'Non-human Biologics' in space craft

[Z.W. Wolf]

To answer the OP as directly as possible, Google Bard says:

There is no definitive answer to this question, as the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged retrieving and studying a crashed Soviet spacecraft. However, there are a number of reports and rumors that suggest that this may have happened on at least a few occasions.
One of the most famous cases is the so-called "Roswell incident," which occurred in July 1947. A rancher in Roswell, New Mexico, reported finding the wreckage of a "flying disc" on his property. The U.S. military initially claimed that the object was a weather balloon, but later changed their story and said that it was a crashed high-altitude surveillance balloon. However, many people believe that the object was actually a Soviet spacecraft, and that the government covered up its true nature.
There have been other reports of crashed Soviet spacecraft being retrieved by the U.S. government. In 1966, a U.S. Air Force pilot reported seeing a "bright object" crash in the Nevada desert. The pilot was ordered to keep silent about what he had seen, and the government denied that any object had crashed. However, there are claims that the object was a Soviet spacecraft, and that it was retrieved by the military.
In 1976, a group of hikers in Utah reported finding the remains of a crashed spacecraft. The hikers said that the object was made of a strange metal that they had never seen before. The government investigated the site, but they never released any information about what they found.
These are just a few of the many reports and rumors that suggest that the U.S. government may have retrieved and studied crashed Soviet spacecraft. However, there is no concrete evidence to support these claims. The government has never officially acknowledged any such incidents, and the evidence that does exist is often circumstantial or inconclusive.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not the U.S. government has retrieved and studied crashed Soviet spacecraft is one that may never be definitively answered. However, the rumors and reports that persist suggest that it is a possibility that should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[deirdre]

ZW was referring to his own guess. You are referring to other people's posts.

he was? he thinks his own guess is inane? huh.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

that whole first paragraph is bizarre. perhaps stop using Google Bard?

It's bizarre. Does that prove that Grusch doesn't define it that way? Let's find the truth about what he actually says and thinks.

 

[Mendel]

There were many flights (more here: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/brief-history-animal-death-space), some we probably don't know about that had 'non-human biologics' on board.

The first journey, in 1947, was actually a success: Fruit flies carried aboard a V-2 rocket were recovered alive.

Soviet Zond 6 probe (November 1968): The biological payload of flies, bacteria and turtles successfully flew around the moon, but a lost gasket on the return resulted in a loss of cabin pressure and the death of all of the biological specimens.

Space shuttle Columbia (2003): The shuttle broke up on reentry on February 1, tragically killing all seven members of the human crew. Also on board were silkworms, spiders, bees, ants and fish, many of which were part of studies looking at how gene expression changes in space. The only survivors were microscopic Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms.

Fobos-Grunt mission (November 2011): The Russian spacecraft was supposed to carry tardigrades — tiny animals able to survive extreme conditions — to Mars but failed to make it out of Earth’s orbit. The craft fell back to the surface in December 2012. There was no word on whether the invertebrates survived the trip.

Content from External Source

(emphasis mine, excerpted)

There are many examples where non-human biologics were retrieved; in the case of the roundworms aboard Columbia, you could even say that NASA retrieved live non-human organisms from a crashed space craft, right? What you can't say is that it's any business of UAPTF.

 

[deirdre]

Does that prove that Grusch doesn't define it that way?

youre asking me to prove a negative. that's a ton of work. id have to quote everything he ever said anywhere on the subject.

easier for you to just quote him directly.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

on youtube you can click the three little dots under a video and see a transcript, then can use "find on page" to get certain words or phrases.

I took this testimony to mean they could be reptiles from the center of the earth, fairies, creatures from other dimensions (like still earth but earth in a different dimension, etc)

40:50
um Mr grush why is it that you refer to the phenomenon as non-human intelligence why
40:56
deviate from the basis of extraterrestrial life

I think the phenomenon is uh very
41:04
complex and I like to leave an open mind analytically to specific origin

when you say specific origin are you
41:12
referring can you elaborate on that for those that might if it's a traditional extraterrestrial origin or something
41:18
else that we don't quite understand

uh from either biological or
41:23
astrophysics perspective you know I just like the keep an open mind on what it could be

Content from External Source

Source: https://youtu.be/SYS5SAYM2CE?t=2449

This fits with the Interdimensional Being Hypothesis, which has been the idea held by the Invisible College since Vallee and Hynek got their heads together and sorted things out circa 1970. The idea is that UFO events are somehow tied to the actions of what have been called throughout history fairies, gnomes, leprechauns, poltergeists, spirits, gods... Vallee and Hynek were uncertain whether what we call UFO events are merely side effects caused by these entities going about their business doing... something. Or whether they are deliberate deceptions. So why would these spirits deceive us? For the fun of it? To teach us something? It's all very intriguing to the people who take this idea seriously.

What UFOs are not, according to this idea, are spacecraft built by biological Aliens from another planet who are a species that evolved through natural processes.

 

[deirdre]

So why would these spirits deceive us? For the fun of it?

have you ever met a fairy, leprechaun, poltergeist, god? of course they are doing it for the fun of it.

But i dont think we need yet another segue off the thread topic, to discuss the psychological makeup of fairies and poltergeists.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The OP is rather vague, so a drift from the thread subject can't be well defined in the first place. It seems to cover a range of issues, and those issues have been discussed.

This is how I summarize this thread:

The OP seems to be asking if there is any evidence that any US government agency ever recovered the remains of Soviet spacecraft with the remains of test animals.

​

Does anyone know of any images of the crash retrieval of these craft?

The implicit, but not stated reason for this line of inquiry seems to be: Could the stories of Alien pilots, or biological robots, having been recovered and studied by an agency of the US government have their ultimate source with this program of study?

An initial response, not to the main subject but to the implicit question, was that no expert could mistake even partial remains of a monkey or dog as an Alien.

My response was that this was not an adequate answer to dismiss the implicit question. A more likely scenario would be that the stories could have become distorted over time. In other words, a program to study test animals spawned rumors about a program to study Space Aliens.

Further, I think the distorted story based on fact scenario is not necessary or likely. It's more likely that the stories that have been passed around by UFOlogists over the decades are a species of urban legend based on nothing real.

Folklorists have studied urban legends for decades, both categorizing them and studying where they come from. Finding an original factual source of urban legends has proved elusive. If a source is found it leads back to an older folk story, a joke, a published work of fiction, etc. Usually no source is found at all. Urban legends most likely start as simple made up stories and grow with the telling.

These stories about the government studying crashed saucers but keeping it a secret have many hallmarks of the urban legend:

They are often told as if they are true, even though there is no evidence to support them.
Direct sources are elusive. The source is a friend of a friend (FOAF).
They often have a moral or cautionary message.
A common theme is that we've been deceived and revolutionary knowledge is being withheld. (200 mile per gallon carburetor/free energy.)
They are often told in a way that is designed to make them seem believable.
They can be very persistent, and can continue to be told even after it has been proven that they are false.

The best source I have for this stuff: Books by Jan Harold Brunvand. The Vanishing Hitchhiker, The Mexican Pet, The Choking Doberman, etc.


Lastly, the answer to the more explicit OP question is: There's no evidence I can find that an agency of the US government has ever retrieved or studied the remains of Soviet test animals found in the remains of a crashed Soviet spacecraft. If anyone can do better, please tell us.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

have you ever met a fairy, leprechaun, poltergeist, god? of course they are doing it for the fun of it.

But i dont think we need yet another segue off the thread topic, to discuss the psychological makeup of fairies and poltergeists.

Is this thread drift? One of the issues seems to be where Grusch got his ideas. Grusch seems to be associated with people who hold the Interdimensional Being Hypothesis. At least that's where things seem to be pointing. I don't think we need to point to any real government agency or activity of such to explain where he got his ideas. It's more likely that his ideas are not original to him nor based on fact. I think it's probably just folklore he has absorbed.

This could go some way to explain his characteristic vagueness. He, and others, are aware that the idea seems too wacky on the face of it, so they have to ease into it gradually. That can be done when trying to persuade an individual. It gets really tricky when trying to persuade the general public.

 

[John J.]

is that a humorous way of pointing out how ridiculously* off -topic this thread became overnight?

Not really, bemused at the Vostok 1 error though. Bit like saying the 1903 Wright Flyer was famously flown by a stray mongrel.

The word "biologic" used as a noun does not even mean what it is implied to mean by Grusch

Is it a self-coined neologism, something he uses to avoid saying the real words for some reason?

I think jarlmai is absolutely correct.
"Biologic" is used by Grusch as a new piece of jargon. I haven't watched the hearings in detail, did anyone question the origins or use of this word? I wonder if it is a term used by Grusch's claimed informants- which would imply a group using their own terms, perhaps reflecting their own in-group beliefs. It might be illuminating to know where he got the word from.

Like "EBE" (Extraterrestrial Biological Entity) and "Exo-Biospheric Organisms" (discussed on this forum,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bi...n-bodies-ebos-exo-biospheric-organisms.13031/)
the term "biologic" sounds "sciencey". As jarlmai points out, "biologic" already has a meaning in biology, unconnected with aliens.

I suppose "biologic" or EBE is felt to be more useful than "LGM" (little green men- also famously used for the first detected pulsar, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1919%2B21) or "BEM" (bug-eyed monster), both terms used by science fiction critics/ historians, or "ET"/"ETI", the latter a perfectly useful term IMHO but perhaps Grusch et al. feel it's too evocative of Spielberg's lovable space Gandhi.

There are other uses of in-group jargon amongst UFO enthusiasts (and other believers in paranormal phenomena).
The use of "orb", often used by "believers" describing the (2D) effects on a camera image of dust etc. reflecting a light source, or sometimes any unidentified point light source. How often do we use "orb" in normal discourse? The last time I heard "orb" mentioned outside of a paranormal context was probably during coverage of the late Queen Elizabeth's funeral, when a ceremonial orb was placed on her coffin.

"Portals" are always to another dimension, some distant location in spacetime, or Hell. Why not "door" or "entrance"?
Because "portal" sounds more imposing, I guess- and (like "orb") it now carries associations with all the previous claims using that term.

I'm absolutely certain that IF done in good faith, it's almost impossible for fallen space monkeys / space rats / space dogs etc to be misidentified as aliens.

Agreed. And if a team are retrieving animal remains from a site, I can't think of any good reason to lie to them about the type of creature involved, even if the retrievers don't get told the full reason for them being there.

Having said that, there are plenty of examples of people misidentifying partially decomposed/ predated remains of creatures and jumping to fantastic conclusions, but they're not people who have been tasked to retrieve specific remains.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

BTW, I've removed adjectives from 2 of my posts because I recognize that they add nothing.

 

[PublicStranger]

true... BUT are you suggesting that he's playing some kind of game where he says something literally true but misleading just to punk congress? usually in popular media it's something the devil does.

I mean, if we want to play this game we don't even need to go as far as retrieving Soviet space monkeys

whenever a military guy picks up a piece of garbage that is hard to identify that fell off of a truck, he or she is technically working in a UAP crash retrieval program with non-human biologics. you throw any random piece of trash out the window of a car, it'd probably fly for 1-2 seconds before crashing to earth... technically it's flying and crashing

and and if you can't identify the trash 100%... it's literally a UAP

if the trash looks like it's made in a factory, but you can't identify it, it's a UAP of technological origin.

and everything on earth have microbes on them... it's got biologics.

so literally everything in a land fill is a crash UAP of technological origin with non-human biologics.

but the to suggest that David Grusch is playing this kind of game rather far fetched to the point of absurdity, why would anyone want to do that?

I doubt anybody believes this but he may not be 100% certain of the claims he is testifying to under oath so by using obscure or cryptic statements he has an insurance policy just incase what he has been told have been complete fabrications.

 

[deirdre]

. I haven't watched the hearings in detail, did anyone question the origins or use of this word?

i'm not sure why they would. who cares? (besides the ufo resistance). They asked what he meant by that, why he wont say extraterrestrial. The word is fine, imo. I know what he means.

 

[John J.]

To answer the OP as directly as possible, Google Bard says:

Google Bard can't be relied on for definitive answers, Z.W. Wolf.

From Google Bard response to
"Why is John J. wrong to rely on Google Bard while attempting to find information in order to de-bunk extraordinary claims?"

John J. would be wrong to rely on Google Bard while attempting to find information in order to debunk extraordinary claims because Google Bard is still under development and has been known to make mistakes, including providing factually inaccurate information. For example, in a recent demo, Google Bard incorrectly stated that the James Webb Space Telescope was used to take the first pictures of an exoplanet. This mistake caused the company's market capitalization to drop by $100 billion.

In addition, Google Bard is trained on a massive dataset of text and code, which includes both accurate and inaccurate information. This means that it is possible for Google Bard to provide inaccurate information, even if it is asked a question that is factual in nature.

Therefore, if John J. is looking for accurate information to debunk extraordinary claims, he should not rely solely on Google Bard. He should instead consult a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed journals, news articles from reputable sources, and government websites.

Here are some additional tips for John J. when evaluating information from Google Bard:

• Be aware of the limitations of large language models.
• Check the source of the information.
• Be critical of the information and consider the context in which it is presented.
• Consult other sources to verify the information.

By following these tips, John J. can be more confident that the information he is using to debunk extraordinary claims is accurate.

Content from External Source

It's probable Bard has already provided inaccurate info on this forum (I think),

Next level - V2

Damage to V2 can cause a variety of visual impairments, including visual agnosia, achromatopsia, and visual neglect.

Content from External Source

(Google Bard response)

I'm perhaps 20 years out of date, but not at all sure about this. Pretty sure V2 not implicated in hemi neglect (us. from distributed parietal lobe damage, maybe frontal involvement); visual agnosias from damage to ventral/ posterior temporal lobe (and fusiform gyrus in prosopagnosia), cerebral achromatopsia V4 / V5? Can Bard provide references?

Not sure where I got my info from, possibly McCarthy, Warrington, Cognitive Neuropsychology: A Clinical Introduction

 

[Amathia]

true... BUT are you suggesting that he's playing some kind of game where he says something literally true but misleading just to punk congress? usually in popular media it's something the devil does.

I

This isn't as far fetched as you might think. We have no idea what the motivation for doing that might be, but when you pay attention to exactly how Grusch answered all of the questions asked of him under oath, a very obvious pattern emerges.

In fact, the Behavior Pattern all came to the same conclusion in their episode on the hearings. And just to preempt the obvious criticism of citing them, you do not have to believe body language analysis is a real science in order to take their analysis here seriously. You can safely ignore everything they say about body language in this episode and simply focus on their analysis of the differences between the kind of language Grusch uses in his responses compared to Graves and Fravor. He absolutely does engage in double speak and misdirection in his answers, and when you take a step back you realize Grusch uses a lot of words and yet ends up saying nothing at all. Why he might be doing this is anyone's guess, but there is absolutely something strange going on with him.


Source: https://youtu.be/kGvt0FUn1ag?si=aSmB8MkHBRu1ggTn

 

[John J.]

They asked what he meant by that, why he wont say extraterrestrial. The word is fine, imo. I know what he means.

That's kind of what I was asking- thank you.
I wish someone had asked Grusch who came up with the term "biologic", though.

If it's just G. mangling language, that's OK but not interesting.
If it's from G.'s alleged informants, it indicates that a group are using their own "private" jargon, including the misuse or repurposing of an existing scientific term, "biologic".
Indicating, in this instance, a probability that G's informants have not been in direct contact with professionals who might hypothetically have examined such remains, who, because of their background, are unlikely to have used "biologic" in this way.

 

[deirdre]

If it's from G.'s alleged informants, it indicates that a group are using their own "private" jargon, including the misuse or repurposing of an existing scientific term, "biologic".
Indicating, in this instance, a probability that G's informants have not been in direct contact with professionals who might hypothetically have examined such remains, who, because of their background, are unlikely to have used "biologic" in this way.

i dont know, that sounds like a stretch. if a scientist told me he found a biological specimen in a space ship, i likely wouldnt want to use "biological specimen" either when talking to my friends because it sounds too "Earthy"

i dont think there is anything wrong with groups using their own jargon. look at "zhe" and "xhe". if the younger generations are ok with those words - and know how to pronounce them : ) - more power to ya.


add: or maybe biological is one of those words he constantly mispells, like me with misspell and weopan. it's easier to just say gun or knife etc, then to look up the spelling everytime i write it.

 

[PublicStranger]

I think we are also forgetting that Grusch by his own admission has some form of 'Autism spectrum disorder'. Having worked with adults on the autism spectrum back when I used to volunteer as a mentor I can tell you from personal experience they have extreme logic oriented reasoning and this translates into speech and language. I highly doubt Grusch is performing some kind of mental gymnastics when he is making these statements, it's highly likely he believes what he is being told.

In this context the fact he uses the term 'non-human' instead of 'extra-terrestrial' may be highly telling. Perhaps he is unconvinced that they are actual aliens.

 

[jarlrmai]

i dont know, that sounds like a stretch. if a scientist told me he found a biological specimen in a space ship, i likely wouldnt want to use "biological specimen" either when talking to my friends because it sounds too "Earthy"

i dont think there is anything wrong with groups using their own jargon. look at "zhe" and "xhe". if the younger generations are ok with those words - and know how to pronounce them : ) - more power to ya.


add: or maybe biological is one of those words he constantly mispells, like me with misspell and weopan. it's easier to just say gun or knife etc, then to look up the spelling everytime i write it.

The time to be very clear and explicit and double check word usage is when you are relaying potentially the most important thing to occur in all of human history to Congress.

Also Ross Coulthard should be checking and clarifying any jargon usage to ensure the story he is relaying is unambiguous and understood by the audience.

The things you say are if course common in regular conversation, but they are not really acceptable in this level of discourse.

 

[deirdre]

but they are not really acceptable in this level of discourse.

you think Congress is made up of a bunch of rocket scientists?

Don't get me wrong i think his refusal to say extraterrestrial is silly. because really the only thing besides extraterrestrial is lizrd people. and why wouldnt lizard people just use the same looking planes we use?

Plus if it arrived IN A SPACE SHIP, it's extraterrestrial because even time traveling humans would know what NOT to drive since they know our history.

 

[Agent K]

You can safely ignore everything they say about body language in this episode and simply focus on their analysis of the differences between the kind of language Grusch uses in his responses compared to Graves and Fravor. He absolutely does engage in double speak and misdirection in his answers, and when you take a step back you realize Grusch uses a lot of words and yet ends up saying nothing at all. Why he might be doing this is anyone's guess, but there is absolutely something strange going on with him.

Grusch was the only one of the three whose testimony was constrained by DOPSR. Jeremy Corbell said that Grusch's legal counsel was sitting behind him and telling him not to answer some questions.

 

[jarlrmai]

you think Congress is made up of a bunch of rocket scientists?

Don't get me wrong i think his refusal to say extraterrestrial is silly. because really the only thing besides extraterrestrial is lizrd people. and why wouldnt lizard people just use the same looking planes we use?

Plus if it arrived IN A SPACE SHIP, it's extraterrestrial because even time traveling humans would know what NOT to drive since they know our history.

No I do not. Which is precisely WHY the terms need to be clear and unambiguous.

 

[deirdre]

No I do not. Which is precisely WHY the terms need to be clear and unambiguous.

honest question..what word should he be using? biological specimen?

 

[jarlrmai]

honest question..what word should he be using? biological specimen?

Sure non-human biological specimen would be a good start, although it still leaves it open to meaning an animal or something. But it's better than Biologic which has a totally different meaning from pharmacology.

That's the point we don't really know because he is using words that are a bit ambiguous and have other meanings so really either he doesn't know and is just repeating the words he was told by someone else. Or something else.

What I do know is if I were Ross Coultard and Grusch had told me about "non-human biologics" I would be looking up the word biologic and then asking him for clarification on the use of that term.

 

[deirdre]

Sure non-human biological specimen would be a good start, although it still leaves it open to meaning an animal or something.

and there's the rub. so what term should he be using?

 

[Amathia]

Grusch was the only one of the three whose testimony was constrained by DOPSR. Jeremy Corbell said that Grusch's legal counsel was sitting behind him and telling him not to answer some questions.

It's not about what he refused to answer. It's about the way he deliberately chose to answer the questions he *was* allowed to answer.

By the end of the video the behavior panel isn't asking "why is this guy not answering these questions?", they conclude instead that Grusch's answers have all the hallmarks of a deliberate misinformation campaign. I think it's at least worth listening to their reasoning for that since even if can't figure out the motive or reason for such a campaign, such campaigns do display specific hallmarks and characteristics that are identifiable by those trained in what to look for (as at least two of the panelists are).

 

[Mendel]

By the end of the video the behavior panel isn't asking "why is this guy not answering these questions?", they conclude instead that Grusch's answers have all the hallmarks of a deliberate misinformation campaign. I think it's at least worth listening to their reasoning for that since even if can't figure out the motive or reason for such a campaign, such campaigns do display specific hallmarks and characteristics that are identifiable by those trained in what to look for (as at least two of the panelists are).

It would be great if you could transcribe some of the salient bits (or edit the auto-generated transcript)..

 

[Amathia]

It would be great if you could transcribe some of the salient bits (or edit the auto-generated transcript)..

Will do.

 

[Mendel]

The elephant in the room is that Grush uses non-human in two contexts only:
• non-human biologics
• non-human intelligence
He thereby establishes a contextual association such that people who hear his claims about "biologics" think they refer to specimen of intelligent beings, whereas Grusch has not made that claim directly. It also extends the meaning of "non-human" to "extraterrestrial", since we know no earthly non-human intelligence (angels notwithstanding).

So, suddenly Grusch's "non-human biologics" mean "samples of space people" in the minds of the listeners, because of liguistic tricks and not through anything Grusch has claimed explicitly. And the QAnon-trained public has learned to accept such vague associations as fact.

To me, "biologics" means "organic material", which means anything from tissue samples to organic molecules such as proteins. This definition would encompass a piece of paper, or the mold that grows on it. That's the broadest interpretation of Grusch's words, and I don't think he's claimed anything more specific.

And why would he, the word serves its purpose well.

 

[JMartJr]

If it's from G.'s alleged informants, it indicates that a group are using their own "private" jargon, including the misuse or repurposing of an existing scientific term, "biologic".

I wonder if it might indicate G's sources were trying to make their jobs sound more interesting, important and/or mysterious. If the phraseology is obfuscatory, it may have been what was handed to him rather than originating from him.

 

[Nemon]

the statement under oath was that he had seen an assessment from others that the crashed UAP had 'non-human biologics'.

If you look at the transcript, no compelling information is provided, and technically if it was animals, he is not lying.

The crucial point here is the truthfulness of the statement that he received these assessments from other people. Can‘t he use this trick to cite an almost endless number of lies and misconceptions, as long as they are not his own claims? And as long as he states that he found them credible within the scope of his expertise and investigations?
I don't find this situation 'under oath' impressive at all. Is it even more than an invalid argument of authority on the part of believers?

 

[FatPhil]

That's kind of what I was asking- thank you.
I wish someone had asked Grusch who came up with the term "biologic", though.

If it's just G. mangling language, that's OK but not interesting.

I think it is interesting, and it's not OK, as it has perverted the discourse. That's not a sensible way of pushing any discussion forward, but it is a way of pushing a narrative forward. It's evidence he's making small stuff up, so we would be obliged to then ask where he draws the limits on his making stuff up?

 

[ManInBlack]

Um, a bit off-topic on my part, but some of the details in the first post are incorrect.


Sputnik 2, November 1957, carried the dog Laika, the first animal to orbit Earth.

Vostok 1, 1961, was the first manned spaceflight, with Yuri Gagarin.


Vostok 2, 1961, was piloted by Gherman Titov. He didn't take any dogs with him.


Voskhod 2, 1965, was crewed by Pavel Belyayev and Alexei Leonov. Leonov performed the first spacewalk. Again, no dogs.

…lesson learnt double check the blogs

I’m sure there are plenty of examples though.

 

[deirdre]

So, suddenly Grusch's "non-human biologics" mean "samples of space people" in the minds of the listeners, because of liguistic tricks and not through anything Grusch has claimed explicitly. And the QAnon-trained public has learned to accept such vague associations as fact.

Do you have sources for these statements?

 

[Nemon]

Do you have sources for these statements?

What sort of sources could you be asking for here? This statement ist Mendel‘s personal assessment. And btw his QAnon assertion is obviously correct. There ist no need to call for a petty obligation to provide evidence in further detail. ‍

 

[jarlrmai]

and there's the rub. so what term should he be using?

Only he knows what he was told, use terms that mean something to people to describe those things. How can I know what terms he should use? He is the one with the information.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

The "Grusch talked to 40 witnesses" has always been a red flag to me. Witnesses of what? What did those people actually tell Grusch? Did all 40 people corroborate the story about crashed NHI ships and flesh samples from non-human (and implicitly also not some other known-terrestrial species) organisms? Or did some just corroborate the existence of a crash retrieval and reverse engineering program that could be just analyzing foreign craft, not NHI/ET/superhuman craft. Do any of them have firsthand knowledge of what form those bio samples took, what was in them, how they were determined to be non-human or not matching any known species? Was DNA sequencing done on them? How were they compared to other species' sequences? Like others have said, if you have a bunch of people repeating a claim but the underlying information all comes back to one person and evidence they evaluated but that has not been properly evaluated independently by others, it's not actually a well-corroborated analysis, it's just people taking the word of one person, who may be mistaken.

There's a lack of specifics around what the biologics were and how they were analyzed, and a lack of specifics around what part of the story that Grusch's witnesses actually back up firsthand. So to me it seems the door is still wide open for the possibility that 1 person told Grusch that they saw a document that said the samples weren't human, that person has no firsthand knowledge of the samples or what analysis was done on them, and that is the total extent of the evidence for there being NHI/ET bodies. As long as a scenario like that can't be ruled out, I don't know how they expect anyone to take these claims seriously. They must provide the details.

 

[Mendel]

What sort of sources could you be asking for here? This statement ist Mendel‘s personal assessment. And btw his QAnon assertion is obviously correct. There ist no need to call for a petty obligation to provide evidence in further detail. ‍

First, @deirdre asking me something is usually pointless, because she knows she's on my forum "ignore" list, and it's only due to replies like yours (and sometimes random chance) that I get to see what she wrote.

Secondly, I made two factual assertions:
a), "The elephant in the room is that Grush uses non-human in two contexts only: non-human biologics & non-human intelligence
b) So, suddenly Grusch's "non-human biologics" mean "samples of space people" in the minds of the listeners,

I feel that anyone who needs a source for Grusch using these terms hasn't been following along.

For people thinking that Grusch has evidence that the DoD has actual aliens somewhere, I could trawl reddit and collect a bunch of quotes, but I'd only do that (maybe) if someone was willing to commit to "nobody thinks that", and I could probably find some interview quotes (e.g. the one about pilots) where Grusch implies he himself thinks that, so...

the interesting bit to source would be my claim that a linguistic trick like putting two words in the same context to have them "rub off" on each other does work. I feel that's what most of advertising is based on, and it would in fact be interesting to see some science on that.

 

[deirdre]

What sort of sources could you be asking for here? This statement ist Mendel‘s personal assessment. And btw his QAnon assertion is obviously correct. There ist no need to call for a petty obligation to provide evidence in further detail. ‍

there is no need to say it. People have been believing in the UFO leaders long, long, long before Q-Anon came around. and to assume all Grusch believers are Q-Anon trained is ridiculous.

There is also no reason for Mendel to ask the guy in the other thread for a source backing up his assertion the gov has classified info on UFOs. ..What's good for the goose...

 

[deirdre]

First, @deirdre asking me something is usually pointless, because she knows she's on my forum "ignore" list, and it's only due to replies like yours (and sometimes random chance) that I get to see what she wrote.

then how did you rely to me on the last few threads? silly.