LilWabbit
Senior Member
You didn't really respond to my question. Nobody is saying he doesn't know the names of the 40ish people who've told him stuff, or that he doesn't believe them nor want to safely expose them.
House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023
- Thread starter MonkeeSage
- Start date
You didn't really respond to my question. Nobody is saying he doesn't know the names of the 40ish people who've told him stuff, or that he doesn't believe them nor want to safely expose them.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Kevin Day claims the object was on RADAR, vectored Fravor there but there's no mention of correlation between and object on both the ship RADAR and Fravor planes RADAR when the encountered the tictac as far as I know.
Last edited:
No job title or venue provides credence to extraordinary claims. Evidence will do that. I agree that we could use more transparency, and the government secrecy is probably being used inappropriately in many cases. That does not mean I will automatically trust someone claiming to peal back that secrecy without seeing the actual evidence.
I heartily disagree with any attempt to look in from the outside at private hearings and try to argue that clearly there must be something great being discussed in them.
Duke
Senior Member.
Fravor said today the object was detected on radar from both USS Princeton and the orbiting E-2, but not by the radar in his F-18.
Amathia
Senior Member
This is a very strange black and white kind of thinking. "Yes, we have in fact retrieved aircraft from NHI throughout our history. Yes, some of said aircraft had bodies still in them. No, we are not alone. Here are a handful of videos we have of said vehicles displaying maneuvers that defy our known laws of physics. No, we will not share any details about anything we may have learned about how these craft work, nor any details about the successes or failures of reverse engineering attempts. We can confirm though that we are not alone."
Or any variations of the above. Is disclosure of NHI, if it exists, a threat to national security? Is the release of any and all information pertaining to them a risk to national security?
You can conceive of no way to release any information about the topic that minimizes the potential for enemy nations to utilize it against us? We can get footage of Reaper Drones being harassed by Russian jets two days after it happens, but any and *all* UAP footage that exists, even if taken from exactly the same platform as the reaper drones, is classified and not eligible for release?
Is this really where we're at?
Nemon
Active Member
Is there a "no" missing? I can't remember any statements about Fravour's radar in this context either.
Edit: I noticed #405 after writing... and it comes to my mind again that Fravor claimed when they returned to the Priceton their radar had been jammed.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Yeah sorry, I'll edit my post
deirdre
Senior Member.
what? i dont know what youre saying after "vectored Fravor there".
Amathia
Senior Member
You don't have to believe him. But you also probably shouldn't assume "aha, he ain't got shit!" either considering the obvious relevant factor that even if he did have something he legally cannot share it with us. That fact alone should make this childish assumption of "he doesn't have shit, otherwise he'd share it" be taken off the table.
Nemon
Active Member
What was there to disagree about post #400? It was on radar, right?
deirdre
Senior Member.
yes, my black and white thinking is what i'm known for
(yea that's sarcasm)yes. because the world en masse would freak out and want access to it too. what if there are weapons onboard way worse than nukes? do you really want China or Russia or Iran to have that tech? It's fine if you do, just asking.
But WE DONT HAVE ALIEN SHIPS OR ALIEN BODIES, so what you are REALLY asking the gov to release is ALL our info on human enemy tech and spy equipment that we have. AS WELL AS any tech we are working on that we recovered from human enemy craft.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Was on the Princeton's RADAR but not Fravors RADAR
DavidB66
Senior Member.
Do you mean no correlation?
Fravor (and I think Dietrich) have previously said they had no radar contact with the object from their on-board radar. (And Duke says at #405 that Fravor repeated this today.) I've pointed out before that if radar gets no return from an object within a mile or two away, it's odd if radar much further away gets a clear return from the same object, especially bearing in mind the inverse-square law. Of course in principle the more distant radar equipment might be more powerful or sensitive, but the oddity remains. What kinds of physical objects give no radar return even at very close quarters? Balloons? And how would they then be visible at long distances, no matter how sensitive the equipment?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Yes I have clarified my typo.
Duke
Senior Member.
At 1:59, in response to a direct question from Rep Langworthy, Fravor said, "The Princeton tracked it, the Nimitz tracked it, the E-2 tracked it, but we never saw it on our radar."
Amathia
Senior Member
yes, my black and white thinking is what i'm known for
yes. because the world en masse would freak out and want access to it too. what if there are weapons onboard way worse than nukes? do you really want China or Russia or Iran to have that tech? It's fine if you do, just asking.
"yes. because the world en masse would freak out and want access to it too. what if there are weapons onboard way worse than nukes? do you really want China or Russia or Iran to have that tech? It's fine if you do, just asking."
This is a strange question. No. Obviously. I know I'm new around here but I'd at least hope people would assume that whatever views I hold, they'd be at least more reasonable than this.
The world may want access to this tech, but on what grounds do you suppose they'd ever try to argue, or we'd ever concede, that they're entitled to such tech, especially weapons. There is ample historical precedent of the United States being in possession of highly advanced technology that the rest of the world doesn't just get to have "just because", unless you think the mere revelation of a crashed UFO being in the possession of the US would by itself be enough for a nation like China to declare war on us because they want it. What exactly is the scenario you have in mind of how this would play out?
This is, of course, not what I'm asking for, nor a consequence of what I'm asking for, and if I'm going to have a conversation about this subject I'd rather have a conversation where obviously ridiculous and unreasonable views that I don't hold aren't attributed to me. I'd rather peace out for the rest of the day because when conversations get to this point there's not much fruitful that's likely to come out of them.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Leading the witnesses is not a problem in this setting.
That's strange because Compass Rose clearly stated that Grusch's ICIG complaint process had been completed successfully.
Article: Compass Rose Legal Group has successfully concluded its representation of former client David Grush on matters limited to his reasonable belief that elements of the Intelligence Community improperly withheld or concealed alleged classified information from the U.S. Congress. [...]
Compass Rose brought this matter to the ICIG’s attention through lawful channels and successfully defended Mr. Grusch against retaliation.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-8-5-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.3173/ and https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.165/ .
Last edited:
LilWabbit
Senior Member
yes, my black and white thinking is what i'm known for
yes. because the world en masse would freak out and want access to it too. what if there are weapons onboard way worse than nukes? do you really want China or Russia or Iran to have that tech? It's fine if you do, just asking.
But WE DONT HAVE ALIEN SHIPS OR ALIEN BODIES, so what you are REALLY asking the gov to release is ALL our info on human enemy tech and spy equipment that we have. AS WELL AS any tech we are working on that we recovered from human enemy craft.
You beat me to it.
What AR318307 doesn't seem to realize is that under both scenarios (A. No alien visitations having ever taken place or B. USG coverup of secret alien programmes) the USG would resist all subpoenas to provide congressional/public access to classified programs, and would unfailingly deny the existence of alien recovery programs. In both scenarios the USG would have grounds not to even offer a peak to the public into classified programs.
Under scenario A which is the default assumption in the absence of a single piece of hard evidence for the extraordinary claim B, any reckless way of sharing information and exchanging rumours on actual DoD classified programmes, occurring within the Pentagon at the initiative of UFO believers and UAP investigators, is a genuine cause for concern lest information (including photograph and footage) on these non-alien programs would leak to the public and end up at the hands of enemy states.
Giddierone
Active Member
They didn't ask.
Ann K
Senior Member.
It's a simple statement of fact. If there is no positive evidence (and we don't know whether or not there is), you can't get any positive evidence from them. That would not stop the people clamoring for nonexistent evidence to verify their beliefs, though ...and those people are not being skeptical either.
Nemon
Active Member
okay, I didn't catch what your statement was derived from. It's a bit confusing here today. And in places also quite off-topic
Ann K
Senior Member.
Someone, I think Fravor (I was sort-of listening but not watching) mentioned a piece of evidence (radar? Video?) that nobody can find now. Is this what he was referring to?
Duke
Senior Member.
I've wondered about that myself. In theory, couldn't ECM account for that? All such systems have an effective range. If the warships/Hawkeye were outside that effective range, but the F-18 within it. In that case, however, would the Hornet EWO know if he was being jammed, as opposed to there just being no return?
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Most posters seem to support the position that Fravor saw something, but that his interpretation of what he saw was fallacious.
We see this all the time, e.g. pilots reporting "racetrack UFOs" that are really Starlink flares. These pilots see something, but can't correctly interpret what they're seeing. They've not been trained for this, after all.
Again, most folks here would not say that.
Physians with decades of experience have been known to misinterpret X-rays from time to time, as well.
Article: Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3–5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies.
A cancer misdiagnosis (false-positive) rate of up to 61% has been quoted for screening mammography [23].
And this is from people trained to read X-rays.
How much can you reasonably expect from people who have not been trained to identify unusual objects in the sky, when they do? It's not surprising at all to fail at that.
Duke
Senior Member.
I think that was Graves. He responded to a question about a short segment at the end of his video that was not released. He said it showed what I think he termed "instability" on the part of his target.
Nemon
Active Member
He could have been referring to the fact that all data carriers had been removed from the USS Princeton after the incident. this also comes up in the linked interview transcript Mick West/Kevin Day.
Mendel
Senior Member.
There is nothing but unsupported claims that evidence of NHI exists.
So far, it sounds like that way you'd get a dysfunctional IC, but no evidence.
No statesman would support that.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Whilst it is true that the more trained the observer, the less there'd be misidentifications, it logically follows the more there are observations, the likelihood of at least a few mistaken observations tends to 1 (100 % probability).
Fravor's description of the tic-tac encounter is a case in point. It's indeed a rare thing for a trained pilot to encounter something non-extraordinary seemingly moving in a highly extraordinary manner, owing to special angles, difficulties to accurately gauge distance, featurelessness of the object, parallax effects and other circumstances uniquely coinciding to compound the strangest of optical effects. In fact, it's even understandable why some ufologists would blame Mick for indulging in "mental gymnastics" to explain away what clearly came across as amazing feats of flight to seasoned professionals of flight (experienced military pilots).
However, out of the thousands of hours of flight by Navy pilots over the course of 20+ years it is in fact very likely that a handful of times such a complex coincidence of unique effects takes place, creating a rare optical illusion. It's precisely these few encounters that would obviously make the cut for UFO eyewitness testimonies by trained military professionals.
That these encounters aren't remembered consistently owing to the fickle nature of human perception and memory is also a high likelihood. But it doesn't take away the possibility that these encounters were genuinely the result of unique and rare effects coinciding whilst featuring a mundane object.
Empiricist
Member
I wish Grusch were not cut off, but I think the below quote from the hearing is relevant to discussion regarding the conflict between Kirkpatrick and Grusch's statements:
Source.
Senator Foxx: Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of AARO previously testified before congress that there has been, and I quote, "no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity or of off-world technology brought to the attention of the office." To your knowledge, is that statement correct?
Grusch: It's not accurate. I believe doctor Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to AARO thus far. A few of those individuals have also come to AARO that I also interviewed and I know what they have provided doctor Kirkpatrick and their team. I was able to evaluate... [interrupted]
Senator Foxx: I need to go on. [continues on partisan rant]
LilWabbit
Senior Member
I wish Kirkpatrick would be given a chance to respond to what Grusch is stating here (albeit interrupted). Then we'd have a fuller picture to form less partisan opinions of our own.
tintintintin
Member
Here's a hypothetical to disclosing in both scenarios.
For Gang of Eigth, 5/8 (Democrats + Rubio) clearly believe Grusch vis-a-vis UAPDA of 2023 and IAA-24 and public appearances.
2/8 are unclear, and then there's Mike Rounds who may be key to the rational point of view.
For Gang of Eight to believe Grusch, they must have been convinced that some waived SAP/CAP wasn't disclosed to them.
So then there's POTUS. I don't see how he's no clued in on this and nodded to the UAPDA. Anything else is political folly, unless Schumer's gone rogue of course. It follows that POTUS isn't why SAP/CAP is unknown to Gang of Eight.
You now have a USG coverup to unravel, and all the political power you need. You're going to disclose what you can, 'cause you want to get re-elected.
Again, this is a hypothetical mixed in with some punditry. But I hold firm that ultimately it is Washington that dictates what's disclosed. As it should be.
Duke
Senior Member.
I think you/Compass Rose are referencing his first IG complaint. It dealt with concealing evidence from Congress, the second with his claims of retribution.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/post-292023
PublicStranger
Active Member
A little disappointed with the hearing today, not that I expected an actual alien to teleport into the hearing as one of the witnesses but I would of hoped to have seen some kind of concrete evidence as opposed to just more claims.
2 things a certainty in the UFO community, anecdotal evidence and your taxes being used to fund it.
2 things a certainty in the UFO community, anecdotal evidence and your taxes being used to fund it.
tintintintin
Member
Him not speaking to the retaliation I understood to be from active investigation into those who retaliated.
The proposition that there were two documents, one for DoD IG and later for ICIG is incorrect I think. Please let me know if it is, as I elaborate below.
Grusch filed both a classified and an unclassified complaint to the ICIG. He referenced the classified today, which contained the claims about information being withheld from Congress. We've only seen the unclassified one (your link) to the ICIG about the claims of retribution in (8).
So Compass Rose wrote the unclassified one, and alongside it, a classified version was provided the ICIG. Notice the specific language here:
The ICIG found information to have been inappropriately concealed from Congress, which obviously couldn't happen based on the unclassified one we've seen, and the urgent and credible is wrt to the information being withheld, and it's the ICIG's findings.Washington, DC – Compass Rose Legal Group has successfully concluded its representation of former client David Grush on matters limited to his reasonable belief that elements of the Intelligence Community improperly withheld or concealed alleged classified information from the U.S. Congress. The firm filed a narrowly-scoped whistleblower disclosure with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (“ICIG”) and associated personnel matters – and had represented Mr. Grusch since February 2022.
Recent media articles misstate the scope of the firm’s representation, and include material misstatements of fact pertaining to our representation, which we have requested be corrected.
The whistleblower disclosure did not speak to the specifics of the alleged classified information that Mr. Grusch has now publicly characterized, and the substance of that information has always been outside of the scope of Compass Rose’s representation. Compass Rose took no position and takes no position on the contents of the withheld information.
The ICIG found Mr. Grusch’s assertion that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible in response to the filed disclosure. Compass Rose brought this matter to the ICIG’s attention through lawful channels and successfully defended Mr. Grusch against retaliation.
https://compassrosepllc.com/news/
The whistleblower disclosure written by Compass Rose did not speak to the specifics, because if it had, Grusch would have divulged classified information unlawfully and would be looking at time in prison. And that's why Compass Rose needs to correct the record in the press releases: They're protecting their client. Similarly, Grusch releasing his classified complaint would land him in jail.
Somewhat related, the lawyer who represented Grusch, Charles McCullough, was present at today's hearing.
Duke
Senior Member.
Now I'm confused, but I see your point.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
It's also as simple as Grusch, while at DoD, having experienced reasonable suspicion and flat refusal after requesting information on sensitive classified programmes far outside of his purview under the UAPTF. Requesting information on classified programs is far more active 'snooping' than just waiting for people to come forward. Entirely irrespective of whether these programs involve aliens or not, such 'sniffing around' arouses mistrust and, as it turns out, unsurprisingly Grusch wasn't deemed to have the need-to-know. This entirely professional refusal (see the bolded bit below) in turn served to fuel Grusch's own ufologist conspiracy theory of a coverup. And hence, with the help of the UFO college and lobbying power, we're here.
Article: Grusch served as a representative on two Pentagon task forces investigating UAP until earlier this year. He told lawmakers that he was informed of "a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program" during the course of his work examining classified programs. He said he was denied access to those programs when he requested it, and accused the military of misappropriating funds to shield these operations from congressional oversight. He later said he had interviewed officials who had direct knowledge of aircraft with "nonhuman" origins, and that so-called "biologics" were recovered from some craft.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Just a couple of thoughts. I'm using the YouTube video of the hearings linked below.
At 24:11, after a shout out to his good buddies Jeremy Corbel and George Knapp, Burchett enters into the record a DIRD paper about:
"Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Vacuum Spacetime Metrics"
It sounds like one of the DIRD papers produced by Bigelow's BAASS for AWWSAP and written by Eric Davis for Hal Puthoff's EarthTech:
So, we got Knapp, Davis, Puthoff and SWR in the first 20 minutes.
At 1:07:30 after being asked if he believes the government is in possession of UAPs, Grusch answers:
"Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over 4 years..."
This I really don't get. These are supposedly siloed, secret SAPs that are even above Congressional oversight. Grusch was NEVER read into them, that's part of his complaint. Yet, he found 40 people, that unlike @Duke, seemed to have no compunction about telling Grusch secrets he was NOT CLEARED TO KNOW. Not only telling him, but showing him reports and photos. And below, he claims that people were assulted and maybe even murdered to keep these programs secret.
But there is at least 40 people that aren't all that worried about it. The crux of his story is that there are super-secret clandestine programs that are misappropriating funds (see below) and possible killing people to protect the secrets, BUT within these programs there are quite a few people willing to be interviewed by him and tell him and show him all kinds of classified stuff knowing he's NOT CLEARED to hear it.
He has hinted that these 40 folks have been named in closed door sessions and IF these programs exist, other people in them might be able to figure out at least who some of the 40 witnesses are just form the public account Grusch has giving. I hope they're watching their backs.
At 1:11:15 Burchett asks Grusch if he has any personal knowledge of people being hurt in efforts to coverup the alien technology. Grusch says "Yes." "Personally." Was he insinuating he was physically assaulted or that he personally knew people that were physically assaulted? Either way, that's a claim that caused Burchett to follow up with "Murdered?" to which Grusch answered:
"I have to be careful with that question, I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities."
I'd take that as a YES. Is he saying people came to him with knowledge about murder being committed in the effort to coverup aliens and he directed those people to the appropriate authorities? That sounds like an old movie trope from something like Capricorn 1.
At 1:26:00 Rep. Moscowitz askes him about misdirection of funds and defense contractors overcharging and Grusch responds at 1:26:48:
"Yes, I have specific knowledge of that."
If these programs are above congressional oversite as he claims, and he's been denied access to them, where did he learn about the complex funding mechanisms?
Just a few thoughts.
EDIT:
My bad!! I forgot to post the link to the video.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ7Dw-739VY&t=5s
At 24:11, after a shout out to his good buddies Jeremy Corbel and George Knapp, Burchett enters into the record a DIRD paper about:
"Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Vacuum Spacetime Metrics"
It sounds like one of the DIRD papers produced by Bigelow's BAASS for AWWSAP and written by Eric Davis for Hal Puthoff's EarthTech:
So, we got Knapp, Davis, Puthoff and SWR in the first 20 minutes.
At 1:07:30 after being asked if he believes the government is in possession of UAPs, Grusch answers:
"Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over 4 years..."
This I really don't get. These are supposedly siloed, secret SAPs that are even above Congressional oversight. Grusch was NEVER read into them, that's part of his complaint. Yet, he found 40 people, that unlike @Duke, seemed to have no compunction about telling Grusch secrets he was NOT CLEARED TO KNOW. Not only telling him, but showing him reports and photos. And below, he claims that people were assulted and maybe even murdered to keep these programs secret.
But there is at least 40 people that aren't all that worried about it. The crux of his story is that there are super-secret clandestine programs that are misappropriating funds (see below) and possible killing people to protect the secrets, BUT within these programs there are quite a few people willing to be interviewed by him and tell him and show him all kinds of classified stuff knowing he's NOT CLEARED to hear it.
He has hinted that these 40 folks have been named in closed door sessions and IF these programs exist, other people in them might be able to figure out at least who some of the 40 witnesses are just form the public account Grusch has giving. I hope they're watching their backs.
At 1:11:15 Burchett asks Grusch if he has any personal knowledge of people being hurt in efforts to coverup the alien technology. Grusch says "Yes." "Personally." Was he insinuating he was physically assaulted or that he personally knew people that were physically assaulted? Either way, that's a claim that caused Burchett to follow up with "Murdered?" to which Grusch answered:
"I have to be careful with that question, I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities."
I'd take that as a YES. Is he saying people came to him with knowledge about murder being committed in the effort to coverup aliens and he directed those people to the appropriate authorities? That sounds like an old movie trope from something like Capricorn 1.
At 1:26:00 Rep. Moscowitz askes him about misdirection of funds and defense contractors overcharging and Grusch responds at 1:26:48:
"Yes, I have specific knowledge of that."
If these programs are above congressional oversite as he claims, and he's been denied access to them, where did he learn about the complex funding mechanisms?
Just a few thoughts.
EDIT:
My bad!! I forgot to post the link to the video.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ7Dw-739VY&t=5s
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
No. Grusch's first complaint was to the DoD IG, and it's not published afaik.
Compass Rose filed Grusch's ICIG complaint, as seen here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/post-291994
Similar threads
