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

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least some of those TTSA "parts" were the basis for a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with an US Army lab to determine if there is any technology that can be derived from them to upgrade military ground transport.

The partnership will explore metamaterials, quantum communications, beamed energy propulsion and other futuristic tech for use on the military's ground vehicles. Content from External Source https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-te...tive-camouflage-and-other-sci-fi-tech/160787/

My first reaction was utter depression upon reading this. It sounds like an AASWAP Bigelow do over, but now with DeLong.

However, while this partnership might warrant a thread of its own, it's not quite as bad. This is from 2019 when TTSA was still trying to sound "sciency" as opposed to their other stated goal of entertaining. TTSA didn't get any money:

External Quote:
Unlike traditional contracts, cooperative research and development agreements, or CRADAs, are not transactional, so TTSA isn't getting any money from the partnership and the Army won't be directly acquiring any new tech.
And the Army admitted that it was a bit fringe, and they weren't interested in aliens:

External Quote:
Though he called the recent CRADA "one of the more adventurous" partnerships he's worked on, Halleaux was quick to dismiss any claims that the Army was studying "alien technology." TTSA may purport the metamaterials and other tech in their possession came from UFOs, but for the Army, those claims are irrelevant, he said.
Any more on it would be off topic here, other than as another lesson on the intersectionality of UFOs, the military and the media. Still depressing.
 
Would that mission profile be any different from "Russian bomber crew defects, crash lands on US farm"? or "Chinese diplomatic aircraft crashes"? or "foreign space capsule comes down on US territory"?
TBH I was thinking (well, speculating) specifically about the unlikely event of an ETI craft landing.
But absolutely, the examples you give would (I think) be best handled by Federal US agencies.
I'm not sure a team from (e.g.) Lockheed Martin would be best-placed to deal with the crash of an aircraft with senior Chinese officials on board, particularly if there were seriously injured survivors.
If a civilian aircraft crashes, the immediate aftermath isn't handled by a defence contractor.

The afore mentioned Project Azorian to retrieve the Soviet sub, was performed largely by outside contractors because they had the relevant expertise
Absolutely- a good friend works with submersible ROVs, his company was involved in retrieving a "sensitive" item from underwater on behalf of a government (nothing "exotic" and no, not a nuclear weapon).
But how does a private company "get the contract" to retrieve crashed ET spacecraft? Was it open to competitive tendering?
Unless we believe Grusch et al, it seems unlikely that a company could claim prior relevant experience.

Outside contractors may have the very specific and specialized knowledge and equipment needed.
Umh, I'm not so sure. A high priority might be keeping any (hypothetical) survivors alive. Another would be containing any bacteriological or radiological risk. I'd be surprised if even the largest defence contractors maintain NBC recce teams, excepting monitoring personnel on their own sites where radioactive material might be present. Pretty sure they don't maintain mobile major trauma units. I'm open to evidence to the contrary- otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree!
 
i don't think his main company would have bearing on his contract with the government for the ufo stuff.
I think his main company is "Budget Suites of America".
His only qualification to have anything to do with "UFO stuff" is Bigelow Aerospace IMHO (though Mr Bigelow himself has a history of funding research into UFOs and the paranormal).
 
If a civilian aircraft crashes, the immediate aftermath isn't handled by a defence contractor.

But a civilian aircraft crash is not a clandestine recovery of foreign assets. Not to say a government agency couldn't do it also. But in the case of Azorian we have the CIA using Howard Huges and other contractors to recover a foreign asset with bodies, not the US Navy, so there is some precedent.

Not to get off topic with this, it's possible that these claims are amalgamations of things that get mixed up. It could be that the "defense contractor" reference is only referring to the reverse engineering part of it, not the actual recovery.

But how does a private company "get the contract" to retrieve crashed ET spacecraft? Was it open to competitive tendering?
Unless we believe Grusch et al, it seems unlikely that a company could claim prior relevant experience.

In the past I would have seen this as humorous, but giving the AASWAP Bigelow connection, it depends on the credulity of the person writing the contract. How does one get a contract to study UFOlogy/paranormal happenings at Skinwalker Ranch as Bigelow did? By claiming to have relevant prior experience. Discussed here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-origins-of-aawsap.12484/
 


When Mick first interviewed Avi Loeb a year or two ago he was far more circumspect about his UFO beliefs and at least tried to appear impartial and 'scientific'. But no longer as amply showcased in the Cuomo interview you posted. As a blatant departure from any remaining semblance of objectivity, Loeb in his latest article on The Debrief, despite a scientifically trained 'Harvard physicist', describes Leslie Kean as a "highly reputable journalist":

Article:
Today, a report by whistleblower David Grusch was published by The Debrief, written by the highly reputable journalists Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal. Grusch served as a representative to the UAP Task Force and co-lead for UAP analysis. Grusch says recoveries of extraterrestrial objects of non-human origin have been ongoing for decades by the US Government, allies, and defense contractors.


I rest my case.

P.S. Kean reporting with The Debrief, a known fringe publication, is actually the perfect match. New York Times seems to no longer cover her writeups, realizing (in hindsight) they either do not meet its journalistic standards or increase the NYT readership (or both).
 
Last edited:
When Mick first interviewed Avi Loeb a year or two ago he was far more circumspect about his UFO beliefs and at least tried to appear impartial and 'scientific'. But no longer as amply showcased in the Cuomo interview you posted. As a blatant departure from any remaining semblance of objectivity, Loeb in his latest article on The Debrief, despite a scientifically trained 'Harvard physicist', describes Leslie Kean as a "highly reputable journalist":

Article:
Today, a report by whistleblower David Grusch was published by The Debrief, written by the highly reputable journalists Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal. Grusch served as a representative to the UAP Task Force and co-lead for UAP analysis. Grusch says recoveries of extraterrestrial objects of non-human origin have been ongoing for decades by the US Government, allies, and defense contractors.
Even though he seems pretty sold on `Omuamua being a spacecraft, he has a pretty reasonable stance there.

Article:
Therefore, as much as Grusch's report is intriguing, it does not carry credible scientific evidence irrespective of the comments about Grusch's reliability. What we wish to see as scientists is the actual materials or data collected by the government. Without access to the evidence, we cannot distinguish Grusch's report from a hypothetical story which was frabricated by a secret branch of government that is developing unusual technological capabilities while assigning them to an extraterrestrial origin.
 
The believers think the ETs are lurking in the unidentified stuff.
The skeptics think, the unidentified stuff is the same as the identified stuff except with worse data.

I would correct this to say any true skeptics should think that the unidentified stuff is unidentified until it's identified.

It's _probably_ mundane stuff, but the time to actually believe that claim is when it's shown to be the case.

(Just clarifying that the opposite of "believer" isn't "believe the opposite." I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to make it explicit.)
 
It's _probably_ mundane stuff, but the time to actually believe that claim is when it's shown to be the case.
Yeah, my sentence needs a "probably" inserted—it's a statistical inference.

I think it's extremely unlikely that there's an actual ET sighting among the "unexplainable" reports, and even less likely that we'll ever find out. The fact that they're unexplained is not grounds to assume something unprecedented happened.
 
The fundamental problem here is that Grusch is claiming aliens even though he admits he hasn't seen any. He should be stressing and caveating second hand knowledge at every opportunity. *Everything* he says should be prefixed by 'I didn't see this, but I was told..'

The problem is that the edits on news nation might be cutting that out, which would be rather cruel.

Honestly though, I am beginning to think the guy is probably telling the truth. But this doesn't mean that aliens are being claimed, only that he's been told about aliens. It's an important distinction, imho.

We know it's secondhand knowledge, so why is anyone getting excited? It's a useful data point for further investigation, but nothing more than that.

I wouldn't even call it hearsay, really, if you stick to the facts. His level of clearance and being told of secret programs seems like good probable cause for congressional investigations.

We (myself included!) are all speculating, something which I think is the very anti-thesis of this forum, on why people told Grusch about aliens. This speculation is leading to more speculation which leads to exponential error - ie, noise.
 
Last edited:
Even though he seems pretty sold on `Omuamua being a spacecraft, he has a pretty reasonable stance there.

Article:
Therefore, as much as Grusch's report is intriguing, it does not carry credible scientific evidence irrespective of the comments about Grusch's reliability. What we wish to see as scientists is the actual materials or data collected by the government. Without access to the evidence, we cannot distinguish Grusch's report from a hypothetical story which was frabricated by a secret branch of government that is developing unusual technological capabilities while assigning them to an extraterrestrial origin.

Goes to show there's levels to belief.
 
Leslie Kean (in one of the video clips in this thread) says she's been told the same thing by multiple people. That, of course, doesn't distinguish between being told it by various people, each with some first-hand knowledge, and being told it because the same narrative has been passed among others, possibly with embellishments as it went. If the latter is the case it's not even second-hand info, and might more accurately fall into the category of an "urban legend".
 
I'm going to be frank here. Former officers from the military that make these fantastic claims should be held accountable in some way. I for one am not buying into these claims especially when the same actors are involved to push a narrative that has zero evidence. Or at least have a spokesperson from the military come out to refute these claims. Just because they may be former military doesn't mean that they don't have a personal agenda. And quite frankly, I find it a bit concerning that we have people in the military that have these motives.
 
Leslie Kean (in one of the video clips in this thread) says she's been told the same thing by multiple people. That, of course, doesn't distinguish between being told it by various people, each with some first-hand knowledge, and being told it because the same narrative has been passed among others, possibly with embellishments as it went. If the latter is the case it's not even second-hand info, and might more accurately fall into the category of an "urban legend".
You have a perfect example with the whole Roswell "incident".
 
Grusch claims that we have many UFO's in our possession. Why is it always the military and not a farmer that has one in his barn covered in a tarp right next to that 1968 Shelby Mustang barn find I've been trying to hunt down?
 
I'm going to be frank here. Former officers from the military that make these fantastic claims should be held accountable in some way. I for one am not buying into these claims especially when the same actors are involved to push a narrative that has zero evidence. Or at least have a spokesperson from the military come out to refute these claims. Just because they may be former military doesn't mean that they don't have a personal agenda. And quite frankly, I find it a bit concerning that we have people in the military that have these motives.

There is a reason why they're "former".
 
Haven't we seen this kind of "news" many times before? Or am I wrong?
It surely does not make me sit upright.
Extraordinary claims need.. etc. you catch my drift.

But we will see. I guess we will get a dozen podcasts and many talking heads. ;)
I'm sure he is already booked on The Joe Rogan podcast.
 
I saw a French news website has picked it up, and a German as well. The French is behind a paywall, but looking at the text, it is not mentioning much more than we know. Just wanted to drop them here, for completeness.
 
There is a reason why they're "former".
I understand that but they are using their former military position as credibility but providing no evidence. Anybody can say whatever they want. But when military officials like him come out, they are accusing the US of misleading and hiding this from the general public, and it creates dissent and mistrust. He cannot prove what he is saying. So what is his motive? I'm going with a way to generate an income by writing a book or going on all those UFO shows. You got to think Nick Pope is banking off it. He is former military (UK) and now spends his time writing books and going on tv shows.
 
The fundamental problem here is that Grusch is claiming aliens even though he admits he hasn't seen any. He should be stressing and caveating second hand knowledge at every opportunity. *Everything* he says should be prefixed by 'I didn't see this, but I was told..'

It seems he's doing the opposite. In the 2nd 1/2 of the interview from post #85, he is asked about humans being killed by aliens and he uses the word "briefed", he was "briefed" on this subject (@1:10 link below). "Briefed" has a definite connotation:

External Quote:
brief
verb

UK /briːf/
US /briːf/

to give someone detailed instructions or information:
We had already been briefed about/on what the job would entail.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/briefed

That's different from:

External Quote:
"I thought it was totally nuts and I thought at first I was being deceived, it was a ruse," Grusch told Coulthart. "People started to confide in me. Approach me. I have plenty of senior, former, intelligence officers that came to me, many of which I knew almost my whole career, that confided in me that they were part of a program."

Grusch said those officials named the program, which he had never heard of before.

"They told me, based on their oral testimony, and they provided me documents and other proof, that there was in fact a program that the UAP Task Force was not read into," he said.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us-ufo-retrieval-program/

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH2B90uhFGw
 
Or at least have a spokesperson from the military come out to refute these claims.
It's still the tightrope walk. Do they offend the "UFOlogists" who hold the purse strings? Will they, in this highly polarized political climate, be believed by the general public? If they take any action against Grusch or others, whether it's just disallowing publication of any book he might write or more severe sanctions against him for speaking out of school, will that just feed the persecution narrative so beloved of conspiracy theorists? On occasions like this, I wish the question were in the hands of a science lab that is not connected with the government, but the military has to speak circumspectly.
 
You got to think Nick Pope is banking off it. He is former military (UK)
I agree with Rocky's take on things.
It seems the toughest part of selection to get a UAP investigation job must be either the creative writing course or the module in media relations :).

To be a bit pedantic, Nick Pope's never been military of any description, but he was a civil servant in the UK Ministry of Defence.
Of course, large(ish) organisations need administrators and they all do their bit, but Nick Pope was a civilian with a desk job.
On at least one popular "UFO investigation show" he has referred to his "tour of duty" at the MoD, which IMHO isn't an appropriate phrase to describe his tenure. I doubt he gets many invites to staff reunions.
 
I saw a French news website has picked it up, and a German as well. The French is behind a paywall, but looking at the text, it is not mentioning much more than we know. Just wanted to drop them here, for completeness.
Translation via Reddit:
Article:
By Gaël Lombart, 7th of june 2023

We may already know what he's going to tell us, but we're no less fascinated when David Charles Grusch, 36, details the secrets he claims to have uncovered: for decades he claims, the United States has been in possession of UFOs of "non-human" origin, whose technology they are attempting to exploit. These words, more likely to be heard from a conspiracy theorist, come from a fourteen-year veteran of the US Air Force intelligence service who initiated a whistle-blowing procedure after passing on information to his superiors. A few hours after going public on Monday, David Grusch gave us an interview via videoconference. Speaking slowly but assuredly, he seems to want to say more than he's able to. In America, the ufo subject which has become highly political, is no longer regarded with contempt and requires careful listening more than ever.

Interviewer : Did you hesitate to speak out, and why ?

DAVID GRUSCH: Of course I hesitated, because I spent fourteen years in the American intelligence community. I've always worked in the shadows, sometimes even undercover. It's a nightmare to be a public figure, and have my name out there. But I thought the public deserved to know certain facts. There are questions that humans have been asking themselves for generations. If the U.S. and its allies have part of the answers, it seems ethically wrong to keep it a secret.

Int.: Can you tell us more about these programs, which you claim have remained secret for decades?

D.G.: For almost ninety years, the United States and its allies have been recovering fragments of objects and exotic objects, damaged or intact vehicles... The analyses carried out have provided proof that these were non-human objects, particularly those discovered ninety years ago. The programs I'm talking about were dedicated to reverse engineering (studying the properties of an object to determine its inner workings) for military purposes. And that is unfortunately the main use...

Int.: Non-human objects?

D.G.: I wasn't certain of their non-human origin, until I was briefed on the analysis carried out by members of these programs on these recovered vehicles.

Int.: What could be the origin of these objects, if they weren't human?

D.G.: My degree is in physics. The mechanical and experimental data shows that it's not human. It could be extraterrestrial, or it could be something else, coming from other dimensions as described by quantum mechanics. I haven't seen enough data to say it's one thing instead of another. The U.S. government must have more information.

Int.: Can we know more about where these "ships" were recovered?

D.G.: One was recovered in Italy in 1933, which is the earliest case I've been briefed on. I can't talk about the others.

Int.: What allegedly happened there?

D.G.: In 1933, a bell-like craft, around ten meters in size was recovered in Magenta, northern Italy. It was kept by Mussolini's government until 1944 when it was recovered by agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, a former US intelligence agency). Ironically, it predates anything the public has heard about for decades, such as Roswell, etc. I was authorized to talk about it by the Department of Defense's Office of Prepublication and Security Review.

Int.: You're talking about information concealed for decades, aren't you afraid of playing into the hands of conspiracy theorists?

D.G.: Yes, there's always a likelihood that this will encourage more unfounded conspiracy theories. The irony is that this was once a conspiracy theory that turns out to be true.

Int.: Did you see any exotic material with your own eyes?

D.G.: I've seen some very interesting things that I'm not authorized to talk about publicly at the moment. I don't have the approval.

Int: You mention defense contractors involved in reverse engineering. Are there many of them?

D.G.: A handful of U.S. subcontractors are involved, some of them from the beginning, and they have kept the matter secret. There was no competition.

Int.: You mention reverse engineering for military purposes, but what other potential uses could there be?

D.G.: It could lead to progress in advanced space programs, help furthering materials science, that sort of thing ! The materials studied could have new conductivity properties, strength and so on. This could translate into applications for climate or health.

Int.: Which of the USA's allies have been involved in these programs?

D.G.: Mainly the members of the Five Eyes alliance, i.e. Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Int.: How far does your freedom of speech go?

D.G.: I'm still bound by my confidentiality agreement with the US government, and I can't discuss information that is still classified. So I can speak publicly in general terms, but details of material recoveries are very limited until they are declassified.

Int.: You state in your complaint that you suffered reprisals after alerting the Department of Defense Inspector General in 2021. What is this about?

D.G.: They tried to attack my security clearance, they made allegations of misconduct against me, things of that nature. To protect the ongoing investigation on my behalf, I can't give too many details. I think in a few months I'll be able to.

Int.: Do you fear for your life?

D.G: At one time, there were threats of this nature.

Int.: Do you fear for yourself or your loved ones?

D.G.: In a situation like this, there is first of all a real risk in remaining anonymous, because it's easy to discreetly attack someone who has no public support. Of course, there's a risk in becoming a public figure, but it's worth it: the American people can push their elected representatives and the president to get answers. So yes, I'm concerned about the paparazzi and some people may want to stop me from expressing myself, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Int.: What are you going to do now?

D.G.: I have more information that I'll publish later. I want to be an opinion leader on this subject. This year, I'll be launching a non-profit foundation to help the scientific community start protocols on this subject, from undergraduates to graduates. That would be useful, because there's no secrecy in the university system. It would finally make it possible to look at these things from a scientific standpoint.
 
I saw a French news website has picked it up, and a German as well. The French is behind a paywall, but looking at the text, it is not mentioning much more than we know. Just wanted to drop them here, for completeness.
No surprise probably but just for completeness the Focus is below tabloid, same for Le Parisien. Rather more remarkable is the Guardian picking it up, was a late night addition however, those are sometimes campy, guess editors get bored too. Sorry if already mentioned.
 
Off things there:
External Quote:

D.G.: One was recovered in Italy in 1933, which is the earliest case I've been briefed on. I can't talk about the others.

Int.: What allegedly happened there?

D.G.: In 1933, a bell-like craft, around ten meters in size was recovered in Magenta, northern Italy. It was kept by Mussolini's government until 1944 when it was recovered by agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, a former US intelligence agency). Ironically, it predates anything the public has heard about for decades, such as Roswell, etc. I was authorized to talk about it by the Department of Defense's Office of Prepublication and Security Review.
He can talk about that because it's a story that is public (if not necassarily factually accurate), there's a lot of detail on the story here:
Article:
In 2000, during the annual World UFO Symposium in San Marino, my colleague Alfredo Lissoni and I gave a lecture on the sensational discovery of some new original material, which has been sent to us anonymously on a number of occasions regarding the existence of the so-called "Fascist UFO Files". This material dealt with a purported flying saucer that had either crashed or landed near Magenta in Lombardy in Italy on April 11th, 1933, some fourteen years before the famous Roswell, New Mexico, UFO crash. This event involved a subsequent investigation by an obscure war time intelligence unit called "Gabinetto RS/33" (or RS/33 Cabinet ), 'RS' is the acronym for Ricerche Speciali or Special Researches, and 33 means 1933, this group had been authorized by Benito Mussolini to study the problem.

Later the crashed UFO was stored in the hangars of the SIAI Marchetti in Vergiate. Mussolini thought that this "unconventional flying vehicle" was a French, British or German secret weapon, but apparently Guglielmo Marconi believed it was Extra-Terrestrial in nature. The RS/33 Cabinet – according to the mysterious sender of the material who wrote to us saying he was a relative of one of its members who had investigated this.
 
I understand that but they are using their former military position as credibility but providing no evidence. Anybody can say whatever they want. But when military officials like him come out, they are accusing the US of misleading and hiding this from the general public, and it creates dissent and mistrust. He cannot prove what he is saying. So what is his motive?

Grudge for being discharged from service was more than just a pun on my part. It's a key motive even if not the only one. Hence I mentioned earlier that this feels to me like the Lou episode re-enacted all over again. These 'true believers' are not trustworthy individuals to serve a legally mandated government agency. Full stop. Their fanatical infatuation with ufology, and their consequent (at least partially sincere) sense of a higher calling to alert humanity of a conspiracy to withhold knowledge of epic import from them, renders them willing to bypass lawful chains of command and to leak classified information when these stand in conflict with said higher calling. Ulimately the DoD has to let them 'quietly' go without pressing charges even if they legally could. Why quietly? Because of the political sensitivities involved (some of them aptly touched on by @Ann K) which risk a bigger crisis than the relative harmlessness of the leaks.

When Luis Elizondo served under the AASWAP/AATIP/UAPTF he appeared to have very actively used direct personal contacts with other believers or otherwise useful 'idiots' serving at lower ranks within the DoD and thereby bypass official chains for data-collection. These personal contacts would have enabled him to gain access to some of the footage directly and to leak them to the public. Lou for one doesn't come across as 'follow the red tape' type of guy. Grusch appears to have been doing something similar. It appears he's been part of somewhat unhinged in-house gossip corners whereby he hears about many classified projects from third parties who are not actually part of these projects.

Since some of the footage and gossip may concern classified US tech and programs, obtaining them outside official chains and leaking them (or leaking even knowledge of them) to the public constitutes an unlawful act and a national security breach. The risk doesn't necessarily lie in the low-information footage / low-information gossip of classified programs as much as the reckless way they've been obtained, communicated and leaked. This may well be one of the reasons why both Lou and Grusch were ultimately forced to 'resign', why as a consequence now-'former' DoD officials Lou and others got all worked up to lobby their case with a vengeance under the impressive veneer of 'whistleblower' 'former intelligence officers', and why the DoD has been forced to respond to the demands of the public/the Congress to account for the grainy contents of the leaked videos. Without Lou's leaks there would have been none of these congressional hearings, no Taylor/Grusch 'resignations', no need for a successor entity to the UAPTF (i.e. the AARO), no call for a separate NASA entity, and none of these public UAP reports and media charades.

The publicity-seeking type of 'scientists' like Avi Loeb and Eric Weinstein would have also had to find some other platform and cause whereby to garner admirers.
 
Last edited:
So what is his motive? I'm going with a way to generate an income by writing a book or going on all those UFO shows.
Possibly, to to play devil's advocate a moment, IF the story is true, or he believes it to be true, his motive might well be to pierce the viel of secrecy and let The People know what is Really Going ON, and such like. Admirable stuff...
 
External Quote:

D.G.: One was recovered in Italy in 1933, which is the earliest case I've been briefed on. I can't talk about the others.

Int.: What allegedly happened there?

D.G.: In 1933, a bell-like craft, around ten meters in size was recovered in Magenta, northern Italy. It was kept by Mussolini's government until 1944 when it was recovered by agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, a former US intelligence agency). Ironically, it predates anything the public has heard about for decades, such as Roswell, etc. I was authorized to talk about it by the Department of Defense's Office of Prepublication and Security Review.
He can talk about that because it's a story that is public (if not necessarily factually accurate), there's a lot of detail on the story here:----
Wondering how DG thinks how that would have been done in the midst of WWII, while US and the Nazis not being nice friends and all.
 
The analyses carried out have provided proof that these were non-human objects
(From the French article, translated.)
Without something esoteric such as DNA that bears no resemblance to human DNA, I know of no possible way to examine an inanimate object and declare it to be "non-human" in origin. That conclusion alone is sufficient to cast his entire story under a cloud of suspicion. I'll leave it to others to determine if he is making it up entirely, exaggerating and embellishing it, or completely misunderstanding what was told to him (or, benefit of the doubt, made up by the reporter) but that statement is certainly untrue.
 
I know of no possible way to examine an inanimate object and declare it to be "non-human" in origin.
they examined radiator parts and declared them to be akin to non-human. don't under estimate what humans are capable of declaring.
 
Possibly, to to play devil's advocate a moment, IF the story is true, or he believes it to be true, his motive might well be to pierce the viel of secrecy and let The People know what is Really Going ON, and such like. Admirable stuff...
But he has zero evidence of his claims.
 
Wondering how DG thinks how that would have been done in the midst of WWII, while US and the Nazis not being nice friends and all.
Acoording to post #109 above, "Later the crashed UFO was stored in the hangars of the SIAI Marchetti in Vergiate." There is no specific mention of where the UFO was when alleged recovered by the OSS (post #108) in 1944, however.

Italians signed an armistice with the UK/US in 1943 and acted as co-belligerents with the Allies against the Germans. The German did control most of northern Italy (where both Magenta and Vergiate are located) after the armistice until the VE Day (May 45), but there was also an active Italian resistance in the north to the Germans supported by both the US OSS and the UK SOE. So it's plausible US OSS forces could have been in the area.
 
D.G.: In 1933, a bell-like craft, around ten meters in size was recovered in Magenta, northern Italy. It was kept by Mussolini's government until 1944 when it was recovered by agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, a former US intelligence agency). Ironically, it predates anything the public has heard about for decades, such as Roswell, etc. I was authorized to talk about it by the Department of Defense's Office of Prepublication and Security Review.

I think I want to say explicitly here what is implicit in Mr. West's posting this -- the case that "predates anything the public has heard about for (by?) decades" is a case in the public record and is well enough known to be easily found on Wikipedia:

1933

  • In 2000, Roberto Pinotti published material regarding the so-called "Fascist UFO Files", which dealt with a flying saucer that had crashed near Milan in 1933 (some 14 years before the Roswell, New Mexico crash), and of the subsequent investigation by a never mentioned before Cabinet RS/33, that allegedly was authorized by Benito Mussolini, and headed by the Nobel scientist Guglielmo Marconi. A spaceship was allegedly stored in the hangars of the SIAI Marchetti in Vergiate near Milan.[1]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_sightings_in_Italy

...as well as elsewhere on line as a quick Google search will confirm.

This is an already-well(ish)-known case from the UFO folklore, it is not a new revelation from a secrecy-busting whistle blower.
 
So what is his motive? I'm going with a way to generate an income by writing a book or going on all those UFO shows.
D.G.: I have more information that I'll publish later. I want to be an opinion leader on this subject. This year, I'll be launching a non-profit foundation to help the scientific community start protocols on this subject, from undergraduates to graduates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top