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.
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.