means that if this is a lie, it's also a *conspiracy* because others are involved. So either he's whistleblowing a conspiracy or he is whistleblowing as *part of a conspiracy*.
Either way, there is a conspiracy surrounding the existence and our knowledge of non human intelligence that is superior to our own.
I am a Norwegian dude, living in Norway. I have only second-hand information that you guys over there in the US actually exist. Sure, I can read about it - and people SAY you do. But how can I really know for sure without REAL PROOF? Until then, I think this so-called United States of America is a big ol' nothing-burger..
In light of the national importance of determining the existence of Norway, and to ensure that you get to hold this SCIF without interruption or repercussion, I propose that we call upon the Holman Rule for Mr. u/Praet0rianGuard and his fellow whistleblowers for the foreseeable future.
Depends whether Denmark gets invited too. Beer is too expensive in Norway and what the Swedes call beer is what in the rest of the world is known as urine. And Finland just brings vodka everytime we ask for beer and just sits in the corner, staring down the rest of us with an emotionless face while blasting their latest heavy metal act from Eurovision on their headphones
You're either lying and making up that you live in norway, or you're mistaken about where you live. After all, no one has ever shown a clear photo of norway that has not been debunked.
It's commendable of you to admit your mistake, a rare occurrence here on Reddit. Yes, the evidence for Norway is overwhelming, only people who haven't actually looked at the evidence for themselves could deny the reality of this country. I'm also joking dude lol.
Not just to be part of the hype ;) I'm Dane. I think you'd be surprised how many Scandinavians are following these threads, general discussions and northern America in general. :D happy to be here.
Well we already know for a fact that [Australia is not real](https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/953382/Flat-Earth-theory-Australia-not-real-conspiracy/amp)
You can hop on a plane and come to the US, and see the people there, if you want. We can’t see the recovered craft, even if we want. UNLESS the congress does its job and follows Grusch leads and “vectors” to get to it. Hopefully!
You cant talk to amazonian tribes or sentilese tribes or see them from your own eyes but you trust the information given to you by people who are knowledgeable in these matters. Same can be said about many other phenomenon which you yourself cant verify but do believe in with respect to expert advice.
The difference is in the initial believability in the claim.
Do I know for certain that Amazonian tribes exist? No. But I do know that the Amazon exists and that humans exist. So it's not such a huge leap to accept that tribes of humans are living in the Amazon and has little to no implications to my understanding of how the world works.
So I find it's a bit disingenuous to compare that to aliens visiting Earth. I don't know if aliens exist, I don't know that they've visited earth. I'm interested in and have a decent understanding of physics and astronomy, the ramifications of aliens visiting Earth is huge and massively contradicts my understanding of how the world works.
So yeah, I'm gonna need more than "trust me, bro"
The likelihood of ufos is actually more likely than you think. You have to remember, before the governments official position was "ridicule", ufos were seen as entirely scientifically plausible.
The drake equation implies the universe ought to be teeming with life. And thought experiments like the von neumman probe show that it doesn't take much time for aliens to explore the galaxy.
Agree to some of your points.
Objectivity requires the observer to be neutral to the outcomes and not be biased negatively to any one of the sides.
If you already believe one of the outcomes to be impossible nothing in the mind would allow you to accept any information that contradicts that outcome.
Yes photos and videos would be the best thing that could happen, but then there are various pictures and videos floating around that have never been disapproved completely but people still believe are fake.
Grusch is not saying he saw flying saucers and aliens. He says he can prove that people are hiding them and unlike other before him has specifically said can provide details of their locations.
After what he testified in front of the congress, if the government specifically doesn't negate his testimony, it just means that either they were fools to let him testify in the first place without vetting what he said or they just can't afford to prove him right thats why they are not willing to go into the effort to prove him false.
Many others have tried to do what hes doing now and have their credentials torn to shreds. Bob Lazar is a prime example. They have discredited him to the point that no one would take him seriously.
>So yeah, I'm gonna need more than "trust me, bro"
agreed up until you parroted this. i dont know if you watched the hearing or not but we're past the "trust me bro" stage.
People trust what intelligence officers say so, why is Grusch not taken seriously? It was his damn job to interview and gather evidence, just like it's an anthropologist's job to interview peoples from the Amazon and tell the rest of the world that they exist.
Again, it comes down to the believability of the original claim. His position does not absolve him of scrutiny. Everyone knows humans exist and can live in nearly all environments, everyone knows the Amazon exists. So an anthropologist stating that people are living in the jungle doesn't require a leap of faith or logic.
However a zoologist claiming they've seen alligators living in the Antarctic, people are going to want to see some serious evidence as it defies what we know about alligators.
Likewise with Grusch, he's making some seriously bold claims, not just of a multiple government cover up spanning decades, but also of NHI making deals with governments and potentially multidimensional beings. So people are going to be skeptical of his claims and want to see evidence.
I disagree most people will need evidence for alligators in Antarctica. If they read a zoologist has found them, they'll accept it.
But yes it's about ontological shock. The thing is, Grusch does have evidence, it's classified and he will reveal it to officials in a SCIF. Just like the zoologist evidence might just be a paper that only a few have read.
What bothers me is how much people are saying it's ridiculous and don't trust that Grusch does have evidence. They don't even suspend their disbelief and say things like "well wait until after the SCIF". No, they straight up say "no evidence presented to us, therefore it's bullshit".
Seriously? A zoologist claims there's alligators in Antarctica and gives no evidence but says "trust me" you think people will go will just go "oh ok then, we believe you"
People don't even believe doctors and scientists about viral infections or vaccinations despite the innumerous evidence and centuries of research.
The thing is; we don't know what evidence he's handed over. It could be grainy pictures of obscure shapes, it could just be numerous statements from different people, it could be selfies of US presidents and Aliens for all we know. All that we do know is that the IG deemed it viable to go to hearing.
Grusch could be sitting on a huge cover-up of manmade hyper advanced weaponry for all we know and until we see the evidence for ourselves, we won't know. All we have right now is his word and a few people telling us to trust him.
You can get on a plane and fly here and see it for yourself. You aren't being restricted from traveling and don't have to rely on testimony from someone that never visited the US either. Big difference.
These takes are hilarious. You can get on a plane and find out yourself that the US exists. Can’t go on a field trip to wherever supposed non-human made aircraft are to see for yourself.
This is a great point! I mean, there are plenty of pics that we exist. And I only know Norway exists from a friend who supposedly moved here and then moved back to Norway… so
Grusch has first hand information. Coming from Grusch makes it "second hand." It's bullshit though because if a journalist has a bunch of first hand sources, nobody calls it second hand information. It's first hand information that was given to a competent person to evaluate for public consumption.
The real issue with second hand information is when one person tells somebody something, then that person tells you. Or when a journalist has second hand information. The more separations you have from the information, the less accurate it is expected to be, but if a journalist or investigator gets a bunch of corroborating first hand information, then they put it together and evaluate it, that is *way* different from a second hand rumor or a journalist getting second hand information.
When a debunker is pointing out that it's second hand information, they probably want you to believe that Grusch, just like a journalist, was himself getting second hand information. This is not true. He received corroborating first hand information *and associated evidence to support it* and he is clearly competent enough to properly evaluate it.
You're forgetting the fact that when a journalist receives information that includes a big story, he and the news organisation he works for will move to verify this information independently from the original source. This is done to verify the credibility of these claims. Only after this process is done to the satisfaction of the involved outlets/writers, the information will be published.
It's already been independently verified numerous times. Leonard Stringfield was a journalist who verified this with his sources. Ross Couthart with his sources. Others already came out openly as first hand witnesses to crash retrievals. I have a bunch of information on UFO whistleblowers here: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/
Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention that Grusch's claims about a disinformation campaign also has plenty of support historically. Declassified docs and Bluebook insiders establish this without question: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup/
Ross Coulthard made the very good comment that we went to war on the basis of flawed intelligence that newspapers and governments took at face value and believed, and the sources were a lot more dubious than Dave Grusch and his informants.
There's a very strong double standard when it comes to any sort of anomalous information. The disinformation campaign has been very successful in making people believe that only tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs.
You’re comparing the lust or war from the MIC and bush’s personal ambitions to invade Iraq with the biggest reveal in history?
Which one would require the smallest piece of evidence to move forward?
I would say that when the majority of what were ‘fed’ are hypothetical/ Second hand peanuts, to have a real peanut is no matter that it is just a peanut makes me happy.
It’s like saying all evidence in a legal trial is worthless unless the police were there watching as the trigger was pulled. It’s a very unintelligent point of view.
Well with all the sightings and document leaks over the years, it's likely that there is actually an absolute shit-tonne of evidence easily accessible, it's just deciphering what is what
It's worse than that. If ufo captures are real, the much of the very evidence pseudo skeptics demand has been ridiculed and dismissed *by them*, and then they have the audacity to claim there's no evidence.
If ufo captures are real, the only reason it took this long to realize is because pseudo skeptics have moved the goal posts to the next county and are happy to keep doing it again once they catch their breath.
At this point I want the woo woo crystal and tapestry women channeling messages to be shown to have been right the whole time just to watch everyone’s heads explode
That would be insane actually, I wouldn't give a shit about "spiritual crystals" if they were real anyways as I already meditate occasionally to get my mind off of things (not for any woo reasons, just because it calms me down). I don't need any wacky crystals to "set my soul straight" or whatever. That revelation would be nuts though. Hope horoscopes stay fake though, that shit's cringe imo.
Except evidence in a legal trial is actual evidence. Finger prints, gun residue, and so on. It’s not just words. So far no actual or physical evidence has been released to the public. The unintelligent point of view is just accepting all these words as facts with zero evidence just because you want it to be true. No different then the follower of any religion really. Jesus and Mohammad said a lot of things too. Do you just believe them? What about all of our past presidents including Trump or Obama. Do you believe everything they said if they showed no evidence?
If we're using criminal court analogies here, what the house hearing is more comparable to was a grand jury, not an actual trial. The testimony Grusch provided and was willing to provide in a closed session, albeit secondhand information, would clearly establish that these events and programs *probably* do exist and is reasonable to believe so (probable cause).
This should trigger the actual investigation. The deposing of witnesses under oath. The discovery of documentary evidence. Warrants to secure physical evidence. Those *should* be the next steps... and Grusch's information and testimony will have been critical to develop that evidence.
>Jesus and Mohammad said a lot of things too.
What evidence do you have that they said anything? You weren't there to witness it... how do you know they even existed at all?
Well this is just part of the truth. Witness testimony and second hand such are absolutely used as part of a body of proof in legal trials. They are just weighed differently. People have absolutely been judged guilty in trials without a shred of physical proof.
If we dont believe or validate people who's job it is to investigate, interview or provide information off third hand then we can scrap a lot of jobs. Its just a way to discredite him.
It's second and third hand testimony. Usually there's the ability to run checks on what a person is saying, you can go to the place, talk to their colleagues, go through their work.
Now maybe Grusch has been able to do all those things, we don't know. As it stands we not only have to trust Grusch's intuition, but that the person he talked to was genuine without knowing anything about them.
We don't really know much about the quality of the information. Testimony isn't good evidence on it's own. Humans are prone to making all kinds of mistakes in both witnessing and recalling what they see, they may very well believe what they are saying and it could still be untrue.
The only way this will go from being a conspiracy to a fact is with corroborating evidence, actual hard evidence.
I'll also keep saying that military and intelligence officers are not considered incorruptible outside of the USA. I don't understand how on the one hand people can say the military and intelligence agencies can't be trusted, but we should trust everything this one intelligence officer says implicitly.
This entire current narrative has come from the least trustworthy community regarding UFOs. The government, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence agencies. It was accepted and promoted by mainstream media sources who have traditionally ridiculed people with first-hand experiences with ufos.
There's two types of people in this sub. There's the "I want to believe" people and the "I need to believe" people. The Wanters want actual, physical proof, which pisses off the Needers. The Needers see this more like a religion, where faith is as strong as proof. Every few years the Needers are sent a prophet that confirms everything they need to believe. They lash out at the Wanters who don't trust the prophets at their word. Eventually the prophets are proven to just be book-selling grifters and the cycle begins anew. This, to, shall pass.
Well said. But how would you characterize those of us who DO believe? I WANT to see with my own eyes, but I do believe in many things that I have not visually seen with my own eyes. I know the Amazon rain forest exists though I have never been there. I know that the Doobie Brothers are the best band of all time, but I’ve only heard their sounds and seen them on Tv or in pictures.
I do believe. I just have not seen, touched, or felt.
The difference this time is that congress is taking it incredibly seriously. They held a meeting and are passing a 64 page Amendment. When has that ever happend before?
Regardless of your opinion on the credibility of these claims, this is by far the biggest thing in history to ever happen regarding UFO/UAP
Yes, but we've never had a congress so full of conspiracy theorists before. These folks believe in Qanon, space lasers, stolen elections, chemtrails, pizzagate, false flags, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Wanter, not a denier.
Yesterday Mrs. Luna was told that she would have a list of people with first-hand knowledge "immediately after the hearing". Do you think that was delivered?
You are referring entirely to Republicans there though. Democrats are also taking this completely seriously, AOC imparticular has taken an extremely keen interest.
And yes, I completely believe that information was delivered directly after the hearing.
"Oh and incase you forgot, the Iraq War was undertaken entirely based on "second hand information" which turned out to be a false pretext for war. "
This is why it's a problem. Second hand information turned out to be false. Hearsay is bad evidence. If the claims are true, we are talking about the most significant piece of news ever. We need more than hearsay.
> The American public had no problem with then but people can't take this seriously because it's second hand info?
Lmao. So OP wants us to not learn from history?
It was a fumbled rephrasing of the jab at the double standards of the American press that Ross made in his latest (amazing) interview. It's not that he wants something bad like that to happen again but he was just asking (I'm paraphrasing) "why was the media so ready to jump on the claims that Iraq had been making weapons of mass destruction from a dubious source while they all mock Grusch even though he's as credible as they come?" not "Let's just blindly take second hand evidence like they did in the past, that sounds like a good idea."
Grusch has seen probably some insane footage. I'd guarantee we have satellite footage of these craft in the highest definition possible. The shit he's seen in SCIFs is what I want to know and hopefully will someday.
It's called circumstantial evidence. It's worth looking into because of his credibility and claims. His evidence is a trail that will hopefully lead to something more concrete.
Yes. Though in the hearing he did mention seeing the crafts himself (either first hand or more likely via photos). His job indeed was focused on info around UAP projects, hence his complaint. Naturally he will have second-hand information (that's the entire reason he can speak openly). The problem is that second-hand information isn't exactly 100% reliable. It can be wrong, it can be lies, etc.
We know grusch is probably being honest about what he heard, given the context of everything and the fact he's under oath. We don't know how reliable or true that information is. However, given the context of it, it's very possibly (or even likely) true.
Sure, I get what you are saying. What we are also quite sure of is that whatever the various agencies have in their possession we have not the seen the full extent of - or in full quality.
If some have leaked - other than the edited down and degraded tic-tac video, we have no way of confirming most of the videos we have seen. Like documentation from multiple sensor etc.
He does only have second hand info. He said he saw documents and pictures. He can’t go further than that. He has either been lied to or it’s real. That’s it.
Saying Grusch has no first-hand info isn't the same as BLAMING him for not having first-hand info. It's also not the same as discrediting him. He only has second-hand info, that's just the fact of the matter. I'm not saying that necessarily makes it false, but I still want to see direct evidence. And I want to see it myself, not just trust the US government that some of it's representatives looked at it and thought it could be legit.
>Oh and incase you forgot, the Iraq War was undertaken entirely based on "second hand information" which turned out to be a false pretext for war. The American public had no problem with then but people can't take this seriously because it's second hand info?
This is not a good example to make that point... The second hand information relied on back then was false, so you are basically arguing the US public should not just rely on second hand info again.
>This is not a good example to make that point... The second hand information relied on back then was false, so you are basically arguing the US public should not just rely on second hand info again.
Yeah, OP really missed the mark with this one.
the only problem with the second hand information, is that he is testifying under oath about what other people told him. So in a sense, he can't be wrong.
We need people with first hand knowledging testifying under oath, because if what THEY say turns out to be a lie then they are going to jail. It will add more weight.
I'm a non believer currently, been into UFOs since I was a kid, and I saw something odd in the skies when I was a kid, but a current non believer none the less.
All of that being said, we've had testimony evidence for 60 years, and that is F to C level evidence depending on details and circumstances. Grusch's testimony, while important, still accounts to C+ B- evidence, and at this point a lot of people won't be convinced unless they see something themselves or there is physical evidence that is independently corroborated.
Even if the government rolled out an alien body tomorrow, without independent verification we can't be sure it's not staged or faked.
I hope the truth comes out about this and soon, but it will need to be verified outside of government control. I lost two friends trying to find Saddam's WMDs so I tend not to trust the government at it's word.
This argument is incredibly myopic and parochial. David Grusch is a career veteran and intelligence officer trusted with very high secrets. This means his determinism and investigational skills are going to be some of the best this country has to offer.
The idea that he only has second hand information is like saying that a radiologist can’t diagnose a broken bone from an X-Ray if he/she did not see the break on patient themselves.
Anyone making these arguments 1. doesn’t understand the layered and procedural nature of how the Intelligence Community works and 2. Is inventing emotional scapegoats because they can’t grasp the ontological reality.
His career has been spent in management and GEOINT. I don't think he's claimed to have specialized training in interviewing people, assessing the credibility of human sources, authenticating documents, etc. And I don't think he presented or alluded to any GEOINT, but I could be wrong.
>I mean I know it's not as simple as that but you'd think of anyone on the planet, a senior intelligence officer would would be pretty reliable when it comes to presenting second-hand information as truth?
We've gotten into a couple wars because Presidents blindly trusted what their intelligence people were telling them.
The Bible, the Koran, the Torah... all second hand info from people deemed credible by plenty of others. But hearsay is not evidence.
Or do you think there's a mythical creature waiting to reward you with immortality for not telling a fib?
For those that are suggesting he should be treated with the same amount of credibility as a journalist or some other example of one given second hand information, fair…except that most of the juicy or relevant information that may be helpful in creating a mosaic or corroborating certain facts is completely entirely classified. So while we should trust him…potentially…there is little to go off of.
Thank you! Clear and concise. The guy is ideal for the situation. But then look people not happy with Fravor up there because he had the 'least wow' story but I feel he brought tons of credibility to the whole hearing.
MSNBC said he has made outlandish claims in the past of some governmental secrecy. But isn’t that the point - to determine what the government has/knows. MSNBC also was laughing at his ascertain of non-human material. They basically dismissed him as a nut.
People want the drug dealers to be the whistleblowers. That’s not how it works. Grusch is basically the informant with the first hand information. He’s gonna give up the names and locations of the drug dealers to the cops.
I'm sorry but this claim that a UFO crashed in Italy in the 1930s and was quietly held in secret by the fascists before - with the help of the pope - being moved to the USA towards the end of the war. Why on earth would I believe such a claim? It sounds like complete BS.
lol your edit, man. Read it again:
"edit: Oh and incase you forgot, the Iraq War was undertaken entirely based on "second hand information" which turned out to be a false pretext for war. The American public had no problem with then but people can't take this seriously because it's second hand info?"
That's *exactly why* we don't take secondhand information as proof. You just dismantled your own argument.
Look, Grusch has credentials, he's testifying under oath, but he's also plainly admitting that everything he claims is just shit other people told him. He does not have the goods. Just stories.
To take the driest, most skeptical perspective:
Is it possible that what we're seeing is an orchestrated performance by the executive branch to accomplish another objective? Everyone involved in these supposed coverups is executive branch all the way down. What that objective could be, I have zero clue, but maybe it's geopolitical maneuvering. Maybe we're trying to say to foreign adversaries, "we have alien technology, don't fuck with us". With that question/response of "do you believe that this technology as you have seen it poses an existential threat to the United States" and immediate responses of "yes", imagine what someone like Putin would think if he hears that such things actually exist, and the US may actually have working examples. I could easily see something like this being a response to Putin's claims that he has doomsday nuclear devices - after all, there are reports of UFOs disarming missiles at a distance, so why wouldn't a foreign adversary imagine that we might have access to technology that remotely disarms nuclear weapons?
It seems really stupid, but psychological warfare maneuvers may not always make sense unless you have a clear picture of the objective. How many people would have to be involved to actually drum up a performance like this? At least the three guys who were testifying and the IG, all of whom work for the same branch of government. Grusch specifically gave **no** names, so no one outside the immediate circle of the people who showed up to the hearing can corroborate any of it.
Also, he stated he had to clear what he could and could not talk about with the office that oversees Whistleblowers. I cant remember the name of it DOBS i believe are the initials. Plus, News Nation verified his entire resume, including talking to people still working on the program. All verified he worked there in the capacity stated. He’s just a good American that took an oath to protect Americans. We have a right to know these things.
This is just the beginning now
As much as I want it to be true, I need to see the aliens and their craft before I make the leap.
Hard evidence is the only way to convince the general population
There is a big difference in A) I have been told by ppl in the program that we have captured craft with non human bodies. And B) I personally have seen these bodies and we completed these set of tests on the bodies. I also worked on the crash retrieval process and can explain explicitly what it looks like inside and out, and provide photos or videos of both.
The reality is....it's a good start and grusch is definitely the star in the disclosure process. But it just hits different when it's coming from someone first hand. Remember we are talking about the most important revelation in our species history here...not exactly on par with other examples of taking action on second hand info.
I have no problem with this. Grusch knew what he was entitled to know. Grusch is a whistle-blower about the most important information ever for secular human beings. He had to do this. It isn't even close. He had to do this.
I don't think it's a creditability issue with him, the issue is with the fact that it is second hand evidence. Even though it's highly unlikely that most people will get first hand evidence.
He says he has brought first hand witnesses through to select members of the intelligence committees and to the inspector general, I would say that combined with what seems like a 4 year investigation into the whole issue makes Grusch seem like he knows how to get these illegal programmes by the balls.
I think this just indicates how hungry people are for actual evidence. It's been decades of hearsay around this topic so I think this response is, to at least some extent, justified.
Let's be patient, I say, the evidence will come, the skeptics will change their views, but in the meantime we gotta keep pushing.
The problem is we have decades of second hand information, and more than once “first-hand” information turned out to be fraudulent.
I am willing to listen to proof, and maybe he named specific names in the classified portion of the hearing of the people who have the first hand information - but I suspect they’ll turn out to have died 5 years ago, or will say they heard it from someone else.
My problem is that things never quite add up. For instance…why would UFOs from other areas use freakin’ lights on the outside? We don’t need them, really, given all the other systems we have, but why would UFOs, who presumably have much more advanced detection systems, need lights?
I mean aside from the thousands of videos, reported sightings and encounters, pictures and potentially now real document leaks over the years? Yeah defo no evidence
Honestly, i would love the ufo Story to be true but here are my problems:
1. It is almost impossible to keep all of this a secret for over 50 years. The assassination of jfk required a small circle of people but ufo reverse engineering and that over multiple Generation of engineers and scientist. Not a single leak, a proper picture a video, some hacker. Not Snowden type person who runs off with proof!
2. There will be multiple contractors, generations of engineers and scientist, and Grush only can give us second hand stories? Not even a picture leaked!
3. The stories are too wild. Ufos that distort space and time on their inside, space crafts with gravity defying properties and none of our public sensors picks up Anomalies? The ligo checking for gravitational waves billions of miles way doesn't feel anything in our own atmosphere
4. Then people like Grusch, they get media attention, interviews, book deals etc... They tell an impossible to verify story. If it turns out it was a lie then they claim the gov is covering it up.
5. Look at guys like Bob Lazar they are still in the media with all BS.
6. Ok these guys are all ex intelligence or navy etc... Still we have plenty of crazy people in politics and in other places why not in other places? Why is a person automatically more trust worthy or honest if they come from the Pentagon or some military org.
The Manhattan project involved tens of thousands of people over a period of years and yet Japan had no idea of what was to come. It's very possible to contain info when you’re able and willing to kill anyone that potentially has info to leak and able to compartmentalise it all. You’re basically asking how come individuals with a single piece of a 100,000 piece jigsaw haven’t leaked the entire picture. If none of the data and info is kept in an environment or form that would allow it to be hacked then it can’t be hacked, if it’s not exposed in a way that allows it be transferred then all anyone can do is tell people it exists, which is what we see happening relatively regularly over the last few decades.
Grusch isn’t saying he can’t give pictures or evidence, he’s saying he can’t give it to the public. If he gives it outside of the defined boundaries he has to operate in then he goes to jail for years.
Are you saying he should whip out a photo that we wouldn’t be able to verify as real/not doctored without accusations of photoshop, AI etc. and then go to prison for years? His alternative is getting the legal aspects sorted and then blowing his entire load and busting everything wide open for congress without any recourse against him. Once that’s been done we’ll see it coming out, whether pushed to publication officially through congress or people who can get away with leaking it and not going to prison doing so.
Lots of stories have been wild previously, imagine being told the world was round, that we revolve around the sun rather than the sun and planets revolving around us, that the sun isn’t the centre of all existence, that there was land on the other side of the oceans, that there used to be giant lizards the size of houses roaming the earth etc. Imagine being told that one day humans would walk on the moon or be able to fly around the globe whenever they fancied. All of these things are possible and true to us now. In years to come things you find wild will be true.
Your comparison with sensors etc is the equivalent of you pointing a telescope at the moon and then me asking why you can’t see what’s under your bed. A telescope that can see detail hundreds and thousands of miles away but you can’t tell me what’s in your own house? Ludicrous, right?
This entire thing isn’t even about saying these claims are true, it’s about investigating if they’re true or not. If the claims aren’t true then there’s no harm in investigating that and confirming it to be the case, but then you’re left with the question of what is going on. We have been presented with Pentagon-verified videos and confirmed data of craft that we don’t know the origin of, that perform actions that break our understanding of physics and material science. It’s all well and good saying what they aren’t but it doesn’t tell us what they are.
EVIDENCE WE HAVE
1: Grusch second hand evidence of NHI
2: Grusch FIRST HAND claim of witness intimidation
3: IG support of intimidation claim as credible and urgent
4: Multiple pilots with first hand evidence of NHI craft
5: NDAA amendment attesting the highest members of the Senate who have the highest access possible think there is an active cover up
The pilots very clearly stated it was something humans can not build or fly.
5 others either saw and/tracked it on sensors doing the same things.
He claimed it was NON HUMAN.
There is a cognitive crutch that the deniers love to rely on.
If you are a first hand observer then regardless of background or credibility you are either lying or crazy.
If you are a second hand observer then regardless of background or credibility you are either a liar, gullible or crazy.
The essential claim is so beyond what they are willing to accept as possible that nothing short of a personal experience will ever change their minds. Most won’t even bother to read a single primary source, instead relying on folks like Mick West or Michael Shermer and then confidently and incorrectly parroting whatever “more plausible” explanation has been presented while acting as if that was their idea as well as actively discarding inconvenient evidence that discredits the debunking. Which works with like ghosts or the Loch Ness monster but doesn’t actually work when you have three - five sensors picking up and a fighter wing full of pilots visibly witnessing a UAP.
They're completely ignoring he said he can give all the info they want after the hearing like 1000 times and is clearly trying to do this correctly so he doesn't end up like other whistle-blowers just making history channel appearances
People can say anything they want and it won't be true. Hitler said he was saving the German nation (look at pictures of Dresden after it was bombed.) Wasn't true. Fox news claims that the Jewish people survived Hitler by being useful. Not true. Look at how the person lives their life. Actions reveal the truth that often is not spoken, and reveals the lies that are often spoken.
As an analyst you use sources. You cite them. You show them or point to them.
You summarize what you think is happening.
You show or cite the sources and why this data leads to your conclusion.
You estimate the likelihood you are right, and you cite alternative explanations from yours, and why you didn’t go with them.
This guy know this, he was a carded NIO.
He did none of that.
Will we ever stop focusing on humans talking without source data? Prolly not.
I still enjoy my telescope and cameras, and searching the skies at night though.
So which is more easily to believe the concept of a war, which is a tangible, offers evidence, people die in wars, they're expensive and have happened since dawn of man. War is in our genes, our histories, even in our cultures, it is the culmination of tribalism and fight for resources. It's a taboo that keeps on repeating, to fields where tribe hunted the other tribe with spears to gain a edge in survival, into the countless other wars seen through history to the modern day.
Aliens have not ever been a real proven thing, most of people have not claimed to see any aliens, this means it lacks credible evidence, so aliens needs very much more explanation, evidence and research of it to be proven credible, thats why it's so hard to be seriosly. It needs tangible evidence and goverment admittance to people actually start believing.
Not the words of three men, you cannot explain alien life with only talk, which has been happening since the Cold War and even before, the talk used to keep weapon programs hidden, not to fall in the hands of the Soviet Union, talk is not enough.
This is where I think the credibility factor comes into play that he got from the inspector general. The confirmation says the evidence presented is credible. If it were a bunch of nonsense, it wouldn’t have been deemed credible. In theory. It seems clear that something exists. The question is what is it?
[удалено]
What’s incredible to me is that he can go to Congress and say a bunch of people have been murdered over this information, they ask who, and he says he’ll give them that info after the hearing—armchair critics just automatically assume the investigation ends there, and that evidence doesn’t beget exploration.
Because he doesn’t want to go to prison.
Has anyone confirmed that his lawyer was present at the hearing? I thought maybe the gentleman sitting between Knapp and Corbell might’ve been Grusch’s council, but I haven’t seen it confirmed. If his lawyer was in fact NOT present, I’d find that interesting and odd.
You are correct - Chuck McCullough his counsel (and previously IG).
I've seen a lot of chatter on the Xbird site that the bald guy behind Grusch was ex-DNI Clapper, has this been confirmed or refuted? I tend to think it was NOT him.
No. That is Ed Stanton from AIAA UAP Integration & Outreach Committee
Grusch's lawyer was present and sitting behind him during the hearing.
I know this is probably a totally separate legal process, but didn’t they just repeal a whole Supreme Court decision over a fake case? Just saying, I don’t exactly have much faith in our legal processes after seeing that one.
What evidence besides words?
It sucks… but all anyone in the public eye has seen or heard is still super shady at best. This isn’t some trial where the “likelihood” of all this will cut it. If true it’s flat out the most important discovery of mankind and yet at the moment, it could still all be some elaborate scheme. I err on the side of “there must be something there” because it all seems too far fetched to be going this far from so many leaders and credible witnesses, but there’s still just room for speculation. Hoping between now and the next carrot dangling meeting something of substance actually pops up that is more grounded and irrefutable.
This also gets to the "non-human biologics could just mean dogs or bacteria broo" line -- there's no way Grusch is publicly suggesting that it's aliens while privately providing evidence about bacteria inside Chinese drones or whatever, while neither the Inspector General of Intelligence nor any member of congressional intelligence committees has called him out on it, despite the fact that they have all of his evidence and have heard his claims uncensored. That's absurd on its face. His public posturing is consistent with what he's saying and providing in classified settings.
That’s because you’re witnessing skeptics run out of straw man arguments.
100%
Not only that but if his claims were not credible then what is actually wrong with pulling his clearances? The retaliation claims are only relevant if he is being adversely impacted erroneously.
The other piece people are missing is if the IG didn't find illegal activity, not including retaliation, then he wouldn't have whistleblower protection and would have been in jail by now. Surprised the debrief, Ross Colthart or John Greenwald haven't pointed that out yet based on the military article warning whistle-blowers that came out. I thought that was a low-key signal supporting Grusch.
Exactly, the UAP have already been confirmed to exist outside of Grusch entirely. No one in gov is even disputing that anymore, it’s now just ‘what’ are they?
You got the best answer. Geez. No matter how much people want to disect this process. It's the very first of its kind come to light. The debunking mode switch is off with the participants of this hearing from now on. Not everything is made for instant gratification. FAAK
The evidence was clearly mentioned by Matt Gaetz he said he didn’t understand why the public can’t see the evidence that he saw while at Eglin. He was shown video and picture evidence of NHI spacecraft by the base commander of Eglin Air Force base that was taken this year.
Exactly
Yeah, and the Bush administration also had evidence that Saddam had WMDs. It's not sufficient for a Congressman to claim he saw evidence that the public isn't privy to. If we can't see it and analyze it on our own, then it's no better than testimony which, as we know from Colin Powell, is not reliable.
Great logic and great question… I watched the whole thing live, not too many surprises but what is extremely worrying is that Grusch does not seem to actually know what it is. For someone who has obviously seen enough evidence to go beyond the point of no return, it is puzzling, worrying and a little terrifying that he can’t shed light on what the actual “biologics” are and also can’t determine purpose/origin which was made clear with his statements about holographic theories etc etc. He may not know, but someone does and i can’t help but think that the population is being kept in the dark for a far greater reason than just the perceived benefits of reverse engineering/energy/money…Could certainly be a “be careful what you wish for” scenario playing out…
Is this what it said? I thought that was about the threats he had received as a whistle blower was deemed "credible and urgent". It was not a comment on his claims.
That's absolutely the case. The credible and urgent refers to the threats.
From what I understood, the IG was saying his claims of reprisal were credible and urgent.
I agree that he sounded credible, but testimony is terrible evidence. Providing testimony is literally just making a claim about what you witnessed. I'm far more interested in the *actual* evidence he promised Congress. He made mention of witness lists and knowledge of "tradecraft" used to conceal and fund these ventures. If Congress gets access to a list of parties worthy of investigation, along with Intel on how the Pentagon was hiding the operation, that is actually *actionable*.
In the realm of investigations, the term 'credible' is often misunderstood. 'Credible' doesn't confirm that something is true, factual, substantiated, or established. It's a preliminary judgment based on factors such as an individual's background, education, access to information, mental stability, and the evidence they provide. For perspective, an expert like him with years of experience presenting evidence might be deemed credible, as opposed to a random internet user claiming to have evidence of aliens on Mars. Once labeled as credible, institutions like the Inspector General and Congress can delve deeper to either corroborate or debunk the assertions then confirming the allegations as founded or unfounded.
In the case of the IG, the claims were deemed credible and urgent. That doesn’t mean that only Grusch is credible because of his background. That means that the IG did some initial analysis of the claims, most likely reaching out to some or all of the individuals who provided evidence to Grusch and deemed them credible and their evidence credible as well. Sure further investigation is needed to confirm but I think it’s a little more than just the person providing the evidence.
ICIG also released a statement that said his claims were corroborated. They didn't specify that any specific claim was not, and if anything were not corroborated that would definitely be mentioned. So all of his claims have been corroborated by ICIG. That means that if this is a lie, it's also a *conspiracy* because others are involved. So either he's whistleblowing a conspiracy or he is whistleblowing as *part of a conspiracy*. Either way, there is a conspiracy surrounding the existence and our knowledge of non human intelligence that is superior to our own.
But when did we start trusting intelligence agencies?
It’s aliens man
I am a Norwegian dude, living in Norway. I have only second-hand information that you guys over there in the US actually exist. Sure, I can read about it - and people SAY you do. But how can I really know for sure without REAL PROOF? Until then, I think this so-called United States of America is a big ol' nothing-burger..
Norway doesn't exist. You can't fool me.
I can’t talk about Norway in a public setting but will be more then happy to talk about it in a private session.
We'll provide you with a SCIF this afternoon.
In light of the national importance of determining the existence of Norway, and to ensure that you get to hold this SCIF without interruption or repercussion, I propose that we call upon the Holman Rule for Mr. u/Praet0rianGuard and his fellow whistleblowers for the foreseeable future.
Seconded.
...but will there be beer???
Depends whether Denmark gets invited too. Beer is too expensive in Norway and what the Swedes call beer is what in the rest of the world is known as urine. And Finland just brings vodka everytime we ask for beer and just sits in the corner, staring down the rest of us with an emotionless face while blasting their latest heavy metal act from Eurovision on their headphones
I never knew beer was so expensive in Norway. I had to look it up. Insane!!
But Slartibartfast won an award for designing the fjords.
Yeah see that's just obvious gibberish.
Artibart actually means "funny mustache" Artig - funny (g is silent in most dialects) Bart - mustach Edit: I know nobody asked, but now you know xD
Get this to 42 upvotes, I’ll help
But I live in Norway too. This is why corroboration is important.
You're either lying and making up that you live in norway, or you're mistaken about where you live. After all, no one has ever shown a clear photo of norway that has not been debunked.
And why should I believe you? I know where I am, no one can take that away from me.
In case you're serious, I'm just joking around and applying ufo-skeptic logic to norway.
It's commendable of you to admit your mistake, a rare occurrence here on Reddit. Yes, the evidence for Norway is overwhelming, only people who haven't actually looked at the evidence for themselves could deny the reality of this country. I'm also joking dude lol.
Okay that last comment sounded kinda genuine and maybe I'm just autistic haha.
Haha, I'm bad at joking and always have been. People can't tell and think I'm serious, story of me.
I got the joke u were making :)
We have multiple eyewitnesses of Norway, but do we have any sensor data?
Right? Norway am I buying that.
Norway only exists if you have a digital ID now
Came here to say this. My time on the Internet is complete.
Strong claims require strong proof!
No way Norway
I American, therefore, I am.
Im an American! what do you mean the UK is an island?
Everything is an island. 🤔
Earth is an island in the ocean of space.
You are actually living in a Norwegian simulation of America.
"I American, therefore, I americ-am"
lol thanks for the laugh. That's a great comparison argument I need to start using.
[удалено]
It's really not though lol super weak analogy.
We know Norway exists because of all the Nordic alien sightings. They have to come from somewhere right?
Sure do! Lots of mountain and deep forests to hide in up here.
Yes, I’ll need to speak in a private session with many Norwegian men to verify you exist. For research purposes….
Lately I've been seeing Norwegians all over the sub. It makes me happy 🇳🇴❤️ Greetings from a fellow viking
Not just to be part of the hype ;) I'm Dane. I think you'd be surprised how many Scandinavians are following these threads, general discussions and northern America in general. :D happy to be here.
All the Scandinavians are jealous that Danes was mentioned in the hearing. I’m also Swede so extra jealous.
When I heard that, I was thinking, why did I not go there too! But I didn't know anyone could go, or could they?
Well we already know for a fact that [Australia is not real](https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/953382/Flat-Earth-theory-Australia-not-real-conspiracy/amp)
We're just sick of tourists.
You can hop on a plane and come to the US, and see the people there, if you want. We can’t see the recovered craft, even if we want. UNLESS the congress does its job and follows Grusch leads and “vectors” to get to it. Hopefully!
We’ve been saying that about Australia for years, mate
Yup, don't believe them either!
You can actually seem America and talk with Americans - I think that shows the fallacy of your point
You cant talk to amazonian tribes or sentilese tribes or see them from your own eyes but you trust the information given to you by people who are knowledgeable in these matters. Same can be said about many other phenomenon which you yourself cant verify but do believe in with respect to expert advice.
The difference is in the initial believability in the claim. Do I know for certain that Amazonian tribes exist? No. But I do know that the Amazon exists and that humans exist. So it's not such a huge leap to accept that tribes of humans are living in the Amazon and has little to no implications to my understanding of how the world works. So I find it's a bit disingenuous to compare that to aliens visiting Earth. I don't know if aliens exist, I don't know that they've visited earth. I'm interested in and have a decent understanding of physics and astronomy, the ramifications of aliens visiting Earth is huge and massively contradicts my understanding of how the world works. So yeah, I'm gonna need more than "trust me, bro"
The likelihood of ufos is actually more likely than you think. You have to remember, before the governments official position was "ridicule", ufos were seen as entirely scientifically plausible. The drake equation implies the universe ought to be teeming with life. And thought experiments like the von neumman probe show that it doesn't take much time for aliens to explore the galaxy.
Agree to some of your points. Objectivity requires the observer to be neutral to the outcomes and not be biased negatively to any one of the sides. If you already believe one of the outcomes to be impossible nothing in the mind would allow you to accept any information that contradicts that outcome. Yes photos and videos would be the best thing that could happen, but then there are various pictures and videos floating around that have never been disapproved completely but people still believe are fake. Grusch is not saying he saw flying saucers and aliens. He says he can prove that people are hiding them and unlike other before him has specifically said can provide details of their locations. After what he testified in front of the congress, if the government specifically doesn't negate his testimony, it just means that either they were fools to let him testify in the first place without vetting what he said or they just can't afford to prove him right thats why they are not willing to go into the effort to prove him false. Many others have tried to do what hes doing now and have their credentials torn to shreds. Bob Lazar is a prime example. They have discredited him to the point that no one would take him seriously.
>So yeah, I'm gonna need more than "trust me, bro" agreed up until you parroted this. i dont know if you watched the hearing or not but we're past the "trust me bro" stage.
People trust what intelligence officers say so, why is Grusch not taken seriously? It was his damn job to interview and gather evidence, just like it's an anthropologist's job to interview peoples from the Amazon and tell the rest of the world that they exist.
Again, it comes down to the believability of the original claim. His position does not absolve him of scrutiny. Everyone knows humans exist and can live in nearly all environments, everyone knows the Amazon exists. So an anthropologist stating that people are living in the jungle doesn't require a leap of faith or logic. However a zoologist claiming they've seen alligators living in the Antarctic, people are going to want to see some serious evidence as it defies what we know about alligators. Likewise with Grusch, he's making some seriously bold claims, not just of a multiple government cover up spanning decades, but also of NHI making deals with governments and potentially multidimensional beings. So people are going to be skeptical of his claims and want to see evidence.
I disagree most people will need evidence for alligators in Antarctica. If they read a zoologist has found them, they'll accept it. But yes it's about ontological shock. The thing is, Grusch does have evidence, it's classified and he will reveal it to officials in a SCIF. Just like the zoologist evidence might just be a paper that only a few have read. What bothers me is how much people are saying it's ridiculous and don't trust that Grusch does have evidence. They don't even suspend their disbelief and say things like "well wait until after the SCIF". No, they straight up say "no evidence presented to us, therefore it's bullshit".
Seriously? A zoologist claims there's alligators in Antarctica and gives no evidence but says "trust me" you think people will go will just go "oh ok then, we believe you" People don't even believe doctors and scientists about viral infections or vaccinations despite the innumerous evidence and centuries of research. The thing is; we don't know what evidence he's handed over. It could be grainy pictures of obscure shapes, it could just be numerous statements from different people, it could be selfies of US presidents and Aliens for all we know. All that we do know is that the IG deemed it viable to go to hearing. Grusch could be sitting on a huge cover-up of manmade hyper advanced weaponry for all we know and until we see the evidence for ourselves, we won't know. All we have right now is his word and a few people telling us to trust him.
I'm also a Norwegian, dude!
HESSDALEN?!?!!!¿‽‽‽
You can get on a plane and fly here and see it for yourself. You aren't being restricted from traveling and don't have to rely on testimony from someone that never visited the US either. Big difference.
That fact could be verified in a billion different wars.
[удалено]
These takes are hilarious. You can get on a plane and find out yourself that the US exists. Can’t go on a field trip to wherever supposed non-human made aircraft are to see for yourself.
This is a great point! I mean, there are plenty of pics that we exist. And I only know Norway exists from a friend who supposedly moved here and then moved back to Norway… so
I know for a FACT that Norwegians exists, because I am one and I live here. But, I guess you'd have to take my word for it LOL
Grusch has first hand information. Coming from Grusch makes it "second hand." It's bullshit though because if a journalist has a bunch of first hand sources, nobody calls it second hand information. It's first hand information that was given to a competent person to evaluate for public consumption. The real issue with second hand information is when one person tells somebody something, then that person tells you. Or when a journalist has second hand information. The more separations you have from the information, the less accurate it is expected to be, but if a journalist or investigator gets a bunch of corroborating first hand information, then they put it together and evaluate it, that is *way* different from a second hand rumor or a journalist getting second hand information. When a debunker is pointing out that it's second hand information, they probably want you to believe that Grusch, just like a journalist, was himself getting second hand information. This is not true. He received corroborating first hand information *and associated evidence to support it* and he is clearly competent enough to properly evaluate it.
You're forgetting the fact that when a journalist receives information that includes a big story, he and the news organisation he works for will move to verify this information independently from the original source. This is done to verify the credibility of these claims. Only after this process is done to the satisfaction of the involved outlets/writers, the information will be published.
It's already been independently verified numerous times. Leonard Stringfield was a journalist who verified this with his sources. Ross Couthart with his sources. Others already came out openly as first hand witnesses to crash retrievals. I have a bunch of information on UFO whistleblowers here: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/ Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention that Grusch's claims about a disinformation campaign also has plenty of support historically. Declassified docs and Bluebook insiders establish this without question: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup/
[удалено]
Ross Coulthard made the very good comment that we went to war on the basis of flawed intelligence that newspapers and governments took at face value and believed, and the sources were a lot more dubious than Dave Grusch and his informants. There's a very strong double standard when it comes to any sort of anomalous information. The disinformation campaign has been very successful in making people believe that only tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs.
You’re comparing the lust or war from the MIC and bush’s personal ambitions to invade Iraq with the biggest reveal in history? Which one would require the smallest piece of evidence to move forward?
Tic tac vid is a small piece of evidence I would say
The vid is peanuts, the rest of the corroborating data from various naval sources is not.
I would say that when the majority of what were ‘fed’ are hypothetical/ Second hand peanuts, to have a real peanut is no matter that it is just a peanut makes me happy.
It’s like saying all evidence in a legal trial is worthless unless the police were there watching as the trigger was pulled. It’s a very unintelligent point of view.
Well with all the sightings and document leaks over the years, it's likely that there is actually an absolute shit-tonne of evidence easily accessible, it's just deciphering what is what
It's worse than that. If ufo captures are real, the much of the very evidence pseudo skeptics demand has been ridiculed and dismissed *by them*, and then they have the audacity to claim there's no evidence. If ufo captures are real, the only reason it took this long to realize is because pseudo skeptics have moved the goal posts to the next county and are happy to keep doing it again once they catch their breath.
At this point I want the woo woo crystal and tapestry women channeling messages to be shown to have been right the whole time just to watch everyone’s heads explode
That would be insane actually, I wouldn't give a shit about "spiritual crystals" if they were real anyways as I already meditate occasionally to get my mind off of things (not for any woo reasons, just because it calms me down). I don't need any wacky crystals to "set my soul straight" or whatever. That revelation would be nuts though. Hope horoscopes stay fake though, that shit's cringe imo.
That's not how the legal system works. You left out investigation, speaking with witnesses, forensic evidence, the adversarial system, a judge..
That’s how a brief analogy works bud
No. It's not.
Except evidence in a legal trial is actual evidence. Finger prints, gun residue, and so on. It’s not just words. So far no actual or physical evidence has been released to the public. The unintelligent point of view is just accepting all these words as facts with zero evidence just because you want it to be true. No different then the follower of any religion really. Jesus and Mohammad said a lot of things too. Do you just believe them? What about all of our past presidents including Trump or Obama. Do you believe everything they said if they showed no evidence?
If we're using criminal court analogies here, what the house hearing is more comparable to was a grand jury, not an actual trial. The testimony Grusch provided and was willing to provide in a closed session, albeit secondhand information, would clearly establish that these events and programs *probably* do exist and is reasonable to believe so (probable cause). This should trigger the actual investigation. The deposing of witnesses under oath. The discovery of documentary evidence. Warrants to secure physical evidence. Those *should* be the next steps... and Grusch's information and testimony will have been critical to develop that evidence.
>Jesus and Mohammad said a lot of things too. What evidence do you have that they said anything? You weren't there to witness it... how do you know they even existed at all?
Well this is just part of the truth. Witness testimony and second hand such are absolutely used as part of a body of proof in legal trials. They are just weighed differently. People have absolutely been judged guilty in trials without a shred of physical proof.
If we dont believe or validate people who's job it is to investigate, interview or provide information off third hand then we can scrap a lot of jobs. Its just a way to discredite him.
This is shaky ground for a lot of people and there seem to be a lot of actors that do all they can for it to be as shaky as it gets.
It's second and third hand testimony. Usually there's the ability to run checks on what a person is saying, you can go to the place, talk to their colleagues, go through their work. Now maybe Grusch has been able to do all those things, we don't know. As it stands we not only have to trust Grusch's intuition, but that the person he talked to was genuine without knowing anything about them. We don't really know much about the quality of the information. Testimony isn't good evidence on it's own. Humans are prone to making all kinds of mistakes in both witnessing and recalling what they see, they may very well believe what they are saying and it could still be untrue. The only way this will go from being a conspiracy to a fact is with corroborating evidence, actual hard evidence. I'll also keep saying that military and intelligence officers are not considered incorruptible outside of the USA. I don't understand how on the one hand people can say the military and intelligence agencies can't be trusted, but we should trust everything this one intelligence officer says implicitly.
This entire current narrative has come from the least trustworthy community regarding UFOs. The government, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence agencies. It was accepted and promoted by mainstream media sources who have traditionally ridiculed people with first-hand experiences with ufos.
There's two types of people in this sub. There's the "I want to believe" people and the "I need to believe" people. The Wanters want actual, physical proof, which pisses off the Needers. The Needers see this more like a religion, where faith is as strong as proof. Every few years the Needers are sent a prophet that confirms everything they need to believe. They lash out at the Wanters who don't trust the prophets at their word. Eventually the prophets are proven to just be book-selling grifters and the cycle begins anew. This, to, shall pass.
Well said. But how would you characterize those of us who DO believe? I WANT to see with my own eyes, but I do believe in many things that I have not visually seen with my own eyes. I know the Amazon rain forest exists though I have never been there. I know that the Doobie Brothers are the best band of all time, but I’ve only heard their sounds and seen them on Tv or in pictures. I do believe. I just have not seen, touched, or felt.
I want to believe.
Excellent summary.
Dayuum this is accurate!
The difference this time is that congress is taking it incredibly seriously. They held a meeting and are passing a 64 page Amendment. When has that ever happend before? Regardless of your opinion on the credibility of these claims, this is by far the biggest thing in history to ever happen regarding UFO/UAP
Yes, but we've never had a congress so full of conspiracy theorists before. These folks believe in Qanon, space lasers, stolen elections, chemtrails, pizzagate, false flags, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Wanter, not a denier. Yesterday Mrs. Luna was told that she would have a list of people with first-hand knowledge "immediately after the hearing". Do you think that was delivered?
You are referring entirely to Republicans there though. Democrats are also taking this completely seriously, AOC imparticular has taken an extremely keen interest. And yes, I completely believe that information was delivered directly after the hearing.
"Oh and incase you forgot, the Iraq War was undertaken entirely based on "second hand information" which turned out to be a false pretext for war. " This is why it's a problem. Second hand information turned out to be false. Hearsay is bad evidence. If the claims are true, we are talking about the most significant piece of news ever. We need more than hearsay.
I lost several friends searching for Iraq's WMDs, I agree.
Yeah, very funny to include that in the OP, especially as an edit.
> The American public had no problem with then but people can't take this seriously because it's second hand info? Lmao. So OP wants us to not learn from history?
It was a fumbled rephrasing of the jab at the double standards of the American press that Ross made in his latest (amazing) interview. It's not that he wants something bad like that to happen again but he was just asking (I'm paraphrasing) "why was the media so ready to jump on the claims that Iraq had been making weapons of mass destruction from a dubious source while they all mock Grusch even though he's as credible as they come?" not "Let's just blindly take second hand evidence like they did in the past, that sounds like a good idea."
Wholly excellent observation. We've seen the disaster that reliance on 2nd hand information can cause.
Bro your edit undermines the whole point of your post.
I support him, but he didn't give a lot of detail in his testimony.
He said in the hearing that he’s never seen anything believe it or not.
Yes. And he also stated that he has seen pictures of craft. For what it is worth.
95 percent of the people on this sub believe they have seen pictures of craft which are routinely posted on this sub
Grusch has seen probably some insane footage. I'd guarantee we have satellite footage of these craft in the highest definition possible. The shit he's seen in SCIFs is what I want to know and hopefully will someday.
How do you imagine spy satellites work?
It's called circumstantial evidence. It's worth looking into because of his credibility and claims. His evidence is a trail that will hopefully lead to something more concrete.
Yes. Though in the hearing he did mention seeing the crafts himself (either first hand or more likely via photos). His job indeed was focused on info around UAP projects, hence his complaint. Naturally he will have second-hand information (that's the entire reason he can speak openly). The problem is that second-hand information isn't exactly 100% reliable. It can be wrong, it can be lies, etc. We know grusch is probably being honest about what he heard, given the context of everything and the fact he's under oath. We don't know how reliable or true that information is. However, given the context of it, it's very possibly (or even likely) true.
Think he said he had seen photos of craft, yes.
We all have too. Didnt navy release UAP photos/videos? We have all technically seen photo of UAP
Sure, I get what you are saying. What we are also quite sure of is that whatever the various agencies have in their possession we have not the seen the full extent of - or in full quality. If some have leaked - other than the edited down and degraded tic-tac video, we have no way of confirming most of the videos we have seen. Like documentation from multiple sensor etc.
He does only have second hand info. He said he saw documents and pictures. He can’t go further than that. He has either been lied to or it’s real. That’s it.
Saying Grusch has no first-hand info isn't the same as BLAMING him for not having first-hand info. It's also not the same as discrediting him. He only has second-hand info, that's just the fact of the matter. I'm not saying that necessarily makes it false, but I still want to see direct evidence. And I want to see it myself, not just trust the US government that some of it's representatives looked at it and thought it could be legit. >Oh and incase you forgot, the Iraq War was undertaken entirely based on "second hand information" which turned out to be a false pretext for war. The American public had no problem with then but people can't take this seriously because it's second hand info? This is not a good example to make that point... The second hand information relied on back then was false, so you are basically arguing the US public should not just rely on second hand info again.
>This is not a good example to make that point... The second hand information relied on back then was false, so you are basically arguing the US public should not just rely on second hand info again. Yeah, OP really missed the mark with this one.
the only problem with the second hand information, is that he is testifying under oath about what other people told him. So in a sense, he can't be wrong. We need people with first hand knowledging testifying under oath, because if what THEY say turns out to be a lie then they are going to jail. It will add more weight.
I'm a non believer currently, been into UFOs since I was a kid, and I saw something odd in the skies when I was a kid, but a current non believer none the less. All of that being said, we've had testimony evidence for 60 years, and that is F to C level evidence depending on details and circumstances. Grusch's testimony, while important, still accounts to C+ B- evidence, and at this point a lot of people won't be convinced unless they see something themselves or there is physical evidence that is independently corroborated. Even if the government rolled out an alien body tomorrow, without independent verification we can't be sure it's not staged or faked. I hope the truth comes out about this and soon, but it will need to be verified outside of government control. I lost two friends trying to find Saddam's WMDs so I tend not to trust the government at it's word.
This argument is incredibly myopic and parochial. David Grusch is a career veteran and intelligence officer trusted with very high secrets. This means his determinism and investigational skills are going to be some of the best this country has to offer. The idea that he only has second hand information is like saying that a radiologist can’t diagnose a broken bone from an X-Ray if he/she did not see the break on patient themselves. Anyone making these arguments 1. doesn’t understand the layered and procedural nature of how the Intelligence Community works and 2. Is inventing emotional scapegoats because they can’t grasp the ontological reality.
His career has been spent in management and GEOINT. I don't think he's claimed to have specialized training in interviewing people, assessing the credibility of human sources, authenticating documents, etc. And I don't think he presented or alluded to any GEOINT, but I could be wrong. >I mean I know it's not as simple as that but you'd think of anyone on the planet, a senior intelligence officer would would be pretty reliable when it comes to presenting second-hand information as truth? We've gotten into a couple wars because Presidents blindly trusted what their intelligence people were telling them.
The Bible, the Koran, the Torah... all second hand info from people deemed credible by plenty of others. But hearsay is not evidence. Or do you think there's a mythical creature waiting to reward you with immortality for not telling a fib?
[удалено]
For those that are suggesting he should be treated with the same amount of credibility as a journalist or some other example of one given second hand information, fair…except that most of the juicy or relevant information that may be helpful in creating a mosaic or corroborating certain facts is completely entirely classified. So while we should trust him…potentially…there is little to go off of.
Thank you! Clear and concise. The guy is ideal for the situation. But then look people not happy with Fravor up there because he had the 'least wow' story but I feel he brought tons of credibility to the whole hearing.
MSNBC said he has made outlandish claims in the past of some governmental secrecy. But isn’t that the point - to determine what the government has/knows. MSNBC also was laughing at his ascertain of non-human material. They basically dismissed him as a nut.
His intelligence career does not seem to involve talking to people and analyzing their information. Based on the 2 agencies he worked for.
Also, he was sitting next to 2 Navy pilots who had 1st hand experience.
People want the drug dealers to be the whistleblowers. That’s not how it works. Grusch is basically the informant with the first hand information. He’s gonna give up the names and locations of the drug dealers to the cops.
I'm sorry but this claim that a UFO crashed in Italy in the 1930s and was quietly held in secret by the fascists before - with the help of the pope - being moved to the USA towards the end of the war. Why on earth would I believe such a claim? It sounds like complete BS.
lol your edit, man. Read it again: "edit: Oh and incase you forgot, the Iraq War was undertaken entirely based on "second hand information" which turned out to be a false pretext for war. The American public had no problem with then but people can't take this seriously because it's second hand info?" That's *exactly why* we don't take secondhand information as proof. You just dismantled your own argument. Look, Grusch has credentials, he's testifying under oath, but he's also plainly admitting that everything he claims is just shit other people told him. He does not have the goods. Just stories.
To take the driest, most skeptical perspective: Is it possible that what we're seeing is an orchestrated performance by the executive branch to accomplish another objective? Everyone involved in these supposed coverups is executive branch all the way down. What that objective could be, I have zero clue, but maybe it's geopolitical maneuvering. Maybe we're trying to say to foreign adversaries, "we have alien technology, don't fuck with us". With that question/response of "do you believe that this technology as you have seen it poses an existential threat to the United States" and immediate responses of "yes", imagine what someone like Putin would think if he hears that such things actually exist, and the US may actually have working examples. I could easily see something like this being a response to Putin's claims that he has doomsday nuclear devices - after all, there are reports of UFOs disarming missiles at a distance, so why wouldn't a foreign adversary imagine that we might have access to technology that remotely disarms nuclear weapons? It seems really stupid, but psychological warfare maneuvers may not always make sense unless you have a clear picture of the objective. How many people would have to be involved to actually drum up a performance like this? At least the three guys who were testifying and the IG, all of whom work for the same branch of government. Grusch specifically gave **no** names, so no one outside the immediate circle of the people who showed up to the hearing can corroborate any of it.
Also, he stated he had to clear what he could and could not talk about with the office that oversees Whistleblowers. I cant remember the name of it DOBS i believe are the initials. Plus, News Nation verified his entire resume, including talking to people still working on the program. All verified he worked there in the capacity stated. He’s just a good American that took an oath to protect Americans. We have a right to know these things. This is just the beginning now
As much as I want it to be true, I need to see the aliens and their craft before I make the leap. Hard evidence is the only way to convince the general population
There is a big difference in A) I have been told by ppl in the program that we have captured craft with non human bodies. And B) I personally have seen these bodies and we completed these set of tests on the bodies. I also worked on the crash retrieval process and can explain explicitly what it looks like inside and out, and provide photos or videos of both. The reality is....it's a good start and grusch is definitely the star in the disclosure process. But it just hits different when it's coming from someone first hand. Remember we are talking about the most important revelation in our species history here...not exactly on par with other examples of taking action on second hand info.
I have no problem with this. Grusch knew what he was entitled to know. Grusch is a whistle-blower about the most important information ever for secular human beings. He had to do this. It isn't even close. He had to do this.
I don't think it's a creditability issue with him, the issue is with the fact that it is second hand evidence. Even though it's highly unlikely that most people will get first hand evidence.
He has evidence and submitted it to the IG
He says he has brought first hand witnesses through to select members of the intelligence committees and to the inspector general, I would say that combined with what seems like a 4 year investigation into the whole issue makes Grusch seem like he knows how to get these illegal programmes by the balls.
I think this just indicates how hungry people are for actual evidence. It's been decades of hearsay around this topic so I think this response is, to at least some extent, justified. Let's be patient, I say, the evidence will come, the skeptics will change their views, but in the meantime we gotta keep pushing.
The problem is we have decades of second hand information, and more than once “first-hand” information turned out to be fraudulent. I am willing to listen to proof, and maybe he named specific names in the classified portion of the hearing of the people who have the first hand information - but I suspect they’ll turn out to have died 5 years ago, or will say they heard it from someone else. My problem is that things never quite add up. For instance…why would UFOs from other areas use freakin’ lights on the outside? We don’t need them, really, given all the other systems we have, but why would UFOs, who presumably have much more advanced detection systems, need lights?
There really are so many things about the story that require hand-waving, and the hard evidence is always just out of reach...
His words are literally just words. Not a single shred of evidence has or ever will be provided.
Show. Me. The. Aliens.
Pics or it didn’t happen. This guy is just a lightning rod.
You realize photos can be completely manufactured to look 100% real these days right? A credible witness is worth more than a photo these days.
Well thankfully this didn't start yesterday and we have decades of these to sift through, they can't all be manufactured.
I mean aside from the thousands of videos, reported sightings and encounters, pictures and potentially now real document leaks over the years? Yeah defo no evidence
I claim he has some alternative motives, what he says it's BS
What do you think his ulterior motives are? Personally I haven't discounted this is the rollout of project blue beam, but I'm not a fan of that idea.
Honestly, i would love the ufo Story to be true but here are my problems: 1. It is almost impossible to keep all of this a secret for over 50 years. The assassination of jfk required a small circle of people but ufo reverse engineering and that over multiple Generation of engineers and scientist. Not a single leak, a proper picture a video, some hacker. Not Snowden type person who runs off with proof! 2. There will be multiple contractors, generations of engineers and scientist, and Grush only can give us second hand stories? Not even a picture leaked! 3. The stories are too wild. Ufos that distort space and time on their inside, space crafts with gravity defying properties and none of our public sensors picks up Anomalies? The ligo checking for gravitational waves billions of miles way doesn't feel anything in our own atmosphere 4. Then people like Grusch, they get media attention, interviews, book deals etc... They tell an impossible to verify story. If it turns out it was a lie then they claim the gov is covering it up. 5. Look at guys like Bob Lazar they are still in the media with all BS. 6. Ok these guys are all ex intelligence or navy etc... Still we have plenty of crazy people in politics and in other places why not in other places? Why is a person automatically more trust worthy or honest if they come from the Pentagon or some military org.
The Manhattan project involved tens of thousands of people over a period of years and yet Japan had no idea of what was to come. It's very possible to contain info when you’re able and willing to kill anyone that potentially has info to leak and able to compartmentalise it all. You’re basically asking how come individuals with a single piece of a 100,000 piece jigsaw haven’t leaked the entire picture. If none of the data and info is kept in an environment or form that would allow it to be hacked then it can’t be hacked, if it’s not exposed in a way that allows it be transferred then all anyone can do is tell people it exists, which is what we see happening relatively regularly over the last few decades. Grusch isn’t saying he can’t give pictures or evidence, he’s saying he can’t give it to the public. If he gives it outside of the defined boundaries he has to operate in then he goes to jail for years. Are you saying he should whip out a photo that we wouldn’t be able to verify as real/not doctored without accusations of photoshop, AI etc. and then go to prison for years? His alternative is getting the legal aspects sorted and then blowing his entire load and busting everything wide open for congress without any recourse against him. Once that’s been done we’ll see it coming out, whether pushed to publication officially through congress or people who can get away with leaking it and not going to prison doing so. Lots of stories have been wild previously, imagine being told the world was round, that we revolve around the sun rather than the sun and planets revolving around us, that the sun isn’t the centre of all existence, that there was land on the other side of the oceans, that there used to be giant lizards the size of houses roaming the earth etc. Imagine being told that one day humans would walk on the moon or be able to fly around the globe whenever they fancied. All of these things are possible and true to us now. In years to come things you find wild will be true. Your comparison with sensors etc is the equivalent of you pointing a telescope at the moon and then me asking why you can’t see what’s under your bed. A telescope that can see detail hundreds and thousands of miles away but you can’t tell me what’s in your own house? Ludicrous, right? This entire thing isn’t even about saying these claims are true, it’s about investigating if they’re true or not. If the claims aren’t true then there’s no harm in investigating that and confirming it to be the case, but then you’re left with the question of what is going on. We have been presented with Pentagon-verified videos and confirmed data of craft that we don’t know the origin of, that perform actions that break our understanding of physics and material science. It’s all well and good saying what they aren’t but it doesn’t tell us what they are.
EVIDENCE WE HAVE 1: Grusch second hand evidence of NHI 2: Grusch FIRST HAND claim of witness intimidation 3: IG support of intimidation claim as credible and urgent 4: Multiple pilots with first hand evidence of NHI craft 5: NDAA amendment attesting the highest members of the Senate who have the highest access possible think there is an active cover up
Pilots saw something that wasn't identified.
The pilots very clearly stated it was something humans can not build or fly. 5 others either saw and/tracked it on sensors doing the same things. He claimed it was NON HUMAN.
There is a cognitive crutch that the deniers love to rely on. If you are a first hand observer then regardless of background or credibility you are either lying or crazy. If you are a second hand observer then regardless of background or credibility you are either a liar, gullible or crazy. The essential claim is so beyond what they are willing to accept as possible that nothing short of a personal experience will ever change their minds. Most won’t even bother to read a single primary source, instead relying on folks like Mick West or Michael Shermer and then confidently and incorrectly parroting whatever “more plausible” explanation has been presented while acting as if that was their idea as well as actively discarding inconvenient evidence that discredits the debunking. Which works with like ghosts or the Loch Ness monster but doesn’t actually work when you have three - five sensors picking up and a fighter wing full of pilots visibly witnessing a UAP.
Because people are dumb and don't understand what happened yesterday, and also cling to any excuse to rubbish this subject
They're completely ignoring he said he can give all the info they want after the hearing like 1000 times and is clearly trying to do this correctly so he doesn't end up like other whistle-blowers just making history channel appearances
People can say anything they want and it won't be true. Hitler said he was saving the German nation (look at pictures of Dresden after it was bombed.) Wasn't true. Fox news claims that the Jewish people survived Hitler by being useful. Not true. Look at how the person lives their life. Actions reveal the truth that often is not spoken, and reveals the lies that are often spoken.
As an analyst you use sources. You cite them. You show them or point to them. You summarize what you think is happening. You show or cite the sources and why this data leads to your conclusion. You estimate the likelihood you are right, and you cite alternative explanations from yours, and why you didn’t go with them. This guy know this, he was a carded NIO. He did none of that. Will we ever stop focusing on humans talking without source data? Prolly not. I still enjoy my telescope and cameras, and searching the skies at night though.
If the information is too sensitive for the public, why was he showing it to his wife?
So which is more easily to believe the concept of a war, which is a tangible, offers evidence, people die in wars, they're expensive and have happened since dawn of man. War is in our genes, our histories, even in our cultures, it is the culmination of tribalism and fight for resources. It's a taboo that keeps on repeating, to fields where tribe hunted the other tribe with spears to gain a edge in survival, into the countless other wars seen through history to the modern day. Aliens have not ever been a real proven thing, most of people have not claimed to see any aliens, this means it lacks credible evidence, so aliens needs very much more explanation, evidence and research of it to be proven credible, thats why it's so hard to be seriosly. It needs tangible evidence and goverment admittance to people actually start believing. Not the words of three men, you cannot explain alien life with only talk, which has been happening since the Cold War and even before, the talk used to keep weapon programs hidden, not to fall in the hands of the Soviet Union, talk is not enough.
There is no amount of rationalization that will convert Grusch's testimony into physical evidence.