There are a number of other officials that have made the same claims to Congress, apparently. 

15 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Mr. Grusch has already testified under oath to congress in a classified setting. 11 hours or so.

What I mean is I can't find any report that says he has already testified under oath in a classified setting. Can you provide a link, please?

This guy makes a lot of sense. He thinks they have bits and pieces of anomolous material but that's all. No craft and no dead aliens.

 

 

56 minutes ago, martin-w said:

This guy makes a lot of sense. He thinks they have bits and pieces of anomolous material but that's all. No craft and no dead aliens.

 

 

I'd say MOST UFO videos by MOST people are just people having fun with Drones. I've been to alot of outdoor car shows and always see people with drones...hovering around....zooming from here to there getting video of all the cars from different angles. Kind of makes me wonder how much fun you could have with that...stringing some lights around the drone and have it do all sorts of thing then leaving the scene at Warp speed. Do you suppose someone might video record something like that?

Edited July 4, 20232 yr by Will273

On 7/1/2023 at 10:52 AM, martin-w said:

What does Keene mean by the second review that included the really important statements? If its the crashed craft and dead alien's, then it may have been granted quickly because they deemed it obvious nonsense and didn't require more time for something they knew to be rubbish. Any suspicion of validity, whatsoever, and no way would they have granted permission so quickly. Permission granted quickly, from a department not known to have "oops" moments suggest to me that they were certain it was a plie of rubbish and thus harmless. 

Hmm, so which is it?

Either every request is thoroughly reviewed and escalated, to eliminate the smallest chance of classified info being released.....or they take a cursory look at an application and instantly approve something they think can't possibly be real.

Both can't be true at the same time, can they?

On 7/1/2023 at 10:52 AM, martin-w said:

from a department not known to have "oops" moments

If I were the head of that department, I would be going to great lengths to ensure that our "oops moments" were not ever publicized.....given the nature of what they do. 

 

On 7/1/2023 at 10:52 AM, martin-w said:

I've not implied anything of the sort, I just said I don't trust journalists in general.

Her investigations into mediums exuding ectoplasm raise an eyebrow, but that's up to you to decide for yourself.

I don't trust journalists in general, and when you have journalist who specialize in the UFO phenomenon and it becomes "what they are noted for" and part of how they earn a living, bias is always a possibility. Whether her reporting is biased or unbiased valid or invalid is something you will have to decide for yourself. 

I do think you have shown that you are a bit too much in favor of all of these claims being true, and I think you could benefit from being much more skeptical. 

I am enjoying this conversation, but I have to point out here that you're judging someone for their associations, and not the merits of their body of work on the topic (which, to date has been quite good, and turned out to be very much factual).

Whether something is "biased" or "factual" is determined by the facts when they become available. It is not something we get to decide for ourselves.

There is not a single person on this planet, government official, whistleblower, journalist, or otherwise who can't be hit with labels like "agenda", "bias", "attention-seeking", "just crazy" etc. Some of them probably deserve it, maybe most...but all?

Skepticism is necessary. Reasonable doubt is necessary, but if you find yourself just throwing these labels out under the banner of "skepticism"....you need a better argument. It's possible to discuss this topic without falling too far into debating people's motives.

Everybody lies, including "skeptics".

 

Cheers,

DB

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Hmm, so which is it?

Either every request is thoroughly reviewed and escalated, to eliminate the smallest chance of classified info being released.....or they take a cursory look at an application and instantly approve something they think can't possibly be real.

Both can't be true at the same time, can they?

If I were the head of that department, I would be going to great lengths to ensure that our "oops moments" were not ever publicized.....given the nature of what they do. 

 

I am enjoying this conversation, but I have to point out here that you're judging someone for their associations, and not the merits of their body of work on the topic (which, to date has been quite good, and turned out to be very much factual).

Whether something is "biased" or "factual" is determined by the facts when they become available. It is not something we get to decide for ourselves.

There is not a single person on this planet, government official, whistleblower, journalist, or otherwise who can't be hit with labels like "agenda", "bias", "attention-seeking", "just crazy" etc. Some of them probably deserve it, maybe most...but all?

Skepticism is necessary. Reasonable doubt is necessary, but if you find yourself just throwing these labels out under the banner of "skepticism"....you need a better argument. It's possible to discuss this topic without falling too far into debating people's motives.

Everybody lies, including "skeptics".

 

Cheers,

DB

What has been found that is factual?

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

bits and pieces of anomolous material but that's all

The question is, how can you have just a few bits and pieces from a crashed UFO and not have larger structural parts. Or, if the bits and pieces are not from a crashed UFO where could they be from , assuming they are of alien origin. I am reminded of Serenity which kept losing a primary buffer panel.

Also, from the video:

"And the point is that national security agencies are authorized to lie even to Congress "

"And I've actually written about evidence for CIA officers who went on to the stand and lied in front of a judge and were convicted of perjury, but that was part of their job."

3 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

The question is, how can you have just a few bits and pieces from a crashed UFO and not have larger structural parts. Or, if the bits and pieces are not from a crashed UFO where could they be from , assuming they are of alien origin. I am reminded of Serenity which kept losing a primary buffer panel.

Also, from the video:

"And the point is that national security agencies are authorized to lie even to Congress "

"And I've actually written about evidence for CIA officers who went on to the stand and lied in front of a judge and were convicted of perjury, but that was part of their job."

Ahhh yea...bits and pieces...gonna need a bit more than that and I don't really think bits and pieces can be classified as factual...bits and pieces are just a teeny bit to vague for me. 

4 hours ago, Will273 said:

I'd say MOST UFO videos by MOST people are just people having fun with Drones. I've been to alot of outdoor car shows and always see people with drones...hovering around....zooming from here to there getting video of all the cars from different angles. Kind of makes me wonder how much fun you could have with that...stringing some lights around the drone and have it do all sorts of thing then leaving the scene at Warp speed. Do you suppose someone might video record something like that?

There is an 80+ year history here. 

Drones cannot be used to explain a phenomenon that's been known publicly since the 1940's. All that's happened in recent times is an increase in the noise-to-signal ratio. It was always quite high, but now pretty much anything can be written off as a drone. That definitely wasn't the case in the 1940's.

I wouldn't expect modern cellphone cameras to capture anything compelling either, unless it was broad daylight, stationary, and closer than a couple hundred feet. Anything outside of that, or in low-light and all you'll get is a blurry, out of focus mess.

30 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

There is an 80+ year history here. 

Drones cannot be used to explain a phenomenon that's been known publicly since the 1940's. All that's happened in recent times is an increase in the noise-to-signal ratio. It was always quite high, but now pretty much anything can be written off as a drone. That definitely wasn't the case in the 1940's.

I wouldn't expect modern cellphone cameras to capture anything compelling either, unless it was broad daylight, stationary, and closer than a couple hundred feet. Anything outside of that, or in low-light and all you'll get is a blurry, out of focus mess.

Good point about the 1940s...no cellphone cameras or drones back then but I still have my doubts about those people that say they saw something...people were even more gullible back then than they are now...well maybe not...there are alot of gullible people out there and that scares me more than any UFO but am sure there were those that wanted attention back then too. One common thread that runs through all this from the 1940s til now is...still no evidence or proof which throws up a BIG red flag....without that all we have is nothing. A little bit of something is still something but a whole lot of nothing is nothing and we have a lot of that. Little bits and pieces is a whole lot of nothing as far as I'm concerned. 

Edited July 4, 20232 yr by Will273

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Either every request is thoroughly reviewed and escalated, to eliminate the smallest chance of classified info being released.....or they take a cursory look at an application and instantly approve something they think can't possibly be real.

 

DOPSAR would have escalated it to a higher level though if they weren't "read in". And at that higher level they may have investigated it prior and be aware  that it was not true and thus not classified. There are numerous possible reasons why, at the higher level, the claims may be regarded as harmless. Higher echelons equate to higher awareness. 

 

5 hours ago, DaviiB said:

If I were the head of that department, I would be going to great lengths to ensure that our "oops moments" were not ever publicized

 

The "oops moments" would already be in the public domain though. That's what we're talking about, classified information that shouldn't get out that "oops" gets out. So far, they seem to have a good record and that hasn't happened. I don't think its sensible to just assume that at a higher level than DOPSAR, they are all idiots and just approve extreme, fantastical stuff like dead aliens and multiple crashed hyper advanced saucers, and government conspiracies, on a  whim. It would be ridiculous to assume they would behave that way with such mind-blowing revelations, if true. 

 

5 hours ago, DaviiB said:

I am enjoying this conversation, but I have to point out here that you're judging someone for their associations, and not the merits of their body of work on the topic (which, to date has been quite good, and turned out to be very much factual).

Whether something is "biased" or "factual" is determined by the facts when they become available. It is not something we get to decide for ourselves.

 

I don't mean to offend, but I have decided for myself, and my opinion is based on your considerable efforts to defend the Grusch narrative as true, you seem to go to extreme lengths. You've not offered much/anything that could be considered skeptical of the claims. You have fought to counter everything skeptical of the claims though. Again no offence intended, just an observation based on your replies. 

 

5 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Skepticism is necessary. Reasonable doubt is necessary, but if you find yourself just throwing these labels out under the banner of "skepticism"....you need a better argument. 

 

I haven't seen any skepticism or reasonable doubt from you at all yet though. Only an attempt to counter all skepticism. Not one skeptical point Ive made have you agreed with.

 

Would you like to list the skepticism and reasonable doubt you have regarding the claims of Grusch, to redress the balance a bit? 

8 hours ago, Will273 said:

One common thread that runs through all this from the 1940s til now is...still no evidence or proof which throws up a BIG red flag

There is quite a bit of evidence in the form of government documents, photos, videos and corroborative testimony from reliable witnesses and trained observers. About 80 years' worth. 

Proof is a whole different problem. 

Proof of what exactly? 

Proof that the phenomenon is real?  

Proof of the exact nature of what it is? (assuming that it's not multiple, separate phenomena) That's a very high bar to clear. 

Consider that it's taken NASA more than half a century to acknowledge that the phenomenon even exists and officially start studying it. It might be a while before the scientific community catches up

Then there is the other kind of proof, where the weight of the evidence becomes enough to convince an individual. That point will be different for everyone. 

 

Which type of proof are you referring to? 

DB

14 hours ago, dmwalker said:

The question is, how can you have just a few bits and pieces from a crashed UFO and not have larger structural parts. Or, if the bits and pieces are not from a crashed UFO where could they be from , assuming they are of alien origin. I am reminded of Serenity which kept losing a primary buffer panel.

 

This claim of fragments of an alien craft being in various peoples possession has been claimed for a very long time. As yet, there's no real evidence of such a thing. You make a good point though, if a vehicle crashed, you would expect some larger sections to be intact, unless it totally disintegrated. I guess the claim could be that "the government cleaned it all up and left bits behind." 

I still remain of the opinion that all this whistleblower stuff will amount to nothing and that what we have is the same old crashed alien craft mythology and dead aliens being repeated once more. Yes, the guy seems to have been at a high level, but we don't know exactly what was said to Grusch and by whom, (same for the other individuals its claimed have come forward in private) Congressmen aren't knee deep into UFO mythology and so are certainly going to be impressed by these claims. Seasoned UFO investigators like Greenwald from The Black Vault and Larry Hancock from The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (who believes that alien tech material is in someone's possession) who have seen all of this before... not so much. 

5 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Which type of proof are you referring to? 

 

I would imagine he is referring to scientific evidence and scientific proof. If he is, he would be right to do so. Human beings are very easily fooled, conned, misled, mistaken and biased due to what we WANT to be true. The scientific method, however, works. It has given us almost everything we hold dear in modern society, the medical treatment that saves lives, homes that keep us warm, the food production that feeds millions, the ability to talk to relatives on the other side of the planet. We would be living a very primitive existence and still dying at 30 without the scientific method. Thus, its imperative that we apply the principles of the scientific method to UAP investigations. That demands proper evidence, not just "what somebody said" and talented scientists involved. Avi Loeb is involved now of course, but he does have a tendency to become somewhat unscientific at times. The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies seems to have a few decent scientists onboard. Science isn't perfect, but its by far the best tool we have.

14 hours ago, DaviiB said:

I wouldn't expect modern cellphone cameras to capture anything compelling either, unless it was broad daylight, stationary, and closer than a couple hundred feet. Anything outside of that, or in low-light and all you'll get is a blurry, out of focus mess.

 

You haven't seem my S21 Ultra then. As a former professional photographer I can tell you its quite remarkable and it can certainly handle decent images beyond 200 feet.  

 

 

Edited July 5, 20232 yr by martin-w