A former military intelligence officer-turned-whistleblower told House lawmakers that Congress is being kept in the dark about unidentified anomalous phenomena.
This is kind of a funny inversion of typical political distraction games. Instead of ‘Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’ we’re getting ‘Let’s pay attention to this guy saying there’s aliens behind every curtain. But still pay no attention to those guys behind me shoveling money into my pockets.’
They do it every time they want to keep inquiring and suspicious people distracted.
Once is an occurrence. Twice is a coincidence. Every few years for the past six decades is a pattern. Nothing ever comes of it but in the end new shit got to happen without interruption.
Like how do these people believe the government can keep aliens a secret but they won't buy that?
Edit, watch AOCs questions in that hearing. She is hot onto the point: she asks specific questions about the process and requirements for reporting phenomenon to Congress. She's doing that because this entire hearing is focused on whether grusch endured reprisals for whistleblowing. That's all they care about, that's what the House Oversight Committee does. And when she gets to the root, Grusch goes anxious, stutters, etc. But when he's talking about his claims it's highly scripted, no stutters, nothing.
Grusch is using the whistleblower protections to grandstand, AOC knows it. He's gonna be facing perjury charges within a month, bet. I'll bet even further, he's gonna flee the country and then claim the warrant they put out for him is "targeted" at him for whistleblowing. Conspiracy con artists all operate on the same script.
While I can't speak for the congresspeople's motivations, Grusch seems very credible and someone who could reasonably make such claims given his background and experience. More info about his claims here.
Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and it's hard to know what's really there given the classified nature of a lot of this. I'm hoping for more information to either prove or disprove his claims.
It’s a great deal for Grusch too. Massive media attention he can turn into book deals and speaking engagements for a lifetime and zero consequences for never even trying to provide proof of his claims. He gets to be a lifetime hero to people that ‘want to believe’ and in a month no one else will remember his name enough to challenge any of his claims.
Perhaps so, but if that was all that was going on here I'm surprised Grusch got to be front and center at this congressional hearing. His testimony seemed to indicate that he has shared classified, vetted information with congress in closed sessions, and he seems like an educated man who not only has clearance but also a degree in physics.
Grusch seems more credible than, say, Bob Lazar, or other such people who seem to be courting the UFO believer circuit, but it's hard to know for sure, especially as a member of the public. I don't feel like I have enough information to make my mind up about him but there's enough there to indicate he should be listened to and his claims examined.
Also, it's worth noting he wasn't the only witness. Pilots David Fravor and Ryan Graves also made similar claims about UAPs, although their testimony wasn't as incredible as some of what Grusch had to say.
Also, it's worth noting he wasn't the only witness.
My understanding is that Grusch has not actually claimed to have first-hand evidence of anything he claims. He is relying on some other source telling him they've seen crazy shit, essentially.
Yes, my understanding is also that he supposedly interviewed a lot of other people with clearance, and because of that a lot of the details and sources and evidence can't be shared. The other pilots had firsthand accounts, IIRC, as well as video and sensor evidence.
Perhaps so, but if that was all that was going on here I’m surprised Grusch got to be front and center at this congressional hearing.
See my first point about this being a political brownie-points bonanza. They’ve got a hot stage and a rising star. Of course they’re going to make a good show of it. And even with zero evidence- enthusiastic members of the public can’t get enough and will go on and on about how credible this guy seems because he’s saying things they really, really want to be true.
"I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access,” basically adds up to “I totally worked on this super secret project that I can’t tell you about”.
He never actually said he has any evidence, just beliefs.
"If Trump knew about it, he would have told everyone, bragged about it, kept boxes of documents about it at Mar-A-Lago, etc. There would be a ketchup stained original photograph of an alien autopsy on the floor of his bathroom."
Edit: so far all we know is that he froze in the middle of a speech and just stared off into space for 20-30 seconds until some other Republicans moved him out of the way and took over the press conference. Apparently he went to his office and then came back a few minutes later and answered questions from reporters, so I don’t know if it’s really a stroke.
The best we can hope for is that in that time, he was taken to his past self, present self, and future self which had him ultimately reflect on how his actions have very negatively impacted those around him and those across our country.
It’s likely he would see all that and just be proud of hurting so many people. Even the Ghost of Congress Future would be appalled.
Rep. Nancy Mace: "If you believe we have crashed [non-human space]craft...do we have the bodies of the pilots...?"
David Grusch: "As I've stated...biologics came with some of these recoveries."
Mace: "Were they Human or non-human?"
Grusch: "Non-human."
Incredible if true. If evidence is declassified supporting this it seems we owe a lot of apologies to a lot of people who were written off as kooks. The implications for humanity seem potentially huge.
The last time UFOs were front page news in multiple newspapers was in 1952 when there were multiple sightings over Washington DC.
That same year Gene Pope, a graduate of MIT in only three years, leaves the CIA’s psyops program to buy up the National Enquirer.
Within two years, he turns it into a gossip rag frequently featuring UFO stories alongside outlandish claims about Elvis still living, etc.
He also later has the Weekly World News with batboy.
So there’s an explicitly manufactured reason that this isn’t front page news which goes back over 70 years, and very much ties in with elements of the actual hearing.
If evidence is declassified supporting this it seems we owe a lot of apologies to a lot of people who were written off as kooks.
No, not really. Aliens existing, even aliens having crashed on Earth, would not mean that all the conspiracy bullshit that people came up with is real. This is a really stupid take and makes you sound like those people in /r/conspiracy.
I'm surprised this isn't front page news.
Because it, as it did before, still lacks any sort of evidence. This is literally the same message we've seen weeks ago and I did not care about it then either.
If evidence is declassified supporting this it seems we owe a lot of apologies to a lot of people who were written off as kooks.
No, not really. Aliens existing, even aliens having crashed on Earth, would not mean that all the conspiracy bullshit that people came up with is real. This is a really stupid take and makes you sound like those people in /r/conspiracy.
You seem intent on interpreting the quoted bit in the worst possible way. At a minimum proof of a crash or interaction, even if it was one time, even if it was 10000 years ago, would be enough to stop having to hear someone think they were the first person to bring up the Fermi Paradox every time the topic is discussed.
You can't even theorize lightly about scenarios where there might have been extraterrestrial interaction with Earth in most contexts without being pretty much branded a kook.
It would fundamentally change quite a lot I think, even if the immediate impact would be negligible.
You can’t even theorize lightly about scenarios where there might have been extraterrestrial interaction with Earth in most contexts without being pretty much branded a kook.
Well, yeah. You can speculate about those scenarios all you want, that’s why sci-fi is so much fun. But ‘theorize’ implies a serious consideration of the event having occurred and there is zero tangible evidence for that and physics itself suggests that in the span of a civilization the chances of even detecting another may be infinitesimally small. So any ‘theory’ of those scenarios would be based on nothing so- yeah- kookery.
Good point, and if Jesus showed up at the superbowl with Prince’s guitar we’d owe a lot of apologies to a lot of Kid Rock fans who were written off as Kid Rock fans ;)
…and thus, (cringe) That’s not an exaggeration either, it’s just completely asinine, like babbling about ‘ancient astronaut theory’. So don’t get so upset when strangers point out that it’s asinine.
It would be an appropriate comment if we'd just had a congressional hearing about Jesus showing up at the superbowl with Prince's guitar, but since we haven't I don't see how your analogy really works.
I'm done with this - you folks are clearly more invested in tearing down a cute comment from another poster than I am in defending it. Please enjoy your breakfast of bitterness and bile.
I love when people throw a little tantrum that they’re ‘done’. People that are really ‘done’ don’t have to fuss to anonymous strangers about how done they are ;)
It would be an appropriate comment if we’d just had a congressional hearing about Jesus showing up at the superbowl with Prince’s guitar
The comment is a perfectly valid comparison- we have congressional hearings about religious nonsense all the time. The Prince\Kid Rock part was a goof but are you seriously unaware of how often Jesus and ‘Gods will’ are cited in congressional session?
So if you heard religious kookery in a hearing and then said ‘Well, if God really did bring that hurricane to punish gays it would change humanity’s relationship with religion and science’ - that would be a deeply, stupidly, asinine statement. So it’s just like you adding your half-cent to the UFO kookery. Not sure you can follow that but thought I’d lay it out for you just in case.
What a bunch of bollocks. As a general space nerd I've discussed this topic plenty of times with people without issues. The only times this is an issue is when someone brings up his wild conspiracy garbage. You simply aren't branded as "kook" for talking about aliens, plenty of literal scientists did so, including very respected ones.
What a bunch of bollocks. As a general space nerd I've discussed this topic plenty of times with people without issues. The only times this is an issue is when someone brings up his wild conspiracy garbage. You simply aren't branded as "kook" for talking about aliens, plenty of literal scientists did so, including very respected ones.
One of the topics they discussed during the hearings is the stigma and potential repercussions of reporting sightings, merely accounts of seeing a thing they can't explain, not inventing or citing, "wild conspiracy garbage." The fact that these were congressional hearings by people who can legally know things we don't, and they still thought it was of intertest to the public despite the stigma, security issues, and potential blowback, should mean something.
As a general space nerd you might benefit from entertaining the idea these accounts have veracity without accepting them as true.
Meh. If you think conclusive proof of even one single intentional extraterrestrial visit or verified crash at some point in our planet's history would not represent a sea change in the state of discourse on the topic of UFOs and alien interactions with earth, I don't really know what to tell you.
As a general space nerd you might benefit from entertaining the idea these accounts have veracity without accepting them as true.
Why should I spend any of my time or energy on an unproven claim? Should I also entertain the idea that an invisible pink teapot is orbiting earth until it's proven false? What if there is someone with "credibility" claiming they have (classified) photos of the teapot, is it worth considering then?
Why should I spend any of my time or energy on an unproven claim?
Probably for the same reason we dedicate energy and time to world matters of import. It's interesting, it's potentially very important, and even if we personally may not have a hand in the verification or outcome, this matter ultimately affects us all. It could literally change the way all humans think about intelligent life and the possibilities for humanity in the future.
Should I also entertain the idea that an invisible pink teapot is orbiting earth until it's proven false?
Your Russel's teapot is pink? Neat.
What if there is someone with "credibility" claiming they have (classified) photos of the teapot, is it worth considering then?
Yes! I mean the analogy is rather breaking down here because the implications of a pink teapot in orbit around the earth today would probably point to someone launching it into orbit, and not something as consequential as the verification of non-human intelligent life, but yeah, we should investigate credible claims of things that matter in general.
Avi Loeb is a high-profile example of this not holding true.
Yes, a good example of people jumping to conclusions without any evidence, which is very much anti-scientific.
I'll entertain ideas based on their likelihood to be actually true. His position is not enough to qualify for this. For this alone I can give you a good and very recent counter example: Michael Yeadon
He was a high ranking pharmacologist working for Pfizer, so one would think a well established and knowledgeable scientist, one we should be able to trust his words about topics like vaccines, right? Wrong. He spewed a plethora of false conspiracy bullshit about covid, medical advice and the vaccines. Guess who argued similarly about him as you do now? All the antivaxx "kooks" that cry about never being taken seriously.
Yes, a good example of people jumping to conclusions without any evidence, which is very much anti-scientific.
That's simply not true. Loeb cited evidence for his outlandish claims, I don't find it to be very compelling evidence of his interpretation but he did cite evidence none the less.
I'll entertain ideas based on their likelihood to be actually true. His position is not enough to qualify for this.
Perhaps you have a point regarding Loeb, but if you operate on likelihood:
The reason the Fermi paradox, (@be_excellent_to_each_other thanks for bringing it up,) is a paradox is because our mathematical estimates regarding extraterrestrial life says it is likely, yet we have not conclusively observed any.
Grusch is documented as being in a position where he could have access to the sort of classified information he claims to, and his background suggests he could interpret said information reasonably as it pertains to this. He has been vetted by congress. Although it is certainly not conclusive, what we do know about him corroborates with what we've heard so far.
For this alone I can give you a good and very recent counter example: Michael Yeadon
He was a high ranking pharmacologist working for Pfizer, so one would think a well established and knowledgeable scientist, one we should be able to trust his words about topics like vaccines, right? Wrong. He spewed a plethora of false conspiracy bullshit about covid, medical advice and the vaccines. Guess who argued similarly about him as you do now? All the antivaxx "kooks" that cry about never being taken seriously.
Yes, sometimes credible people turn out to be totally wrong. Does that mean we should not investigate and either vet or debunk their claims, should we not listen to credible people because they sometimes go nuts or are totally incorrect?
Yeadon sounds a lot like Dr. Wakefield, the other totally wrong discredited medical person with a minority opinion who they love to cite because he justifies their irrationality.
The reason the Fermi paradox, (@be_excellent_to_each_other thanks for bringing it up,) is a paradox is because our mathematical estimates regarding extraterrestrial life says it is likely, yet we have not conclusively observed any.
The reason people think the Fermi paradox is a paradox is because they assume insanely optimistic values for L in the Drake equation.
The Fermi Paradox is a thought experiment, it's not a physical law of the universe. There are big, essentially made-up assumptions that have to be plugged into the formula to end up with the answer of "there's probably lots of aliens out there". I think we probably both agree on those assumptions being reasonable, but they are not proven. For these reasons, I simply do not agree that it's relevant at all in this discussion.
Keep in mind that we're not talking about the existence of an alien civilization, or even specifically that aliens have visited Earth in modern times. Rather, the big question is about whether aliens are visiting Earth and some humans know about it, but are keeping it a secret. That is the core of what people like Grusch are claiming. To prove this we need both evidence of alien life existing (already a huge claim, one of the biggest questions science has yet to tackle) and evidence of a human conspiracy.
Theoretically this must be happening in other countries, too, right? If not, that means there's only been very limited incidents and not the hundreds to thousands of incidents over decades that UFO apologists claim. Except all of this is also tied into the UAP sightings which we now know are pretty widespread... looking at the full picture, things start to collapse under their own logic.
yeah anyone talking about aliens is full of shit as long as there is no evidence, also:
if aliens visited and crashed on earth they dont just visit the US lmao
this kind of conspiracy needs way too many people to STFU, which is just not realistic especially as this would be one of the most important discoveries ever
if there were aliens hidden in the US then fucking TRUMP would be talking about that non stop
I don't know why you think the fermi paradox is somehow a good argument when I don't even deny the possibility of alien life. Please stay on topic and don't accuse my of something I haven't said, thanks.
Your other point is nothing but a bunch of could've would've. Just like the hearing and the previous statements, which were basically the same.
Yes, sometimes credible people turn out to be totally wrong. Does that mean we should not investigate and either vet or debunk their claims, should we not listen to credible people because they sometimes go nuts or are totally incorrect?
Again, you continue to derail and bring up straw man arguments that I haven't even said. Also, the burden of proof is still on him, especially when "we" cannot prove or let alone disprove any of his claims. That's why I consider this to be a nothingburger until there's actually some proper evidence of anything claimed.
Yeadon sounds a lot like Dr. Wakefield, the other totally wrong discredited medical person who they love to cite because he justifies their irrationality.
There have been plenty of people like Yeadon, in and outside of the medical field. It's just one example that I was able to think of right now because of how recent it was and how much of it made the rounds at the time too. There's people sitting in governments who did and continue to do the same thing, for whatever their reason may be.
Grusch is documented as being in a position where he could have access to the sort of classified information he claims to, and his background suggests he could interpret said information reasonably as it pertains to this. He has been vetted by congress. Although it is certainly not conclusive, what we do know about him corroborates with what we’ve heard so far.
But doesn’t all his knowledge come from second-hand accounts? If so, why should his opinion matter any more than anyone else who’s read someone’s account of being abducted and probed by aliens? Working for the government and having access to classified material doesn’t make his claim any more legitimate if all he’s doing is reading stories written by others. It’s the appeal to authority fallacy in a nutshell.
He didn't give a single tangible thing in the hearing. I know.... he can't due to the classified nature of it, but then what's the point if you can't prove anything?
Add comment