Three military veterans testified in Congress’ highly anticipated hearing on UFOs Wednesday, including a former Air Force intelligence officer who claimed the U.S. government has operated a secret “multi-decade” reverse engineering program of recovered vessels. He also said the U.S. has recovered non-human “biologics” from alleged crash sites.
I mean, the article refers to them having “retrieved ‘non-human’ biological matter from the pilots of the crafts.” It seems somehow even more farfetched to assume it was animals flying a UAP than aliens or some future descendant of humanity, at least to me. There’s a Gary Larson comic for this though, I’m sure.
Removed by mod
I knew the dolphins were up to something!
But, is there an XKCD for it? 🤓
We sent monkeys into space before we sent man. Still nothing news worthy yet.
or it’s just a bird/squirrel that got toasted when it crashed.
Is it what Grusch said though? After reviewing the video his reply was that “Biologics came with some of the recoveries” when questioned about having the bodies of pilots. I don’t think that neccesarily has to mean they’ve recovered the bodies of alien pilots. Or even pilots
What indication do we have that it wasn’t drones picking up animals? I think there can be many possible scenarioes based on the statements and not all of them would mean we’ve recovered any EBE’s.
Yeah, I don’t think he specifically said that in the video. The only time I’ve heard him mention finding pilots was in the News Nation interview:
https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us-ufo-retrieval-program/
Building on your comment, here is the specific timestamp in question. While he didn’t directly state, “We have alien pilots from the crashed craft,” he was asked a very pointed question: do we have bodies of the pilots who piloted the craft? His response was, “As I stated previously in my NewsNation interview (in which he mentioned bodies of Non-Human sentient beings), ‘biologics’ (I’m unsure if that’s a word) were part of some of these recoveries, yeah.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m fairly certain that last “yeah” at the end of his response could be interpreted as an affirmative answer to the question posed by Representative Mace.
I think weasel words can make or change the meaning of statements. While it may be explicitly stated in the NewsNation interview, he seems curiously careful to not repeat the same claims while under oath but rather refer to third party publications.
We’ll probably find out sooner or later, but I’m somewhat impatient when the truth is delayed by roughly 70 years. 🫠
Personally, I don’t believe he was using weasel words; instead, he was speaking off the cuff, so to speak. In my opinion, he was referring to third-party publications for questions he had already addressed in those publications in order to save time. Given that the question had been answered in depth and that both the hearing and the questions and answers are time-constrained, this approach makes sense. However, since I can’t definitively know what was going through his mind, I do think the point you’re making is a fair criticism.
That’s a good point I didn’t consider. On second thought it would even seem reasonable for the hearing to add the interview as some sort of case document. I have changed my view on this, thank you.
Well that’s pretty explicit and leaves little doubt. I wonder why he refered to the article but wouldn’t restate some of the things during the hearing.
deleted by creator