House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. Most of them misidentify what they see. Anything that's just lights can almost be dismissed out of hand. But when it comes to up close craft in plain sight with physical evidence, that is not easily explained.
I don't see why people dismiss such evidence. Several of my friends have seen UFOs, and some of them are in the unmistakable category. I believe them of course. We could convict for murder on less.
One more thing I will say about Grusch. Maintaining his level of clearance requires active monitoring, which means regular polygraph and investigations. This is not someone who just randomly starts telling false UFO stories.
Also, of the 40+ witnesses who have talked to the IG, some of them had polygraphs as well. They have seen significant evidence at this point. If there were nothing to it, the investigation would be shut down after 2 years. We may find out more from the reaction of the HOC after October 26, when they get in a SCIF to view some of the evidence from Grusch and many others.

It is useless, scientifically. Unless you believe we should not work scientifically of course. But, in my view, I don't believe until I see evidence, and somebody's fantastic story is surely not part of that. Everybody can say/claim anything they want, does not make it real.
 
I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. Most of them misidentify what they see. Anything that's just lights can almost be dismissed out of hand. But when it comes to up close craft in plain sight with physical evidence, that is not easily explained.
I don't see why people dismiss such evidence. Several of my friends have seen UFOs, and some of them are in the unmistakable category. I believe them of course. We could convict for murder on less.
One more thing I will say about Grusch. Maintaining his level of clearance requires active monitoring, which means regular polygraph and investigations. This is not someone who just randomly starts telling false UFO stories.
Also, of the 40+ witnesses who have talked to the IG, some of them had polygraphs as well. They have seen significant evidence at this point. If there were nothing to it, the investigation would be shut down after 2 years. We may find out more from the reaction of the HOC after October 26, when they get in a SCIF to view some of the evidence from Grusch and many others.

I don't think anyone would be convicted of murder from a witness claiming they saw a person kill another without any physical proof of the murder taking place or the victim even existing. There have been murder convictions without bodies (the Lynette Dawson case in Australia is a fairly recent example) but they generally have very strong circumstantial evidence of the victim being dead, and very definite proof of the victim actually existing in the first place.

A polygraph is A) not a scientifically sound instrument for finding out if people tell the truth and B) even if you accept the flimsy premise of it working as intended, how would that help when Grusch is just retelling things he's been told by others or things he believes to be true? The same goes for the other witnesses. If they believe they saw what they say they saw or are second hand sources themselves, a cleared polygraph essentially means nothing. I would also like to point out that no vetting processes for security clearance are perfect. There is historically no shortage of fabulists, liars, traitors and crooks in the intelligence community, though my guess would be that the vetting generally is better nowadays than in the 20th century. Then again, for certain activities and agencies the ability to be deceitful or committ unethical actions would seem to be one of the core competencies needed, but I do not think Grusch has been in that line of work. He might still be lying through his teeth, but I think that is unlikely. I think he believes most of what he says, he might fib a little here and there, (unwittingly) exaggerate the quality of the evidence he has provided, but essentially he is being honest.


A general question from someone not American: at this point, who has seen all the evidence Grusch claims to have provided? I think I've lost count of the different kind of IGs, committees, offices and hearings there has been and how they relate to one another.
 
I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. Most of them misidentify what they see. Anything that's just lights can almost be dismissed out of hand. But when it comes to up close craft in plain sight with physical evidence, that is not easily explained.
I don't see why people dismiss such evidence. Several of my friends have seen UFOs, and some of them are in the unmistakable category. I believe them of course. We could convict for murder on less.
One more thing I will say about Grusch. Maintaining his level of clearance requires active monitoring, which means regular polygraph and investigations. This is not someone who just randomly starts telling false UFO stories.
Also, of the 40+ witnesses who have talked to the IG, some of them had polygraphs as well. They have seen significant evidence at this point. If there were nothing to it, the investigation would be shut down after 2 years. We may find out more from the reaction of the HOC after October 26, when they get in a SCIF to view some of the evidence from Grusch and many others.
Some others touched on a few points but going to expand on it too;
The use of "active monitoring" alongside how you describe the rest leads me to believe you may not have a full understanding of how clearance review works. You're not assigned someone that follows you around and cross checks every piece of data about you. The accurate form of what you are talking about is called "Continuous Vetting", distinct from investigations, and they're largely initiated by automated systems that alert based off certain activity (like financial transaction behavior), not consistent monitoring of an individual (which enters investigation territory).

"40+ witnesses who have talked to the IG" is a bit of a grey area right now, according to ICIG, this has not happened. Not only has it not happened according to them, ICIG claimed no investigation of any sort was being made into that part of the claims. If that is accurate, any points as to why investigations haven't been "shut down" over possible falsities etc doesn't matter, as no investigation took place.

"This is not someone who just randomly starts telling false UFO stories". I really don't like this. We see this a lot and it's an, interesting one. I mention it a lot but, these are people just like us, they are given specific tools that are not end-alls, they don't become super-human robots. The idea that they become infallible to all these issues we all face is basically removing inherent human characteristics from them and framing them as inhuman, either positively or negatively. You can find plenty of people with more accolades than Grusch who've gone down the same path. There's people who did way more than him on way more sensitive matters, with much more restricted access and higher positioning, who go around now ranting about how half our government are secret Chinese plants and taking malign action against our own people based off this belief. This happens because they are human, as sad as the result may be contextually, but this line gets really annoying because it's just a constant re-framing of these people as being more-than-human.
 
I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. ...
I don't see why people dismiss such evidence.
Because we KNOW that such evidence can be mistaken. People make up stories sometimes. People hallucinate. People are fooled by a third-party hoaxer. People experience something that grows and morphs in memory. Testimony in those and similar cases is not useful. And there is no way to differentiate such people from a witness who is absolutely accurate, honest and correct in recalling and testifying to what they experienced.


We could convict for murder on less.
We'd convict for murder on less than the testimony of an eye-witness? Maybe, but to convict for murder, you'd like to be able to show the body, right? You want to be able to show the jury the weapon. And we'd overturn it if things like DNA evidence come to light, as happens reasonably frequently. For UFOs, the "DNA evidence" and the "smoking gun" remains missing after many years of looking for it.

A key difference between UFOs and murder cases is that we KNOW murderers are real, so we're not looking for evidence that murder exists. If we KNEW that UFOs existed and were, say, spaceships from other planets, eyewitness testimony to seeing yet another one would not have as much heavy lifting to do as it does when it is being used to try and establish that the phenomenon exists at all. If you say you saw an airplane fly over your house, since I know airplanes are real and fly over houses all the time, I'm more inclined to believe it. (But if it were critically important, I'd go over to flightradar24.com for more evidence.)

I'd love for there to be proof that "we are not alone" sometime before I die. But I want pretty solid proof, not just "somebody said."

That's my two cents, your mileage may vary, of course.
 
I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. Most of them misidentify what they see.
Agreed. For the most part, but personally I think the world of UFOlogy is so intent on proving aliens are real, they not only go along with a lot of well-meaning misidentifications, but they also fall prey to a complete cottage industry that ranges from outright hoaxes to overhyped stories and blob photos. UFOlogy in general would do well to be more skeptical and demand actual evidence before jumping on the next bandwagon of a supposed smoking gun case.

But when it comes to up close craft in plain sight with physical evidence, that is not easily explained.

What's to explain? As others have pointed out above, the only evidence for an "up close craft in plain sight" in the case of the Navy guy, is a 2nd hand anecdote from an anonymous source. There is no time, no location and as far as we know, no corroborating sightings of a ridiculously large UFO hovering over a road somewhere. It's just a story that, with the complete lack of details is impossible to even look into, let alone verify.

The claimed physical evidence is a photo of a car with damaged paint, which I will reiterate, is only proof of a car having damaged paint and maybe something about the headlights, but that is still unclear what Grusch is talking about. There is no real indication that Grusch ever saw the photo or where it is now if it still exisists. The idea that the photo, paint scrapings and a headlight are now in the possession of the IG or other government agency is pure speculation.

One cannot prove this story as is, just as I can't debunk it. It's just a vague anecdote and maybe a photo somewhere. Even the photo at this point is just a 2nd hand anecdote, as Grusch seems unwilling or unable to produce it.

I don't see why people dismiss such evidence.

I guess I come at it from the other side. I don't see why people accept such evidence, as there really isn't any. Show me a photo of a car with bad paint and we can at least discuss whether it was just old paint or had been blasted by a UFO. Give me a time and location for a 300' UFO hovering over the road and we can look into it.
 
I guess I come at it from the other side. I don't see why people accept such evidence, as there really isn't any. Show me a photo of a car with bad paint and we can at least discuss whether it was just old paint or had been blasted by a UFO. Give me a time and location for a 300' UFO hovering over the road and we can look into it.
They do because they extend trust to people who reinforce their beliefs.
(As all conmen know.)
 
Maintaining his level of clearance requires active monitoring, which means regular polygraph and investigations.
There are examples of traitors/ covert agents operating in nations on both sides of the Cold War despite their being "positively vetted" and psychologically profiled by the organisations that they infiltrated/ betrayed.
There are numerous examples of people knowingly defeating vetting measures. Polygraphs give false positives and false negatives, and can be deliberately subverted. At best they give an indication of physiological stress responses, which can occur in many people who are knowingly repeating a falsehood, but not in all. Some individuals show indications of physiological stress when asked questions even though their responses are truthful and accurate.

(I don't think any of this applies to David Grusch- I have no reason to believe that he did other than provide loyal service to the best of his abilities).

I don't know what sort of questions are asked during positive vetting for the US defence establishment, but I would be surprised if they asked about people's views on UFOs. Vetting tends to be more an assessment of general background and character and if the subject, or significant others in their life, has or had any connection with "problematic" groups- extremist political or religious factions; nationals or agencies of certain countries; certain types of criminals etc. etc.
The belief that some UFOs are craft piloted by aliens seems to be held by many in the USA, but (AFAIK) it doesn't strongly correlate with political or religious extremism, work reliability or personal loyalty.

I don't see why people dismiss such evidence. Several of my friends have seen UFOs, and some of them are in the unmistakable category. I believe them of course.
People's perceptions can be fallible. That is why sceptics are interested in having evidence in addition to testimony.
I have absolutely no doubt that some decent, broadly healthy and generally reliable people believe that they've see alien spacecraft at close quarters. I always found the account given by the late forestry worker Robert Taylor convincing: while at work alone, near Livingston, Scotland, he saw a UFO about 480 metres (530 yards) away, two smaller spheres somehow seized him and were dragging him towards the UFO when he blacked out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_incident

Taylor was generally accepted to be a reliable, no-nonsense sort of guy, and (I think) always came across as giving a detailed and consistent account of what he believed happened. Some of his account- and an earlier episode of acute illness- suggest that he might have had an isolated epileptic-type event.
This might seem a rather dramatic explanation for his experience, which would rarely apply to other witnesses, but we now know that some people relate experiencing "classic" OOBEs (out-of-body experiences) and NDEs (near-death experiences) when they are not acutely unwell. (The parapsychologist Susan Blackmore had an OOBE, but has gone from belief in psychic phenomena to scepticism), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore

I suspect similar transient anomalous cognition may, very rarely, account for some of the more detailed and close-up accounts of UFOs (which are often "high strangeness" events).
But while the claimant may be giving a totally honest report of what they witnessed, without additional evidence it is interesting but not proof. As evidence, it is in the same category as appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary (and visitations of religious figures to the devout of other faiths)- the account may be detailed and the witness a reliable person of great honesty, but generally I doubt that what they saw was objectively "there".
 
I guess what I'm saying is that I believe Grusch is honest and reliable due to his position, and even 2nd hand that his account of the UFO story he heard can be taken as fact. I don't however immediately believe it's a UFO, which here I will define as a non-human technology. As I said, if it's just lights in the sky, that is easily misidentified in many ways. That the story is of a huge craft, silent, hovering, and moving away instantly, in itself to me shows a non-human technology. As far as having a hallucination, the alleged paint and photos rule that out. It certainly would help to confirm if Grusch saw the photos. I would also have to know more about his ability to assess others. But so far, on the face of it this is high on reliability compared to a lot of claims.
Let me pose a question. If your own wife (or someone else you know, and know the reliability and mental fitness of), said they saw a large craft clear as day hovering over their car, would you believe them? If you dispute that, that's like saying no human originated story can ever be real if the story is about a UFO because UFO's can't be real. Even if several scientists said they investigated this, you are still relying on the word of the scientists. How does that get us ahead? In essence, science relies solely on the testimony of published articles. Only a select few ever get to see the materials of any science. Indeed, people do question science, as there are a lot of fake journals and experiments that can't be replicated, but essentially everything we know has to have some faith including whether your own internet is not being injected with fake websites.
So if you would take the word of a group of scientists that said UFOs were real, why wouldn't you accept the testimony of Grusch? I'm asking the people here to think through and define what evidence is to them and what is it about it's nature that convinces you that anything is true.
 
Let me pose a question. If your own wife (or someone else you know, and know the reliability and mental fitness of), said they saw a large craft clear as day hovering over their car, would you believe them?
If my wife said that, I'd pretend to believe her, I suppose. Peace at home my trump other considerations! :)

If you dispute that, that's like saying no human originated story can ever be real if the story is about a UFO because UFO's can't be real.
No, it is more like saying "No anecdotal story can be considered PROOF of extraordinary claims (or ordinary ones) in and of itself. Where is the supporting evidence? What does it show?"

As an example, look at the Navy UFOs -- let's look specifically at the Green Pyramids, just for variety (I'm getting tired of always going to Gimbal!:D )

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pyramid-clip-mp4.43919/

If we did not have the video itself, just the descriptions of it from people who believed it was something extraordinary, who believed that they had video of triangular glowing green craft, and if we believed them without being able to see the evidence, we'd come to the conclusion that some sort of very advanced technology had been flying around Navy ships off California, whether human or alien.

But if we consider those stories, and ALSO see and analyze the evidence (the thread on this case is HERE), we find out that the triangular shape is bokeh , produced in the camera, not a property of the objects. And that one of them has the recognition flashy-lights the FAA tells airplanes to display. And that others of them are stars -- identifiable down to the specific individual star.

In this case, testimony from witnesses was extremely misleading if the goal was to figure out what had actually been going on.

This absolutely does not mean that witness testimony is always wrong. Sometimes witnesses are pretty accurate. But not always, and in order to tell the accurate accounts from the inaccurate ones, actual supporting evidence is handy. (So, note to my dear wife, if she ever reads this -- if a huge UFO hovers over your car, try and grab a picture! ;))
 
So if you would take the word of a group of scientists that said UFOs were real, why wouldn't you accept the testimony of Grusch?

I would trust UFO's are real when science says they're real. Notice: science is a very different thing than scientists. Individual scientists, and groups of them, are fallible and make mistakes, while science is a self-correcting mechanism which progresses regardless of the errors of individual/groups of scientists.

UFOs start with so low a prior probability that I would not believe a scientist(s) saying they're real, even in a peer-reviewed journal (*), so go figure if I can believe Grusch!


I'm asking the people here to think through and define what evidence is to them and what is it about it's nature that convinces you that anything is true.
This is a very interesting argument, but long and totally off-topic. Maybe you could open a thread in Open Discussions or Rambles.




(*) with the same reasoning I didn't believe Benveniste when he published (in Nature, of all journals!) an article saying water has memory , nor I did believe the cold fusion claims of Fleischmann and Pons, just to make two examples of scientist(s) making big mistakes.
 
Let me pose a question. If your own wife (or someone else you know, and know the reliability and mental fitness of), said they saw a large craft clear as day hovering over their car, would you believe them?
Yes, I would believe Mrs Duke (or anyone else I know, and know the reliability and mental fitness of) believed she/they saw what she/they described. Most witnesses are honest, but often inaccurate. They believe what they think they saw and report what they believe.
 
I guess what I'm saying is that I believe Grusch is honest and reliable due to his position, and even 2nd hand that his account of the UFO story he heard can be taken as fact.
Even though you can't judge the credibility of the person who told the story to Grusch.

This is hearsay and would be inadmissible in any courtroom precisely because of the credibility issues.
 
Let me pose a question. If your own wife (or someone else you know, and know the reliability and mental fitness of), said they saw a large craft clear as day hovering over their car, would you believe them?
I would question it. Especially if they did not have a picture. They could have been mistaken by what they saw. If they had a picture and told me they took it and that is what they saw I would believe they didn't fake the picture. It would be evidence supporting alien craft are real. It would not be proof.
 
I guess what I'm saying is that I believe Grusch is honest and reliable due to his position, and even 2nd hand that his account of the UFO story he heard can be taken as fact.

This should probably be in a separate thread, but...,

Respectfully, I disagree. Even if you believe Grusch is honest and reliable, his 2nd hand anecdote is not fact. You may choose to believe it as recounted, but we don't even know what the witness actually said. All we have is what Grusch remembers being told by the witness and that's assuming Grusch is attempting to recount the story as accurately as possible. But it might be more complicated.

In Grusch's interview with Jesse Michaels (link below) they discuss the Arial School sighting in mid '90s Zimbabwe. Jesse states (30:59):

Jesse: Or take this incident in 1994. 62 elementary school kids at the Ariel International School in Zimbabwe said that they saw a silver craft descend from the sky and land on a field near their school.
Content from External Source
This is somewhat inaccurate as there were 62 pictures eventually drawn by various students, but only about 12-20 students were actually interviewed and reported seeing a UFO of some sort with some of those reporting some sort of man that could be construed as an alien.

Nevertheless, this is the standard Arial School sighting as it's known. Sixty something kids saw a UFO and some of those saw an alien/person/man in black suit.

But just 40 minutes later in the same interview, Grush states:

Yeah cuz if we look at like the Ariel School event, if we believe the hundred school children that saw bipedal hominid looking kind of NHI,
Content from External Source
Now 62 has gone to 100. At the very least he's exaggerating or worse just throwing out bigger numbers to make the story more dramatic. Note also, Jesse has 62 kids seeing a UFO, Grusch has 100 kids seeing an alien. And this is a story we can check out and see Grusch is misremembering or exaggerating, even from the not so accurate canonical version of the story preferred by UFOlogists.

Now we're to take as fact a 2nd hand anecdote from the same person? And we have no way corroborate any of it?

Note also, you're doing what we all do. You're filling in the story with parts that aren't part of the original:

That the story is of a huge craft, silent, hovering, and moving away instantly, in itself to me shows a non-human technology.

Look at the story. It simply says the UFO "hovered over the car for a couple minutes". There is no mention of it moving or moving away or moving instantly. You have inserted that into your version of the story. You likely found it implied, so you added it like we all do, but it's not in the original as presented in the video. It may be a small detail, but it's one we can check against the original and see it is added. Something we can't do with Grusch's retelling of an anonymous witness. That's why 2nd hand is not fact.

I remember interviewing a guy and I have a background in
psychological analysis and other stuff to assess people and for like three hours.
And it was a certain very senior Navy individual that said he was going to
work at a certain facility in the morning, you know, not drunk, not high.
And a 300 foot triangular craft hovered over his car
for a couple minutes.
And it like, he couldn't even process what he was seeing,
but then he took pictures of his car after the incident and all the Zenith
upper facing decks of his car were all got hit with ionizing radiation
ultraviolet. Cause the paint became milky. His headlights totally went,
they were totally clear. His car was perfect before the incident.
And I'm like, Holy crap. You have physical artifacts.
The guy we assessed, you know, he had a normal psychological composition, no weird belief system.
He's just a dude that was going to work at a Navy base. And you know,
he had a freaking huge craft, at least the physical proof he provided.
He drew what he saw, no sound, these weird omni-directional lights,
kind of that classic, you know, triangle-like, Holy shit.
I didn't believe in UFOs, but these guys are like,
they can't be lying to me. Cause they certainly, um, are credible guys that have a lot to lose.
He was super scared to come forward.
He didn't tell his wife for five years.
That was I think an inflection point for me where I'm like, okay,
there's something going on.
That's not adversarial tech talking to these people that were literally in
tears telling me this stuff.
Cause it was an emotional thing that they could not process analytically what
they were saying. It was like totally beyond their comprehension.
So for what it's worth, I've never seen anything believe or not. So I came in as non-believers.
And this is coming as somebody who's a bit of a skeptic
Content from External Source
(24:02)

Jesse Michaels video thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jesse-michels-youtube-documentary-on-david-grusch.13158/
 
Even if several scientists said they investigated this, you are still relying on the word of the scientists. How does that get us ahead? In essence, science relies solely on the testimony of published articles. Only a select few ever get to see the materials of any science.
You have a strange misunderstanding of the processes of science. Most scientific studies are not of single-occurrence events or uncorroborated witness accounts or one-pixel photographic "evidence", so it is unsurprising if those particular events are not as thoroughly studied as you might wish. If, as sometime happens, a person has possession of oh, say, three tiny mummies of unknown provenance and refuses to release them to anyone except the hand-picked scientists that are likely to believe in them, it's also not surprising that they don't show up in wider studies. But these are the exception rather than the rule.

Most significant findings of science are checked and rechecked by other scientists, samples are distributed to other labs and other universities, and a substantial effort is put into either replicating or disproving a novel finding or trying to find ways in which the original experiment could have been incorrect. Scientists don't go around saying "So and so published that so it must be true; case closed", and it's insulting of you to insinuate that.
 
Most significant findings of science are checked and rechecked by other scientists, samples are distributed to other labs and other universities, and a substantial effort is put into either replicating or disproving a novel finding or trying to find ways in which the original experiment could have been incorrect. Scientists don't go around saying "So and so published that so it must be true; case closed", and it's insulting of you to insinuate that.
Some scientific equipment (e.g. a large hadron collider) is rarely duplicated. Anthropologists working with a specific tribe wouldn't expect a different team to come in and replicate their observations.

The important part is the clear separation between facts/observations and interpretation. (I learned this in school in 6th grade.)

The data from the particle accelerator experiments is published so that the analysis (the opinion-finding) can be replicated. Observations of the tribe are related as the basis of analysis. Most studies I've read have a clear separation between the description of the data the study generated, and the discussion of the meaning of that data.

Scientific consensus is achieved by scientists reviewing the conclusions drawn from published data. This is not limited to the "select few" who publish articles, but extends to those who read (and cite) these articles.
 
The UFO community has had some spectacular failures assessing the honesty of people putting UFO claims forward. Bob Lazar comes to mind.
 
I would trust UFO's are real when science says they're real. Notice: science is a very different thing than scientists. Individual scientists, and groups of them, are fallible and make mistakes, while science is a self-correcting mechanism which progresses regardless of the errors of individual/groups of scientists.
I SO agree with this statement. Individual scientists make false and unverifiable claims ALL the time. Linus Pauling comes to mind concerning Vitamin C and Cancer. It's not about the one lone man with a claim. It's about their peers examining the claim and being able to replicate it, verify it and be able to make predictions based upon it.
 
I SO agree with this statement. Individual scientists make false and unverifiable claims ALL the time. Linus Pauling comes to mind concerning Vitamin C and Cancer. It's not about the one lone man with a claim. It's about their peers examining the claim and being able to replicate it, verify it and be able to make predictions based upon it.
They've even coined a phrase for the problem, "the Nobel disease". It refers to people who have been (rightly) lauded for one body of scientific work who then go on to embrace fringe concepts, perhaps overconfident in their own scientific acumen.
 
The UFO community has had some spectacular failures assessing the honesty of people putting UFO claims forward. Bob Lazar comes to mind.
Although, to be fair, that's not really evidence against the honesty of the next guy. If a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then, it should be possible for the UFO Community to someday find a non-nut.

(Assuming such exist.)

Edited for that last parenthetical qualifier.
 
Although, to be fair, that's not really evidence against the honesty of the next guy.
It says nothing about the honesty of the next guy.
But it suggests that it should require more than to think "he's honest" to trust in his testimony—because we won't be certain to spot it if he's not.
 

Source: https://twitter.com/ask_a_pol/status/1717658130610323545

"What it appears to be is somebody has discovered something—some advanced form of propulsion or technology—that may actually change all of our lives,"
@RepEricBurlison
told reporters upon leaving a classified UAP briefing this morning.

The briefing occurred starting 9am EST Oct 26, 2023 in a SCIF with representatives from DoD IG.

Where is that quote from? I read an article saying that they learned nothing new from the SCIF…
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5324.jpeg
    IMG_5324.jpeg
    186.3 KB · Views: 25
The way I read between the lines, and this is only my speculation, is that he was shown evidence of a craft moving in ways beyond normal propulsion, and it was his assessment that it must be experimental US technology.
In any case, the invention of propulsion that behaves the way UFOs are alleged to behave, would be groundbreaking for transportation, travel, and defense.
But, regardless of his assessment, we have to bear in mind that sightings of craft with such abilities has occurred for a long time, certainly before any human technology had that ability.
So, we are left with only more questions, except possibly this confirms that such propulsion is something that is real.
Also remember, alleged sightings have occurred in restricted airspace, so that even if it were human technology, the tests do not appear to be following the normal rules of testing or flight regulations.
 
Last edited:
The way I read between the lines, and this is only my speculation, is that he was shown evidence of a craft moving in ways beyond normal propulsion, and it was his assessment that it must be experimental US technology.
In any case, the invention of propulsion that behaves the way UFOs are alleged to behave, would be groundbreaking for transportation, travel, and defense.
But, regardless of his assessment, we have to bear in mind that sightings of craft with such abilities has occurred for a long time, certainly before any human technology had that ability.
So, we are left with only more questions, except possibly this confirms that such propulsion is something that is real.
Also remember, alleged sightings have occurred in restricted airspace, so that even if it were human technology, the tests do not appear to be following the normal rules of testing or flight regulations.
I have to wonder if he was "shown evidence of a craft", and think it a lot more likely that he was actually shown 2-D video of something that was unidentified. We have seen many, many videos of dots (or birds, or bugs) that are doing movements that would be highly improbable if they were large enough that one might refer to them as "a craft", but not at all unusual if they are bug-sized. The same is true if he saw video of an airplane radar screen, and there are many examples in Metabunk of people who see one thing but mistake it for something entirely different.
 
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
Grusch's claims were found to be "urgent and credible".
Source: Background Information on ICWPA Process info sheet.
Therefore, at least one primary witness must have testified to the IC IG.

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints
 
I have to wonder if he was "shown evidence of a craft", and think it a lot more likely that he was actually shown 2-D video of something that was unidentified. We have seen many, many videos of dots (or birds, or bugs) that are doing movements that would be highly improbable if they were large enough that one might refer to them as "a craft", but not at all unusual if they are bug-sized. The same is true if he saw video of an airplane radar screen, and there are many examples in Metabunk of people who see one thing but mistake it for something entirely different.
Yes I do agree with this. However, there is certainly better evidence available. In particular, satellite imagery via SENTIENT, sigint, and other platforms confirmed a Tic-Tac like object in this NRO report, which was then forwarded to AARO as being a possible UAP. So, upon first inspection by analysts, which was Grusch's job previously, and he also stated, under oath, that he had personally analyzed objects which "defied the laws of physics".
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...tem-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/
 
Yes I do agree with this. However, there is certainly better evidence available. In particular, satellite imagery via SENTIENT, sigint, and other platforms confirmed a Tic-Tac like object in this NRO report, which was then forwarded to AARO as being a possible UAP. So, upon first inspection by analysts, which was Grusch's job previously, and he also stated, under oath, that he had personally analyzed objects which "defied the laws of physics".
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...tem-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/
The "better evidence" is in the form of written discussion, carefully worded and heavily redacted. It says, in effect, that something unidentified was reported, and your link assumes a lot from that meager fact. At a quick scan I see no way that I (and the other Metabunk contributors) could possibly ascertain whether it is indeed better evidence. You state, I suppose as evidence, that Grusch vouched for it, but whether or not he can be trusted to give an accurate account is exactly the thing that we have been trying to determine.

One statement from your link stands out to me, but I think it is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, completely unwarranted:

But at least one of Sentient’s capabilities was revealed by a 2022 release of multiple documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): It can see and detect UFOs.
Content from External Source
 
The "better evidence" is in the form of written discussion, carefully worded and heavily redacted. It says, in effect, that something unidentified was reported, and your link assumes a lot from that meager fact. At a quick scan I see no way that I (and the other Metabunk contributors) could possibly ascertain whether it is indeed better evidence. You state, I suppose as evidence, that Grusch vouched for it, but whether or not he can be trusted to give an accurate account is exactly the thing that we have been trying to determine.

One statement from your link stands out to me, but I think it is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, completely unwarranted:

But at least one of Sentient’s capabilities was revealed by a 2022 release of multiple documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): It can see and detect UFOs.
Content from External Source
Also I didn’t see anything in the black vault article which referenced the FIOA documents saying that the “tic tac” object “defied the laws of physics”. All it mentioned was that it resembled the shape.
 
The "better evidence" is in the form of written discussion, carefully worded and heavily redacted. It says, in effect, that something unidentified was reported, and your link assumes a lot from that meager fact. At a quick scan I see no way that I (and the other Metabunk contributors) could possibly ascertain whether it is indeed better evidence. You state, I suppose as evidence, that Grusch vouched for it, but whether or not he can be trusted to give an accurate account is exactly the thing that we have been trying to determine.

One statement from your link stands out to me, but I think it is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, completely unwarranted:

But at least one of Sentient’s capabilities was revealed by a 2022 release of multiple documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): It can see and detect UFOs.
Content from External Source

The description of Sentient is a bit off based on the documents at: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...tem-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/
Sentient would appear to be an analysis and tasking tool, not a collection system.

Ingesting data from many sources it looks for objects of interest that match the specific search criteria it has been given. When it finds them it generates a report, in addition it seems to provide suggestions as to where collectors might look next to find more objects of interest of a similar nature. Handy.

The big problem with a system like this is that if you give it only a vague description of what to look for, like a "Tic-Tac", it is likely to find a whole lot of things that look like Tic-Tacs, everywhere it looks. If you ask it to find Chinese aircraft carriers well there are not that many things out there that are the size of and look like Chinese aircraft carriers. Automation can be a curse, a way to quickly and easily find LOTS more false positives.

The whole "Tic-Tac" issue is hampered by the vagueness of the description of the objects being seen and searched for.
 
Therefore, at least one primary witness must have testified to the IC IG.

His ICIG complaint is titled "Disclosure of Urgent Concern(s)Complaint of Reprisal" and the only investigation requested is for whistleblower reprisal. Presumably the first hand witness to Grush's alleged reprisals is himself.

David Grusch's ICIG Complaint

As noted in the ICIG complaint, he made an earlier DOD IG complaint in July 2021 about UAP-related urgent concerns. Have we ever heard what the DOD IG did with that complaint, was an investigation launched, what is the status of that?
 
I assume there was just the one SCIF meeting today but we've received three different comments from those who attended.

Burlison talked about advanced propulsion technology in Curious George's earlier post.

"What it appears to be is somebody has discovered something—some advanced form of propulsion or technology—that may actually change all of our lives,"
@RepEricBurlison
told reporters upon leaving a classified UAP briefing this morning.

Burchett indicated that they did talk to people but their information was very compartmentalized in a podcast. He also stated he believes secret UAP programs are run by defence contractors where they are free from FOI requests and congressional oversight.
That UFO Podcast on Youtube

Luna and Moskowitz said they didn't have high enough clearance to hear some of the answers on twitter.
Twitter

It would appear that the people who attended the meeting, most likely the DOD IG and IC IG with supporting staff, were unable to talk about every whistleblower allegation but the ones they could talk about didn't uncover anything about UAPs. Given Burchett wants to question defence contractors directly now, it suggests he sees no further value in talking with the inspector generals.
 
Back
Top