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.
deleted by creator
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.
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:
Well, naturally, when you recover something that’s either landed or crashed. Sometimes you encounter dead pilots…
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. 🫠
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.
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.
questions and answers are time-constrained, this approach makes sense.
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.
or it’s just a bird/squirrel that got toasted when it crashed.
deleted by creator
Representative Mace posed the question to David Grusch, “Do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?” I don’t think it’s a leap in logic to assume they aren’t discussing “animals” in the traditional sense—that is, an animal you or I would think of, like a dog, cat, monkey, etc. This is especially true since every publicly known animal in the animal kingdom, humans excepted, lacks the ability to pilot a craft.
If your argument is that they’re referring to an animal not publicly recorded in the animal kingdom—a sentient being—then we are in agreement.
deleted by creator
maybe you should do some googling before pretending your antiquated biases are facts.
The two examples you provided involve animals driving vehicles, not piloting a craft.
You may choose to either believe or disbelieve Mr. Grusch’s claims, both of which are reasonable stances. However, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to listen to the hearing, read the article, and then infer that ‘non-human’ in this context refers to animals as we typically understand the term.
To me, this seems like arguing in bad faith by nitpicking at semantics rather than debating the veracity of Mr. Grusch’s claims.
To me it seems that you think that alien bodies are sitting in a government freezer and no amount of evidence or testimony to the contrary would ever change your mind so what’s the point of “good faith” when there’s no argument to be had in the first place?
Or bacteria or viruses …
But we all know reptiles or cephlopods will sell the most papers.
I know this sort of article has been posted to death since yesterday, but I find it helpful when bigger media outlets covers it :)
Thank you for your post! It’s always encouraging to see more mainstream news report on this topic. I’ve been considering the idea of including links to all major media outlets that have reported on the hearing directly in the hearing megathread, as a way to consolidate the information. Currently, all the UAP news pertains to the hearing, but I anticipate new news will soon emerge. It seems like the public is still processing what has recently taken place.
I think that would be a good way to gauge public interest, but I’d be more interested in how many articles are published next week and next month. A surprising amount of news outlets have published this story, but it’s hard to ignore. Will they go back to ignoring the phenomena next week?
Perhaps a weekly megathread where people can share mainstream news articles and segments?
That may be a better approach. Gauging a weeks worth of news seems like the right call.
I’m fairly skeptical. I fell for the live autopsy of an alien hosted by Jonathan Frakes when I was young along with most of the rest of it. Spoiler alert it was never aliens.
Pretty sure I’m going to need to be assaulted on camera for me to think it’s aliens at this point.
Don’t be too hard on yourself, if you recognized you got fooled (like so many others) you’re already better prepared to not get fooled by something similar again.
Hope so! Kurzgesagt on YouTube has some pretty amazing content on why no aliens that gets the brain matter going.
Plus their book Immune is just amazing.
Are there any big leaps in technology that we can’t explain? I mean, for the entirety of human history we’ve been pretty bad at keeping secrets. Especially ones that would give us an advantage.
Attributing advancements in technology to aliens is insulting to those who actually created such pioneering things.
Would you consider the leaked panama- and paradise papers as examples of a giant, openly known but seldomly proven conspiracy?
I love that this actually seems to be getting some attention by the press. Make sure to engage the articles you come across. Giving them views will help show that there’s interest in the topic.
I’m tired of this he/she said bs. Why is there never actual proof. It’s always some shit video or some idiot saying random shit without evidence. I believe in aliens but am extremely doubtful that they ever even came close to earth. It would be cool if they did but where is the tangible proof?
