David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin

[ump]

I actually agree with you but there are many reasons one could think of why they hypothetically may prefer to observe physically rather than via proxy like ''nano bots''. But to assume that just because they are technologically thousands of years ahead of us means they must understand our technology is a logical fallacy in itself. For example, we are much smarter and more technologically advanced than a 'ant' but we are unable to hack into an ant's antenna systems and communicate to other ants, neither do we fully understand the behaviour of certain animals and how they communicate with each other.

Our idea of aliens ultimately comes down the amazing ability of the human mind to invent what he sees based on the technology and culture of the time period, just like in the medieval times there were sightings of supposed 'dragons' and flying boats/ships in the sky, in the late 1800s there were people that saw flying 'airships'. There are never any sightings of flying saucers pre-1930s.

So why do we assume aliens would observe from low altitude in manned craft? It's because it's what we would do.

Well, no, absolutely wrong. Regarding the ants, yes to almost everything else.

Ants don't use technology. They evolved. Yes, some biological systems are more complex than anything we can understand. Which is why we can't make an ant, yes?

But computers are based on universal physics that you have to master to climb the tech tree to the next stage. If you're at the ftl stage, you understood that physics millennia ago. And you have a vast amount of processing power and instruments that let you look at a chip and trivially reverse engineer it. Physics is physics. After that, decoding the operating instructions is trivial.

tldr: you don't have to understand ants to build computers. But you do have to understand basic physics to build starships. If you understand physics at fil levels, then silicon based computers are easily understood as a lever is to us. Unless we assume that they are magical starships.

As for those "many reasons"… I can't think of one that makes sense. Especially if ufos are crashing all over the place. Would you like to say what they are?

 

[ump]

I'm not going to argue with you, we're getting too far afield from the actual topic, anyway. But keep in mind, witnesses' (and since Grusch has no proof of what he claims, only what he's heard/has been told, he's essentially a witness) testimony is often inaccurate, but usually is a true and faithful recount of what they believe they know.

In Grusch's particular situation, I can accept he is being truthful to the point of believing/recounting what he claims he was told, but to date I've seen no evidence to prove what he claims. Nor do I expect to.

Yes, witness testimony is often inaccurate. As I said, I don't believe the man is correct. But spreading myths about a pseudoscience like body language is harmful - the USA has a big problem with false convictions, and faith in this nonsense is probably one of the reasons.

As for why he has made such statements..

He may indeed be lying. For example, this could be a distraction psyop - weirder things have happened.

Or may have been fed a cover story for something else. This could be the case even if there are genuine ufos, of course.

Or he could be telling a distorted version of the truth - he is relaying gossip.

Or what he says could be true… But in that case, these are some very weird aliens - ones with 5000AD technology and Idiocracy IQs.

 

[PublicStranger]

Well, no, absolutely wrong. Regarding the ants, yes to almost everything else.

Ants don't use technology. They evolved. Yes, some biological systems are more complex than anything we can understand. But so what? They are not technology. Computers are. They are based on universal physics that you have to master to climb the tech tree to the next stage. If you're at the ftl stage, you have a vast amount of processing power and instruments that let you look at a snarfed chip and trivially reverse engineer it. Physics is physics. After that, decoding the operating instructions is trivial.

tldr: you don't have to understand ants to build computers. But you do have to understand basic physics to build starships. Unless we assume that they are magical starships.

As for those "many reasons"… I can't think of one that makes sense. Especially if ufos are crashing all over the place. Would you like to say what they are?

Ants don't use technology knowingly or consciously no, but biology is in many ways a complex system of design created via Darwinian evolution that shares comparisons with technological systems. An ants' antennae uses a two way communication system that receives and sends out communication. They did not design it themselves no, nor did any conscious being design it, but it was created through a complex system of random decision making that bears a lot of resemblance to the way technology of conscious inventors like humans work. Consciousness and life behaves and makes decisions in the same ways an intelligent AI system does.

Studies have shown that certain people on the higher end of the IQ scale have trouble understanding the thinking of somebody on the lower end of the IQ scale, the ability for these 2 different type of people to hold a meaningful conversation is almost impossible because of the way their brains work. It may be the case that a super intelligent alien species may not understand the way our archaic computer systems work.

Physics is physics yes but we have no anchor to determine whether a specific alien species millions of lights years away climbed the same 'tech tree' as we did. There may exist a solar system somewhere that rare, undiscovered minerals and chemicals are in abundance and this may have allowed this supposed alien species to advance at a much faster rate than we did. They may also have evolved due to conditions on their planet and solar system that allowed them to develop a much more sophisticated intellect much faster which again may have affected the 'tech tree' and technological advancements. Or perhaps this alien race was created and spawned by another superior alien race that was already millions of years advanced and passed their technology down through the ages. Perhaps they live in a galaxy that is teeming with alien life and they share technology that would not require a newly spawned species to climb any kind of technological ladder.

To answer the question you asked about why they may want to observe in person. Let's say they are a 'guardian angel' type of alien civilization which wants to preserve human life and prevent disaster from occurring, being there in person is a much more effective way to guard against as opposed to just sending observation equipment.

We can also make the argument that it is much easier to travel to far away planets when there is a conscious pilot that is decision making as opposed to an AI system like nano-bots that may be prone to error or malfunction; if a ship malfunctions, a pilot can fix it etc. If an AI system malfunctions if may be tougher for it to fix itself.

For crashing spaceships you could make the argument that our terrain is heavily different to the terrain they are used to on their planet and maybe the speeds they operate under normally on their planet may not replicate themselves as well on a planet such as ours due to atmosphere and environment etc. You can also say maybe the UFOs are being taken down by outside forces (government or whatever) as opposed to actually crashing of their own accord.

By the way, I am just playing devils advocate a bit here, I don't believe in any of the stuff but it's fun debating none-the less.

 

[ump]

.

Physics is physics yes but we have no anchor to determine whether a specific alien species millions of lights years away climbed the same 'tech tree' as we did.

Physics is physics. Unless you can show otherwise. If you are postulating aliens who reached the ftl stage without understanding quantum mechanics, and hence solid state physics I am going to say Just No. It's like saying that maybe they missed the existence of gravity. No, it's too fundamental- things won't make sense without it. You can have different tech trees in the sense of eg skipping internal combustion and going straight to electrical cars, but not in the sense of missing a huge part of how the universe works.

 

[John J.]

Ump, in reply to Duke:

Again, brutally, you don't seem to understand what actual evidence is.

As for Phillips screws, you have hit on one of the worst examples possible. You obviously don't know anything about screws

My word, you're very judgemental.
Perhaps my phrasing was a little vague- but I think Newton would see the utility of a cruciform screw head.
I wasn't really suggesting that he would become a screw manufacturing tycoon. But it was a throwaway line, not a personal credo. Not really deserving of your response.

My overarching point was that Newton would conclude that an iPhone was a manufactured item, and he might be able to deduce more than that. This contrasts with some "samples" presented by UFO enthusiasts.

National security and intelligence, as shocking as this may be to you, were already concepts known to Stuart England

This comes across as extremely condescending to me- I'm sure you didn't intend it as such. Well, I hope not.

As for detecting electricity… If the phone was in good shape, yes. But so what? The phone doesn't provide a clue that lets you manufacture a battery or generator accessible to your technology level.

I didn't say anything about detecting electricity, or about any ability to "reverse engineer" any components (with the arguable exception of Phillips screws!)
I raised the conjecture that Newton might have been able to identify the battery as a source of power.

assuming that you can point a spectrometer at anything and Its Secrets Shall Be Revealed is not an intelligent assumption.

Ump, that's a straw man argument, followed by more condescension.
We do have the ability to find the material composition of any artefact if we so wish. Its purpose, or how it is used, is a different issue.

The structure and composition of any conventional matter, down to the scale of individual molecules (and arguably atoms) can be found if we really want to. Of course, if we found artefacts made of, or including, "exotic" matter, that would point to an unusual origin.

Technology thousands of years in advance of ours might use quantum information effects or god knows what

And this would invalidate spectrography how?

 

[John J.]

At risk of "losing" some of my own posts, I think this thread might benefit from some Staff input

 

[PublicStranger]

Physics is physics. Unless you can show otherwise. If you are postulating aliens who reached the ftl stage without understanding quantum mechanics, and hence solid state physics I am going to say Just No. It's like saying that maybe they missed the existence of gravity. No, it's too fundamental- things won't make sense without it. You can have different tech trees in the sense of eg skipping internal combustion and going straight to electrical cars, but not in the sense of missing a huge part of how the universe works.

This is true yes, there are fundamentals of physics that require you to have knowledge of before heading onto the next stage. But the vast majority if not all of the technology we have built thus far is not built on the principle of having mastered any of the fundamentals of physics such as gravity. We can barely define gravity as it stands.

 

[Edward Current]

My word, you're very judgemental.
Perhaps my phrasing was a little vague- but I think Newton would see the utility of a cruciform screw head.

If you're going to mention screws but didn't read a book about screws, prepare to be very heavily challenged.

Ump, please tone it down and be more respectful. Metabunk isn't like Facebook or Twitter.

 

[Rick Robson]

It's interesting to see how this and the other thread about metamaterials have been almost completely derailed as of late ... oh well

 

[John J.]

You literally assumed there was no such thing as national security in Stuart England.

No. That isn't true. Point to where I've ever said that, or implied that, anywhere.

biology is in many ways a complex system of design

Biology isn't a system of design, no design is involved. Please note that I don't use this to berate you or question your intelligence.

Studies have shown that certain people on the higher end of the IQ scale have trouble understanding the thinking of somebody on the lower end of the IQ scale, the ability for these 2 different type of people to hold a meaningful conversation is almost impossible because of the way their brains work.

Studies have shown that certain people on the higher end of the IQ scale have trouble understanding the thinking of somebody on the lower end of the IQ scale, the ability for these 2 different type of people to hold a meaningful conversation is almost impossible because of the way their brains work.

(What on earth is going on here? Why are two Metabunkers posting identical contributions?)

I've only got a humble BSc Hons. in Cognitive Science, but this didn't feature in any of the theory of mind stuff I'm familiar with. Seems a bit "pseudo-sciencey" to me.

 

[PublicStranger]

No. That isn't true. Point to where I've ever said that, or implied that, anywhere.


Biology isn't a system of design, no design is involved. Please note that I don't use this to berate you or question your intelligence.


(What on earth is going on here? Why are two Metabunkers posting identical contributions?)

I've only got a humble BSc Hons. in Cognitive Science, but this didn't feature in any of the theory of mind stuff I'm familiar with. Seems a bit "pseudo-sciencey" to me.

I think my post my have been quoted without the quotation function by accident. IQ is a heavily studied metric and far from pseudo-science but I was mainly using it to illustrate my point in the above post.

 

[John J.]

To give some idea of how much you don't understand

You're obsessed with screws. And apparently unable to converse without condescension.

As for the point about the ants, go back and reread what I wrote.

I haven't said anything about ants.

 

[Rick Robson]

(What on earth is going on here? Why are two Metabunkers posting identical contributions?)

Note that ump edited his post two minutes after your observation.

 

[John J.]

IQ is a heavily studied metric and far from pseudo-science

Studies have shown that certain people on the higher end of the IQ scale have trouble understanding the thinking of somebody on the lower end of the IQ scale, the ability for these 2 different type of people to hold a meaningful conversation is almost impossible because of the way their brains work.

Pseudo-science.

And didn't your post precede ump's post with the identical content?
Unfortunately, I'm starting to suspect sock-puppetry.

 

[ump]

No. That isn't true. Point to where I've ever said that, or implied that, anywhere.


Biology isn't a system of design, no design is involved.

As for the first point, if you are the person who assumed that if newton was handed an iPhone then he would definitely publish his investigations, yes, you did make that assumption. Even if you don't realise it.

As for the second, it's irrelevant and a meaningless statement. Biology is biology: there is nothing to say that you can't synthesise an ant or design an almost ant when you have the right technology. The point is that understanding ants is irrelevant. Once again, physics is physics. If you get to ftl, then you mastered solid state physics millennia ago and reverse engineering a primitive cpu is trivial.

 

[ump]

Note that ump edited his post two minutes after you observation.

I am using a iPad for the first time and it is confusing the hell out of me…

 

[Duke]

For crashing spaceships you could make the argument that our terrain is heavily different to the terrain they are used to on their planet and maybe the speeds they operate under normally on their planet may not replicate themselves as well on a planet such as ours due to atmosphere and environment etc. You can also say maybe the UFOs are being taken down by outside forces (government or whatever) as opposed to actually crashing of their own accord.

By the way, I am just playing devils advocate a bit here, I don't believe in any of the stuff but it's fun debating none-the less.

Assuming there are extraterrestrials, and assuming they are sending "spaceships" to Earth, and assuming they are crashing, why would we not expect those mishaps to be caused by the same things that cause our a/c to crash? Most mishaps are caused by pilot/crew errors and system failures. (Yes, factors like weather,
bird strikes, air traffic control mistakes, etc., come into play.) If there are aliens, I find it unlikely they don't make mistakes or their systems are not subject to wearing out/breaking down/failing.

 

[PublicStranger]

As for the first point, if you are the person who assumed that if newton was handed an iPhone then he would definitely publish his investigations, yes, you did make that assumption. Even if you don't realise it.

As for the second, it's irrelevant and a meaningless statement. Biology is biology: there is nothing to say that you can't synthesise an ant or design an almost ant when you have the right technology. The point is that understanding ants is irrelevant. Once again, physics is physics. If you get to ftl, then you mastered solid state physics millennia ago and reverse engineering a primitive cpu is trivial.

My technology hypothesis was mainly targeted to when you said why don't they just hack our computer systems rather than observing in person, not really towards any of the vehicle systems. As if an Alien from a far away galaxy has an an encyclopedia on how to operate Windows/Linux OS systems, mastering physics does not mean you know how to operate niche systems.

 

[John J.]

As for the first point, if you are the person who assumed that if newton was handed an iPhone then he would definitely publish his investigations, yes, you did make that assumption.

Here's what I actually posted:

Supposition: the 'phone would be described and archived in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, available to generations of scholars

(My emphasis in both cases).

But this is becoming argument for the sake of it. Successful threads here might thrive on disagreement, but not condescension or ad hominem attacks.

 

[ump]

Assuming there are extraterrestrials, and assuming they are sending "spaceships" to Earth, and assuming they are crashing, why would we not expect those mishaps to be caused by the same things that cause our a/c to crash? Most mishaps are caused by pilot/crew errors and system failures.

Because if you have ftl, you are thousands of years ahead of us. Modern aircraft don't crash at anything like the frequency of early biplanes or for the same reasons. And they're only a hundred years apart. Now try to imagine what several thousand years will do. If you can master the energy technologies for interstellar travel, weather should be irrelevant- you don't depend on the atmosphere for lift and if you pump out 10g then winds are irrelevant.

As for pilot error, it's bizarre to expect direct control. An interstellar civilisation will have thousands of years to get its ai debugged.

I think you are assuming that the future will be Startrek - a warmed over version of nineteenth century naval fiction. This is like a caveman assuming that the future is larger caves and hunting parties with sharper rocks. No, the future is different.

 

[ump]

Here's what I actually posted:

(My emphasis in both cases).

Well, no. It's not a worthwhile assumption at all. Again, national security is already a huge consideration - simply the fact that the iPhone can tell the time accurately would make it obviously strategic naval technology and Newton would race to his friends in the government. He was the master of the mint, btw.

 

[John J.]

Well, no. It's not a worthwhile assumption at all. Again, national security is already a huge consideration - simply the fact that the iPhone can tell the time accurately would make it obviously strategic naval technology and Newton would race to his friends in the government. He was the master of the mint, btw.

My point was that you misrepresented my post.

As for the first point, if you are the person who assumed that if newton was handed an iPhone then he would definitely publish his investigations, yes, you did make that assumption.

Supposition: the 'phone would be described and archived in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, available to generations of scholars

 

[Rick Robson]

As for pilot error, it's bizarre to expect direct control. An interstellar civilisation will have thousands of years to get its ai debugged

I guess nobody here would assume such a thing. But it surprises me if you're assuming that AGI probes/crafts are never prone to any sort of defect, regardlessly of how far developed they might be.

 

[ump]

As for the guy who is obsessed with spectrometers… Imagine you point one at an arm chip. What do you learn? The mixture of elements it is made of. Is that useful to you? Freak, no. What matters is the structure of circuits on the chip. And you won't see those without an electron microscope. And if you have one of those, you are very close to having arm chips anyway.

 

[ump]

I guess nobody here would assume such a thing. But it surprises me if you're assuming that AGI probes/crafts are never prone to any sort of defect, regardlessly of how far developed to might be.

The person I replied too did indeed assume such a thing…

And, no, I didn't say that I would expect perfect performance. Although I wouldn't rule it out. But again, the real point is that what is described is too unweird - it's like the old stories of strange airships, it's too much of our time and the stupid movies we watch. It's like a caveman who claims to have been to the future, one who describes cities of caves where hunting parties ride on domesticated mammoths and redwoods are used to make giant rafts for crossing oceans. It's too stupidly The Same to be plausible.

 

[PublicStranger]

Because if you have ftl, you are thousands of years ahead of us. Modern aircraft don't crash at anything like the frequency of early biplanes or for the same reasons. And they're only a hundred years apart. Now try to imagine what several thousand years will do. If you can master the energy technologies for interstellar travel, weather should be irrelevant- you don't depend on the atmosphere for lift and if you pump out 10g then winds are irrelevant.

As for pilot error, it's bizarre to expect direct control. An interstellar civilisation will have thousands of years to get its ai debugged.

I think you are assuming that the future will be Startrek - a warmed over version of nineteenth century naval fiction. This is like a caveman assuming that the future is larger caves and hunting parties with sharper rocks. No, the future is different.

Why are you assuming just because they are a thousand years more advanced that their systems are flawless and error-proof, if anything it's the opposite, the more larger and complex a computer system is the more maintenance and upkeep it requires.

Just like when a caveman created a spear to hunt with, the only malfunction he would encounter would be blunting of the tip and chipping of the wood. Now compare that to modern day firearms, your firearm can malfunction in a vast more number of ways.

 

[LilWabbit]

@Landru, please clean up ump who's pathologically off-topic, impolite, speculative and arguing on his own anonymous authority that has as much weight as an ant on a helium high. Thanks. Delete this message too.

 

[Rick Robson]

The person I replied too did indeed assume such a thing…

You're just obviating my questioning about what you posted previously.

 

[Ann K]

At risk of "losing" some of my own posts, I think this thread might benefit from some Staff input

Agreed. @Mick West @Landru

 

[ump]

Why are you assuming just because they are a thousand years more advanced that their systems are flawless and error-proof, if anything it's the opposite, the more larger and complex a computer system is the more maintenance and upkeep it requires.

Just like when a caveman created a spear to hunt with, the only malfunction he would encounter would be blunting of the tip and chipping of the wood. Now compare that to modern day firearms, your firearm can malfunction in a vast more number of ways.

This is terrible logic. Yes, there are more ways that a gun can malfunction than a spear… But that doesn't mean that it is more LIKELY to malfunction. Especially when one defines functioning as achieving the desired end result. You have to travel across the English Channel. Which do you consider a more reliable alternative, a modern boat with a diesel, or a dugout with paddles? There are more ways the first can fail… But it is still more likely to take you to Calais and less likely to take you to the afterlife.

Or by your logic a ww1 biplane would be safer than a modern Boeing- wait, let's say an Airbus instead. Simple and safe are not, not nearly, the same thing.

Even in the case of the spear, the purpose of a weapon is to protect you. If you are attacked by a bear, would you consider a simple spear or a complex hunting rifle more likely to succeed in that purpose?

 

[Ann K]

Studies have shown that certain people on the higher end of the IQ scale have trouble understanding the thinking of somebody on the lower end of the IQ scale, the ability for these 2 different type of people to hold a meaningful conversation is almost impossible because of the way their brains work.

Do you have a reference for such studies?

 

[Ann K]

Is there any chance that we could return to the topic of this thread, please?

 

[ump]

My technology hypothesis was mainly targeted to when you said why don't they just hack our computer systems rather than observing in person, not really towards any of the vehicle systems. As if an Alien from a far away galaxy has an an encyclopedia on how to operate Windows/Linux OS systems, mastering physics does not mean you know how to operate niche systems.

I already answered this point. But, AGAIN, if you have interstellar level tech, scanning the chip will be trivial when you get a sample. Which mean emulating it will be trivial - especially given that you have a billion times the processing power. Which means you now understand the instruction set, which means literally seconds later you can brute force crack the operating system with that much processing power. Encyclopaedias are not involved - it's just like cracking any crypto code, expect that you have thousands of years of tech advantage.

Everything follows, trivially, as long as you can understand the physics.

(Also, people have cracked operating systems from scratch without even that advantage or even an interface designed to interact with the OS. Yes, you think it is impossible. But it has still been done - eg google Magic Lantern. And, yes, I am a programmer.)

 

[PublicStranger]

Okay let's get back on topic.

According to Outkick who claims to have sourced it from Wired:

While some in the media and in the country might want to dismiss Grusch's claims entirely, Hawley definitely isn't among them.

"The takeaway from that is, they had thousands of sightings of these things over the years, which was news to me. So I'm not surprised, necessarily, by these latest allegations, because it sounds pretty close to what they kind of grudgingly admitted to us in the briefing…It's not good. None of it's good. I think we want to get to the bottom of this. I think it's disturbing," Hawley said when reacting to Grusch's claims, according to Wired.com.

Can't seem this quote anywhere else, including on Wired. What do you guys think?

Article can be found here: https://www.outkick.com/david-grusch-josh-hawley-reaction-ufo/

 

[Ann K]

@ump @Rick Robson
You're both new here, and not yet familiar with the preferred procedures. It's frowned upon to drop a YouTube link without explaining what the viewer should be looking for, and without a time stamp. It's expecting the others to look through the entire thing to search for tidbits, and it's especially rude to ask others to do that when you say yourself that you were not sufficiently interested to listen all the way through. Please don't do that.

 

[ump]

Okay let's get back on topic.

According to Outkick who claims to have sourced it from Wired:
View attachment 59916



Can't seem this quote anywhere else, including on Wired. What do you guys think?

That Hawley and the alien do indeed look somewhat alike.

And that the summary given in that article seems designed to mislead. I found


https://www.outkick.com/david-grusch-josh-hawley-reaction-ufo/

> The takeaway from that is, they had thousands of sightings of these things over the years, which was news to me. So I'm not surprised, necessarily, by these latest allegations, because it sounds pretty close to what they kind of grudgingly admitted to us in the briefing…It's not good. None of it's good. I think we want to get to the bottom of this. I think it's disturbing," Hawley said when reacting to Grusch's claims, according to Wired.com.

Hawley just says lot of "sightings". Well, doh. There always are. Weather balloons, ballon lanterns, kites, high altitude glider flights… This is not reasonable confirmation for a story about crashed ufos.

 

[Rick Robson]

@ump @Rick Robson
You're both new here, and not yet familiar with the preferred procedures. It's frowned upon to drop a YouTube link without explaining what the viewer should be looking for, and without a time stamp. It's expecting the others to look through the entire thing to search for tidbits, and it's especially rude to ask others to do that when you say yourself that you were not sufficiently interested to listen all the way through. Please don't do that.

Okay!

 

[Landru]

@Mick West will be reviewing what has transpired here. Going forward, violations of the Posting Guidelines will not be tolerated.

 

[ump]

Also, let's do some maths. Yes, I know it hurts. But…

The crash rate for commercial aviation is about 1 in 300,000 flights.

Let's assume the aliens are no better - and they should be much, much better if they have starships. And the USA has around 10 ships in custody, perhaps collected since ww2. Which, what with other countries existing, and not all crashes being recovered, implies hundreds of crashes. Let's be cautious and say 100.

Put together those numbers and you get 30,000,000 flights. With no decent photographs.

This is an extraordinary claim - more extraordinary than the claim of alien observation itself. And again, those figures are cautious. Based on the progress in air safety over known history, the aliens should be much safer than a 747. (I get the impression that some people don't think interstellar travel is a big deal. If this is so, tell me and I'll explain why it is and what sort of technology is implied.)

 

[MonkeeSage]

I know. That's why I am surprised it is now available on the Congress' website. Maybe the 'horse is being resurrected' in light of Grusch' testimony? If it was simply a fake, I would have expected a different reaction from Davis.

Because it was entered into the record in relation to a UAP hearing of House Intelligence Committee last year by representative Mike Gallagher.

https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/114761

In the transcript of the hearing Rep. Gallagher makes it clear that including it in the record is not an assessment of veracity (emphasis mine).

Mr. Gallagher. And, finally, are you aware of a document that appeared around 2019 sometimes called the Admiral Wilson memo or EW Notes Memo?
Mr. Moultrie. I am not. Are you?
Mr. Bray. I am not personally aware of that.
Mr. Gallagher. Okay. This is a document against -- again, I am not commenting on veracity; I was hoping you would help me with that -- in which a former head of DIA claims to have had a conversation with a Dr. Eric Wilson and claims to have sort of been made aware of certain contractors or DOD programs that he tried to get full access to and was denied access to. So you are not aware of that?
Mr. Moultrie. I am not aware, Congressman.
Mr. Gallagher. In my 10 seconds remaining, then, I guess I would ask Mr. Chairman unanimous consent to enter that memo into the record?
Chairman Carson. Without objection.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114761/documents/HHRG-117-IG05-Transcript-20220517.pdf