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.

    • @boydster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      611 months ago

      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.

      • Syo
        link
        fedilink
        111 months ago

        We sent monkeys into space before we sent man. Still nothing news worthy yet.

      • The Ape from SpaceM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        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.

          • @SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            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.

            • The Ape from SpaceM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              011 months ago

              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. 🫠

              • @SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months ago

                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.

                • The Ape from SpaceM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  211 months ago

                  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.

          • The Ape from SpaceM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            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.

    • @SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      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.

        • @SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

          • some_guy
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            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?

  • @BenDoubleUOP
    link
    English
    1011 months ago

    I know this sort of article has been posted to death since yesterday, but I find it helpful when bigger media outlets covers it :)

    • @SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      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.

      • The Ape from SpaceM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        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?

  • @BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    911 months ago

    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.

    • The Ape from SpaceM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      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.

      • @BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        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.

  • @ganksy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    711 months ago

    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.

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      511 months ago

      Attributing advancements in technology to aliens is insulting to those who actually created such pioneering things.

    • The Ape from SpaceM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      Would you consider the leaked panama- and paradise papers as examples of a giant, openly known but seldomly proven conspiracy?

  • HM05
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 months ago

    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.

  • @PM_ME_YOUR_ZOD_RUNES@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 months ago

    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?