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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no specific mention of where the UFO was when alleged recovered by the OSS (post #108) in 1944, however.
There's a longish article by Pinotti, here are two tidbits:
Unfortunately, an original thirty-page dossier about VNC (i.e. the one that had been sent to the newspaper IL RESTO DEL CARLINO of Bologna) was lost, while the first batch of photocopied material sent to UFO: LA VISITA EXTRATERRESTRE did not have the result “Mr. X” had desired. This magazine entrusted their enquiry to the Naples ufologist Umberto Telarico who was skeptic about the case. The material got published, but they considered it a fake.

In April of 1945, the 1st Armoured Division captured the SIAI Marchetti Aviation Facility where the 1933 Magenta UFO (or it debris) was probably kept and it was brought to the United States.
 
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:
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.
So the question is did he learn about the alleged Italian crash through official sources/briefings, or from outside the government, open sources like "The Fascist Files" cited above. If the latter, he doesn't need approval from the government to discuss what he thinks he knows based on those open sources.

Former Canadian Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer's UFO activism was based on this scenario. When pressed, he would admit he did not see any UFO material while serving in the Canadian government, and most of what he thought he knew came from sources like Corso's "Day After Roswell" and things he was told by others in the UFO community.
 
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.
Well, to use JMartJr's phrase and play Devil's Advocate,
Grusch does claim (without evidence or any expansion on the subject) that alien "pilots" have been found.
Unless permanently cocooned in spacesuits, organic creatures having any similarity to large multicellular Earth organisms would presumably leave organic traces (microorganisms, DNA traces or their equivalent).

Ratios of isotopes in any metals found from an ET artefact might be expected to differ from the isotopic ratios found in terrestrial metals-conversely, the fact that the Earth and Moon have similar ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken as evidence for the giant impact hypothesis (that much of the Moon's material was once part of the proto-Earth),
"Oxygen Isotopes and the Moon-Forming Giant Impact", Wiechert, U., Halliday, A.N. et al, 2001, Science Vol 294, Issue 5541
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1063037

I suppose it's possible that X-ray diffraction studies might demonstrate that a manufactured material had a molecular structure that was more complex than something we could currently produce (or are likely to produce in the near future).

ET technology/ materials might display properties that are only theoretical to us- unipolar magnets, high-temperature superconductivity, something that blocks neutrinos, Pringles tubes that protect the crisps from being squashed by shop workers, etc. etc.

If a recovered craft was a crewed vehicle which clearly required a pilot or whatever, ergonomics might be a clue, e.g. a cockpit position with complex controls that can only accommodate a creature one metre tall, controls that require four hands simultaneously, that sort of stuff.

Maybe Grusch was told about a recovered bumper (fender) sticker, "My other saucer's a mothership".

I think if we were to find an alien craft in the sense of a crewed "lander", it would be clear what it was.
My suspicion is that, if it exists, a reasonably sophisticated ETI capable of traversing interstellar space and with an interest in surveying Earth (for whatever reason) could probably avoid detection if it wanted, e.g. through the use of arbitrarily small (maybe nano-engineered) low-observable "probes", or simply by stand-off observation.

 
Last edited:
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.
He says he has a "degree...in physics" but then says "other dimensions as described by quantum mechanics"? This stinks of some kind of BS.

Is there any evidence he has a degree in physics? If he does, what "other dimensions" did he learn about in his quantum mechanics class?
 
He can talk about that because it's a story that is public
Mick West links to
"THE UFO FILES OF MUSSOLINI: Fascist UFO Files" by Roberto Pinotti at The Black Vault website, repeated here for convenience;
https://www.theblackvault.com/casef...ssolini-fascist-ufo-files-by-roberto-pinotti/

Pinotti writes, referring to the alleged retrieved UFO and Italian 1930's jet development,

External Quote:
...on June 13, 1933, a landed UFO was recovered.

What is striking is the coincidence that all this “jet” development... started to happen exactly one year after the first VNC sighting in Venice (1931) and one year after the Magenta UFO crash (1933).
But Pinotti also writes
External Quote:
Campini had proposed the jet engine in 1932...
...a year before the UFO crash.
(Wikipedia says Campini actually proposed a jet engine in 1931, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1,
External Quote:
During 1931, Italian aeronautics engineer Secondo Campini submitted a report to the Regia Aeronautica (the Italian Air Force) on the potential of jet propulsion
-Two years before the UFO crash.

In April 1932 (Wikipedia continues, referring to a company Campini and his brothers formed),
External Quote:
In April 1932, the company demonstrated a pump-jet propelled boat in Venice
a year before the UFO crash.

An early jet aircraft, the Caproni Campini N.1, finally flew in 1940- a considerable achievement, but a year after the first flight by a jet (the German Heinkel He 178).
The Caproni Campini N.1 used a type of jet engine called a motorjet. Motorjet development goes back to 1908
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet
Motorjets haven't really featured in subsequent aircraft except the stop-gap (and cancelled) MiG I-250 of 1945.

Roberto Pinotti asks the question, concerning Italy's jet development,
External Quote:
Has all this to do with “reverse engineering” to copy the unknown flying machines reported in the “Fascist UFO Files”?
-to which we can answer, er, no, even with the dates Pinotti gives, Italy was developing jets before the "UFO retrieval".
And it seems rather unlikely that a visiting ETI would be swanning around Italy in a craft powered by jet engines that would be conceptually obsolete by 1945 (and of exactly the type Campini was developing).
 
Re: Not human, but not necessarily space aliens confusion.

It is worth recalling that many modern UFO aficionados have moved off of the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis" and are exploring such alternatives as time travelers, inter-dimensional beings, angels and demons, etc.

Space alien or Human are not the only two options they have under discussion any more.

Looks like you called it.
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.
 
Dutch UFO enthusiast Max Moszkowicz who has a YouTube channel on which he talks to a lot of folks that are well-known in ufo circles, also hinted that Grusch might have the 'UFO of Mussolini' in his mind. I wrote a short blog on that case, with links to Italian sources that might be useful: https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2023/06/mussolinis-ufo-cabinet-rs-33/

Max told me on Twitter that he was shown (with other journalists) an 'official DOD document' that mentions the case.
 
This year, I'll be launching a non-profit foundation to help the scientific community start protocols on this subject, from undergraduates to graduates.
(From David Grusch's Interview with French newspaper Le Parisien, the linked-to post has been deleted)

Nothing against undergraduates, but by definition their education in their field of study isn't complete. And there's a lot of them.

There's a number of excellent engineers and biomedical scientists/ technicians I've known who learnt their professions starting with traditional apprenticeships or "on the job" over the years, who've never studied for a degree. I would respect their opinions on relevant technical matters much more than the average undergraduates'.
(I appreciate education systems differ, I guess there's countries where you're not an engineer without a degree).

A cynic might think Grusch is hoping to build a "people power" movement to support him.
 
Dutch UFO enthusiast Max Moszkowicz who has a YouTube channel on which he talks to a lot of folks that are well-known in ufo circles, also hinted that Grusch might have the 'UFO of Mussolini' in his mind. I wrote a short blog on that case, with links to Italian sources that might be useful: https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2023/06/mussolinis-ufo-cabinet-rs-33/

Max told me on Twitter that he was shown (with other journalists) an 'official DOD document' that mentions the case.
External Quote:
According to Pinotti, however, they are authentic, as a forensic expert is said to have determined that the papers (and the ink) are from the 1930s.
https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2023/06/mussolinis-ufo-cabinet-rs-33/

"Experts" authenticating "evidence" is a slippery slope. Are you familiar with American counterfeiter/forger Mark Hofmann? His documents fooled numerous forensic "experts" and the LDS church.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann

Similarly, the "Alien Autopsy" film fooled Kodak experts based on the age of the film.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/alien-aut...veals-truth-behind-famous-film-123931779.html
 
also hinted that Grusch might have the 'UFO of Mussolini' in his mind.

article from 2018 (in italian originally..so this is the page translate version)
"At the time there were no conditions to talk about an alien hypothesis. What is most important - continues Pinotti - is that the phenomenon was already known since then and there was talk of unconventional aircraft. The remains of this aircraft, stored in a hangar in northern Italy, would then be brought to the United States" after the Liberation.

The VII International Conference of Ufology City of Rome – National UFO Center, coordinated by Vladimiro Bibolotti (president of CUN), saw the extraordinary participation of Luis Elizondo, former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threats Identification Project (AATIP) of the Pentagon, and Tom DeLonge, founder of TTSA (To The Star Academy of Art and Sciences).


so yea, UFO of 1933 a good bet.
 
External Quote:
According to Pinotti, however, they are authentic, as a forensic expert is said to have determined that the papers (and the ink) are from the 1930s.
https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2023/06/mussolinis-ufo-cabinet-rs-33/

"Experts" authenticating "evidence" is a slippery slope. Are you familiar with American counterfeiter/forger Mark Hofmann? His documents fooled numerous forensic "experts" and the LDS church.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann

Similarly, the "Alien Autopsy" film fooled Kodak experts based on the age of the film.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/alien-aut...veals-truth-behind-famous-film-123931779.html
This is true, but every source i've read so far (3) mentions Mussolini thought it was likely a German aircraft. so the telegrams dont seem that odd in that context.
 
Mussolini thought it was likely a German aircraft.
If any of this story is even remotely true (which I very much doubt), it presupposes that the Italian UFO was fitted out for occupants of human size and shape, breathing our atmosphere (unless containers of non-atmospheric gas were found).

And either there were no symbols (letters, pictograms etc.) present within the craft, or they were Latin script / Arabic numbers.
 
But he has zero evidence of his claims.
Again, devil's advocating, he has no evidence THAT WE'VE SEEN YET. And how much evidence he has managed to collect is not a reliable measure to judge his intent. He could be 100% wrong, but still believe what he is saying and have good motives.

To be clear, I do not believe his story is true. I have no opinion on his motives, yet, or whether or not he believes it. I have no evidence on which to base such an opinion.
 
Last edited:
This is true, but every source i've read so far (3) mentions Mussolini thought it was likely a German aircraft. so the telegrams dont seem that odd in that context.
Any effective forged/counterfeit document has to be credible in the eyes of those it is intended to fool. The LDS faithful believe the Book of Mormon, so Hofmann's fake documents reinforcing those beliefs didn't seem odd in that context.
 
Maybe Grusch was told about a recovered bumper (fender) sticker, "My other saucer's a mothership".
You've made the point in a subsequent post: any kind of writing recovered immediately identifies the origin. I don't know any kind of technology that doesn't at least show numbers. The fact that Grusch never mentions writing is telling. It's another indication of the quality of his evidence.
 
(From David Grusch's Interview with French newspaper Le Parisien, the linked-to post has been deleted)

Nothing against undergraduates, but by definition their education in their field of study isn't complete. And there's a lot of them.

There's a number of excellent engineers and biomedical scientists/ technicians I've known who learnt their professions starting with traditional apprenticeships or "on the job" over the years, who've never studied for a degree. I would respect their opinions on relevant technical matters much more than the average undergraduates'.
(I appreciate education systems differ, I guess there's countries where you're not an engineer without a degree).

A cynic might think Grusch is hoping to build a "people power" movement to support him.
Quantity over quality, yup.
 
Now supposedly the people that have been speaking to David Grusch Ex Intel , etc have spoken to this publication. It's pretty wild, Including claims by them that they have 12-15 craft said one. But they seem to have conflicting stories on if we can fly them or not. Some say we flown them, some say not, some say we reverse engineered them. See below

https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft
This article doesn’t provide any sources for these additional claims so not sure it adds much.
 
Now supposedly the people that have been speaking to David Grusch Ex Intel , etc have spoken to this publication. It's pretty wild, Including claims by them that they have 12-15 craft said one. But they seem to have conflicting stories on if we can fly them or not. Some say we flown them, some say not, some say we reverse engineered them. See below

https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft

Interesting article. I wonder if the three sources they interviewed here overlap with Mellon's four whistleblowers (and maybe Grusch being the fourth?)

Bold mine:
The individuals said they had seen or been presented with “credible” and “verifiable” evidence that the U.S. government, and U.S. military contractors, possess at least 12 or more alien space crafts, some of which they shared with AARO, which AARO has refused to provide to Congress.

[...]

Some of the same sources who shared information with Grusch, as well as others, spoke to Public about retrieved spacecraft that they say is in the possession of the U.S. government. “I know of at least 12-15 craft,” said one person, who said they shared the information with AARO and Congress. “Every five years, we get one or two recovered for one reason or another, from either a landing or that we catch, or they just crash.”

A different contractor said, “There were at least four morphologies, different structures. Six were in good shape; six were not in good shape. There were cases where the craft landed, and the occupants left the craft unoccupied. There have been high-level people, including generals, who have placed their hand on the craft, and I would have no reason to disbelieve them.


It sounds like two of the sources only have second-hand information like Grusch (or I guess Grusch has third-hand information if these are his sources).

The only one who states they actually observed craft first-hand describes things that sound like they could easily be of terrestrial origin:
External Quote:
One source described having seen three kinds of craft, including one shaped like a triangle and another that “looked like a chopped up helicopter, with the front bubble of a Huey helicopter, with the plastic windows, or more like a deep sea submarine, with a thick piece of glass bubble shaped, and where the tail rudder should have been, it was a black, egg-shaped pancake, and instead of landing gear it had upside-down rams horns that went from the top to the bottom and rested on the ends of the horns.”
 
He says he has a "degree...in physics" but then says "other dimensions as described by quantum mechanics"? This stinks of some kind of BS.

Is there any evidence he has a degree in physics? If he does, what "other dimensions" did he learn about in his quantum mechanics class?
I didn’t realise you are banned from referencing quantum mechanics if you study physics and vice versa?
 
External Quote:
The sources said they felt compelled to speak out publicly to validate Grusch’s claims but did not want their names used. “We have non-disclosure agreements or secrecy agreements that we are supposed to take to the grave,” said one person. Two of the three sources declined to answer certain questions, even off the record, out of concern for their safety and continued access to information.

“I briefed the Senate intelligence committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and ARRO, and so that information is out there,” the person said. “What Grusch did was the first giant step to get the information out.”

The sources said that the Pentagon and military contractors keep the nonhuman spacecraft in different locations, including Area 51 in Nevada, and that they move the craft around to different facilities, both military bases and contractor facilities, for research.

One source estimated there were only between 100 and 700 individuals in government or working for government contractors who know about the retrieved crash, while another person estimated that even fewer knew about the full program to reverse engineer alien technology. “Maybe on our side, there were three people total,” said the contractor whose proposal to cut through the stovepipe was rejected. “There were 4 or 5 people who I knew of on the aerospace corporation side.”
No named sources.
 
External Quote:
The sources said they felt compelled to speak out publicly to validate Grusch’s claims but did not want their names used. “We have non-disclosure agreements or secrecy agreements that we are supposed to take to the grave,” said one person. Two of the three sources declined to answer certain questions, even off the record, out of concern for their safety and continued access to information.

“I briefed the Senate intelligence committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and ARRO, and so that information is out there,” the person said. “What Grusch did was the first giant step to get the information out.”

The sources said that the Pentagon and military contractors keep the nonhuman spacecraft in different locations, including Area 51 in Nevada, and that they move the craft around to different facilities, both military bases and contractor facilities, for research.

One source estimated there were only between 100 and 700 individuals in government or working for government contractors who know about the retrieved crash, while another person estimated that even fewer knew about the full program to reverse engineer alien technology. “Maybe on our side, there were three people total,” said the contractor whose proposal to cut through the stovepipe was rejected. “There were 4 or 5 people who I knew of on the aerospace corporation side.”
No named sources.

Yes , it's more of the same in that regard. At this stage they all are are unknown.
Coulthart said in his podcast that he actually spoke with people in the reverse engineering programs. No names given there either
 
Just listened to "Discussing the David Grush UFO Whistleblower Saga with Pete Dominick" on Mick's channel, and apart from all the excellent arguments going on, one stuck to me. The way forward to dismiss or confirm any government cover up is by getting a person from security level 50 to testify to congress.
What are the chances of this happening?
 
Just listened to "Discussing the David Grush UFO Whistleblower Saga with Pete Dominick" on Mick's channel, and apart from all the excellent arguments going on, one stuck to me. The way forward to dismiss or confirm any government cover up is by getting a person from security level 50 to testify to congress.
What are the chances of this happening?
The oversight committee can subpoena pretty much anyone they want, I believe.
 
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:
[Regarding the 'Mussolini's UFO"]

The story is very much public indeed. It's more known inside Italy than outside, probably because it tingles a sense of national pride... being the first reported 'UFO', well before Arnold's and Roswell (even if I have to say there are many previous reports about 'mysterious' objects from past times which would be called 'UFOs' nowadays).

It should also be noted all the informations we have about 'Mussolini UFO' come (*) from the quoted Roberto Pinotti, who can be probably described as a 'believer' (he was the founder of CUN, 'Centro Ufologico Nazionale' (National center for UFO studies), and is currently the president of ICER (International Coalition for Extraterrestial Research):
1686222135271.png


https://icer.network/2021/10/18/roberto-pinotti/

So informations coming from him are not 'necessarily factually accurate' (as Mick said).


(*) At least for what I remember, it's been some time since I last digged a bit into 'Mussolini's UFO'. When I have time I might get a refresher.
 
I think folks in general need to take a different approach to this entire thing. Instead of predicting 'aliens', which is like debating 'angels' or 'heaven', we should instead break this down into measurable stages and markers. The former thing is just a constant stream of endless noise that gets us nowhere, the latter achieves a number of things:

1. It provides us with accountability. Stages either occur or they don't
2. Accountability provides us with cross validation. If you predict something will or won't happen and the opposite occurs, you probably don't know what you're talking about
3. It gives us something concrete to discuss

So what are the stages here? (some laymen have lately been calling these 'bingo cards', which I welcome because everyone should be doing this)
  1. Will grusch be paid to speak or in some other aspect related to his claims?
    1. What typical patterns of 'opinion leaders' will he follow? (this is my favorite set of markers by far and probably the most damning one)
  2. Will Grusch be making any 'clarifications' soon?
  3. What MSM outlets will cover this story and at what level / type of of coverage?
  4. Who and roughly at what level will vouch for Grusch?
  5. Who and roughly at what level will attack Grusch? (I would put Mike turner in the camp of attacking him, tbh, until he says something else)
  6. Will and when will grusch be called before congress
    1. Will it be public or private?
    2. What surprising questions will be asked?
  7. What types of evidence will be provided in the next few months?
  8. What concrete policy changes / govt actions will occur in the next year or so?
These are just some examples. It'd be good to come up with a more extensive list. This will provide a way to track these things more carefully and with more accountability. It will also give us an opportunity in realtime to know when something new has occured.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t realise you are banned from referencing quantum mechanics if you study physics and vice versa?
I don’t understand your comment. My point was that there are no “extra dimensions” in quantum mechanics. His comment is gibberish from a physics point of view so it makes me skeptical that he has a physics degree or maybe he’s just saying that “science-fiction” phrase because it’s catchy from the perspective of trying to convince someone that there exist “non-human” craft.

I usually become extremely skeptical and unwilling to give someone credibility once they say things like this that are so obviously wrong. Like with that fighter pilot who so confidently said blatantly incorrect things about optics. I never got past that and didn’t care to listen to anything else he had to say.
 
I didn’t realise you are banned from referencing quantum mechanics if you study physics and vice versa?
It's pure poppycock. He might as well say, "I got this information by using 'The Secret,' as described by quantum mechanics." Quantum mechanics describes "other dimensions" exactly as much as it describes "The Secret."

I don't know anything about his degree program, but it's very possible that he got a physics degree without a class in QM at all. If he did, it seems unlikely he would have said this nonsense. (It's also possible he's confusing "other dimensions" with other worlds, as popular culture tends to conflate them. Which BTW is still poppycock.)
 
Last edited:
It's pure poppycock. He might as well say, "I got this information by using 'The Secret,' as described by quantum mechanics." Quantum mechanics describes "other dimensions" exactly as much as it describes "The Secret."

I don't know anything about his degree program, but it's very possible that he got a physics degree without a class in QM at all. If he did, it seems unlikely he would have said this nonsense. (It's also possible he's confusing "other dimensions" with other worlds, as popular culture tends to conflate them. Which BTW is still poppycock.)

Some love to read into the Everettian or many-worlds 'interpretation' of QM, a controversial interpretation in its own right, and see the 'multiverse' and other dimensions in the MWI which it in no way propounds. Even the likes of Sean Carroll, a veritable anti-cockamamie guy, does that.
 
I don’t understand your comment. My point was that there are no “extra dimensions” in quantum mechanics. His comment is gibberish from a physics point of view so it makes me skeptical that he has a physics degree or maybe he’s just saying that “science-fiction” phrase because it’s catchy from the perspective of trying to convince someone that there exist “non-human” craft.

I usually become extremely skeptical and unwilling to give someone credibility once they say things like this that are so obviously wrong. Like with that fighter pilot who so confidently said blatantly incorrect things about optics. I never got past that and didn’t care to listen to anything else he had to say.
From: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032
External Quote:
As cutting-edge experiments display ever more extreme forms of non-classical behavior, the prevailing view on the interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be gradually changing. A (highly unscientific) poll taken at the 1997 UMBC quantum mechanics workshop gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes. The Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the Consistent Histories and Bohm interpretations.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
External Quote:
The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse.[2] This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe.
Where would you put these other "worlds" or "universes" if they are to reside in our dimensions of 4D spacetime..? I guess you would need (a lot of) other dimensions. That's why this interpretation is not supported by me, but neither is your statement that
there are no “extra dimensions” in quantum mechanics
I don't want to further derail this thread into a discussion on QM, but it's a little harsh to say "I don't care to listen to anything else he has to say" just because he made the jump from "worlds" to "dimensions" in the many worlds interpretation of QM...
 
Has this article already been discussed:

FACT CHECK Q & A WITH DEBRIEF CO-FOUNDER AND INVESTIGATOR TIM MCMILLAN: PART 2​

Link: https://thedebrief.org/fact-check-q-a-with-debrief-co-founder-and-investigator-tim-mcmillan-part-2/

Some interesting pieces:
External Quote:

CP: You mentioned the Inspector General’s complaint. I know we’ll get a little more detail on that later. But towards that end, they write in the article here, “Although locations, program names, and other specific data remain classified, the Inspector General and intelligence committee staff were provided with these details. Several current members of the program spoke to the Inspector General’s office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint.” Am I reading that correctly? That means people, “several current members of the program?” Meaning people that are directly involved with the supposed, alleged crash retrieval program spoke to the IGs office and corroborated his information?

TM: That’s correct.
External Quote:

TM: Yeah, that’s more important to me. I mean, in my opinion, that’s more important to me than just testifying to Congress. They are oftentimes…unless you’re sworn under oath, there’s not really any consequences if you come into the Congress and tell them a tall tale. But if you’re sworn in in front of attorneys, in a deposition or legal setting, there are consequences. So it does make it more significant, more serious, in my opinion.

CP: As a follow-up to that, are there consequences if he falsified the information he provided in his Inspector General complaint?

TM
: Yes, absolutely.
It also contains an interesting interview with the authors of the Debrief article:
 
From: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032
External Quote:
As cutting-edge experiments display ever more extreme forms of non-classical behavior, the prevailing view on the interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be gradually changing. A (highly unscientific) poll taken at the 1997 UMBC quantum mechanics workshop gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes. The Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the Consistent Histories and Bohm interpretations.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
External Quote:
The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse.[2] This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe.
Where would you put these other "worlds" or "universes" if they are to reside in our dimensions of 4D spacetime..? I guess you would need (a lot of) other dimensions. That's why this interpretation is not supported by me, but neither is your statement that

I don't want to further derail this thread into a discussion on QM, but it's a little harsh to say "I don't care to listen to anything else he has to say" just because he made the jump from "worlds" to "dimensions" in the many worlds interpretation of QM...
There’s no evidence he was referring to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which isn’t part of a QM Class syllabus anyway (other than perhaps a philosophical side note).

He could have been referring to the extra dimensions that string theory requires but that’s not QM per se. and won’t be taught in an QM class for an physics degree. and those dimensions aren’t like ours anyway.

Is he claiming to be an actual physicist working on the frontiers of QM theory? I don’t think so. In fact, I’ve not seen anything indicating his background enough to know what his degree(s) might be in.

My point is that when people preface a statement with their degree they are e intending to put extra weight and credibility about the statement. Since his statement makes no sense from a physics point of view it actually undermines his credibility not bolsters it.

It would have made more sense if he said “I *don’t* have a degree in physics, but…”

I don’t think this is a derail because it speaks directly to his credibility, which, without direct evidence, is all we have to go on for judging his claims.
 
It's a recurring pattern as Mick mentioned in the video, there's always talk of disclosure being imminent, and that it's right around the corner and yet people end up being deceived with no substantial results again and again, and the scam continues. The responsibility to provide evidence now lies with them, especially in light of the Grusch story, so we'll see.

I also enjoyed the part in which Cuomo discusses the disbelief in extraterrestrial life out there and how can anyone believe we're all alone, it was refreshing to hear Mick express his disagreement and that he didn't believe that. I think a lot of people, including myself in the beginning thought that of Mick, but it's good to hear it anyways.

I just think there's is a limit to how much people can be deceived before they lose faith in what is being presented to them. Here's their golden opportunity to make amends and redeem themselves.
 
It's a recurring pattern as Mick mentioned in the video, there's always talk of disclosure being imminent, and that it's right around the corner and yet people end up being deceived with no substantial results again and again, and the scam continues. The responsibility to provide evidence now lies with them, especially in light of the Grusch story, so we'll see.

I also enjoyed the part in which Cuomo discusses the disbelief in extraterrestrial life out there and how can anyone believe we're all alone, it was refreshing to hear Mick express his disagreement and that he didn't believe that. I think a lot of people, including myself in the beginning thought that of Mick, but it's good to hear it anyways.

I just think there's is a limit to how much people can be deceived before they lose faith in what is being presented to them. Here's their golden opportunity to make amends and redeem themselves.

I see plenty of religions that span hundreds (or thousands?) of years. I would not guarantee that people are quickly fed up by non sense..
 
I see plenty of religions that span hundreds (or thousands?) of years. I would not guarantee that people are quickly fed up by non sense..

Or: The general idea that there's something utterly and forever beyond our limited human comprehension and experience which underlies all existence and is called by different names in different cultures is arguably a more powerful idea, demonstrated by the very numbers it attracts over great periods of time. It's also not against reason. Quite irrespective of all the other attendant superstitions that often go with said idea and resonate less powerfully with any honest observer.

There's a reason why ufology is more fringe and it's not just because religions restrict free thinking. Alien discs and transmediums just lack equivalent power as far as ideas go.
 
There are many different QM models, some more accepted than others. There is no definitive proof of any of them. To say that there are aliens from a different dimension is perfectably acceptable if a) many worlds is true (more doubt than not) and b) there was a way to travel across dimensions (no one serious suggests this.)

Many worlds is absolutely discussed in the undergrad QM classes I was in, but there isn't much unique math behind it, so other than a single question on a test at an undergrad level so it doesn't get much discussion. For that matter, though, copenhagen doesn't get much coverage either, even though it's more accepted. There just isn't a lot to test around these rather philosophical discussions, so why bother.

The QM thing by Grusch is ultra sci fi, without a doubt, but he didn't say anything that I'm aware of that isn't at least theoretically possible - if highly improbable - from a QM point of view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top