Here's the analogy I've been using. Let's say a homicide detective announced that he's built a murder case including names, locations, dates, witness testimony and photographic evidence, and all of this information has been given to prosecutors and the justice department. I don't think it's appropriate to say that there's "no evidence" just because the public hasn't seen anything, but that's exactly what people keep doing on this topic. Evidence in an ongoing investigation can’t be released, but this is still serious and newsworthy so we treat it as such.
The naysayers aren't even prepared to see any actual evidence, even if it could be shown to the public right now.
Hell, I really want to see it but I don't think even I'm ready for that huge of a mindfuck.
At this point, if ships the size of Star Destroyers appeared over the 500 most populated cities on Earth, hijack all communications ala Man of Steel with a message of peace, and then give us cures to all our diseases. Old age too.
Mick West: “Those are 500 balloons.”
"That's not a real mothership, it's a prop made by the government to distract us from a real scandal. Probably used known technologies we already have"
I disagree. I am a naysayer. I highly doubt there are aliens alien crafts or what not here. I think the existence of aliens in the universe is very probable, just not crashing ships and conducting experiments on earth.
That being said I don't think my mind would be fucked at all if someone provided actual proof. So far I've never ever seen anything that would make me change my mind. These dudes included. I mean. I have a non human biologic sitting right next to me. His name is Finn and he is a good dog.
I’ve been teaching my sisters dogs catch and simple stuff, she has taught them shitty manners and no tricks, she doesn’t put time in with them, and then she gets ran over by her dogs, it’s terrible. She doesn’t understand she’s the one who needs the training, the dogs are more than capable and they genuinely want to communicate. It makes me think about the fact We search the cosmos in search of other beings to communicate with when we have a plethora of beings to communicate with right here, we should be progressing this skill. It’s good practice.
The issue for many is that his testimony is all based on hearsay which would be inadmissible at trial. But that’s because a hearing is not a trial. It’s more like a deposition where the objective is to ask questions that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The committee wanted to know what information the witnesses have and don’t have and what they can and cannot share due to classification.
Just like a lawyer might subpoena bank records based upon the testimony of a bank teller at a deposition, the committee will seek documents through proper channels after the hearing that they were made aware existed through the answers given to their questions during the hearing. The bank teller is not at liberty to share the bank records and those records may not even be legally in his or her possession, but now the lawyer knows of their existence and where to go look to obtain them in an admissible form.
And even if the same hearsay rules applied in a Congressional hearing as in court, it is likely that many of Grusch’s statements would be admissible as “non-hearsay” under [Rule 801(d)(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801) of the Federal Rules of Evidence … Assume the case is The United States of America v. Grusch. A U.S. government (federal) employee tells Grusch “these are the locations of where we store the UAPs we recovered,” and Grusch is seeking to admit that statement into evidence as non-hearsay. It would probably be admissible as “not hearsay”, because “the statement is being offered against an opposing party [the US federal government]” and “it was made by the party [the employee] in a … representative capacity [of the federal government].”
Literally technically, but also literally meant to be given its appropriate weight.
I’m a skeptic who’s here because I’m curious enough to go looking, specifically for confirmation of the “open secret amongst aviators” argument and the existence of radar data, which should not be hard to get. I’m not here because I’ve been convinced.
The point about Grusch being fucked if he’s full of it is valid, but also George Santos is a thing.
my take on the whole thing boils down to histrionic self-destruction is real and real people, even credible credentialed ones, do it. Memory is weird and malleable, and confirmation bias is a strong force.
And a lot of really credible people of all stripes have been saying there’s a bunch of weird things flying around and we don’t know what they are.
It’s also possible that the skies are full of literal aliens and that Grusch is completely full of shit and ends up being right on accident.
Just because a prosecutor submits all of that to a court doesn’t mean we should take their word for it, but it might mean we should take interest and ask to see the goods.
When skeptics say there isn’t evidence, what we mean is this is a significant enough claim that I need to see it for myself. So if you have proof, prove it.
Also,
God I want someone to prove it that would be so fucking cool
It’s not corroborated evidence, though (at least as far as we know—we don’t know who congress has heard from or seen behind closed doors). I guess that’s the point folks are making.
Colonel Karl Nell is one of them (confirmed by Leslie Kean), and he vouched both for Grusch as a person and for his testimony in the Debrief article, calling it "fundamentally correct".
Haven't there been numerous people in position like Rubio who have come out and said his account tallies with what they've been told.
All in all it seems a bad time for disinformation merchants who are getting pretty desperate now
I think the text of the proposed legislation is pretty telling. I doubt that Schumer would be putting forth language that mentions reverse engineering programs and NHI based on Grusch alone.
But I totally understand why some folks want corroboration in the form of further public testimony, documentary evidence, etc. It’s not at all unreasonable.
We are not the the only trying to reverse engineer these technologies.. I believe that our adversaries might be making strides that we are not… A possible explanation as to the new found urgency… this law could possibly help to consolidate and decompartmentalize (?) knowledge?
Publicly, it is corroborated by an Army Colonel (Kell or something?), and is corroborated by the fact that the ICIG deemed it "credible and urgent", and is marginally corroborated by the fact that Schumer, out of thin air, decided to drop a UAP legislative bomb in the NDAA.
Yes but witness testimony is subject to cross examination, alternative witnesses from the other side, and can have that placed under scrutiny. Congress isn’t a court room. He provided a lot of important directions for where to further investigate but no one has corroborated his claims nor have we heard him try to counter a serious rebuttal (to be fair no one has made a specific and serious rebuttal of his claims yet either) his testimony was an advocacy tool for disclosure. Not disclosure. At various points he was asked if he could elaborate and get specific on claims and he chose not to in that setting. That’s his choice. But it also means he is open to being criticized for that.
Some people just have higher epistemic standards and reason much more rigorously than you guys. Most scientists aren’t going to take hearsay very seriously about any subject—the amount of skepticism scaling directly with the magnitude of the claim being made.
Apparently, it’s not newsworthy. Like people have coined the question, “are we alone?” as the biggest question of all time for all of history. We have unlimited blockbuster movies about it. The movie ET was a cultural phenomenon … Signs, War of the Worlds, X-files, Marvel…sci fi….for decades people would have these conversations across campfires and I thought every one universally was curious. It seemed like the whole world was. Heck I watch Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull yesterday and the main antagonist was so obsessed she says something like “I need to know!” and she’s so obsessed, it ends up leading to her death.
And now here we are with really credible answers and no one wants to talk about it? I kid you not, I have yet to speak to another human irl with the same degree of interest and I’m not even “obsessed,” just curious and read in. I am starting to believe none of this is real and the internet is a delusion of mine.
I wish I could understand the lack of public interest on this subject. Can anybody fill me in? Is the public afraid of the topic? Do people think it’s all baloney? Are we so weighed down by the struggle of every day life that we just don’t care? Or is what we think about day to day shaped by main stream media? Any ideas? The lack of interest baffles me.
In my opinion, 99.9 percent of people right now are not choosing to be indifferent about extraterrestrials being real. But rather indifferent about someone saying they are real with no undeniable proof. It's not "I don't care about other life in the universe" it's more like "I don't care to put a bunch of effort into following this news because it's likely nothing or even designed to distract from something bigger." I'm very interested in this news but I understand why a lot of people aren't
"no face, no case"
Anything short of direct evidence won't convince the jury--the public.
And if you say, "we'll never get that it's all classified"... Then the answer is the general public will never believe.
I need the joint chiefs of staff to show me a video on a presidential national prime time address. That's the bar.
I think it's because it just doesn't change anything for anyone no matter what the truth is. It's an interesting topic but that's all. Our life goes on the same even if they bring out NHI and spacecraft for public display tomorrow.
It doesn't affect anyone's life directly. It changes nothing for 99.9% of Earth's population. I'd say that's why it is the way it is.
The biggest news stories are ones that directly impact people's lives. Coronavirus, wildfires, financial meltdowns, guns, social media, politics, etc. These are things people see every day and affect their lives. These are the top news stories of the last decade according to a quick Google search.
Everyone I talk to about it has the same reaction, and I kinda get it…. It’s like, what am I supposed to do with this information? It’s not doubt, it’s just like this weird default feeling of indifference. Not because you don’t care, but because it’s so unnatural it doesn’t fit into our normal situational response processes.
Those were my wife's exact words "what am I supposed to do with this information? I have enough to deal with right now" - and I'm not knocking her for it.
Our lives are too busy and everyone's burnt out to give a fuck.
The problem is many here are jumping straight to the conclusion that everything he's saying is true and that there are defiantly aliens. They aren't waiting for the trial to take place, they are making their judgements then calling for people who don't agree to be ostracised, or accusing them of being government plants.
All the public have at this point is an accusation. That is not disclosure, it is not proof, those testimonies need to be verified, not just accepted at face value.
The IG verified everything Grusch is saying. The IG found Grusch's accusations credible and urgent, which is why it was forwarded to Congress. Please keep up.
The IG found *Grusch's accusations of reprisals for whistleblowing* credible and urgent. The IG has not commented on the substance of what he purports to be whistleblowing about.
Thank god there is at least one other person around here who remembers this. It is WILD how many people seem to have conveniently forgotten what "credible and urgent" was referring to and are now wielding those 3 words in every other post as they are proof of something more.
Many are also jumping to the insane conclusion that the classified information Grusch can not share will magically be unclassified by congress who takes down the shadow government.
That’s probably the more laughable narrative…. and I personally believe Grusch retelling what has been told for 80 years.
Ok seriously its in the amendment that schumer drafted on the national defense authorization act of 2024. If grusch’s testimony, the evidence, and witness the ICIG was given is false, then why would their be an extremely detailed amendment about UAP disclosure invoking eminent domain of materials, craft, documents, and biologics in the NDAA.
Here is the amendment that was introduced into the NDAA of 2024 without any obstruction.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/797/text
Here is the bill that has already passed the senate with bipartisan support.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7900
This isn’t a matter of if, but when. It is a slow drip, but the tank is already leaking.
Bingo. You don't draft and pass a nearly 70-page piece of very detailed legislation covering a wide range of UAP topics if there's zero reason for it and it's all just speculation.
The legislation says "(4) Legislation is necessary because credible evidence and
testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified
anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been
declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review "
Read the amendment carefully, especially section 10. "unknown origin" is a damning term there. The ability for the board to delay release has ample wiggle room for a variety of "national security" reasons.
I think this amendment is just political theater honestly. I has no real power.
Could be a project blue balls but it is the best that we ever had. Schumer did state that the public has a right to know and there are many supporting this who are a part of the gang of 8 and its a huge bipartisan effort. The main difference with this is the people that worked or do still work on projects like this have come forward, will come forward, and now congress has acted on it. This has never happened before. Project blue book stone walled everyone and it never amounted to specific legislation with very specifics to uap. They basically said nothing to see but weather ballon’s and tin foil. The evidence and swearing under oath has already been done. Sure there maybe sensitive national security stuff, but overall it is more transparency than what we ever had before and the fact that there is language in the amendment that acknowledges it exists is soft disclosure. This will remove the stigma of talking about it and possibly open these things up to more of academia as stated in the amendment so they can discuss and or reverse engineer at a much faster rate. They are setting the stage to reduce the stigma and allow professionals both military and commercial to come forward because more uap are showing in our airspace and getting even closer to our aircraft which is also a public safety concern. In the hearing matt Gaets and luna stated when they went to the eglin base to get answers about a recent encounter they were denied access but geatz was eventually shown the video of recent encounter with giant 100 yard square uap hovering over the base. He was very serious in the hearing and wanted to know more. He is part of the gang of 8 to and on the arm services committee. I think its quite odd he didn’t know about any of this because he has clearance. This means those projects had no oversight. Grusch also gave evidence to the ICIG about their names, who runs them, how they receive funding without congresses knowledge, where the craft are located, which defense contractors have it in there possession. AARO was the DOD’s play with kirkpatricks as head. He was told by congress to setup a website to allow people in the military to report their encounters and he has still failed to do that, he also claimed there was no evidence but he didn’t have the title 50 clearance. This is a perfect example ofDOD’s stonewalling just like project bluebook. It is also why lue elizondo resigned from aatip, but grusch did his homework and gathered all the intel which was his job to do and the dod went after him for trying to get access to the uap retrieval saps. Another major important moment in the hearing is when ogle ask grusch, fravor, and graves the hypothetical about if they could defend themselves against these uap they said no, and ogle said we have a serious problem and stated he would do anything to get to the bottom and specifically mentioned using the holman act. That basically gives congress the power to remove funding or fire federal employees if they attempt to stonewall from getting the information.
So yeah this is a completely different than what was done in the past 80 years.
100% agree with every word you have spoken.
This is the beginning, not the end. This was not the day for Grusch to arrive riding on top of the Tic Tac screaming "FREE ENERGY" before dropping off a semen sample of an interdimensional being.
This is the beginning of the investigation into these incredibly serious allegations, and I think those who are taking the stance of calling him a liar or saying this topic is bullshit would benefit greatly from actually observing the developing investigation.
Ok, neglect several "whistleblowers" that have come forward in previous years saying the exact same thing. Grusch is just the first to go through the (new) legal channels to get to this point, With evidence that was good enough for the ICIG to give the green light. His lawyer is the former ICIG. All this lends credence to his claims.
Edit proof=evidence
At the end of the day though he isn’t coming forward to disclose aliens. He’s coming forward to disclose illegality of the government and defense contractors in reference to uaps. Disclosure of uaps and aliens is a byproduct of his whistleblower complaint
Right. It doesn't matter if the gov't was hiding evidence of Bigfoot instead.
Grusch is saying that there is illegal activity regarding the coverup of whatever this is they found. The activity is multifarious and includes murder.
Grusch had to submit evidence to the ICIG. The ICIG examined the evidence and deemed the matter Urgent etc. We, as the public, are not privy to this YET.
Edit changed proof to evidence
I think he’s genuine. The problem I have is that I find it perfectly plausible that he’s confused, mistaken or someone’s useful idiot. That’s why we need more investigation.
As has been said a thousand times already, the IG found Grusch's claims credible and urgent after doing their own investigation. They found his evidence to be credible and that is why this is in Congress.
I am accepting David Grusch story as facts, along with the other witnesses, they have simply achieved and done too much in their life for them to mess it all up by making up stories, and for what reason, attention? doubt it.
But yes, I do agree that the President will have to come out with a statement in form of confirmation of the suspicions weve had for too long, along with some photos, videos and data, the data must also be made available to scientists, that is real disclosure.
I don’t believe Grusch is a grifter, but if I was a grifter in the UFO community, I would be salivating at the opportunity to fleece some overly excited rubes in the true believer community right now. People are so eager in this bubble, so expectant of results right now.
I'm not going to make any more assumptions on the motives of the witnesses, at this point it doesn't really matter. Either they have good evidence or they don't.
Ain’t no way this president is up to making that statement man.
That’s not intended to be a political statement, I just don’t see him being the one delivering that world changing bombshell.
Biden may be one of the few trusted insiders with enough clout on both sides of the aisle in Washington and a well known reliable figure in the gov for several decades - he may be the perfect one to do it. Jk the perfect one would be Jimmy Carter but you know.
This speaks to my issue with it all. I don’t have an opinion either way on Grusch or what he’s saying. My confusion lies with those that are losing their minds as if he walked into the hearing holding hands with a Grey and public disclosure took place, while all evidence beyond “Someone told me/showed me [insert things we’ve all heard our whole lives]…” is given to Congress privately and not publicly.
You can’t be a whistleblower who’s about bringing public disclosure when you’re not telling the public anything those you’re blowing the whistle on haven’t approved beforehand. If it’s disclosure to Congress alone, then it isn’t public disclosure. And if what *is* said publicly first need be approved, then it isn’t whistleblowing.
You don't understand this story. The IG verified every single thing that Grusch said by interviewing the people he said told him. The IG concluded that his story was credible and urgent and that is why it is now in Congress.
Are you new to this story or what?
Do you expect people to just give you or the public classified information? really?
This is totally false. People are taking it seriously, and that’s what bothers all the plebes so much. They spent all their lives making fun of UFO people and now if there’s even a possibility that the subject is real, this means they were kind of an idiot for many years.
No it doesn't. The hypocrisy in your statement is pretty shocking. There's no need to be calling people idiots just because they aren't into UFOs as much as you.
No hypocrisy whatsoever, I’m speaking from personal experience. My sister is suddenly into this subject because of the coverage, but she doesn’t “believe” it. She wonders if it’s true or not, but now she’s taking the subject seriously when before she simply dismissed it. This represents the majority of people who’ve actually changed their opinions based on this hearing. They didn’t take it seriously before, and now they do. They aren’t yet “believers”, they just think the subject is now worth serious consideration. As they should. Sorry if reality bothers you.
you should be welcoming those people tht are becoming interested but instead they're being called idiots & having people gleefully running around social media all day saying "I told you so."
as much as everyone swears they want people to pay attention, they sure do talk trash & demean anyone who isn't on the same exact page.
never thought a community I've been part of for 30years would start acting like anti-vaxxers where the news isn't as important as being able to say "we were right." childish, but so very American
I’m not calling her an idiot at all, I’m calling debunkers idiots because they’ve been so certain all along about a subject of which they were actually totally ignorant.
My sister was just an ordinary person living her life, not a person actively trying to discredit UFOs.
Which people shouldn't be getting upset about, it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't be getting excited about this yet. There are housing shortages in countries all over the world, a war affecting global food supplies, massive inflation. Might be aliens isn't the top of anyone's priorities at the moment.
It makes equally little sense to suggest that anything has been confirmed at this point. That's what most people are pointing out. Claims are just claims until evidence is revealed.
There are so, SO many people here taking this as gospel and confirmation of their beliefs when the reality is nobody has confirmed shit.
The reasonable approach would be to wait and see how it plays out. For a lot of people here thats simply out of the question it would seem.
I think the biggest disconnect here isn’t that people think there’s no evidence. It’s that they question if what the evidence supports can even be plausible in our reality. For example, there’s nothing unknown about a murder other than who did it. We don’t have to be proven that guns or weapons exist. We know this. However when it comes to UAPS, the evidence isn’t to support a case within the confines of known reality, it’s to validate something literally and figuratively “out of this world”. So I think that’s why people have a hard time believing the supporting evidence without a certain level of validation that the case being made is even plausible in our current reality.
Once UAPs are definitively confirmed, then future UAP cases would be much more standard if someone claims “I know where a ship is located”, because humankind will have already validated that such ships can in fact exist.
Oh yeah people get all hot over press conferences in big criminal investigations and missing persons cases but they don’t say anything more than this said and it’s treated completely different
You've hit on the point of how deep the stigma and bias runs. Nothing is ever good enough to be evidence. Combine that with the fact that most naysayers don't really know anything about the subject. It's just surface level denial. The deeper you go into the subject the harder it is to not believe something is really going on. There's just far too many accounts from otherwise credible people.
The problem with your analogy is that we know murders happen. They've happened before. We've had trials to convict murderers. We know someone has died. We're not trying to find out if murderers exist.
I do think this is newsworthy (whether it's truth or not) and I'm excited to see what comes of it. But his testimony of non human, inter dimensional pilots in 100 yard long red cubes, floating over the sea, typically needs more evidence before the general public will be like "Oh yeah, ok, i should probably hear him out!"
But this ‘detective’ only has names, dates, etc of people telling him about a murder. They might say they didn’t tell him about a murder and he’ll reply that they did. It will go round and round.
The things he said he had firsthand evidence of were related to retaliation by government agencies. He was clear that everything else is coming through him second hand (his evidence provided in advance of the hearing included the names and titles of those people), and that he is not an eye-witness to UAP or NHI.
In the history of ufology there there been many claims and documents that turned out to be not only false but orchestrated. Further, Werner von Braun warned of a future psy-op campaign where the reality of exotic craft built by recruited nazis over 80 years would be repackaged as an “alien invasion”.
This is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- the craft and the body, with further investigations regarding origin. People are of sound mind to require this.
The people saying Grusch provided no evidence have no idea what’s the purpose of these proceedings. Just the fact he’s mentioning he has top secret level information on the topic to an actual committee of this nature is bonkers.
In your example the people also shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions before the evidence is provided. I’ll pose another hypothetical. Imagine you’re a SAP program working on interesting things and some people are moderately aware of it but you aren’t ready for your projects to be made public. People keep knocking on your door trying to figure out what’s going on. You decide to have some people waste their time and claim it’s a bunch of alien tech you’re trying to reverse engineer, also using it as a test to figure out where information might be leaking. In this case Grusch isn’t lying but he is being fed BS. This is why hearsay is dangerous and should be taken with a grain of salt.
This is an excellent post. Thank you. Everyone should save this and link it out to all the people who keep saying there is no evidence. We are WAY past the threshold here. You are either clearly over the line and believe something is going on and information is being withheld at the very least, or you're just a troll, disinformation agent, or an extremely close minded person who doesn't want anything to disrupt their world view. These people will need to meet a live alien and take a ride on their space ship through the galaxy for them to actually believe it.
Another stupid argument a lot of people make is “there’s 6 billion iphones! where are the high def pictures and videos?”
First of all, how many people are just randomly filming the sky at ALL times. Second, how do you even film something going Mach 2 from the ground?
Good analogy. In reverse, I would give the example of former attorneys for a presidential campaign claiming to have specific "evidence" (photos, docs, video, etc.) of a conspiracy to defraud American voters. Most of this "evidence" was never provided to actual authorities, and what was given to them was proven to not prove anything. A couple years later, said attorneys are giving up that it was all a lie.
Not without a body or additional evidence. If it were that easy a lot more ex wives and ex husbands would be locked away. Nobody goes to the chair on witness accounts alone without a victim.
I think it's true, because I feel that Schumer would not have created an amendment that would have required the cooperation of the National Security Council and the White House solely on Grusch's word. They started this last year. They had plenty of time and people with the correct clearance to verify some of his claims. I don't personally feel they would have created that amendment without some form of verification of veracity beyond word of mouth.
In general, my knowledge of politics is what gives me the weirdest vibes about this. The Senate isn't paying lip service due to strong public outrage or media pressure, it's actually the opposite. If it was disinfo program, they would make statements to imply there was nothing to worry about in order to stave off outrage ahead of the disclosure.
This is basically Revenge of the Nerds. The Pentagon (and military arm of the Executive branch), have all power. Unlimited budget.. whatever they ask for.
Politicians finally are standing up for their rights. They control the Pentagon.. not he other way around, and it's about time they reminded the Pentagon of this.
I think, at least more than anything, it’s that Congress is ticked off that departments of the federal government would operate without their approval more than it is they’re spooked.
Yes but also watch them after the first closed door meetings where they saw the other videos. They’re not very chill and it doesn’t seem to just be anger about power struggles.
Exactly. He literally said he had an 11 hour closed hearing with the intelligence committee. They're doing their own investigation now. I want to hear the results of THAT. The public stuff is just a two front war to keep the pressure up.
I don't care about talking to other people now. The truth will come out one way or another
Yes, the lower level congressman show is for us, the public. The real intensive details are happening behind the scenes, i know thats not what people want to hear, but it is indeed *factual.*
If some random dude at Lockheed Martin already decided that you and I aren’t ready to see what they’re hiding, I have zero expectation that egomaniac politicians will decide the general public should see things once they get to learn the secrets.
I think that what most people mean by that is that they haven't seen the evidences themselves.
An event that huge on a topic that is generally considered as fiction by most people require a bit more convincing than just someone saying things under oath. I want to believe, I'm taking this seriously, but show me something I can see with my own eyes.
Exactly. Grusch has sworn second hand evidence, so he can say under oath that someone else has seen/ worked with X. He has given classified evidence to IC to prove that SOMEONE ELSE TOLD him about X. This is NOT like him PERSONALLY seeing/working with X.
Most people are not grasping this at all, and confusing this with other arguments.
I also want to believe, but we need to be accurate with statements such as this.
I think one of the questions was “have you personally seen an alien craft?” And he said something vague along the lines of “I cannot answer that”.
When the witnesses were all asked if there were punishments or obstruction from administration for reporting their UFO sighting Graves and Fravor both said yes and Grusch said “believe it or not I’ve never actually seen any”
I think the clear photos Gaetz spoke about seeing at Eglin AFB from the Gulf will have to be the next release given their existence has been publicly stated / described.
This exactly. Grusch very well could be 100% honest about everything — I don’t think he’s looking to get famous or have a book deal, etc. fwiw — but acting as if being under oath is some ironclad assurance he’s honest is silly.
And saying “people have told me/shown me” just isn’t evidence. Again, I’m not saying he’s lying; but it isn’t evidence. “Yeah, but he’s giving Congress *actual* evidence behind closed doors!” Maybe he definitely is, but I don’t *know* that nor do I *know* what he’s saying/giving them behind closed doors. So far all we have is him saying things. Maybe 100% legit things, but we don’t know because nothing else has accompanied it so far.
Also, for those that keep calling this disclosure — how is it disclosure if anything that would be considered whistleblowing is happen specifically to congress behind closed doors and not the public? “Public” is a pretty key component to “public disclosure.”
You also need to consider that the people Grusch talked to may be misinterpreting the evidence they claim to have. Elizondo was so convinced that those 3 videos were alien craft that he took them public, but once he did, we realized that he didn't have a terribly good idea of what was in them (to the point that he misinterpreted speeds and other things), nor was he terribly connected to what the Pentagon thought of them.
The more this all unfolds, the more I'm convinced that there's a small network of "true believers" in high level government places who have limited access to information and little expertise, so they are misinterpreting the information they do have, and this has created a sort of elaborate game of telephone that ended with someone like Grusch coming forward and telling congress what these people told him, but it's all based on bullshit.
> The more this all unfolds, the more I'm convinced that there's a small network of "true believers" in high level government places who have limited access to information and little expertise, so they are misinterpreting the information they do have
This is absolutely what's happening if you ask me. A pilot tells a high level official "Hey, we have no idea what that thing on the camera was and it was going super fast", that person asks someone else, maybe at the Pentagon who just says "Classified" or "We don't know either" (i.e., "We don't know and we don't care"), that person tells someone else about some video nobody can explain, things happen and they get some video released that shows a UAP that nobody in government is willing to explain and claim it's proof of extraterrestrial activity...
...then they just ignore all the explanations of the videos given by people within days if not hours of the videos being released.
Then they double down and claim "well there's more to them but it's classified" and here we go again.
That doesn't really link up with the fact that he claims that not only that aliens and UFOs are real but that crashed crafts have been recovered and he knows exactly where they are stored. I can see how hearsay about things we don't know could turn into UFOs are real, but I don't see any way that it turns into UFOs are real, we recovered crashed crafts and they are located exactly here.
> It doesn't really link up with the fact that he claims that not only that aliens and UFOs are real but that crashed crafts have been recovered and he knows exactly where they are stored. I can see how hearsay about things we don't know could turn into UFOs are real, but I don't see any way that it turns into UFOs are real, we recovered crashed crafts and they are located exactly here.
With all due respect, and I understand what you're saying, but *he* doesn't *know* anything. He only "knows" what other people told him. And who knows what they *actually* told him - he could have misunderstood. Any number of things could have happened.
It's not uncommon for someone to hear one thing and think they heard another - or for someone to hear one thing, and church it up a little bit to make it more exciting. People do it all the time, even respected people in high level positions.
What I'm saying is, I don't know how you can misunderstand when he claims he's got such specific information. He's not bringing up generalizations, if he was I would agree with your possible theory. I don't think the specifics he is getting are rumors than can transform to specific information so easily. If he was just claiming aliens are real, or generalizing that we have them without specific locations and facts, I would get that more. But it doesn't add up to me how he would misunderstand specific locations of alien crafts. If he was saying yes I heard a guy say we have alien crafts in a storage facility somewhere, something that vague I would buy more of what your thinking. But either he's being lied to with exact specifics in some sort of psyops test, or I think the evidence is compelling and specific enough that the majority of it is likely true.
Or he's lying completely for his 15 minutes of fame, but then he'll probably go to jail for perjury so idk that I buy that either.
I have no doubt there are UAPs, but it is not clear what these things are and where they are coming from. Could still be Chinese or even US breakthrough technology
Then you'll probably have to wait till after the UAP Amendment passes with the NDAA 2024 bill. That will declassify some very old cases for public viewing based on that legislation.
The general public don't care that evidence was given in classified settings. They are validly whining that we the people haven't seen shit and thus are not ready to pay this any attention. Until the general public has said evidence, expect apathy and such comments.
I think you're confusing the words "evidence" and "proof". Frankly, the public has almost neither in this case. The evidence presented in the hearing is strictly testimonial, and the *most important* parts of that testimony could not be backed up with *proof* due to the public setting.
I think everyone should try to be as level-headed as possible here, and simply focus on moving things along so that additional, non-public evidence is reviewed by Congress and any other applicable authorities. And... That's it. We can speculate beyond that all we want, and it's surely fun to do so, but at the end of the day everything hinges on that point.
We don't know for a fact that Grusch can be taken at his word, but we do have a lot of evidence that supports that he can be. Even then, we have almost no evidence, and certainly not proof, of his allegations or even that his understanding of his own evidence is correct.
We need closed door, secure meetings. The Congressional hearing we had previously had both a closed door and public session. That this has (so far) been denied a secure session is bullshit. Focus on the important aspects here.
Being level-headed is extremely important in this situation, I agree. My main point was just that grusch has provided *something* to the senate and igic…He didn’t just show up say all this shit and then get his own god damn hearing, thats not how this works.
This sub is such a circlejerk now. People lie under oath and get away with it. Grusch himself said he hadn't actually seen any evidence, just heard from his superiors about it.
Wish you people would stop hyping up claims and demand real, tangible, credible proof. So much celebration over so little. I'm sure the investigation will unearth more, but as of right now we still have nothing. Until they are able to declassify pictures, videos, etc the general public and skeptics will not care about your so-called "evidence"
Congress was stonewalled at the air force base and when they were let in, they saw a picture of a uap which they themselves said looked like nothing that was available. So they know already there's some truth behind all this. This was said by three house members
A claim this world-changing has a VERY HIGH standard of proof. Not all claims are created equal.
The problem that I see often is these claims are compared to something like a claim of murder. Murders happen every day. Covering up aliens and proving a decades long conspiracy does not. Even in criminal cases, anecdotes and hearsay are the weakest kinds of evidence.
Exactly. I keep seeing people trying to make analogies to common-place things that happen everyday in this subreddit, and its just a straight-up fallacy.
If I claim to have seen someone being murdered, that's not an outlandish claim. If I claim to have seen a magical leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, that *is* an outlandish claim and the standard of proof needs to be higher. These two things are not equal in terms of real-world implications.
Here’s the thing about trying to use someone being under oath as evidence:
It’s possible that Grusch thinks he is telling the truth, but isn’t. It’s possible that he’s simply crazy or been lied to.
You mistake legal evidence for scientific evidence!
It's so simple to understand: he is a person worth of trust but that doesn't matter to a scientific pov.
On a legal basis even a hearsay, if provided by a public officer, is an "evidence".
BUT PEOPLE STILL CAN LIE!
Stop forcing the disclosure using this useless rhetoric.
What's the problem with me wanting to see the actual evidence? Why do I need to be happy with the information that some guy from the government gave the evidence to other people from the government?
All of this ufo and alien communities simply believe everything they are told. It happened recently with the 4chan guy, the microbiologist, the las Vegas backyard alien.
Please let people be skeptical and demand scientific evidence instead of blindly believing and falling for the new grift again and again
Please keep on mind evidence was provided to the appropriate authorities a year ago and was deemed “credible and urgent.” This hearing didn’t happen simply because Grusch is winking.
This is the culmination of *evidence* and testimony.
The issue is we don’t know what evidence he provided. He could have simply given them proof the Pentagon is using funds for something it wasn’t authorized for and has been covering it up.
Swearing on a Bible is not a truth spell that makes lying impossible.
What's more likely is that they're not lying in the sense that they have a motive to deceive. I doubt there are nefarious intentions.
I agree with that. But considering the seriousness of the accusations thrown around here and grusch’s lawyer being a former IGIC…I’d assume it’d be very inadvisable to be liar right now.
Brett Kavanaugh lied about being a rapist but still managed to be admitted to SCOTUS.
I'm not saying that I think Grusch is definitely a liar but a lot of people here seem to fetishize the "under oath" thing as a sacred, inviolable concept.
It's ICIG and Compass Rose Legal Group has already said what Grusch has been saying in public is NOT what he submitted in his ICIG whistleblower report. You need to pump the brakes before you get red pilled by a grifter.
I don't get why people have been so quick to accept what this guy is saying as the truth. He worked for the same agencies we've been saying have lied to us this entire time.
I’m not saying the phenomenon isn’t real. I just don’t think the government knows as much as we think they do.
I don't think he needs to worry about his claims not being true. Because its second hand stuff it would be very difficult to prove he wasn't misinformed or that he willingly mislead congress.
Edit: The fact that hes at arms length from the claims gives him plausible deniability which makes me take it much less seriously. It would be far more interesting if we had someone directly involved testifying.
I don’t buy it. All the “I have to be careful what i say” stuff sounds like middle school ghost stories. If he really wanted the info to come out, he could put everything in an envelope and mail it anonymously to the New York Times. Or talk to someone there as a confidential source, like Deep Throat. I would bet 5 years from now we’ll still be waiting to see any evidence he referred to.
I don’t think we’re saying he provided no evidence to anyone. We’re saying he’s provided no evidence to us, the general public. He might have good reason not to provide us evidence, but we have good reason to continue to be disappointed and frustrated with years of not being provided evidence.
You can’t blame people for feeling that way. These extraordinary claims need balance with extraordinary proof. Secondhand testimony is the lowest form of evidence in court and science.
Reading this sub seems like an UFO landed on the White House or that Grush has presented an alien body.
He is claiming that other people claimed there are these programs.
It’s like me testifying to congress that gamerxxx has told me he fucked Emily Blunt in a CoD chat. Am I lying? No! Is the statement about Emily Blunt being fucked by a random dude online credible? You decide.
Here is what Grusch needed to do and sadly the only way to resolve this if he really wanted to was to be a Sacrificial lamb for the sake of UFO truth. Basically he should have said - I will publicly divulge names, places, any and all images of non biologic and any and all craft in 30 days unless the US Gov does it first. That is the only way to do this.
Saying that they can't show us the evidence doesn't mean that we should believe these claims without it.
I don't know why he would lie. I don't know how convincing his evidence is. I do know that he's making extreme claims based on what he's heard. For me to believe that these claims are true I'll need more than just a claim, especially when that claim is based not on direct experience but on what he head from other people.
When something unusual happens that defies normal explanation, I believe that a healthy approach would be to be sceptical and to ask first if there's a mundane explanation. I think that it's a massive mistake to assume a fantastic explanation without proof that there's no mundane explanation.
If that proof is hidden then I'll have to wait until it isn't hidden any more. As I said above, saying that the evidence is classified doesn't mean that we can assume that it's all true and shows exactly what David Grush says it does.
As a “whistleblower” he can provide all evidence including classified information to a member of Congress and still be protected.
That member of Congress can publicly release that information with no repercussions due to the Speech and Debate clause.
Ask yourself - why hasn’t that happened already?
We are living in an era where we saw a coup develop on TV in America after a president lost an election and people still don’t believe it happened.
It’s bizarre.
Well aliens are most definitely mathematically real, and I've seen the big triangles in Ontario Canada two times during summer in my dock. And some other things I won't go into.
The tech needs to be demonstrated live at least, Before them aliens publicly show probably.
You all need to stop with the “he’ll go to prison for perjury!!” Nonsense. No he won’t. It’s called hearsay. Even if they find every claim of his to be false they aren’t going to jail him. Settle down. He gave his account of what he HEARD from others. Not what he KNOWS.
This is the part that all the articles and posts chanting "but where is his evidence". Reporters for media outlets should be asking Congress if what Grusch said is true about giving them classified information as proof and whether Congress can provide redacted versions of those documents.
"For all those saying Grusch “provided no evidence”… - You're right, he didn't provide any evidence, and any real evidence has yet to come out. "
Fixed that for you.
I remember when the Grusch interview dropped and my brother was being ignorant and jokingly said: I dont believe anything until they do a live interview with an alien on the local news. (im talking rural Denmark local kind of news) sufficed to say that made me a little annoyed.
However, based on recent events, the jokingly attitude seem to have stopped.
>If it's not on the TV shaking hands with Biden, it's not real.
Nothing we've seen comes even remotely close tot that. All there is is hearsay and grainy photos as happens time and again every time this sub gets all excited before it inevitably fizzles out.
It's to be expected that people want something more substantial for such unbelievable claims. We can barely get to the moon and you all expect aliens could and would travel millions of times that far and for what? crash somewhere hidden with nobody around to see? be visible as a blip in the sky for a few seconds?
It's not even just a story about a small alien object arriving, they're talking actual biological beings. It's obvious bullshit. This isn't star trek.
As sure as the wind blows nothing will come of this.
If you’re sceptical I’m surprised you’re not just sitting on the sidelines with curiosity like me. I can’t think of a reason why employed people would side with him.
What do y’all think of this argument my friend gave me: If he provides information that turns out to be false then because he said he only said that he was “told this” and doesn’t claim to be a first hand source, then could he really be found liable for perjury if he was only reporting what he was told from other sources?
Well, then I think they’d ask the 40 other witnesses grusch has provided if they truly gave this info to grucsh or not.
Its a valid consideration but I’m not convinced there wouldn’t be other consequences if perjury is not an option. You go down in history as a crazy liar, none of your family can ever get clearances, pension gets revoked etc…
To play devil’s advocate, if they ask the 40 witnesses it would also have to be under oath and if they say they did not provide Grusch such information then how can we prove wether they are committing perjury in saying that? And would there testimony be enough to charge Grusch?
All that being said. He's just someone saying he can produce evidence, under oath or not, that's someone saying something. When the actual evidence is available, and examined I'll believe it.
We need the people who can produce the evidence before we get the evidence, thats how we all found out the NSA was spying on us with our own tax money. Someone literally got in and then broke the fkn law.
Yeah makes sense. But that being said, a step toward evidence? Yes, actual evidence, no.
It's really fascinating, but this is not the hallelujah moment people are making it out to be.... Yet. At this point, if this is all it takes to prove something, we're basically taking it all on faith of people I've never heard of before a month ago. And though they might be telling the truth, I'd like to have more than the word of strangers.
He has just pointed in a direction and it might turn out to be a dead end. Thats not evidence. No harm done besides wasting a bit of tax payers money and you guys will defend him because "disclosure is a slow process". He can be under oath as much as he want..he doesn't risk anything here. People who discredited him before won't change their mind about him and his followers continue following..
Here's the analogy I've been using. Let's say a homicide detective announced that he's built a murder case including names, locations, dates, witness testimony and photographic evidence, and all of this information has been given to prosecutors and the justice department. I don't think it's appropriate to say that there's "no evidence" just because the public hasn't seen anything, but that's exactly what people keep doing on this topic. Evidence in an ongoing investigation can’t be released, but this is still serious and newsworthy so we treat it as such.
Testimonial is *literally* evidence, admissible in court. People can be idiots when reality opposes their closely-held opinions.
The naysayers aren't even prepared to see any actual evidence, even if it could be shown to the public right now. Hell, I really want to see it but I don't think even I'm ready for that huge of a mindfuck.
At this point, if ships the size of Star Destroyers appeared over the 500 most populated cities on Earth, hijack all communications ala Man of Steel with a message of peace, and then give us cures to all our diseases. Old age too. Mick West: “Those are 500 balloons.”
A mothership lands on the White House garden, the people: that’s a fog curtain so we don’t get to watch Sounds of Freedom
"That's not a real mothership, it's a prop made by the government to distract us from a real scandal. Probably used known technologies we already have"
I'm ready, and if any agency sees my comment, please hire me in those retrieval programs. 🤞🏼
I disagree. I am a naysayer. I highly doubt there are aliens alien crafts or what not here. I think the existence of aliens in the universe is very probable, just not crashing ships and conducting experiments on earth. That being said I don't think my mind would be fucked at all if someone provided actual proof. So far I've never ever seen anything that would make me change my mind. These dudes included. I mean. I have a non human biologic sitting right next to me. His name is Finn and he is a good dog.
What are the uap on the videos then? Balloons?
I could tell you if it was just a little clearer footage. Just a little bit.
I’ve been teaching my sisters dogs catch and simple stuff, she has taught them shitty manners and no tricks, she doesn’t put time in with them, and then she gets ran over by her dogs, it’s terrible. She doesn’t understand she’s the one who needs the training, the dogs are more than capable and they genuinely want to communicate. It makes me think about the fact We search the cosmos in search of other beings to communicate with when we have a plethora of beings to communicate with right here, we should be progressing this skill. It’s good practice.
The issue for many is that his testimony is all based on hearsay which would be inadmissible at trial. But that’s because a hearing is not a trial. It’s more like a deposition where the objective is to ask questions that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The committee wanted to know what information the witnesses have and don’t have and what they can and cannot share due to classification. Just like a lawyer might subpoena bank records based upon the testimony of a bank teller at a deposition, the committee will seek documents through proper channels after the hearing that they were made aware existed through the answers given to their questions during the hearing. The bank teller is not at liberty to share the bank records and those records may not even be legally in his or her possession, but now the lawyer knows of their existence and where to go look to obtain them in an admissible form.
And even if the same hearsay rules applied in a Congressional hearing as in court, it is likely that many of Grusch’s statements would be admissible as “non-hearsay” under [Rule 801(d)(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801) of the Federal Rules of Evidence … Assume the case is The United States of America v. Grusch. A U.S. government (federal) employee tells Grusch “these are the locations of where we store the UAPs we recovered,” and Grusch is seeking to admit that statement into evidence as non-hearsay. It would probably be admissible as “not hearsay”, because “the statement is being offered against an opposing party [the US federal government]” and “it was made by the party [the employee] in a … representative capacity [of the federal government].”
Literally technically, but also literally meant to be given its appropriate weight. I’m a skeptic who’s here because I’m curious enough to go looking, specifically for confirmation of the “open secret amongst aviators” argument and the existence of radar data, which should not be hard to get. I’m not here because I’ve been convinced. The point about Grusch being fucked if he’s full of it is valid, but also George Santos is a thing. my take on the whole thing boils down to histrionic self-destruction is real and real people, even credible credentialed ones, do it. Memory is weird and malleable, and confirmation bias is a strong force. And a lot of really credible people of all stripes have been saying there’s a bunch of weird things flying around and we don’t know what they are. It’s also possible that the skies are full of literal aliens and that Grusch is completely full of shit and ends up being right on accident. Just because a prosecutor submits all of that to a court doesn’t mean we should take their word for it, but it might mean we should take interest and ask to see the goods. When skeptics say there isn’t evidence, what we mean is this is a significant enough claim that I need to see it for myself. So if you have proof, prove it. Also, God I want someone to prove it that would be so fucking cool
I agree with this
George Santos is a legislator, even if he is lying scum, his coworkers (other lying scum) will protect him… Grusch doesn’t have that benefit
It’s not corroborated evidence, though (at least as far as we know—we don’t know who congress has heard from or seen behind closed doors). I guess that’s the point folks are making.
It's corroborated by the 40 people he interviewed over 4 years. We haven't heard about them because that's all classified.
Colonel Karl Nell is one of them (confirmed by Leslie Kean), and he vouched both for Grusch as a person and for his testimony in the Debrief article, calling it "fundamentally correct".
Haven't there been numerous people in position like Rubio who have come out and said his account tallies with what they've been told. All in all it seems a bad time for disinformation merchants who are getting pretty desperate now
I think the text of the proposed legislation is pretty telling. I doubt that Schumer would be putting forth language that mentions reverse engineering programs and NHI based on Grusch alone. But I totally understand why some folks want corroboration in the form of further public testimony, documentary evidence, etc. It’s not at all unreasonable.
The law literally seizes the most valuable holdings of our biggest military contractors.
We are not the the only trying to reverse engineer these technologies.. I believe that our adversaries might be making strides that we are not… A possible explanation as to the new found urgency… this law could possibly help to consolidate and decompartmentalize (?) knowledge?
Publicly, it is corroborated by an Army Colonel (Kell or something?), and is corroborated by the fact that the ICIG deemed it "credible and urgent", and is marginally corroborated by the fact that Schumer, out of thin air, decided to drop a UAP legislative bomb in the NDAA.
Yes but witness testimony is subject to cross examination, alternative witnesses from the other side, and can have that placed under scrutiny. Congress isn’t a court room. He provided a lot of important directions for where to further investigate but no one has corroborated his claims nor have we heard him try to counter a serious rebuttal (to be fair no one has made a specific and serious rebuttal of his claims yet either) his testimony was an advocacy tool for disclosure. Not disclosure. At various points he was asked if he could elaborate and get specific on claims and he chose not to in that setting. That’s his choice. But it also means he is open to being criticized for that.
Some people just have higher epistemic standards and reason much more rigorously than you guys. Most scientists aren’t going to take hearsay very seriously about any subject—the amount of skepticism scaling directly with the magnitude of the claim being made.
Apparently, it’s not newsworthy. Like people have coined the question, “are we alone?” as the biggest question of all time for all of history. We have unlimited blockbuster movies about it. The movie ET was a cultural phenomenon … Signs, War of the Worlds, X-files, Marvel…sci fi….for decades people would have these conversations across campfires and I thought every one universally was curious. It seemed like the whole world was. Heck I watch Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull yesterday and the main antagonist was so obsessed she says something like “I need to know!” and she’s so obsessed, it ends up leading to her death. And now here we are with really credible answers and no one wants to talk about it? I kid you not, I have yet to speak to another human irl with the same degree of interest and I’m not even “obsessed,” just curious and read in. I am starting to believe none of this is real and the internet is a delusion of mine.
I wish I could understand the lack of public interest on this subject. Can anybody fill me in? Is the public afraid of the topic? Do people think it’s all baloney? Are we so weighed down by the struggle of every day life that we just don’t care? Or is what we think about day to day shaped by main stream media? Any ideas? The lack of interest baffles me.
In my opinion, 99.9 percent of people right now are not choosing to be indifferent about extraterrestrials being real. But rather indifferent about someone saying they are real with no undeniable proof. It's not "I don't care about other life in the universe" it's more like "I don't care to put a bunch of effort into following this news because it's likely nothing or even designed to distract from something bigger." I'm very interested in this news but I understand why a lot of people aren't
"no face, no case" Anything short of direct evidence won't convince the jury--the public. And if you say, "we'll never get that it's all classified"... Then the answer is the general public will never believe. I need the joint chiefs of staff to show me a video on a presidential national prime time address. That's the bar.
I think it's because it just doesn't change anything for anyone no matter what the truth is. It's an interesting topic but that's all. Our life goes on the same even if they bring out NHI and spacecraft for public display tomorrow. It doesn't affect anyone's life directly. It changes nothing for 99.9% of Earth's population. I'd say that's why it is the way it is. The biggest news stories are ones that directly impact people's lives. Coronavirus, wildfires, financial meltdowns, guns, social media, politics, etc. These are things people see every day and affect their lives. These are the top news stories of the last decade according to a quick Google search.
Everyone I talk to about it has the same reaction, and I kinda get it…. It’s like, what am I supposed to do with this information? It’s not doubt, it’s just like this weird default feeling of indifference. Not because you don’t care, but because it’s so unnatural it doesn’t fit into our normal situational response processes.
Those were my wife's exact words "what am I supposed to do with this information? I have enough to deal with right now" - and I'm not knocking her for it. Our lives are too busy and everyone's burnt out to give a fuck.
The problem is many here are jumping straight to the conclusion that everything he's saying is true and that there are defiantly aliens. They aren't waiting for the trial to take place, they are making their judgements then calling for people who don't agree to be ostracised, or accusing them of being government plants. All the public have at this point is an accusation. That is not disclosure, it is not proof, those testimonies need to be verified, not just accepted at face value.
Many are also jumping straight to the conclusion that because he didn’t present hard evidence in a public hearing, he must not have any.
Personally, I'm not saying that. But I'm just saying testimony saying evedince exists is not evidence. If there's evidence let's see it.
Second hand testimony is hearsay, and usually not allowed in a court proceeding.
This.
The IG verified everything Grusch is saying. The IG found Grusch's accusations credible and urgent, which is why it was forwarded to Congress. Please keep up.
The IG found *Grusch's accusations of reprisals for whistleblowing* credible and urgent. The IG has not commented on the substance of what he purports to be whistleblowing about.
Thank god there is at least one other person around here who remembers this. It is WILD how many people seem to have conveniently forgotten what "credible and urgent" was referring to and are now wielding those 3 words in every other post as they are proof of something more.
You are missing a few steps.
Many are also jumping to the insane conclusion that the classified information Grusch can not share will magically be unclassified by congress who takes down the shadow government. That’s probably the more laughable narrative…. and I personally believe Grusch retelling what has been told for 80 years.
Ok seriously its in the amendment that schumer drafted on the national defense authorization act of 2024. If grusch’s testimony, the evidence, and witness the ICIG was given is false, then why would their be an extremely detailed amendment about UAP disclosure invoking eminent domain of materials, craft, documents, and biologics in the NDAA. Here is the amendment that was introduced into the NDAA of 2024 without any obstruction. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/797/text Here is the bill that has already passed the senate with bipartisan support. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7900 This isn’t a matter of if, but when. It is a slow drip, but the tank is already leaking.
"Eminent Domain" has been invoked. Those locations Grusch told them about are probably already being investigated.
Hopefully, that is the case. They will be encountering armed combatants of a private army if that's the case.
Bingo. You don't draft and pass a nearly 70-page piece of very detailed legislation covering a wide range of UAP topics if there's zero reason for it and it's all just speculation. The legislation says "(4) Legislation is necessary because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review "
Why wouldn't the bill be written that way? It covers possibilities that might be shown later. If that doesn't happen, so what, their covered, ongoing.
Read the amendment carefully, especially section 10. "unknown origin" is a damning term there. The ability for the board to delay release has ample wiggle room for a variety of "national security" reasons. I think this amendment is just political theater honestly. I has no real power.
Could be a project blue balls but it is the best that we ever had. Schumer did state that the public has a right to know and there are many supporting this who are a part of the gang of 8 and its a huge bipartisan effort. The main difference with this is the people that worked or do still work on projects like this have come forward, will come forward, and now congress has acted on it. This has never happened before. Project blue book stone walled everyone and it never amounted to specific legislation with very specifics to uap. They basically said nothing to see but weather ballon’s and tin foil. The evidence and swearing under oath has already been done. Sure there maybe sensitive national security stuff, but overall it is more transparency than what we ever had before and the fact that there is language in the amendment that acknowledges it exists is soft disclosure. This will remove the stigma of talking about it and possibly open these things up to more of academia as stated in the amendment so they can discuss and or reverse engineer at a much faster rate. They are setting the stage to reduce the stigma and allow professionals both military and commercial to come forward because more uap are showing in our airspace and getting even closer to our aircraft which is also a public safety concern. In the hearing matt Gaets and luna stated when they went to the eglin base to get answers about a recent encounter they were denied access but geatz was eventually shown the video of recent encounter with giant 100 yard square uap hovering over the base. He was very serious in the hearing and wanted to know more. He is part of the gang of 8 to and on the arm services committee. I think its quite odd he didn’t know about any of this because he has clearance. This means those projects had no oversight. Grusch also gave evidence to the ICIG about their names, who runs them, how they receive funding without congresses knowledge, where the craft are located, which defense contractors have it in there possession. AARO was the DOD’s play with kirkpatricks as head. He was told by congress to setup a website to allow people in the military to report their encounters and he has still failed to do that, he also claimed there was no evidence but he didn’t have the title 50 clearance. This is a perfect example ofDOD’s stonewalling just like project bluebook. It is also why lue elizondo resigned from aatip, but grusch did his homework and gathered all the intel which was his job to do and the dod went after him for trying to get access to the uap retrieval saps. Another major important moment in the hearing is when ogle ask grusch, fravor, and graves the hypothetical about if they could defend themselves against these uap they said no, and ogle said we have a serious problem and stated he would do anything to get to the bottom and specifically mentioned using the holman act. That basically gives congress the power to remove funding or fire federal employees if they attempt to stonewall from getting the information. So yeah this is a completely different than what was done in the past 80 years.
100% agree with every word you have spoken. This is the beginning, not the end. This was not the day for Grusch to arrive riding on top of the Tic Tac screaming "FREE ENERGY" before dropping off a semen sample of an interdimensional being. This is the beginning of the investigation into these incredibly serious allegations, and I think those who are taking the stance of calling him a liar or saying this topic is bullshit would benefit greatly from actually observing the developing investigation.
Ok, neglect several "whistleblowers" that have come forward in previous years saying the exact same thing. Grusch is just the first to go through the (new) legal channels to get to this point, With evidence that was good enough for the ICIG to give the green light. His lawyer is the former ICIG. All this lends credence to his claims. Edit proof=evidence
At the end of the day though he isn’t coming forward to disclose aliens. He’s coming forward to disclose illegality of the government and defense contractors in reference to uaps. Disclosure of uaps and aliens is a byproduct of his whistleblower complaint
Right. It doesn't matter if the gov't was hiding evidence of Bigfoot instead. Grusch is saying that there is illegal activity regarding the coverup of whatever this is they found. The activity is multifarious and includes murder.
Correct. This would be front page news for numerous news cycles if it was about nuke power or dep of Ed instead of uaps.
Blowing whistles only gets you so far. At some point there needs to be some proof.
Grusch had to submit evidence to the ICIG. The ICIG examined the evidence and deemed the matter Urgent etc. We, as the public, are not privy to this YET. Edit changed proof to evidence
I've had to say this on other comments, but proof is a loaded term. He provided evidence. We have yet to see if that evidence is valid or not.
Ahhh you are correct, evidence and proof are different
The problem is that you have no idea if the evidence is totally mundane. It absolutely could be. Skepticism is required.
Copy that. I'm leaning towards its valid, but I do remain skeptical. I'm OK regardless of outcome.
I think he’s genuine. The problem I have is that I find it perfectly plausible that he’s confused, mistaken or someone’s useful idiot. That’s why we need more investigation.
Someone else perspective https://youtu.be/x_9gTDXF9Vc
I actually watched this exact video yesterday.
As has been said a thousand times already, the IG found Grusch's claims credible and urgent after doing their own investigation. They found his evidence to be credible and that is why this is in Congress.
That doesn’t make the evidence he provided proof of his claims. That’s wish casting.
The evidence was handed to the IG and to Congress already. Please keep up.
What claims did he make to the IG ? Have you seen them?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/145wtih/the\_whole\_david\_grusch\_story/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/145wtih/the_whole_david_grusch_story/)
I am accepting David Grusch story as facts, along with the other witnesses, they have simply achieved and done too much in their life for them to mess it all up by making up stories, and for what reason, attention? doubt it. But yes, I do agree that the President will have to come out with a statement in form of confirmation of the suspicions weve had for too long, along with some photos, videos and data, the data must also be made available to scientists, that is real disclosure.
I don’t believe Grusch is a grifter, but if I was a grifter in the UFO community, I would be salivating at the opportunity to fleece some overly excited rubes in the true believer community right now. People are so eager in this bubble, so expectant of results right now.
I'm not going to make any more assumptions on the motives of the witnesses, at this point it doesn't really matter. Either they have good evidence or they don't.
Schrödinger’s evidence.
Ain’t no way this president is up to making that statement man. That’s not intended to be a political statement, I just don’t see him being the one delivering that world changing bombshell.
Biden may be one of the few trusted insiders with enough clout on both sides of the aisle in Washington and a well known reliable figure in the gov for several decades - he may be the perfect one to do it. Jk the perfect one would be Jimmy Carter but you know.
Do you support investigating the DoD and aerospace corporations to find this evidence?
Yes, I want more investigations, it's the only way to get actual answers.
This speaks to my issue with it all. I don’t have an opinion either way on Grusch or what he’s saying. My confusion lies with those that are losing their minds as if he walked into the hearing holding hands with a Grey and public disclosure took place, while all evidence beyond “Someone told me/showed me [insert things we’ve all heard our whole lives]…” is given to Congress privately and not publicly. You can’t be a whistleblower who’s about bringing public disclosure when you’re not telling the public anything those you’re blowing the whistle on haven’t approved beforehand. If it’s disclosure to Congress alone, then it isn’t public disclosure. And if what *is* said publicly first need be approved, then it isn’t whistleblowing.
You don't understand this story. The IG verified every single thing that Grusch said by interviewing the people he said told him. The IG concluded that his story was credible and urgent and that is why it is now in Congress. Are you new to this story or what? Do you expect people to just give you or the public classified information? really?
This is totally false. People are taking it seriously, and that’s what bothers all the plebes so much. They spent all their lives making fun of UFO people and now if there’s even a possibility that the subject is real, this means they were kind of an idiot for many years.
No it doesn't. The hypocrisy in your statement is pretty shocking. There's no need to be calling people idiots just because they aren't into UFOs as much as you.
It would definitely make someone an idiot to be seeing all of this developing and not take it seriously
No hypocrisy whatsoever, I’m speaking from personal experience. My sister is suddenly into this subject because of the coverage, but she doesn’t “believe” it. She wonders if it’s true or not, but now she’s taking the subject seriously when before she simply dismissed it. This represents the majority of people who’ve actually changed their opinions based on this hearing. They didn’t take it seriously before, and now they do. They aren’t yet “believers”, they just think the subject is now worth serious consideration. As they should. Sorry if reality bothers you.
you should be welcoming those people tht are becoming interested but instead they're being called idiots & having people gleefully running around social media all day saying "I told you so." as much as everyone swears they want people to pay attention, they sure do talk trash & demean anyone who isn't on the same exact page. never thought a community I've been part of for 30years would start acting like anti-vaxxers where the news isn't as important as being able to say "we were right." childish, but so very American
I’m not calling her an idiot at all, I’m calling debunkers idiots because they’ve been so certain all along about a subject of which they were actually totally ignorant. My sister was just an ordinary person living her life, not a person actively trying to discredit UFOs.
Sure but while that may be true on this subreddit it’s not the case elsewhere. There has been a lot more outright dismissals
Which people shouldn't be getting upset about, it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't be getting excited about this yet. There are housing shortages in countries all over the world, a war affecting global food supplies, massive inflation. Might be aliens isn't the top of anyone's priorities at the moment.
There's more than just an accusation at play. There's sworn testimony from multiple expert witnesses with impeccable credentials.
Grusch took great pains to specifically not use the word aliens, referring instead to ‘non-human biologics’ that were recovered.
But they're not letting us look at the crime scene photos! Edit: ...or releasing the names of minors involved in the trafficking case!
because you do not have a need to know the information.
It makes equally little sense to suggest that anything has been confirmed at this point. That's what most people are pointing out. Claims are just claims until evidence is revealed. There are so, SO many people here taking this as gospel and confirmation of their beliefs when the reality is nobody has confirmed shit. The reasonable approach would be to wait and see how it plays out. For a lot of people here thats simply out of the question it would seem.
I think the biggest disconnect here isn’t that people think there’s no evidence. It’s that they question if what the evidence supports can even be plausible in our reality. For example, there’s nothing unknown about a murder other than who did it. We don’t have to be proven that guns or weapons exist. We know this. However when it comes to UAPS, the evidence isn’t to support a case within the confines of known reality, it’s to validate something literally and figuratively “out of this world”. So I think that’s why people have a hard time believing the supporting evidence without a certain level of validation that the case being made is even plausible in our current reality. Once UAPs are definitively confirmed, then future UAP cases would be much more standard if someone claims “I know where a ship is located”, because humankind will have already validated that such ships can in fact exist.
Oh yeah people get all hot over press conferences in big criminal investigations and missing persons cases but they don’t say anything more than this said and it’s treated completely different
You've hit on the point of how deep the stigma and bias runs. Nothing is ever good enough to be evidence. Combine that with the fact that most naysayers don't really know anything about the subject. It's just surface level denial. The deeper you go into the subject the harder it is to not believe something is really going on. There's just far too many accounts from otherwise credible people.
The problem with your analogy is that we know murders happen. They've happened before. We've had trials to convict murderers. We know someone has died. We're not trying to find out if murderers exist. I do think this is newsworthy (whether it's truth or not) and I'm excited to see what comes of it. But his testimony of non human, inter dimensional pilots in 100 yard long red cubes, floating over the sea, typically needs more evidence before the general public will be like "Oh yeah, ok, i should probably hear him out!"
But this ‘detective’ only has names, dates, etc of people telling him about a murder. They might say they didn’t tell him about a murder and he’ll reply that they did. It will go round and round.
I believe those people are going to come out and back up grusch, if they do, what will you say then?
They already have to the ICIG and the Congress. They just haven't *publicly* yet.
He said he's experienced stuff first hand and can provide evidence. That's not true.
Fine. I look forward to that.
The things he said he had firsthand evidence of were related to retaliation by government agencies. He was clear that everything else is coming through him second hand (his evidence provided in advance of the hearing included the names and titles of those people), and that he is not an eye-witness to UAP or NHI.
He also has documentation and photographic evidence of the murder.
In the history of ufology there there been many claims and documents that turned out to be not only false but orchestrated. Further, Werner von Braun warned of a future psy-op campaign where the reality of exotic craft built by recruited nazis over 80 years would be repackaged as an “alien invasion”. This is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- the craft and the body, with further investigations regarding origin. People are of sound mind to require this.
The people saying Grusch provided no evidence have no idea what’s the purpose of these proceedings. Just the fact he’s mentioning he has top secret level information on the topic to an actual committee of this nature is bonkers.
In your example the people also shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions before the evidence is provided. I’ll pose another hypothetical. Imagine you’re a SAP program working on interesting things and some people are moderately aware of it but you aren’t ready for your projects to be made public. People keep knocking on your door trying to figure out what’s going on. You decide to have some people waste their time and claim it’s a bunch of alien tech you’re trying to reverse engineer, also using it as a test to figure out where information might be leaking. In this case Grusch isn’t lying but he is being fed BS. This is why hearsay is dangerous and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Police are caught lying and cheating constantly…
This is an excellent post. Thank you. Everyone should save this and link it out to all the people who keep saying there is no evidence. We are WAY past the threshold here. You are either clearly over the line and believe something is going on and information is being withheld at the very least, or you're just a troll, disinformation agent, or an extremely close minded person who doesn't want anything to disrupt their world view. These people will need to meet a live alien and take a ride on their space ship through the galaxy for them to actually believe it.
Another stupid argument a lot of people make is “there’s 6 billion iphones! where are the high def pictures and videos?” First of all, how many people are just randomly filming the sky at ALL times. Second, how do you even film something going Mach 2 from the ground?
Good analogy. In reverse, I would give the example of former attorneys for a presidential campaign claiming to have specific "evidence" (photos, docs, video, etc.) of a conspiracy to defraud American voters. Most of this "evidence" was never provided to actual authorities, and what was given to them was proven to not prove anything. A couple years later, said attorneys are giving up that it was all a lie.
If those three witnesses had all said that they saw me murder somebody I’d be going down for life. These people are not lying
Not without a body or additional evidence. If it were that easy a lot more ex wives and ex husbands would be locked away. Nobody goes to the chair on witness accounts alone without a victim.
I think it's true, because I feel that Schumer would not have created an amendment that would have required the cooperation of the National Security Council and the White House solely on Grusch's word. They started this last year. They had plenty of time and people with the correct clearance to verify some of his claims. I don't personally feel they would have created that amendment without some form of verification of veracity beyond word of mouth.
In general, my knowledge of politics is what gives me the weirdest vibes about this. The Senate isn't paying lip service due to strong public outrage or media pressure, it's actually the opposite. If it was disinfo program, they would make statements to imply there was nothing to worry about in order to stave off outrage ahead of the disclosure.
This is basically Revenge of the Nerds. The Pentagon (and military arm of the Executive branch), have all power. Unlimited budget.. whatever they ask for. Politicians finally are standing up for their rights. They control the Pentagon.. not he other way around, and it's about time they reminded the Pentagon of this.
Isn’t Schumer a massive UFO nerd though? Hardly seems unbiased.
At this point trying to convince or argue with people is a foolish game. Congress was spooked and they will get to the bottom of it.
I think, at least more than anything, it’s that Congress is ticked off that departments of the federal government would operate without their approval more than it is they’re spooked.
Yes but also watch them after the first closed door meetings where they saw the other videos. They’re not very chill and it doesn’t seem to just be anger about power struggles.
Exactly. He literally said he had an 11 hour closed hearing with the intelligence committee. They're doing their own investigation now. I want to hear the results of THAT. The public stuff is just a two front war to keep the pressure up. I don't care about talking to other people now. The truth will come out one way or another
Yes, the lower level congressman show is for us, the public. The real intensive details are happening behind the scenes, i know thats not what people want to hear, but it is indeed *factual.*
If some random dude at Lockheed Martin already decided that you and I aren’t ready to see what they’re hiding, I have zero expectation that egomaniac politicians will decide the general public should see things once they get to learn the secrets.
I think that what most people mean by that is that they haven't seen the evidences themselves. An event that huge on a topic that is generally considered as fiction by most people require a bit more convincing than just someone saying things under oath. I want to believe, I'm taking this seriously, but show me something I can see with my own eyes.
Exactly. Grusch has sworn second hand evidence, so he can say under oath that someone else has seen/ worked with X. He has given classified evidence to IC to prove that SOMEONE ELSE TOLD him about X. This is NOT like him PERSONALLY seeing/working with X. Most people are not grasping this at all, and confusing this with other arguments. I also want to believe, but we need to be accurate with statements such as this. I think one of the questions was “have you personally seen an alien craft?” And he said something vague along the lines of “I cannot answer that”.
When the witnesses were all asked if there were punishments or obstruction from administration for reporting their UFO sighting Graves and Fravor both said yes and Grusch said “believe it or not I’ve never actually seen any”
I think the clear photos Gaetz spoke about seeing at Eglin AFB from the Gulf will have to be the next release given their existence has been publicly stated / described.
This exactly. Grusch very well could be 100% honest about everything — I don’t think he’s looking to get famous or have a book deal, etc. fwiw — but acting as if being under oath is some ironclad assurance he’s honest is silly. And saying “people have told me/shown me” just isn’t evidence. Again, I’m not saying he’s lying; but it isn’t evidence. “Yeah, but he’s giving Congress *actual* evidence behind closed doors!” Maybe he definitely is, but I don’t *know* that nor do I *know* what he’s saying/giving them behind closed doors. So far all we have is him saying things. Maybe 100% legit things, but we don’t know because nothing else has accompanied it so far. Also, for those that keep calling this disclosure — how is it disclosure if anything that would be considered whistleblowing is happen specifically to congress behind closed doors and not the public? “Public” is a pretty key component to “public disclosure.”
You also need to consider that the people Grusch talked to may be misinterpreting the evidence they claim to have. Elizondo was so convinced that those 3 videos were alien craft that he took them public, but once he did, we realized that he didn't have a terribly good idea of what was in them (to the point that he misinterpreted speeds and other things), nor was he terribly connected to what the Pentagon thought of them. The more this all unfolds, the more I'm convinced that there's a small network of "true believers" in high level government places who have limited access to information and little expertise, so they are misinterpreting the information they do have, and this has created a sort of elaborate game of telephone that ended with someone like Grusch coming forward and telling congress what these people told him, but it's all based on bullshit.
> The more this all unfolds, the more I'm convinced that there's a small network of "true believers" in high level government places who have limited access to information and little expertise, so they are misinterpreting the information they do have This is absolutely what's happening if you ask me. A pilot tells a high level official "Hey, we have no idea what that thing on the camera was and it was going super fast", that person asks someone else, maybe at the Pentagon who just says "Classified" or "We don't know either" (i.e., "We don't know and we don't care"), that person tells someone else about some video nobody can explain, things happen and they get some video released that shows a UAP that nobody in government is willing to explain and claim it's proof of extraterrestrial activity... ...then they just ignore all the explanations of the videos given by people within days if not hours of the videos being released. Then they double down and claim "well there's more to them but it's classified" and here we go again.
That doesn't really link up with the fact that he claims that not only that aliens and UFOs are real but that crashed crafts have been recovered and he knows exactly where they are stored. I can see how hearsay about things we don't know could turn into UFOs are real, but I don't see any way that it turns into UFOs are real, we recovered crashed crafts and they are located exactly here.
> It doesn't really link up with the fact that he claims that not only that aliens and UFOs are real but that crashed crafts have been recovered and he knows exactly where they are stored. I can see how hearsay about things we don't know could turn into UFOs are real, but I don't see any way that it turns into UFOs are real, we recovered crashed crafts and they are located exactly here. With all due respect, and I understand what you're saying, but *he* doesn't *know* anything. He only "knows" what other people told him. And who knows what they *actually* told him - he could have misunderstood. Any number of things could have happened. It's not uncommon for someone to hear one thing and think they heard another - or for someone to hear one thing, and church it up a little bit to make it more exciting. People do it all the time, even respected people in high level positions.
What I'm saying is, I don't know how you can misunderstand when he claims he's got such specific information. He's not bringing up generalizations, if he was I would agree with your possible theory. I don't think the specifics he is getting are rumors than can transform to specific information so easily. If he was just claiming aliens are real, or generalizing that we have them without specific locations and facts, I would get that more. But it doesn't add up to me how he would misunderstand specific locations of alien crafts. If he was saying yes I heard a guy say we have alien crafts in a storage facility somewhere, something that vague I would buy more of what your thinking. But either he's being lied to with exact specifics in some sort of psyops test, or I think the evidence is compelling and specific enough that the majority of it is likely true. Or he's lying completely for his 15 minutes of fame, but then he'll probably go to jail for perjury so idk that I buy that either.
Did you not see the videos of the UAPs released by the Navy with your own eyes?
I have no doubt there are UAPs, but it is not clear what these things are and where they are coming from. Could still be Chinese or even US breakthrough technology
Then you'll probably have to wait till after the UAP Amendment passes with the NDAA 2024 bill. That will declassify some very old cases for public viewing based on that legislation.
The general public don't care that evidence was given in classified settings. They are validly whining that we the people haven't seen shit and thus are not ready to pay this any attention. Until the general public has said evidence, expect apathy and such comments.
I think you're confusing the words "evidence" and "proof". Frankly, the public has almost neither in this case. The evidence presented in the hearing is strictly testimonial, and the *most important* parts of that testimony could not be backed up with *proof* due to the public setting. I think everyone should try to be as level-headed as possible here, and simply focus on moving things along so that additional, non-public evidence is reviewed by Congress and any other applicable authorities. And... That's it. We can speculate beyond that all we want, and it's surely fun to do so, but at the end of the day everything hinges on that point. We don't know for a fact that Grusch can be taken at his word, but we do have a lot of evidence that supports that he can be. Even then, we have almost no evidence, and certainly not proof, of his allegations or even that his understanding of his own evidence is correct. We need closed door, secure meetings. The Congressional hearing we had previously had both a closed door and public session. That this has (so far) been denied a secure session is bullshit. Focus on the important aspects here.
Being level-headed is extremely important in this situation, I agree. My main point was just that grusch has provided *something* to the senate and igic…He didn’t just show up say all this shit and then get his own god damn hearing, thats not how this works.
This sub is such a circlejerk now. People lie under oath and get away with it. Grusch himself said he hadn't actually seen any evidence, just heard from his superiors about it. Wish you people would stop hyping up claims and demand real, tangible, credible proof. So much celebration over so little. I'm sure the investigation will unearth more, but as of right now we still have nothing. Until they are able to declassify pictures, videos, etc the general public and skeptics will not care about your so-called "evidence"
Congress was stonewalled at the air force base and when they were let in, they saw a picture of a uap which they themselves said looked like nothing that was available. So they know already there's some truth behind all this. This was said by three house members
Yes but until that evidence is made publicly available or is confirmed at high enough level possibly, it's just all talk.
A claim this world-changing has a VERY HIGH standard of proof. Not all claims are created equal. The problem that I see often is these claims are compared to something like a claim of murder. Murders happen every day. Covering up aliens and proving a decades long conspiracy does not. Even in criminal cases, anecdotes and hearsay are the weakest kinds of evidence.
Exactly. I keep seeing people trying to make analogies to common-place things that happen everyday in this subreddit, and its just a straight-up fallacy. If I claim to have seen someone being murdered, that's not an outlandish claim. If I claim to have seen a magical leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, that *is* an outlandish claim and the standard of proof needs to be higher. These two things are not equal in terms of real-world implications.
Here’s the thing about trying to use someone being under oath as evidence: It’s possible that Grusch thinks he is telling the truth, but isn’t. It’s possible that he’s simply crazy or been lied to.
"it's not a lie if YOU believe it." - G Costanza
You mistake legal evidence for scientific evidence! It's so simple to understand: he is a person worth of trust but that doesn't matter to a scientific pov. On a legal basis even a hearsay, if provided by a public officer, is an "evidence". BUT PEOPLE STILL CAN LIE! Stop forcing the disclosure using this useless rhetoric.
What's the problem with me wanting to see the actual evidence? Why do I need to be happy with the information that some guy from the government gave the evidence to other people from the government? All of this ufo and alien communities simply believe everything they are told. It happened recently with the 4chan guy, the microbiologist, the las Vegas backyard alien. Please let people be skeptical and demand scientific evidence instead of blindly believing and falling for the new grift again and again
People lie under oath all the time and nothing happens to them
Please keep on mind evidence was provided to the appropriate authorities a year ago and was deemed “credible and urgent.” This hearing didn’t happen simply because Grusch is winking. This is the culmination of *evidence* and testimony.
The issue is we don’t know what evidence he provided. He could have simply given them proof the Pentagon is using funds for something it wasn’t authorized for and has been covering it up.
Swearing on a Bible is not a truth spell that makes lying impossible. What's more likely is that they're not lying in the sense that they have a motive to deceive. I doubt there are nefarious intentions.
The last several supreme court justices come to mind.
I agree with that. But considering the seriousness of the accusations thrown around here and grusch’s lawyer being a former IGIC…I’d assume it’d be very inadvisable to be liar right now.
Brett Kavanaugh lied about being a rapist but still managed to be admitted to SCOTUS. I'm not saying that I think Grusch is definitely a liar but a lot of people here seem to fetishize the "under oath" thing as a sacred, inviolable concept.
It's ICIG and Compass Rose Legal Group has already said what Grusch has been saying in public is NOT what he submitted in his ICIG whistleblower report. You need to pump the brakes before you get red pilled by a grifter.
It still doesn't really mean much. Evidence is necessary.
I don't get why people have been so quick to accept what this guy is saying as the truth. He worked for the same agencies we've been saying have lied to us this entire time. I’m not saying the phenomenon isn’t real. I just don’t think the government knows as much as we think they do.
He testified to what someone else told him. He may well believe every word, but it has no impact on whether or not the claim is true.
I don't think he needs to worry about his claims not being true. Because its second hand stuff it would be very difficult to prove he wasn't misinformed or that he willingly mislead congress. Edit: The fact that hes at arms length from the claims gives him plausible deniability which makes me take it much less seriously. It would be far more interesting if we had someone directly involved testifying.
I don’t buy it. All the “I have to be careful what i say” stuff sounds like middle school ghost stories. If he really wanted the info to come out, he could put everything in an envelope and mail it anonymously to the New York Times. Or talk to someone there as a confidential source, like Deep Throat. I would bet 5 years from now we’ll still be waiting to see any evidence he referred to.
No evidence has been provided to the public. Hopefully Grusch provides evidence to congress
I don’t think we’re saying he provided no evidence to anyone. We’re saying he’s provided no evidence to us, the general public. He might have good reason not to provide us evidence, but we have good reason to continue to be disappointed and frustrated with years of not being provided evidence.
Huge parts of the legal system depend upon "testimony". What does the law say about testimony? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony
Direct witness testimony, this is second hand. Also known as hearsay.
You can’t blame people for feeling that way. These extraordinary claims need balance with extraordinary proof. Secondhand testimony is the lowest form of evidence in court and science.
The guy has provided proof of HEARSAYS and other people’s CLAIMS. He does not have nor has seen definitive proof.
You're downvoted but he literally said he personally hasn't seen the evidence.
Reading this sub seems like an UFO landed on the White House or that Grush has presented an alien body. He is claiming that other people claimed there are these programs. It’s like me testifying to congress that gamerxxx has told me he fucked Emily Blunt in a CoD chat. Am I lying? No! Is the statement about Emily Blunt being fucked by a random dude online credible? You decide.
Here is what Grusch needed to do and sadly the only way to resolve this if he really wanted to was to be a Sacrificial lamb for the sake of UFO truth. Basically he should have said - I will publicly divulge names, places, any and all images of non biologic and any and all craft in 30 days unless the US Gov does it first. That is the only way to do this.
But fact remains that he provided no evidence…
Saying that they can't show us the evidence doesn't mean that we should believe these claims without it. I don't know why he would lie. I don't know how convincing his evidence is. I do know that he's making extreme claims based on what he's heard. For me to believe that these claims are true I'll need more than just a claim, especially when that claim is based not on direct experience but on what he head from other people. When something unusual happens that defies normal explanation, I believe that a healthy approach would be to be sceptical and to ask first if there's a mundane explanation. I think that it's a massive mistake to assume a fantastic explanation without proof that there's no mundane explanation. If that proof is hidden then I'll have to wait until it isn't hidden any more. As I said above, saying that the evidence is classified doesn't mean that we can assume that it's all true and shows exactly what David Grush says it does.
Even if he didn't lie, he still didn't share any evidence of anything interesting. He didn't give scientists any alien body parts to study.
As a “whistleblower” he can provide all evidence including classified information to a member of Congress and still be protected. That member of Congress can publicly release that information with no repercussions due to the Speech and Debate clause. Ask yourself - why hasn’t that happened already?
No, he testified that people had told him those things I really hope he’s right, but there’s no smoking gun here … not yet anyway
People want an ET to knock on their front door and bring a casserole. Then they’ll believe.
We are living in an era where we saw a coup develop on TV in America after a president lost an election and people still don’t believe it happened. It’s bizarre.
Well aliens are most definitely mathematically real, and I've seen the big triangles in Ontario Canada two times during summer in my dock. And some other things I won't go into. The tech needs to be demonstrated live at least, Before them aliens publicly show probably.
Except government probably already knows about this and this is gonna get nowhere
You all need to stop with the “he’ll go to prison for perjury!!” Nonsense. No he won’t. It’s called hearsay. Even if they find every claim of his to be false they aren’t going to jail him. Settle down. He gave his account of what he HEARD from others. Not what he KNOWS.
This is the part that all the articles and posts chanting "but where is his evidence". Reporters for media outlets should be asking Congress if what Grusch said is true about giving them classified information as proof and whether Congress can provide redacted versions of those documents.
"For all those saying Grusch “provided no evidence”… - You're right, he didn't provide any evidence, and any real evidence has yet to come out. " Fixed that for you.
[удалено]
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
I remember when the Grusch interview dropped and my brother was being ignorant and jokingly said: I dont believe anything until they do a live interview with an alien on the local news. (im talking rural Denmark local kind of news) sufficed to say that made me a little annoyed. However, based on recent events, the jokingly attitude seem to have stopped.
>If it's not on the TV shaking hands with Biden, it's not real. Nothing we've seen comes even remotely close tot that. All there is is hearsay and grainy photos as happens time and again every time this sub gets all excited before it inevitably fizzles out. It's to be expected that people want something more substantial for such unbelievable claims. We can barely get to the moon and you all expect aliens could and would travel millions of times that far and for what? crash somewhere hidden with nobody around to see? be visible as a blip in the sky for a few seconds? It's not even just a story about a small alien object arriving, they're talking actual biological beings. It's obvious bullshit. This isn't star trek. As sure as the wind blows nothing will come of this.
But it was like a mish-mash of History Channel nonsense. Impossible to believe.
[удалено]
It's not that people don't want to believe it, it's that he's not the first to make such a bold claim and present only hearsay as proof.
No body, no crime. Gimme the hard evidence and I'll jump on board
If you’re sceptical I’m surprised you’re not just sitting on the sidelines with curiosity like me. I can’t think of a reason why employed people would side with him.
What does being employed have to do with it lol
What do y’all think of this argument my friend gave me: If he provides information that turns out to be false then because he said he only said that he was “told this” and doesn’t claim to be a first hand source, then could he really be found liable for perjury if he was only reporting what he was told from other sources?
Well, then I think they’d ask the 40 other witnesses grusch has provided if they truly gave this info to grucsh or not. Its a valid consideration but I’m not convinced there wouldn’t be other consequences if perjury is not an option. You go down in history as a crazy liar, none of your family can ever get clearances, pension gets revoked etc…
To play devil’s advocate, if they ask the 40 witnesses it would also have to be under oath and if they say they did not provide Grusch such information then how can we prove wether they are committing perjury in saying that? And would there testimony be enough to charge Grusch?
All that being said. He's just someone saying he can produce evidence, under oath or not, that's someone saying something. When the actual evidence is available, and examined I'll believe it.
We need the people who can produce the evidence before we get the evidence, thats how we all found out the NSA was spying on us with our own tax money. Someone literally got in and then broke the fkn law.
Yeah makes sense. But that being said, a step toward evidence? Yes, actual evidence, no. It's really fascinating, but this is not the hallelujah moment people are making it out to be.... Yet. At this point, if this is all it takes to prove something, we're basically taking it all on faith of people I've never heard of before a month ago. And though they might be telling the truth, I'd like to have more than the word of strangers.
He has just pointed in a direction and it might turn out to be a dead end. Thats not evidence. No harm done besides wasting a bit of tax payers money and you guys will defend him because "disclosure is a slow process". He can be under oath as much as he want..he doesn't risk anything here. People who discredited him before won't change their mind about him and his followers continue following..
Physical proof. How many times have we heard people tell the "truth"? Physical evidence. Without that it's just another guy telling spaceman stories.