45
votes
Among US whistleblower claims: Nonhuman biologics have been recovered
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Here are the 5 most memorable moments from Congress' UFO hearing
- Published
- Jul 26 2023
- Word count
- 1038 words
Lol! Too relatable. I worked at a non-profit that did heritage preservation with a number of projects in the meso-american area - think Mayans and Aztecs. The number of calls and emails we received from folks trying to return things they had taken from heritage sites before the Mayan 2012 apocalypse was pretty unbelievable and equally hilarious!
For those interested here is a good video about crackpots from an acedemic: https://youtu.be/11lPhMSulSU
She also has a good video on Avi Loeb.
This reminds me of John Baez's "crackpot index" when evaluating crazy claims in physics: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
25 years old and feels like it was written today lol... I feel like society hasn't changed much at all in my lifetime, people just think it has.
I honestly can't believe we're giving this the time of day.
It's tabloid headlines dressed up as news and doing the rotations for every sector. There is no proof, there is no evidence, there's the claims of one person. It's just baffling to me how people are willing to buy into scam after scam like this.
I'm curious to know what about this says scam to you, i.e. do you think the guy is just looking for fifteen minutes?
I've watched and read the interviews, and while I am a gullible mook who would love to believe, I try to stay skeptical. So far he seems to just be doing boring whistleblower shit, loudly insisting at every step that he doesn't have proof. Despite the enormous claim, it feels comparatively sober.
I expect it to be a big nothingburger, because it always is, but the guy doesn't feel like he's selling a bridge.
Because from my point of view it's like asking "why does someone claiming that healing rocks, astrology, and tarot cards work scream scam to you?", "why don't you think there's hot singles in your area?", "why don't you think this house is haunted?", "what don't you think this person can read minds?" or "why don't you believe in God?" (which i'd say i'm agnostic to give some clarity there).
There is an absurd mountain of evidence from across multiple fields of science that is against them(them being all these supposed witnesses or whistleblowers). There's common sense arguments such as the entire SETI program and ones like it somehow not noticing or throwing a fucking parade on the discovery.
Can i PROVE it's not the case. No. I would be money life exists out there in the universe. I would bet way way way more money that nothing approaching intelligent or even sentient life has ever come anywhere near earth (i could see some argument that maybe one of the zillions of meteors had microscopic life that we never saw because it got nuked in the atmosphere, and even then anything extra solar I'd still bet huge amounts of money against).
There are plenty of things I don't know. There are also lots of people who have spent their lives trying to find other life in space using actual science. They take all of these allegations seriously and they spend a lot of time looking. Jill Tarter has done more work in this field than any keyboard warrior ever will, and would GLADLY verify anything if it looked remotely credible.
So if you'd like a breakdown on this, I think this video is great-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI
It's someone much smarter than me discussing how someone who is probably much smarter than both of us is likely morally bankrupt and disgracing higher education in America even more.
So no the fact that david grusch claims anything means less than nothing to me. I don't care if he's a grifter (which yes the fact he just happens to have a book, screams to me), delusional, or what, but the entire claim is just so on it's face insane it's hard to even pick where to start? Lets just assume he's right. How are they covering it up? Why? He's supposedly claimed the Pope was involved in the first crash in 1933, so the Vatican is behind it to. How the hell does this stay a secret? We couldn't even completely hide building the atomic bomb, and yet somehow we've been secretly reverse engineering alien tech for 70+ years with a shadow government and no major leaks except the occasional random hearsay?
It's just out and out bullshit. And i don't mean that in a hostile way, just in mere bafflement that it's not so obvious to everyone else. Even ignoring the physics or the science, anyone saying "well it's a secret the government kept hidden and I haven't seen much but i got told...." is on the bottom of my list for credibility from the start. This is trump "well i heard...." nonsense.
You also don't have to.
It's easy to make any wildly outlandish claim. Providing one that can be corroberated/proven/shown is more difficult, and without that, all you did in providing the claim was write really bad fantasy fanfic.
Would you be able to throw a link to Grusch's book? I wasn't aware of one, and searching "David Grusch book" didn't bring anything back on my end.
I don't know why people keep claiming he has an upcoming book, I also haven't been able to find a source for it. I think it just sounds right so folks are assuming it's true and repeating it.
He's still writing it.
I know I've heard plenty about it, but his name has become too widespread to find it when I was responding to the "15 minutes" question.
Seems like he might be.
That's not much without context, definitely too vague to get me all the way to "bridge-sellingly suspicious."
Hold on, why are you starting from the position of believing his claims?
He made outlanding claims, you should be firmly in the "Nothing about this is in any way true"-state and his claims have to convince you to leave that post.
As in, what should be needed to ascertain your "Nope, not true" position is... nothing, really. The guy making these claims got fuck all, showed fuck all, and provided fuck all, and hence there's nothing that would make you move off of the "Fuck all"-position.
I can make claims that we are the aliens, and the actual intelligent life form we supplanted 6500 years ago were the snails, but would you believe me? Probably not, right? So what makes this guy different, whose claim is essentially even more outlanding than mine?
I think their point is that they could just be wrong but genuinely believe in their claims. There are options other than scamming or otherwise taking advantage of peoples' gullibility.
Ah, true. Hanlon's Razor applies of course, chances are this guy isn't doing it out of malice.
I'm not even jumping to hanlon's razor (yet), because observation tells me that this guy isn't stupid, and prudence tells me that there are motives other than stupidity and malice.
It just doesn't feel sober or skeptical to do an endzone spike on Grusch simply because he doesn't have the whole story tied up in a bow all by himself.
Eji1700's wall of text above sounds pretty assured of its correctness, but I can't find much in there other than hand-waving. Like, I'm not surprised that Jill Tartar hasn't weighed in on this---she's a respected scientist; it would be wild if she weren't being cautious, and that's if she's even been asked. "If it were true, then Jill Tartar would get behind it" isn't much of an argument for anything.
Neither is invoking Avi Loeb. Newton spent the back half of his career trying to turn lead into gold. The smartest people still make massive errors.
edit: I know your comment didn't bring up Tartar/Loeb; I mention it as an example of the tone I'm describing.
But even if this is a total non-story, I'm a little puzzled by the outright hostility toward the claims on display in this thread. I'd expect to find curiosity, even supremely skeptical curiosity.
I would be curious if it was stated or endorsed by any scientist.
This isn't a case like Loeb where he actually has some amount of scientific credibility under his belt. Even if his suggestions are absolutely out there, they are based on real science. His theory of Oumuamua adds up mathematically, it just doesn't add up statistically (as in, the comet's behaviour could theoretically be explained by his papers, but most of the scientific community disagrees on the basis that it can be described by so many other more likely phenomena).
If a SETI scientist suddenly became a whistleblower I would be excited as all hell, screaming from the rooftops. But all Gursch has are military credentials. Even Avi Loeb doesn't have the audacity to definitively say that aliens are on Earth.
True, but Avi Loeb is, like Jill Tartar, a respected scientist with a reputation to protect, despite his far out ideas. I guess I just don't find the sum of these flaws to be all that damning to the possibility that Grusch could be credible. They are flaws, without question, but as flaws go they feel a little humdrum.
But I totally admit that I am wildly ignorant of SETI's attitude toward this kind of report (i.e. do SETI scientists give Leslie Kean the time of day? I don't know).
edit: I also don't want to come across as argumentative 😬 I felt chastened by that front page etiquette reminder for rexxitors. I get credulous and excitable about the subject because I find the near-certainty that we'll be alone for most or all of our species' life cycle to be cripplingly depressing.
One possible scam not to rule out is that this is actually a way for NGAD and other military programs to get more funding. Pick someone trustworthy to psyop into believing they have one degree of separation from those who are involved with non-human origin UAPs, and get them to convince congress to concentrate more funding into parts of the government that want to build more experimental aircraft (and get the public to buy defense stocks).
I think the safe assumption whenever people like this come forward and are given such time of day is that it is always done with authorisation and for specific reasons.
I can't say what those are but it seems to me in the world of UFO related disclosure and recent history of that in the USA there has been no small amount of authorisation, possibly for intelligence reasons? geopolitical aims? who knows.
I just don't see many people getting into this position without a whole lot of alterior motive, it's also possible that he is just being used by people for their own aims of course but I doubt he's that naive.
By we do you mean Tildes, or the US at large?
I can't speak for either of course, but it's noteworthy to me that the hearings are happening at all.
Probably they're happening, in part, because a good sized chunk of the public is eager to believe in government coverups, allowing politicians to position themselves as swamp drainers for those voters.
But I doubt that's all of it given the wide range of support for the hearings. It seems likely that compelling evidence was presented in the closed door session. Probably not evidence of aliens of course, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting.
Thinking of the handful of headlines I saw today, I'm not sure that direct quotes from a congressional hearing qualify as tabloid headlines. If some crackpot managed to convince congress to have hearings, that's legitimate news. If the military really has been hiding things from congress (doesn't matter what they are) that's also legitimate news.
I am suspicious because these nonsense "hearings" are being held by the Republican-controlled House, the same party who is asking us to believe, despite a veritable mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Trump actually won the 2020 election, the January 6th insurrection was just a group of overly-friendly tourists, and the myriad criminal charges against Trump are imaginary. These days it's in the GOP's best interest for people to distrust the government and to deny science and rationality.
Worth noting that they're getting a ton of play on Fox News the last 24 hours too.
Note that it's getting as much if not more traction in the Senate, where Schumer added a comprehensive disclosure amendment to the NDAA (including mention of reverse-engineering programs and "non-human intelligence") which was co-signed by top Dems and Republicans on the Intelligence Committee. The committee has also heard from multiple whistleblowers with high clearances that apparently corroborate Grusch's claims about unaccountable UAP programs.
We're giving this the time of day because we want to believe.
This guy comes off as level headed, has seemingly impressive credentials, and spoke before congress, making incredibly unlikely (though not impossible) claims. The discussion wouldn't be half as lively if instead of this guy it was the ancient aliens guy, or just a personal blog post, or he was claiming something legit impossible like that the earth is flat.
I think this is probably BS too, but I always follow these kind of stories because the remote possibility is so tantalizing.
This is where i disagree. It's not impossible for you to hit the lottery back to back 1000 times in a row. And yet, to waste any sort of time investigating such a claim, without at least 1 win, would be seen as utterly pointless folly.
The lottery claim, statistically, is more likely than the alien claim, and we'd instantly treat that as absurd.
Yup, when people think of UFO cranks they're primed to imagine guys that look like The Lone Gunmen from the X-Files and talk like Wallace Shawn, so when a guy who can talk like "yes sir" "no sir" "I cannot share specific knowledge of those events at this time" says the same stuff it subjectively feels more plausible.
I heard it playing in another room and even I was like "holy shit, what?" for a second before I started actually listening to what he was saying, called bullshit because he gave multiple competing theories for what the UFOs are while maintaining plausible deniability by cloaking everything in "this is what I heard from another guy" which makes his credentials meaningless, then looked him up and saw how when he isn't under oath he talks about extradimensional aliens and their relationship to the Vatican and Mussolini.
I am following this news too even though it's probably bs, but it is tantalizing, and I like the disruption from the usual news.
This is not a tabloid headline. That is gross misrepresentation. If you have thoroughly researched this topic and have the intuition to perceive what rings true and what doesn't, the courageousness to press forward under the ridicule of your fellows, the ability to think outside the mundane lines circumscribed around our societies... if you can do this and put the pieces together, then you would know that there is something to it. Josef Allen Hynek, once one of the most vocal government-sponsored skeptics of the phenomenon, arrived at this conclusion in the 1960s. He had that ability and that courage. The fact that these highly credible witnesses are now coming forward with what they know, under oath, is simply confirming what many of us have long suspected.
I have not seen anything whatsoever that makes me think they are truly credible. Some of them supposedly saw weird stuff. One of them supposedly heard about weird stuff. I need more.
If the sworn testimony of a former navy carrier battle group commander, with corroborative supporting accounts provided by other airmen and airwomen, along with corroborating video and sensor data, all saying they witnessed something out of this world, isn't enough for you, then I think you may have trust issues.
Or maybe I've just seen the idiotic explanations people's brains cook up when they cant immediately explain something, especially when groupthink is involved.
Plus, now that Grusch was under oath, he supposedly skipped past his most outrageous claims.
The reason we are where we are now with these hearings is exactly because we cannot immediately explain what these people witnessed. No explanation has been offered as of yet. All we know is that the phenomenon, and its seemingly technological capability, is beyond us. However, what is not up for debate is that the phenomenon is real. To take the contrarian line here, even with the little we do know, is patently absurd.
OK, I'll meet you in the middle here with another take.
I happen to agree with you on the none negotiable fact there's aerial phenomena occurring. There are some strange things happening in the skies, I can agree to that. To say there's not is to willingly turn a blind eye to instruments, not people, because I don't care if they're uniforms or not, people are unreliable always, I want instruments and I want cold data.
It just so happens that instruments have detected things. These things have been catalogued. There's attributes to these things and when we put all of things and attributes together to look at the bigger picture, we are alarmed and rightfully so. The data we've collected thus far would suggest these things are happily violating the science we've worked so hard on on a global level. It just so happens that there are humans who can corroborate what the instruments are telling us.
That's the middle ground and that's where I'll meet you. Where I, as a skeptic, and many others will depart and start to deviate from where you've gone, is claiming what they are, if they have intelligence or not, and where they're from, and what's been done with them.
Why do I deviate here? Because the logic needed to sustain the secrecy required to shield the truth from 6 billion people is too much. I'm asked to suspend my disbelief to an unhealthy degree and all of the "hard evidence" and "credibility" seem to always be centered around just trusting a human being somewhere along the way. Not more instruments, not more data, not from scientists or scientific organizations, but from people. This time around it's people in uniforms. The fallacy and bias here is an appeal to authority in that these people in uniform have automatic credibility and their word is worth more than you or I.
Nah. That's not how science works. You want to prove something? Get the instruments out and show me the math. Get a telescope out and show me the thing. Then I'll get that verified with other people who also have measuring tapes. That's how it works.
Now, to even go further towards your side I will also admit, in peace, there have been massive government conspiracies and secrets. I'm not enough of a fool to believe it doesn't happen. It does, it has, and God knows how many secrets both the Vatican and the government are actively covering up.
Theories, not facts, but backed up by facts, are healthy in a way. Even weather prediction is not an exact science but it's backed by real facts and math that we're pretty good at predicting storms.
So too can we theorize about government conspiracies and cover ups.
Maybe the leading theory, because we have few others, is that these UAP are extraterrestrial and intelligent. Fine. I'll entertain you and I'm sure you have a convincing argument, but there's a reason they got relabeled as UAP from UFO. I believe it's the association with alien life they want to get away from.
Maybe they're inter dimensional life. Maybe they're time travelers. Maybe they're weather phenomenon or atmospheric tricks.
We don't know and that's where we should stop. It's okay to not know. It's okay to have a theory or an idea, but to go further along and make wild claims like the people on TV do without any math or data is just wrong.
There's other reasons dude bro is out there talking to congress. I don't know what they are but I do know he's not providing us with anything concrete. It's just a bunch of inadmissible heresay. It is. It's always been.
Save for the instruments showing us there's some crazy shit going on out there. But to claim the military has extraterrestrial bio matter, or exotic metals, or alien life is among us, naw.
Nice theory. Now prove it without relying on he said she said because I don't care about uniforms.
Another thing I know is these things have been around for as long as we've been observing the skies it seems. And unless proven otherwise, they do nothing. Not a thing.
There's no patterns that we can reliably count on to predict where they'll be to study them further, they're quick and fickle and don't show up on our instruments unless they're in close proximity.
We're all very interested in them, science especially, but the scientific community spends most of their grant money looking at the stars for life, not down here.
If these things were more concrete and more concerning maybe there would be more funding into studying them, but the fact money hasn't flowed in that direction should be a sign those with money aren't convinced either.
All these servicemen can't loosen the purse strings of even looney tunes like Elon Musk? Why is that? Dude is wasting money by launching cars into space but not even he believes in funding research into UAPs?
You'd think investors the world over from Saudi royalty to Russian oligarchs would be chomping at the bit to shoot one of these things down and exploit it for riches or power and yet...crickets.
Just to be clear;
There are no mainstream groups of scientists saying that the things being detected violate our understanding of science, that's conjecture.
There are perfectly mundane explanations for all the 'credible' evidence put forth so far, like pilots misunderstanding what they're seeing on their instruments (e.g, 'tic-tacs' & 'go-fast'). They say they're seeing impossible feats, but the instruments don't actually agree.
Exactly. The pilots say they see extreme hypersonics and infinite acceleration and the instruments say it's a goose flying with huge parallax because they're flying in a fighter jet.
Right, we agree here. Instruments have detected things and until we document more things, initial impressions suggest a deviation from our understanding of science.
It's too early to tell what's actually happening, how much of it is human error, how much is instrumental error and so forth.
The only thing we can agree on is something is up there. There are UAP. As to the nature of them, nothing can really be said definitively. They could be violating physical laws. Or they could be swamp gas reflected from venus.
That's my only point. To say anything else is to Don a tinfoil hat.
These do not agree.
Plenty of explanations have been offered. Debris, balloons, geese, etc., with the high speed of the jets making the objects look hypersonic when they were really just close to the ground or, in the case of the tic tac, literally just a diffuse blob on a sensor.
I'm all for skeptical investigation, but I think there are possible explanations for this that don't lead straight to "he's lying." Everything he's said so far has supposedly been vetted, meaning it's possible that he's unable to answer some questions without exposing himself to a bad legal time.
Ducking a question during a congressional hearing isn't evidence of much, I say. Remember who's doing the asking in these hearings, and then ask yourself if you'd trust the average member of congress to be able to go out to buy milk.
I have to wonder what makes you believe that these "servicemen" have your best interest at heart. That what they say has any more weight than what the scientific community has been saying got decades.
I wonder why you're not skeptical that, of all the people to be testifying, we're trusting a "he said she said" testimony. No proof, no data, just words. I have to wonder why you think that the people researching these phenomena outside of the military are day in day out screaming about how this guy is spewing nonsense.
Having served in the army, I know firsthand that people lie about their experiences. People go on 48 hour ops without sleep even if they're technically supposed to sleep. People twist their stories and sightings, sometimes without even realizing it.
So, again I'll ask, why - as opposed to every single other area of science - are you willing to accept testimony instead of proof?
Edit: to avoid double responding to you I'd also love for you to clarify your other comment saying:
So, there is evidence, but the general public just isn't allowed to know about it? Doesn't that seem very, very convenient? Isn't this the exact same thing as conspiracy theorists claiming there's a deep state behind closed doors that we just can't see because it's classified? I find your opening word, "incorrect", to be nothing less than presenting your point of view as fact without anything to show for it.
I'm honestly surprised to find people defending this guy here.
This has been some of the first polarizing content I've seen on Tildes since I joined and it's a bit unsettling to me. Based purely on vote distributions I hope I'm right that the general sentiment on Tildes is UFOs are nonsense.
Honestly think you’re overthinking it. Most of us don’t believe, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t want to believe it.
Why is it surprising? Genuinely asking.
The bar for discussion here seems to be a bit higher than many other sites and seems to skew more towards skeptics/cautiously interested users. Also, the userbase here is fairly small, and I see far less conspiracy content spread here relative to other sites. I guess there's bound to be at least a few though.
I can feel that, thanks for answering.
I'd call myself cautiously interested, mainly because I find the alternative (i.e. Carl Sagan's take on the Drake Equation) to be pretty despairing. I don't find it improbable or unlikely, just fucking depressing.
I don't think that's the alternative. There's a lot of wiggle room between "there are no aliens because civilizations will inevitably destroy themselves" and what the whistleblower claims, which is that the Vatican and every world government have teamed up to assassinate people who want to share the truth about aliens, and even if we accept that those are the only two positions I'm really not sure which one is more depressing.
That's what the guy says when he isn't under oath. He has explicitly made these claims before. When people say that he refused to give his most extreme claims under oath, this is what they're referring to. He's also said the aliens are from another dimension and has spun some wild stories about the secret battle between Pope Pius XII and Mussolini over alien remains that Mussolini got from a crash site. Buddy's a crank.
Was he performing an analysis within his field of expertise, or was he repeating claims that he said he heard from a guy who heard it from a guy? If the committee had some evidence of aliens that they needed interpreted by someone with the perspective and education of a, uh, intelligence guy with a bachelor's degree in physics, then that would be one thing! That's how expert witnesses are used in trials, for example, and it's how these hearings also usually work, when the person testifying doesn't have direct knowledge of the events in question.
But someone having a bachelor's in physics and being a veteran does not make them more or less credible when they make outlandish claims without any evidence, and don't even pretend to have any evidence. If Grusch had a table of readings from a fighter jet, or a video, or had personally seen a UFO, and they then asked him "as a guy with a bachelor's degree in physics, do you think this violates the laws of physics?", I might be willing to take his input into consideration (along with the scientific community's input). Grusch saying "there are some people who saw stuff that violated the laws of physics" is not that. Grusch saying that he has heard from some individuals that the government has murdered people to cover up the existence of aliens is not that. Where are those individuals? Where is any documentary evidence of that? Where are any of the individuals he claims witnessed these things? Where is the documentary evidence for any of those things?
If Congress brought in a doctor and showed that doctor a bunch of data about vaccines, I could at least hear them out if they talked about their characterizations and analysis of that data. If Congress brought in a doctor and that doctor just ranted about how they knew a guy who knew a guy who had seen vaccine injuries and was pretty sure there had been murders to cover up that the covid vaccine causes autism and cancer (and there are plenty of cranks out there with medical degrees who say shit like this), nobody has any obligation to hear them out or consider them credible.
(1) I'm expecting him to give anyone any reason to believe him. Look up the claims this guy makes when he's not under oath, he's a crackpot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Some guy saying he heard third hand that something crazy happened is not extraordinary evidence.
(2) I was responding to your assertions that his credentials make him more credible when he makes these wild claims. His credentials are that he had a job in intelligence and got a 4-year degree in physics. Even if we accept your suggestion that they're particularly impressive, even for an online forum, which I don't think is really that obvious, these qualifications are at best tangentially related to what he's testifying on. His credentials do not make him any more qualified to evaluate the outrageous claims of third parties about the US government sending wetworks teams to kill people who know about extradimensional aliens that are in league with the Pope than anyone else. His credentials do not make him any more qualified to evaluate the outrageous claims of third parties about seeing crashed UFOs with aliens inside. What relevance do you think his job in intelligence has?
Claims that specific info is classified are absurd given that he regularly shares specific info when he's on TV and not under oath. Surely if it would piss off the powers that be for him to present evidence, it is also pissing off the powers that be for him to share this info at all? Surely he's already going to get whacked by the men in black for going on the record in Congress and claiming that the government kills people for aliens, right?
The idea that the evidence of any of his claims is classified but the claims themselves aren't is self-evidently absurd.
That’s how snake oil works, not evidence. There is no evidence. He won’t make any real claims under oath.
What rings true is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Incorrect. He is unable to make certain claims in an open session, due to the deeply classified nature of said claims. He has made said claims in closed sessions (within a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF), and it was the expert opinion of the intelligence community Inspector General who heard these claims that catapulted this whistleblower into a hearing before the House of Representatives.
Well then they should declassify the stuff he is claiming otherwise these public hearings have no point and are a distraction.
Well, no, he specifically made claims in his WGN interview that he refused to make in Congress. I hope he doesn't think SCI is suitable for broadcast television and not Congress.
And what was that expert opinion?
What are biologics in this context? I only know this word as a class of drug. Does it just mean “something which is now or was once alive” because the world is full of nonhuman alive stuff, like absolutely teeming with it, no?
Sounds consistent with the objects being geese.
I remember when Darren Brown announced he was going to predict the lottery numbers.
He didn't announce his predictions until shortly after the numbers had been read out.
I don't care if you think he had no way to see them, the test is whether he could say them before they come out or not.
With Aliens, it's just as simple. Show us actual proof that these things exist.
I wish all of these UFO UAP post or grouped in one thread. It's the same over hyped non-story as always. Whether the distraction is malicious or not doesn't really matter, it is a distraction. Hearsay and speculation changes nothing. It's noise.
I just want to add that Chuck Schumer is leading the addition of the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 to the NDAA. I suggest you skim through it. Whatever is going on, there seems to be bipartisan support around increased oversight around the DoD, which I think most would agree is a good thing.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf
This was my biggest takeaway from it all. The representatives got much more serious and acted unusually bipartisan once they became concerned about being left out, and that money might be going places they weren't aware of. Representative Tim Burchett's comments were particularly charged, even going to say that if this type of tech were available, that it could end the pentagon and implied the military industrial complex would not want it revealed. https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/1684242797367263232
This is getting so hilarious. It's been only a few weeks and it already feels like he's desperately trying to hang on to any attention, having to constantly escalate things.
"Just a thought, more of a shot in the dark, but uh, we wouldn't happen to be invading Iran today, would we?"
At the moment it's just one guy's claim. But what a claim it is.
It seems pretty unlikely to me, but it will be interesting to see what comes out of the investigations that follow these hearings.
A monkey is "non-human biologics". So is a dog, a fly, a carp, a sparrow....
If we were visited by extraterrestrials, we would know by now.
My take is that all these UFO sightings and incidents came from experimental cold war era military technologies. The US military aren't hiding ayy lmaos from us, but they would have reason to hide top secret tech from the public.
The UFO community spouts almost as much BS as ancient astronaut theorists.