House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

I saw a Graves clip recently (this thread?) where he said you see them when you zoom in on the video, I think?
The video (FLIR1, ironically which is the only Navy video that has sections not in IR mode) is so low res and affected by artifacts that you can take many frames and see different things.

AFAIK these claims of projections that match what Fravor said he saw are based some cherry picked frame grabs from the TV section of FLIR1.
 
I don't claim to be an 'expert' on physics, but my knowledge is considerable. The holographic principle is a means by which the equations of relativity ( and hence gravity ) can be derived from string theory by means of an encoding in lower dimensions. The term 'holographic' is a misnomer, as the result is not a hologram in the classic sense. The entire thing is really just a mathematical construct that allows relativity and quantum mechanics to be linked. It is, to date, just about the only thing in favour of string theory.....a theory increasingly coming under criticism as having failed to produce any results in 40 years or so.

There is nothing in the holographic principle that specifically generates the idea of overlapping realities or dimensions, as such concepts are already a part of quantum mechanics ( for example the many worlds interpretation ). Thus one does not really even need to invoke the holographic principle to envisage dimension jumping aliens and I'm surprised Grusch didn't simply mention the many worlds theorem that most people are rather more familiar with.

It's worth adding.....dimension jumping time travelers ( one hypothesis I have seen ) cannot jump to their own timeline or you get the 'grandfather paradox'. So the whole notion of time travelers from 'our' future coming back to prevent us having nuclear war is a logical and scientific absurdity. And the irony is that time travelers jumping backwards into a random other timeline ( which to them might be ours ) would actually be creating a new branch...not preventing anything. The original timeline they intersected would still go on to have the nuclear war. Even in the many worlds theorem you cannot alter the past. You would simply generate new timelines...and be responsible for whatever new misfortune occured in them ! It's all a bit like the infamous 'death in Samarra' tale.
Great response. To add on a little, the holographic principle states that all of the information (as in the physics concept) of our 3-dimensional space can be encoded on the 2-dimensional surface of our universe. It's a mathematical concept where "hologram" is a useful analogy. (There is also no experimental evidence yet that it is true for our universe.)

I found the time where he brings it up (should link to around 1:56:00):

The autogenerated transcription is
1:56:01
then in terms of uh
multi-dimensionality that kind of thing the the framework that I'm familiar with for example is something called the
holographic principle uh both uh it's it derives itself from general relativity and quantum mechanics and that is if you
want to imagine uh 3D objects such as yourself casting a shadow onto a 2d
surface that's the holographic principle so you can be projected quasi-projected from higher dimensional space to lower
dimensional it's a scientific Trope that you can actually cross literally as far as I understand but there's probably
guys with phds that we can probably but you have not seen any documentation that
that's what's occurring uh only a theoretical framework discussion okay

This in response to the question of how other beings could travel the light years required to get to Earth, to then just crash. His analogy of casting a shadow isn't terrible! But as @Scaramanga already said very well, attempting to use it as a way to explain intergalactic travel is just a gross misuse and misunderstanding of the holographic principle. In reality, it has no relevance to travel or "quasi-projection" travel. The implication of this, in my opinion that many others here have shared, is that Grusch is getting his information from unqualified, woo-oriented folks rather than serious scientists or researchers.
 
Last edited:
I saw a Graves clip recently (this thread?) where he said you see them when you zoom in on the video, I think?
Fravor said that, regarding the FLIR1 video from the Nimitz incident, shot by Underwood. I think it's unlikely the original video recording was significantly clearer, as it's just (essentially) monochrome 480i NTSC, and the object appears to be out of focus. Discussed in depth here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nimitz-atflir-focus-issues.11843/
 
The video (FLIR1, ironically which is the only Navy video that has sections not in IR mode) is so low res and affected by artifacts that you can take many frames and see different things.

AFAIK these claims of projections that match what Fravor said he saw are based some cherry picked frame grabs from the TV section of FLIR1.

This one right?


Source: https://youtu.be/6rWOtrke0HY


Man, if this thing looks this low res and blurry on my standard sized 1440p computer monitor I can't imagine how on earth "blowing it up" onto a wall sized projector or screen would do anything but make it even blurrier and highlight all the artifacting. It seems like the kind of thing where someone tells him what to look for on the screen and with that priming in mind he suddenly "sees" the little projections on the underside of the object.

Unless by some miracle they have access to a higher res version of the video that hasn't been compressed by Youtube during the upload.
 
This is a long thread. If there's more focussed aspects of the case you want to discuss (and not get lost), please start a new thread with a detailed first post
 
he [Fravor] said you see them when you zoom in on the video, I think?
That would be this frame, I think.
From this thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-navy-flir1-video-seems-to-show-tic-tac-antennas.12398/


I may be letting my imagination run away with itself, but I suspect Fravor, Dietrich, Underwood and other witnesses were running this film clip over and over again, at various speeds, looking for behaviours and details which they then subconsciously incorporated into their memories of the event.

At least Underwood never changed his story that he couldn't see it.
 
Bunk from the opening statements, via https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full...-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/ :

[Luna:] Yet from Roswell, New Mexico to the coast of Jacksonville, Florida, the sightings of UAPs have rarely been explained by the people who have firsthand accounts of these situations.
Content from External Source
Fravor has been all over the news. Roswell is well documented, and not unidentified.

[Luna:] Pentagon bureaucrats who have always been sent to [stonewall] investigations
Content from External Source
That's the first shot at AARO.

[Graves:] making inexplainable maneuvers like right hand turns and retrograde orbits or J hooks.
Content from External Source
A right hand turn is not an unusual maneuver. (Is he referring to GIMBAL?)

Retrograde orbits are uncommon but not inexplicable.
Article:
Most commercial Earth-observing satellites use retrograde sun-synchronous orbits to ensure that observations are performed at the same local time each pass of any given location


The "J Hook" probably didn't happen (also GIMBAL), there is a straight&level solution for the data.
 
Fravor, Dietrich, Underwood and other witnesses were running this film clip over and over again, at various speeds, looking for behaviours and details which they then subconsciously incorporated into their memories of the event.
Running the 2007 leaked mp4 from the German site which Mick posted earlier,
https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg
I can see several frames where the image seems to divide into two lobes, which may have given rise to the 'twin aerials' perception, but this seems much more likely to be the signature of a receding jet with two engines.
lobes.png
 
Can you explain the significance of this? It went over my head. :)
Sorry I didn't explain myself very well there. I meant that if the explanation for these things is that they are classified special programs then the program isn't progressing very well considering it was nigh on 20 years ago when it was being tested against US military and they've still not seen it in use.
 
..if the explanation for these things is that they are classified special programs then the program isn't progressing very well considering it was nigh on 20 years ago when it was being tested against US military and they've still not seen it in use.
That's right. If Tic tacs are a secret program, when can we expect to see them used in conflicts? The same goes for other possible secret projects like the black triangle UAPs, the TR-3b, the Aurora, and so on. If they are successful terrestrial craft, why aren't they being used? If not, what's wrong with them?
 
Running the 2007 leaked mp4 from the German site which Mick posted earlier,
https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg
I can see several frames where the image seems to divide into two lobes, which may have given rise to the 'twin aerials' perception, but this seems much more likely to be the signature of a receding jet with two engines.
lobes.png
Remember that's the TV view, a common mistake with FLIR1 is assuming it's all IR when it actually switches during the video, keep an eye on the text middle top to see whether you are seeing visible light or IR at any specific frame and remember there's a few frames lag on updating some values on the overlay after something changes.

Also remember the tictac is also described by Fravor as white.
 
If they are successful terrestrial craft, why aren't they being used? If not, what's wrong with them?
That's due to the fact that hey have a strong tendency to erratic movements when above the water. This has reinforced the reservations about TicTacs ;)
 
A right hand turn is not an unusual maneuver. (Is he referring to GIMBAL?)
J hook is almost a certainly reference to the "proposed" path of a 10 mile Gimbal object, which if people recall was only ever a 'thing' AFTER the work of this forum (Edward Current/Mick etc) to determine the range of possible flight paths.

No-one from AATIP/Graves etc ever really mentioned it until it emerged (inevitably) from this analysis (basically a path mirroring the camera movement) that also has the 30 mile mostly straight line path that supports a possible distant jet.
 
Last edited:
Including the armada that flew south over Europe. I guess it was 1963. About 50 UFOs. And the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe was concerned; about to press the panic button. Unfortunately, they all turned around and went back over the North Pole. So he was satisfied they weren't Soviets and that they had to be in fact extraterrestrials. So he ordered a study to be done and it took three years. And what the study concluded was that there had been at least four species at least four visiting earth for thousand of years.
Content from External Source
Discussed in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-existence-of-an-allied-forces-report-about-a-1963-mass-ufo-sighting-in-europe.12061
Sounds like the Mainbrace sightings in the early 50s....multiple UFO sightings as they overflow what was, at the time, the largest flotilla of (NATO) warships since WW2. They were on an exercise to prove they could defend Norway (and/or Denmark?) from the USSR as I recall. Initial concerns were they were Soviets.
 
Sounds like the Mainbrace sightings in the early 50s....multiple UFO sightings as they overflow what was, at the time, the largest flotilla of (NATO) warships since WW2. They were on an exercise to prove they could defend Norway (and/or Denmark?) from the USSR as I recall. Initial concerns were they were Soviets.
Not really.
Article:
14–25 September 1952: Operation Mainbrace. On 19 September at 10:53, a silver disc-shaped object followed a Gloster Meteor returning to RAF Topcliffe and was seen by observers on the ground. It rotated whilst hovering. It then travelled towards the west at high speed. On 21 September, six RAF planes followed a spherical object over the North Sea. It followed one of the planes back to the base. It was the front-page headline on 20 September 1952 on the Yorkshire Evening Press and on 21 September 1952 on the Sunday Dispatch., and was reported by 31-year-old Shackleton pilot Flt Lt John Kilburn of 269 Squadron, from Thornhill, Cumberland[13]
Not an armada of 50 UFOs by a long stretch, nor panic-button-worthy.
 
But that is likely precisely why they hired Lazar ( which I believe they did ). He's no Einstein. He's just some guy who tinkers with stuff in his back yard. If the real purpose of his brief work at Area 51 was to persuade him advanced alien technology exists....he seems to me to be precisely the guy to fool.

And the reason for this deception plan would really be quite simple and understandable . Just as the CIA got involved in remote viewing for fear that the Russians were using it, so the same sort of paranoia that the Russians might have alien technology would lead to a ' we are already investigating this and maybe have some too ' response. What military wouldn't want to have 'maybe we have crashed alien technology we can use' as a psyop ?

So various people have been fed BS for years...and that is what Grusch 'uncovers' and thinks is real. I think that is the most plausible explanation. There has clearly been something going on that has led to '40 people I have interviewed' and who appear to confirm the stories. I go with the psyops explanation.
I wondered about that very thing. Psyops by using various individuals to propagate misinformation. From an evidence standpoint though, that one is hard to pin down unless we do become aware of their official psyops.
 
Do we know whether a clandestine SAP program would even be classified ? Historical examples..anyone ?

I think there are others here who will be able to give you a definitive answer (which I can't).

But from my limited understanding of Special Access Programs, I would have thought that, by definition, they all deal with classified information and/ or resources.

The US defence (sorry, defense) establishment is one of the largest, and certainly the most sophisticated and best funded, defense organization on Earth. It is likely that the United States armed forces conduct covert operations more frequently than we are aware of through the media.
I would be surprised if there aren't at least some SAPs whose whole raison d'être is kept secret, perhaps using "sanitized" or misleading program titles. -Admittedly conjecture on my part.

My main source on SAPs is a highly-placed member of the "Interrogating Captured Extraterres Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_access_program

For anyone interested, I've attached a PDF of the DoD's Joint Special Access Program (SAP) Implementation Guide (JSIGG)
of April 2016, which basically sets out a risk management template of areas to be considered for any SAP
(spoiler: there's nothing about managing extraterrestrial or trans-dimensional issues).
 

Attachments

  • JSIG_2016April11_Final_(53Rev4).pdf
    4.3 MB · Views: 46
But that is likely precisely why they hired Lazar
I wondered about that very thing. Psyops by using various individuals to propagate misinformation.

A major problem with this theory is that the majority of people never took Lazar seriously, even before his claims were examined.
I would guess that most of the people who believed (and the few who still believe) Lazar already believed that Earth is being visited by aliens.

Lazar's own, oft-repeated claims go far, far beyond the idea that he might have been fooled into believing in retrieved ETI/craft.
 
Do we know whether a clandestine SAP program would even be classified ? Historical examples..anyone ?
SAPs can be acknowledged, unacknowledged, and waived. Unacknowledged ones are so-called black projects. Waived ones are the most secret, only briefed to the Gang of Eight in Congress. If a program's existence was kept secret from AARO and even from Congress, I would think that it's waived, so it makes no sense to let Grusch publicize it.
 
Last edited:
SAPs can be acknowledged, unacknowledged, and waived. Unacknowledged ones are so-called black projects. Waived ones are the most secret, only briefed to the Gang of Eight in Congress. If a program's existence was kept secret from AARO and even from Congress, I would think that it's waived, so it makes no sense to let Grusch publicize it.
From the linked source:
SmartSelect_20230730-023633_Samsung Notes.jpg
This is their practice example of a waived SAP:
Years ago, Program Zulu 13 was a tightly protected program that maintained evacuation plans and emergency safe-house facilities for the highest ranking senior Pentagon officials. The program ended following a media leak, but while it was active, it was subject to the strictest possible access controls, and for years, you never heard anyone speak of it. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the program, Zulu 13 was kept under extremely tight wraps. It was subject to the most restrictive reporting requirements, and it was funded through numerous false programs that existed solely to funnel money to Zulu 13. Nobody outside of the program knew of its existence.
What type and category of SAP was Program Zulu 13?
Content from External Source
I am now imagining Grusch being on the hunt to sniff out as many of these as possible so he can figure out whether they're UAP-related or not.
 
Last edited:
Not really.
Article:
14–25 September 1952: Operation Mainbrace. On 19 September at 10:53, a silver disc-shaped object followed a Gloster Meteor returning to RAF Topcliffe and was seen by observers on the ground. It rotated whilst hovering. It then travelled towards the west at high speed. On 21 September, six RAF planes followed a spherical object over the North Sea. It followed one of the planes back to the base. It was the front-page headline on 20 September 1952 on the Yorkshire Evening Press and on 21 September 1952 on the Sunday Dispatch., and was reported by 31-year-old Shackleton pilot Flt Lt John Kilburn of 269 Squadron, from Thornhill, Cumberland[13]
Not an armada of 50 UFOs by a long stretch, nor panic-button-worthy.
Ok, getting way off topic here, but not surprisingly, a Wiki page entitled "UFOs in the UK" is going to cover.......sightings in the UK, in this case concurrent with Mainbrace. The alleged more exciting bits occurred over the large, North Sea NATO naval task force previously mentioned.

My memory of these events come from a story in one of a number of 70s UK "flying saucer" magazines I bought at a boot sale in the UK 25 years ago. I'm under no illusion the "historical details" from that publication were any more true than the Hellyer and Kasten stories sited in the 1963 thread. My point was the armed (primarily naval) forces of Western Europe, in the midst of a massive war exercise, were faced with unidentified aircraft in their area of operation. The natural concern was the Russians might be planning to attack. How close to pushing "the panic button" (whatever that means) did anyone come as result? Don't know.

I might still have that old magazine, if I find it I'll post the specifics if anyone's interested.
 
SAPs can be acknowledged, unacknowledged, and waived. Unacknowledged ones are so-called black projects. Waived ones are the most secret, only briefed to the Gang of Eight in Congress. If a program's existence was kept secret from AARO and even from Congress, I would think that it's waived, so it makes no sense to let Grusch publicize it.

Fravor was asked if he's aware of any instances where experimental aircraft are used or tested against/around our own armed forces without notifying said forces first (I'm paraphrasing the question from memory here).

His answer was "no, we have testing facilities for that." I can't imagine if anyone here knows a different answer than his would be able to say so, but from the sounds of it the *official* take on this is that we do not test our own secret projects on our own military without their knowing so. Officially at least.
 
Last edited:
Fravor was asked if he's aware of any instances where experimental aircraft are used or tested against/around our own armed forces without notifying said forces first (I'm paraphrasing the question from memory here).

His answer was "no, we have testing facilities for that."

Military drills out at sea are also testing ranges. He is making a sweeping assumption on behalf of the whole DoD which he possibly cannot know and which simply not true. There is nothing that prohibits testing experimental capabilities and technologies (for instance for radar and IR spoofing) at training ranges (naval or otherwise) and during military exercises on unsuspecting test subjects who are, obviously, also military personnel. For the deception test to work, the subjects must by default be 'unsuspecting'. And if the experimental tech or program is highly classified, Fravor doesn't have a need to ever know about it. Fravor's et al 'UAP observations' may well be a case of such spoofing tests.

The existence, since 2014, of the classified NEMESIS program (mentioned earlier on other threads as the successor of PALLADIUM) addresses the need "to generate the appearance of a realistic naval force to multiple adversarial surveillance and targeting sensors simultaneously", using, amongst other things, "reconfigurable and modular EW payloads, distributed decoy and jammer swarms (DDJS), effective acoustic countermeasures (CM), and multiple input/multiple output sensor/CM (MIMO S/CM) for false force generation to both above and below water sensors". The generic term "sensors" seems to imply they're not merely experimenting radar spoofing through real or artificial objects appearing on, navigational radars but all manner of military-grade sensors for instance on military fighter jets

Whether the NEMESIS program includes false IR image generation tests, I do not have the slightest clue, but I'm almost certain such a capability is under development across the world, owing to its great potential in tactical deception.

Anyway, submarine-launched balloon-based metallic spheres being used in deception tests already decades ago by CIA under Eurgene Poteat and the likes of the "Cormorant" MPUAV launched from the Ohio Class submarines in the early 2000s, complete with rocket boosters falling off the UAV after launch and burn-out, are guaranteed to create very strange IR imagery in addition to radar signatures for the unsuspecting test targets (e.g. Fravor and crew).
 
Fravor was asked if he's aware of any instances where experimental aircraft are used or tested against/around our own armed forces without notifying said forces first (I'm paraphrasing the question from memory here).

His answer was "no, we have testing facilities for that." I can't imagine if anyone here knows a different answer than his would be able to say so, but from the sounds of it the *official* take on this is that we do not test our own secret projects on our own military without their knowing so. Officially at least.
First, realistic training should simulate the fog of war and the element of surprise, so everyone isn't told everything.

Second, mishaps happen, like the two Army Black Hawks that collided in Kentucky.
 
Fravor was asked if he's aware of any instances where experimental aircraft are used or tested against/around our own armed forces without notifying said forces first (I'm paraphrasing the question from memory here).

His answer was "no, we have testing facilities for that." I can't imagine if anyone here knows a different answer than his would be able to say so, but from the sounds of it the *official* take on this is that we do not test our own secret projects on our own military without their knowing so. Officially at least.

The biggest problem with the whole 'testing advanced tech' idea is that the Nimitz event was 2004, and 19 years later there is absolutely zero indication of such tech being part of military stock or being used anywhere. And given the claims that UFOs have been performing such stunts for 80 years or so...it would be absurd that such craft, if man made, never got used in the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, Afghanistan, etc, etc.
 
The biggest problem with the whole 'testing advanced tech' idea is that the Nimitz event was 2004, and 19 years later there is absolutely zero indication of such tech being part of military stock or being used anywhere. And given the claims that UFOs have been performing such stunts for 80 years or so...it would be absurd that such craft, if man made, never got used in the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, Afghanistan, etc, etc.

It's worth keeping in mind that inevitably not all experimental technology will end up panning out. Some stuff will end up getting dropped for budget reasons, or because performance doesn't meet expectations, or a whole range of other factors. It might be a bit hasty to assume that because we don't see any such craft being used anywhere today that it couldn't have been experimental technology that eventually got dropped for some reason.

I'd also be curious to know the ratio of current day "tic tac" sightings compared to "metallic sphere" sightings. For all we know the shape of such tech went through several transition phases and what started as tic tac shaped vehicles are the technological ancestors of today's metallic spheres.
 
I wondered about that very thing. Psyops by using various individuals to propagate misinformation. From an evidence standpoint though, that one is hard to pin down unless we do become aware of their official psyops.

At some point one has to ask the question....why do Grusch's alleged ' 40 people ' think they have first hand evidence of UFO crash retrievals and even alien bodies. That's a lot of people, and some pretty crazy allegations.

I think we can pretty much rule out that the 40 people simply don't exist. Grusch is under oath, and if there were no 40 people that would soon become apparent and Grusch would face consequences.

Personally I think we can also rule out that Grusch has simply mis-interpreted what people told him. Maybe with one or two leads that might be possible....but 40 people all saying much the same thing ? Personally I think there has to be some fire to all this smoke.

One could argue that there are 40 'true believers' who have simply mis-interpreted material they have seen. But heck....there's a LOT of mis-interpreting needed to arrive at supposed documentary evidence and photos and 'biological samples' of non-human visitation. More so than I find plausible.

That does leave only one option left, if we rule out actual aliens. A deliberate psyop.

That's my take on it...which is probably complete nonsense, but anyone else is welcome to have a go and come up with a better explanation.

( EDIT : Incidentally...the reason for the psyop would be a quite simple ' don't mess with us, we have hidden advanced technology' )
 
Last edited:
It might be a bit hasty to assume that because we don't see any such craft being used anywhere today that it couldn't have been experimental technology that eventually got dropped for some reason.

But why would we drop something that ( allegedly ) can run rings around the best fighter jets on the planet ? Maybe cost, but then if Fravour is reporting accurately a single one of those craft could take on the entire Russian or Chinese air force....so it would have to be mind bogglingly expensive. But then, most of the cost of any product is R&D, and if we have produced one then it should cost less to produce another one...and so on.
 
At some point one has to ask the question....why do Grusch's alleged ' 40 people ' think they have first hand evidence of UFO crash retrievals and even alien bodies. That's a lot of people, and some pretty crazy allegations.

I think we can pretty much rule out that the 40 people simply don't exist. Grusch is under oath, and if there were no 40 people that would soon become apparent and Grusch would face consequences.

Personally I think we can also rule out that Grusch has simply mis-interpreted what people told him. Maybe with one or two leads that might be possible....but 40 people all saying much the same thing ? Personally I think there has to be some fire to all this smoke.

One could argue that there are 40 'true believers' who have simply mis-interpreted material they have seen. But heck....there's a LOT of mis-interpreting needed to arrive at supposed documentary evidence and photos and 'biological samples' of non-human visitation. More so than I find plausible.

That does leave only one option left, if we rule out actual aliens. A deliberate psyop.

That's my take on it...which is probably complete nonsense, but anyone else is welcome to have a go and come up with a better explanation.

I don't think this is complete nonsense. It's just one view that fits some of the data pretty well but isn't as strong at explaining other parts of the picture. I think that's generally true for most of the proposed explanations of what's going on with Grusch. They're good at explaining some things and weaker at explaining other things.

I will say, we don't know that 40 people are all telling him the same thing. We only know that he has claimed he's talked to at least 40 people who in some way, shape, or form helped him come to his conclusions. But that doesn't mean they've all told him the same things. It's just as likely that each of them has told him some piece of information that he then stitched together with other bits of information from other people to then form a big picture narrative of what's going on.

Leslie Kean has mentioned that based on who she's talked to, she's gotten conflicting information about whether or not the US has successfully reversed engineered any of the alleged crashed UFOs. She's heard that we've had some success from some, while has heard that we've been unsuccessful from others.

The thing they agree on is that crashed vehicles exist, but they differ in whether or not we've successfully been able to do anything with them.

In a case like that, it's inaccurate to say all of her sources have told her the same things. They haven't. All of her sources have told her slightly different bits of information that she then must weave together into a bigger picture narrative.

Very likely to be the same with Grusch. Since we don't know who they are or what they've told him, it's inaccurate to say they've all told him the same things. All we know is that according to him, those 40 people have at least told him certain things that are consistent with the big picture story he's telling us.
 
But why would we drop something that ( allegedly ) can run rings around the best fighter jets on the planet ? Maybe cost, but then if Fravour is reporting accurately a single one of those craft could take on the entire Russian or Chinese air force....so it would have to be mind bogglingly expensive. But then, most of the cost of any product is R&D, and if we have produced one then it should cost less to produce another one...and so on.

Tbh I have a hard time believing we have anything that can do those kinds of things. It's not just the technological marvels they're able to do, it's that to perform those feats you need more than just super sophisticated engineering, you need a different understanding of Physics altogether. And it's just a bit too much for me to believe that a new paradigm of physics has been discovered by people outside of the peer review process of the general physics community. A discovery that has itself been kept secret from all of the top physicists on the world. It would mean the US knowing some new key insight into physics that would radically change the current paradigm and yet keeps that discovery secret and allows the rest of the physics community to toil away fruitlessly.

But assuming such a craft exists, which conflicts since 2003 would the US have had reason to bring such a ship out for? The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and then conflicts with Isis haven't been characterized by a struggle for air superiority in any way. Maybe we haven't seen it because to this date there's been no conflict where the opposing force has an air force formidable enough to justify bringing something like this out.
 
At some point one has to ask the question....why do Grusch's alleged ' 40 people ' think ...

One could argue that there are 40 'true believers' who have simply mis-interpreted material they have seen. But heck....there's a LOT of mis-interpreting needed to arrive at supposed documentary evidence and photos and 'biological samples' of non-human visitation. More so than I find plausible.
A possibility here is that Grusch is simply acting as a biased synthesizer of different sources of possibly contradictory rumors/claims and that the idea that there is a secret program with recovered NHI comes from him and not any one source.

Analogy: Agent Mulder thinks there is a lizard man stealing eggs from a village. This is a pre existing belief. He interviews 50 people in the village. 10 of the people saw claw marks on a chicken coop. 15 other people had missing eggs. One person saw a strange furry animal. Another person saw an animal with scales. 25 people saw nothing at all but heard rumors that an egg stealer was going around. Mulder's conclusion: lizard man, and here are the 50 witnessess!
 
Tbh I have a hard time believing we have anything that can do those kinds of things

But we don't need real stuff that can do those things. We only need the enemy to think we might have such stuff....reverse engineered from aliens/future time travelers....take your pick. And ironically, if the enemy has as many true believers as our governments seem to have, that is also all we need for the deception to work. Wasn't there a documentary...Mirage Men or something...in which a former DOD intelligence official openly 'admitted' that UFOs have been 'used' for psyops ? Of course, that admission may itself be a psyop. That's the problem with the shady intelligence world that the likes of Lue Elizondo live in. Would the real person who is telling the truth please stand up.
 
But assuming such a craft exists, which conflicts since 2003 would the US have had reason to bring such a ship out for?

That does raise the interesting issue of why the new narrative is that UFOs....sorry, UAPs....have only existed since 2003.
 
Tbh I have a hard time believing we have anything that can do those kinds of things. It's not just the technological marvels they're able to do, it's that to perform those feats you need more than just super sophisticated engineering, you need a different understanding of Physics altogether. And it's just a bit too much for me to believe that a new paradigm of physics has been discovered by people outside of the peer review process of the general physics community. A discovery that has itself been kept secret from all of the top physicists on the world. It would mean the US knowing some new key insight into physics that would radically change the current paradigm and yet keeps that discovery secret and allows the rest of the physics community to toil away fruitlessly.

But assuming such a craft exists, which conflicts since 2003 would the US have had reason to bring such a ship out for? The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and then conflicts with Isis haven't been characterized by a struggle for air superiority in any way. Maybe we haven't seen it because to this date there's been no conflict where the opposing force has an air force formidable enough to justify bringing something like this out.
I think the argument can be made the US has not faced a peer/near peer enemy in the air since at least the Korean War. Some would argue even WW2.
 
That does raise the interesting issue of why the new narrative is that UFOs....sorry, UAPs....have only existed since 2003.

That's not a narrative I'm aware of. I only mentioned conflicts since 2003 since the question I was responding to was why haven't we seen any such aircraft deployed in any conflict since the Nimitz incident.
 
Back
Top