'Non-human Biologics' in space craft

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.

I feel 100% exactly the same, until we get to what it implies. To me it'd imply a jargon that they have, and if they have a jargon it means they are discussing it regularly enough to have a jargon.
 
It's not helpful that the congressional inquiry members failed to apply basic forensic questioning to G.'s use of "non-human biologics". Is it his own term and how does he define it? Is it a term in the documents he has seen and how do they define it?

A commonsense definition would include many things present on an entirely terrestrial vessel; the dogs and monkeys referred to previously, paper labels, wool, cotton or linen in restraints or insulation, rubber gaskets, phenolic resins, lubricants, the list of such N-HB materials present at launch can go on. Such a list would not need to include anything acquired during a catastrophic earth impact. The right question at the time would have been to ask if the term included or excluded such items.

I believe the implied meaning of N-HB (intentional or not) is also clear based on the assumptive direction so many have chosen to jump. The implication should have been cleared up on the spot; you guys should get yourselves better politicians (respectfully).
 
It's not helpful that the congressional inquiry members failed to apply basic forensic questioning to G.'s use of "non-human biologics". Is it his own term and how does he define it? Is it a term in the documents he has seen and how do they define it?

A commonsense definition would include many things present on an entirely terrestrial vessel; the dogs and monkeys referred to previously, paper labels, wool, cotton or linen in restraints or insulation, rubber gaskets, phenolic resins, lubricants, the list of such N-HB materials present at launch can go on. Such a list would not need to include anything acquired during a catastrophic earth impact. The right question at the time would have been to ask if the term included or excluded such items.

I believe the implied meaning of N-HB (intentional or not) is also clear based on the assumptive direction so many have chosen to jump. The implication should have been cleared up on the spot; you guys should get yourselves better politicians (respectfully).

Grusch was asked only a couple of questions about the bodies, like it was just an afterthought. I would've asked him to say everything he can about them-- are they dead or alive, do they have DNA-- and where he got that information-- firsthand, secondhand, photos, etc.
He wasn't asked what makes them exotic, and he wasn't even asked what makes the UAPs exotic, except on NewsNation, where he talked about exotic materials, but nobody follows up on the alien bodies.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger was told about non-human pilots by a source and decided not to write about it. He told Michael Shermer:
"There was one person who did describe the entities, the alleged non-human pilots, but I decided not to write about that because I just felt like you gotta draw the line somewhere. (laughs) The other people didn't know about that part."

Edit: Leslie Kean didn't report on it either in The Debrief. Grusch didn't mention it to her?
 
Last edited:
Grusch was asked only a couple of questions about the bodies, like it was just an afterthought. I would've asked him to say everything he can about them-- are they dead or alive, do they have DNA-- and where he got that information-- firsthand, secondhand, photos, etc.
He wasn't asked what makes them exotic, and he wasn't even asked what makes the UAPs exotic, except on NewsNation, where he talked about exotic materials, but nobody follows up on the alien bodies.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger was told about non-human pilots by a source and decided not to write about it. He told Michael Shermer:
"There was one person who did describe the entities, the alleged non-human pilots, but I decided not to write about that because I just felt like you gotta draw the line somewhere. (laughs) The other people didn't know about that part."

This is so ridiculous. If you genuinely think your source is credible then there is no line that needs to be drawn, you report on what your source tells you, no matter how extraordinary it may sound. If you think your source is credible enough to report on whatever they tell you about alleged crashed UAPs, then you have no principled reason to exclude what they also tell you about alleged non-human pilots in your reporting.

I'm also not convinced Shellenberger genuinely believes what he's been told or his own reporting. One quick look at his twitter account gives you a glimpse of the things he's currently thinking about or working on, and almost none of them seem to be follow-ups or related to his UAP reporting at all:

https://twitter.com/shellenberger?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

This might be influenced by my own bias, but I'm assuming that if other individuals in the media were informed of the same details by government officials of high rank, they would prioritize this as their primary concern and feel compelled to investigate further due to the significant global impact it could have. Maybe just because I think the question of NHIs is of great significance doesn't mean others share that view, but it is a little difficult for me to believe that after reporting on a story like this, based on information from individuals you deem to have a high degree of credibility, you'd simply stop digging into the subject and turn your attention elsewhere, like the impact of ocean windmills on whales. There's just a massive disconnect between the implications of his own reporting on the subject and what he has chosen to pursue afterwards that makes me think he doesn't quite buy what he's been told himself.
 
This is so ridiculous. If you genuinely think your source is credible then there is no line that needs to be drawn, you report on what your source tells you, no matter how extraordinary it may sound. If you think your source is credible enough to report on whatever they tell you about alleged crashed UAPs, then you have no principled reason to exclude what they also tell you about alleged non-human pilots in your reporting.
We've been over this before. A responsible journalist usually gets confirmation from a second source before publishing anything. If there's no second person willing to confirm the story about the pilots, you don't print it. That's just standard procedure.
 
We've been over this before. A responsible journalist usually gets confirmation from a second source before publishing anything. If there's no second person willing to confirm the story about the pilots, you don't print it. That's just standard procedure.
I brought it up before in a thread about Shellenberger's article alleging that COVID-19 leaked from a lab.
So, if two sources say that the government is hiding flying saucers, but the second source also says the government is hiding Leprechauns, do you report the bit about flying saucers but not the Leprechauns, do you dismiss everything the second source says, or do you report what he says about flying saucers but add that he also believes in Leprechauns?
 
Leslie Kean didn't report on it either in The Debrief. Grusch didn't mention it to her?
I remember seeing a comment from Leslie Kean that there was a topic Grusch didn't raise with her in several hours of interviews that was later raised in the Coulthart interviews. I wish I could find the link to that comment but I think it was the alien biologics.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger was told about non-human pilots by a source and decided not to write about it.
If we assume that Shellenberger is talking to the same sources as Grusch then it's likely that the strength of Grusch's alien biologics claim is weak but Coulthart egged Grusch into exagerating / embellishing the claim on video, and Grusch has to keep the story going even if he now has regrets.
 
I remember seeing a comment from Leslie Kean that there was a topic Grusch didn't raise with her in several hours of interviews that was later raised in the Coulthart interviews. I wish I could find the link to that comment but I think it was the alien biologics.
Video clip here. Kean says
External Quote:
Just to start right off, we want to stay away from bodies. I assume you agree Ralph (Blumenthal), because that's not something we talked to him about. It's not something we would ever put in our story.

Source: https://twitter.com/blackvaultcom/status/1666486906094501889
Grusch didn't talk to them about the bodies, huh.
 
I remember seeing a comment from Leslie Kean that there was a topic Grusch didn't raise with her in several hours of interviews that was later raised in the Coulthart interviews. I wish I could find the link to that comment but I think it was the alien biologics.


If we assume that Shellenberger is talking to the same sources as Grusch then it's likely that the strength of Grusch's alien biologics claim is weak but Coulthart egged Grusch into exagerating / embellishing the claim on video, and Grusch has to keep the story going even if he now has regrets.
  • The Ezra Klein Show podcast episode "What the Heck Is Going on With These U.F.O. Stories?" with Leslie Kean (transcript).
  • The Coulthart Report podcast episode "David Grusch: The Whistleblower".
  • The New York Times article "Independent Journalist Leslie Kean on the Latest U.F.O. Revelations".
In the Ezra Klein Show podcast episode, Kean says that Grusch was "very careful" about what he said to her, and that he "didn't want to say anything that could get him in trouble." She also says that he was "very concerned about the security of the information."

In the Coulthart Report podcast episode, Grusch discusses some of the topics that he was hesitant to discuss with Kean, including the nature of the UFOs that he has seen, and the possible implications of their existence.

The New York Times article also quotes Kean as saying that Grusch "held back on some things" in his interviews with her.


In the Coulthart Report podcast episode, Grusch discusses some of the specific topics that he was hesitant to discuss with Kean, including:

  • The exact nature of the UFOs that he has seen. He says that he does not want to "get into specifics" because he is worried about being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
  • The possible implications of the existence of UFOs. He says that he is concerned about the potential for panic and social unrest if people were to widely accept the idea that UFOs are real.
  • His own personal experiences with UFOs. He says that he has had some "very close encounters" with UFOs, and that he is still trying to make sense of them.
Grusch also says that he was hesitant to discuss these topics with Kean because he did not want to "waste her time." He says that he felt that she was already familiar with the basics of the UFO phenomenon, and that he did not want to bore her with details that she already knew.
 
Last edited:
  • The Ezra Klein Show podcast episode "What the Heck Is Going on With These U.F.O. Stories?" with Leslie Kean (transcript).
  • The Coulthart Report podcast episode "David Grusch: The Whistleblower".
  • The New York Times article "Independent Journalist Leslie Kean on the Latest U.F.O. Revelations".
In the Ezra Klein Show podcast episode, Kean says that Grusch was "very careful" about what he said to her, and that he "didn't want to say anything that could get him in trouble." She also says that he was "very concerned about the security of the information."

In the Coulthart Report podcast episode, Grusch discusses some of the topics that he was hesitant to discuss with Kean, including the nature of the UFOs that he has seen, and the possible implications of their existence.

The New York Times article also quotes Kean as saying that Grusch "held back on some things" in his interviews with her.


In the Coulthart Report podcast episode, Grusch discusses some of the specific topics that he was hesitant to discuss with Kean, including:

  • The exact nature of the UFOs that he has seen. He says that he does not want to "get into specifics" because he is worried about being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
  • The possible implications of the existence of UFOs. He says that he is concerned about the potential for panic and social unrest if people were to widely accept the idea that UFOs are real.
  • His own personal experiences with UFOs. He says that he has had some "very close encounters" with UFOs, and that he is still trying to make sense of them.
Grusch also says that he was hesitant to discuss these topics with Kean because he did not want to "waste her time." He says that he felt that she was already familiar with the basics of the UFO phenomenon, and that he did not want to bore her with details that she already knew.

However, Grusch eventually did open up to Kean about some of these topics. He says that he felt comfortable doing so because he trusted her and believed that she would take his story seriously.


Excerpts from the Coulthart Report podcast episode transcript








Coulthart then asks Grusch to clarify what he means by "waste her time." Grusch responds:

Is the Coulthart Report episode just the widely distributed interview or a separate one he's done with Coulthart? I don't recognize some of the quotes you posted here from the famous interview so if he's done another one aside from the Newsnation one I'd love to listen to it if you have a link.
 
Edit: Leslie Kean didn't report on it either in The Debrief. Grusch didn't mention it to her?
What we are led to to believe (by Kean herself) is that she *deliberately* avoided asking him about such things despite them being about *as proximal as anything can possibly be* to what they did discuss.

Both failed at whatever they claim their calling is, IMHO.
 
Back
Top