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.worldEnglish
      6·
      1 year 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@kbin.social
        21·
        1 year ago

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

      • The Ape from Space@lemmy.nrsk.noMEnglish
        21·
        1 year 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.worldMEnglish
            4·
            1 year 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 Space@lemmy.nrsk.noMEnglish
              11·
              1 year 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.worldMEnglish
                3·
                1 year 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 Space@lemmy.nrsk.noMEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year 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 Space@lemmy.nrsk.noMEnglish
            1·
            1 year 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.worldMEnglish
      3·
      1 year 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.worldMEnglish
          4·
          1 year 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@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year 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?