I’m not sure if he’s claiming to be a physicist or even to have a deep understanding of this field. Indeed his role was in the IC not as a scientist. I think there are far more pressing questions that should be answered about his claims beyond whether he knows/remembers the difference between many worlds or extra dimensions from high degree class.
Sure, I don’t need to continue on the QM details, but it speaks to his credibility. It doesn’t pass the smell test, so to speak. If he’s suggesting purely philosophical ideas as explaining the observations then maybe more of what he’s saying is also fanciful. How can we know?
Nuclear physicist Stanton Freeman made a pretty fair living doing just that in the UFO community.
So again, they're telling what they have been told. And what they have been told seems to contradict each other (bold by me):And now, multiple sources close to the matter have come forward to tell Public that Grusch’s core claims are accurate. The individuals are all either high-ranking intelligence officials, former intelligence officials, or individuals who we could verify were involved in U.S. government UAP efforts for three or more decades each. Two of them have testified, including as recently as last year, to both AARO and Congress.
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. The reason AARO “has not discovered any verifiable information,” they said, is because it does have the authority to verify it and may not want to verify it.
https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craftThe 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.
The sources differed on whether the U.S. was able to operate them. “As far as I know, we are not able to operate them,” said one person, who said they were last briefed on the crashed craft five years ago. “There are people who say we have reverse-engineered them and are flying them. I never found any support for that. And found a lot of support for saying we can’t figure it out. If we do, it would be in some program at a higher security level.”
Others said that the U.S. has been able to fly at least one of the retrieved craft. “Some of the tech is very cutting-edge,” said a source, “and they have to travel to places like Italy, Belgium, and Indonesia to do flight testing. It’s worldwide. Some of our allies know about the programs. The clandestine places that they work out of have grown larger.”
The bizarre footage of the long, black object plunging into the water was filmed at Jangkar Beach in East Java - with some people claiming it was a damaged UFO.
The aeronautics expert said it could have been a type of balloon - and added it "it was too slow to be a falling object from space".
It comes after an ex-astronaut weighed in on footage of mysterious UFO sightings released by the US Navy.
Former International Space Station commander Chris Hadfield claimed that the unidentified phenomena are not the work of aliens – adding that if you think they are, you're an idiot.
No, he has no evidence. From his interview he says he only HEARD it from other people. So how could he show you evidence of hearsay conversations? Am I missing something here?
Argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.
A generic idea is indeed hard to disprove. And the more generic the more difficult it is to disprove. Some of us believe the burden, though, is on the claimant to prove, not the disbeliever to disprove.
Large/close UFOs, ghosts, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., are variations on the same phenomenon, and are all real in the sense that they are genuinely experienced by some people (or at least they are genuinely remembered as having been experienced). Apparently though, they are all equally stubborn to being measured and documented by technological means. Those two qualities are what ties them all together. They are subjective internal experiences, rather than objective ones that can be agreed upon by all observers, including technological devices.
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.c...-to-hold-hearing-on-whistleblowers-ufo-claimsNow in response to (Grusch's) allegations, the US House of Representatives is planning to hold a formal hearing in an effort to investigate whether or not there is any truth to these claims.
What we do know is that the oversight committee investigation will be headed up by Republicans Tim Burchett and Anna Paulina Luna.
I got a chuckle out of this last line of the above article. I'm not sure how someone can "speak openly" in an unclassified hearing."Congressman Burchett's office is working through logistics, including a witness list of the most credible witnesses and sources who would be able to speak openly at an unclassified hearing," said a spokesman.
Someone who has no knowledge of classified information can.
As you say...
I think I started it.. Excuses.
I think I started it.. Excuses.
Fair point. I'll amend to "There is no evidence that we've seen yet." Still not a good metric to use in determining his motive.
I don't think they are aliens, in that I don't think there's any good evidence they are aliens. As in all matters I'd change my mind if there was evidence otherwise.
I wonder how that fallacy and the idea of The Wisdom of Crowds coexist? But that's probably drifting off topic faster than a Tick Tack zooming past a camera in a meadow full of mayflies...
The full membership of the Committee is: Majority * James Comer, Kentucky, Chair * Jim Jordan, Ohio * Mike Turner, Ohio * Paul Gosar, Arizona * Virginia Foxx, North Carolina (Hey, I know her! -- JM) * Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin * Gary Palmer, Alabama * Clay Higgins, Louisiana * Pete Sessions, Texas * Andy Biggs, Arizona * Nancy Mace, South Carolina * Jake LaTurner, Kansas * Pat Fallon, Texas * Byron Donalds, Florida * Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota * Scott Perry, Pennsylvania * William Timmons, South Carolina * Tim Burchett, Tennessee * Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia * Lisa McClain, Michigan * Lauren Boebert, Colorado * Russell Fry, South Carolina * Anna Paulina Luna, Florida * Chuck Edwards, North Carolina * Nick Langworthy, New York * Eric Burlison, Missouri * * Minority * Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking Member * Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia * Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts * Gerry Connolly, Virginia * Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois * Ro Khanna, California * Kweisi Mfume, Maryland * Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York, Vice Ranking Member * Katie Porter, California * Cori Bush, Missouri * Jimmy Gomez, California * Shontel Brown, Ohio * Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico * Robert Garcia, California * Maxwell Frost, Florida * Becca Balint, Vermont * Summer Lee, Pennsylvania * Greg Casar, Texas * Jasmine Crockett, Texas * Dan Goldman, New York * Jared Moskowitz, Florida Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Oversight_and_Accountability |
If the article I posted earlier is accurate, it appears the hearing will be before a subcommittee from Oversight and Accountability.
youve got 11 people on your list. what expertise exactly do you think Harry Reid has in extraterrestrials or understanding the chemistry of materials?
I read it as the phenomenon of a "growing chorus of credible voices supporting him and/or his claims." I'm not sure I'd agree it is up to skeptics to explain that. Though it would be nice to be able to do so, I suppose.
hmmm. you might be right.
The government doesn't believe he has any evidence either.
i dont think you need twitter to see threads and copy links. i almost never sign in to twitter.
I know, disparaging individuals is not a significant argument in favor of debunking specific claims, but I think I'd want to know about the history of the individuals involved regarding UFO beliefs before Grusch's testimony hit the fan. You call them "credible voices", but being in a responsible senior position does not guarantee that to be the case. Do they actually have first hand evidence of the claims? Are they, perhaps, speaking up out of support for Grusch (who was also in a fairly high position). Or are they basing their opinions on the same kind of hearsay which persuaded Grusch?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study.
.....
In some cases, earthly explanations have been found for previously unexplained incidents. Even lacking a plausible terrestrial explanation does not make an extraterrestrial one the most likely, astrophysicists say.
Mr. Reid, the former Democratic senator from Nevada who pushed for funding the earlier U.F.O. program when he was the majority leader, said he believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred and that retrieved materials should be studied.
“After looking into this, I came to the conclusion that there were reports — some were substantive, some not so substantive — that there were actual materials that the government and the private sector had in their possession,” Mr. Reid said in an interview.
No crash artifacts have been publicly produced for independent verification. Some retrieved objects, such as unusual metallic fragments, were later identified from laboratory studies as man-made.
Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”
Remember, we haven't seen Grusch's IG complaint. It can be very different from what he says on TV.
