UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

Yazata:

You seem almost annoyed that I responded to you fully and honestly. In return, it seems that you have ignored the second half of my response to you entirely; at least there's no evidence in your latest reply that you read any of that. I think it's more likely that you did read it, but you don't want to reply to it because it's inconvenient for your position and you'd rather not address those matters. Again, this doesn't reflect well on you.

Did you even watch the NASA forum?

I did not watch the whole thing. It was 3 hours long or something, wasn't it?

As it happens, I did watch the part where Kirkpatrick made the comments previously and extensively quoted here, regarding the "metallic orbs".

Does it matter? Is there something you want to bring up from some other part of his presentation - or something else from the NASA panel in general? I'm willing to take a look at something specific, if you want to refer me to a video and a specific timestamp.

I'm too lazy at the moment to rewatch the whole thing to search for the remarks in question, but as I recall, Kirkpatrick gave an example of a UAP report that they believe they have satisfactorily resolved. And as I recall, it was of the strange lights in the distant sky variety. Upon investigation, they resolved into aircraft running lights in the far distance. While I may be mistaken, I don't recall this example being of the silvery spheres variety at all.

If I recall correctly, he referred to several different examples of "solved" UAP reports.

Please don't keep trying to make MR into the topic of discussion, especially when you have insured that he can't reply for himself. (That's just Evil.

MR can reply for himself when his latest temporary ban ends. I haven't prevented him from replying. He has insured for himself that he is on another enforced break from the forum. That's entirely his own choice. He had ample chances to respond honestly to the matters that were raised by two different people, in regards to a particular stance he freely chose to take. For whatever reason, he couldn't bring himself to respond in good faith. Perhaps he can tell you why he felt unable to do that, when he gets back.

Your calling me evil because I have little patience left for MR's dishonest little games, after years of dealing with his troll-like antics, is quite unreasonable.

Meanwhile, your complaint that I keep trying to make MR the "topic of discussion" is misguided at best. I believe I mentioned MR, in passing, twice in my last response to you. The vast majority of that response was a direct, full and honest response to the matters you put to me.

The recent context of this thread, in discussing the NASA panel, what Kirkpatrick said, etc. has involved MR as one of the main players. MR shouldn't get to hide behind your skirts, even if you're willing to play the role of mummy shielding him from the nasty man. He's an adult, even if he rarely acts like it.

If you are so concerned with correct logic, reasoning and critical thinking, you probably need to begin by keeping to a higher and more abstract level, by discussing the intellectual issues while leaving out the personal animosity and ad-hominems.

In this particular discussion, I have not, for the most part, taken any sort of lead. I am content to follow the discussion where others want to take it. I have no animosity towards MR (or towards yourself, to be clear). On the contrary, I have extended repeated courtesies towards MR. I have at times treated him with kid gloves. I have given him too many second chances to count. I've been really patient and kind with him - far more than his behaviour deserves. Over the course of years of his trolling, I have become a little impatient with the dishonest and evasive side of his character. But he can't complain about that; he has had a dream run here compared to most trolls of his ilk.

I'm not convinced he said that. The 'must' (which implies some kind of necessity) might be your own insertion.

Please see my previous post, above.

That doesn't follow logically. All your modus tollens argument justifies one in saying is '~All(X)'. It doesn't justify one in saying All(~X)

Two different syllogisms. The first one (the one you appear to be referring to) goes like this:

1. If all reported "flying metallic spheres" have an "otherworldly" explanation then none will be identified as commercial aircraft.
2. Three reported "flying metallic spheres" have been identified as commercial aircraft.
3. Therefore, not all reported flying metal spheres have an otherwordly explanation.

This is fine. A different syllogism goes like this:

1. If all reported "flying metallic spheres" have the same cause, then a single identification is sufficient to identify all such objects.
2. Three reported "flying metallic spheres" have been identified as commercial aircraft.
3. Therefore, all reported flying metallic spheres must be commercial aircraft.

This is also logically valid.

I think that he could be persuaded of that, if you would let him speak.

Don't be silly. MR had plenty of chances to speak up and admit that it is possible that there might be different explanations for different reports of "flying metallic spheres". This was discussed with him over several days and over the course of 40+ posts to this thread. He was free at all relevant times to speak up. Indeed, he was explicitly asked to concede this point, by at least two different people.

It's suggested by Kirkpatrick's words, "We see them all over the world. And we see them making very interesting apparent maneuvers." 'Them' is the object of both sentences. He's seemingly attributing the phrases 'all over the world' and 'making very interesting apparent maneuvers' to the same 'them'. So he's pretty clearly treating the 'them' as a class, such that he applies the same adjectival phrases to them.

Yes. The relevant class, as was clear from Kirkpatrick's presentation, was the class consisting of all apparent objects mentioned in reports concerning "flying metallic spheres". The "we" is generic. What he means is that people have reported seeing similar things "all over the world". He in no way implies that he, NASA or anybody else expects that all reports will have the same explanation. If he actually thought that, he would have said that he expected all of them to turn out to be commercial aircraft - just like the ones that NASA has identified so far. But he didn't say that.

Admittedly that doesn't commit him to claiming that they must (of some unknown necessity) all have the same explanation. But he does seem to be saying that they are the same kind of phenomenon being observed repeatedly behaving in different ways.

He was talking about the most commonly reported kinds of things. As somebody else pointed out, using the actually data, it seems that only just over 50% of UAP reports involve "flying metallic-looking spheres". So, even though this is the most common class of things reported, about half of the things reported are reported as having different characteristics.

Also, if you were to dig down into the details of the flying sphere reports, you'll find more variation. While the average size reported is 1 to 4 metres in diameter, that is only an average. Some people report smaller spheres; some report larger. etc. This goes for all the characteristics on his "summary slide", which only collates the "most commonly reported" characteristics, from a bunch of separate and unrelated reports.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

So while that appears to fall short of the view that you (perhaps falsely) are attributing to MR, it also seems to go beyond what you seem to want to argue. I think that I captured it most accurately in my own remarks that you are battling here: "I do get the impression that Sean Kirkpatrick himself suspects that that there might be a single kind of unknown event [his 'them', apparent metallic flying spheres] that's occuring over and over in widely separated locations".

As I pointed out, you are merely idling speculating on what one man might suspect. Point one: I think you're wrong about what he thinks. Point two: even if you're right about what he thinks, his is just one opinion among many; even the NASA investigation is not a one-man investigation. So, I don't see much value in speculating about what this one guy might think. Why not wait until he tells us what he is thinking, if we really care to know that? Or, better, why not wait until the entire investigation panel reports its conclusions?

I think that all MR was claiming is that if at least the ability to perform Kirkpatrick's "interesting apparent maneuvers" applies to the whole class, then it will be hard to identify them with any known aircraft.

And yet, at least three of the things have been identified as known aircraft. Where does that leave that particular argument, then? Dead in the water, since the "interesting maneuvers" clearly don't apply for at least some members of the relevant class. Right?

(Which presumably is why the "skeptics" are so focused on trying to argue perceptual or instrumental errors so as to dismiss the "interesting apparent maneuvers".) In real life, we just don't know yet.

If you want to push for the "extraordinary" explanation, then the onus is not on the skeptics to prove perceptual or instrument errors. The onus on you is to show that the perceptual and instrument data is sufficient to establish your extraordinary hypothosis, at least on a balance of probabilities or (better) beyond reasonable doubt.

Just what it says. Cases in which it will be more difficult to produce some "mundane" reductive explanatory hypothesis that can actually be verified and confirmed to some acceptible likelihood.

I'm saying that they will remain unknown until they are identified, which in some cases might be challenging. I'm saying that it's that challenging subset of UAP cases that's most interesting

I think that if they remain unknown, we shouldn't be eliminating possibilities merely because they conflict with our already preexisting beliefs.

I find it interesting that when you are pushed, you back down on trying to justify your own belief that some of these reported UAPs really are something "extraordinary". You seem unwilling to admit to a belief (or wish) that there is something extraordinary ("otherworldly") to be found in the UAP reports. But you're also unwilling to commit to a belief that, most likely, none of these UAP reports will provide good evidence for anything extraordinary, at the end of the day.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Also, don't think that I didn't notice how you avoided answering the specific questions I asked you about your beliefs. Instead of answering them, you just fell back on your usual statements about the importance of keeping an open mind - something that nobody here has ever disagreed with you about. However, there is keeping an open mind, and keeping it so open that your brains fall out. You seem quite unwilling to address any points that touch on the latter matter. I think this is why you ignored the second part of my previous reply to you, and didn't answer any of the specific questions I put to you there, either.

It obviously contradicts what the "skeptics" claim about themselves, but I nevertheless believe that it's true. I'm not convinced that the "skeptics" are being honest about themselves and their own motivations.

Finally we get some insight into your actual beliefs. Thank you for your honesty on this.

You actually think that myself and DaveC and other skeptics here have been lying to you all along about what we believe, what our attitudes are to evidence for UAPs etc. You don't trust us to tell you what we really think.

The interesting question that follows from this (somewhat expected) revelation is: why?

Will you tell me why you believe I am continually lying to you about my beliefs about UAPs, or about my attitudes to evidence from UAP reports, or whatever it is you believe I am continually lying to you about? Or can't you articulate why you think I'm a liar, beyond some kind of gut instinct that repels you from my skeptical views?

I assume you think I have some kind of vested interest in lying to you about my beliefs about UAPs, evidence or other things. I must have something to gain from continually lying to you, otherwise why do it? Or do you think I'm merely trolling you to try to make you angry, and my lies are just part of an evil game I'm playing with you? If I'm evil to MR, I guess it follows that I'll probably be evil to you, too. Is that how it goes, for you?

I'm really interested to know. I'm honestly interested to know. (But maybe you won't believe that, either.)

More generally, I get the impression that you believe that there's a sort of cabal or community of "skeptics" that together conspire to tell the sorts of lies I keep telling you. I agree there is a community - or communities - of skeptics, of sorts. What do you think the motivation is for the conspiracy of lies, then? Monetary gain? 15 minutes of skeptical fame? Peer approval? All of the above? What's the main motivation for skeptical lies, do you think, Yazata?

I mean, how is your seeming belief that your opponents' beliefs are what you dismissively call "woo" even consistent with your claim that you haven't already made up your mind?

I'm fairly sure I have explained this to you in some detail in past, Yazata. But I suppose I can have yet another go at it.

One thing that occurs to me concerns the phrase "already made up your mind". I think that it's important to distinguish generalities from specifics, again.

If I am presented with a specific "unsolved" UAP report, I do not look at it having "already made up my mind" as to what the reported object or phenomenon is.

Thinking about these things more generally, however, I have "already made up my mind" that a lot of UAPs can turn out to be mundane things, like commercial aircraft, mistaken sighting of the planet Venus, etc. etc. I've made up my mind on that because I have knowledge of a lot of previously-solved UAP cases, in which those kinds of things were the outcome.

In terms of relevant background knowledge, I have also "made up my mind" about some likely explanations for UAP reports. I am aware of various relevant scientific matters. I am aware of the problems that often arise with anecdotal reports and with eyewitness testimony. I am aware of many past cases of deliberate fraud. I bring all of this experience and knowledge with me when I am presented with any new (to me) UAP report.

I do not "dismiss" anything without reason. When I use the word "woo", I am usually referring to beliefs that either demonstrably lack sufficient supporting evidence or that have already been comprehensively exposed as bunk. "Woo" is a shorthand for a shoddy kind of wishful thinking and poor reasoning, which is far too often combined with deliberate dishonesty on the part of its proponents.

I have already made up my mind that certain types of "woo" are immoral, because they do measurable harm to at least some of those who believe in the relevant falsehoods. Most often where harm happens, the victims are taken advantage of by people who know they are telling lies and manipulating other people, for their own profit or other gain, and too often at the expense of well-intentioned folllower-believers.

I make no apologies for exposing liars and fraudsters and those who seek to gain from exploiting other people in ways they are fully aware are dishonest and manipulative.

 

[foghorn]

Yazata: "In real life, we just don't know yet."

I think that all MR was claiming is that if at least the ability to perform Kirkpatrick's "interesting apparent maneuvers" applies to the whole class, then it will be hard to identify them with any known aircraft. (Which presumably is why the "skeptics" are so focused on trying to argue perceptual or instrumental errors so as to dismiss the "interesting apparent maneuvers".) In real life, we just don't know yet.

But, here’s the Middle East 2022 sphere event given in Kirkpatrick’s slide after which is followed by Kirkpatrick telling us "This one in particular, however I would point out demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and was no threat to airborne safety."

It’s also on the slide, my green arrow.

My bold below.

This is an example of one that I showed at the hearing recently. This is a spherical orb metallic in the Middle East 2022 by an MQ-9. I will come back to the sensor question that David raised here in a moment. This is a typical example of the thing that we see most of. We see these all over the world and we see these in making very interesting apparent maneuvers. This one in particular, however I would point out demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and was no threat to airborne safety.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/nasa-holds-first-public-meeting-on-ufos-transcript

https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Sean Kirkpatrick - 1100am to 1130am.pdf

 

[C C]

Despite a suggestion of "classified footage" spurring these admonitions, in the Jul 11 released video below it still sounds much like the familiar incidents released to the public being referenced.

So it's tempting to attribute this to just more cognitive effects resulting from the "exponential" growth of the Grusch throught virus. However, the HOC is arguably in a position of privileged access to more _X_, and thus this crowd-pleasing drama will just have to inevitably play out for a degree of philosophical surety to reign.
- - - - - - - - - -

(Jul 12, 2023) Congressman issues grim warning after viewing classified UFO footage
https://nypost.com/2023/07/12/rep-tim-burchett-has-grim-take-after-access-to-ufo-footage/

EXCERPT: A Tennessee lawmaker issued a dire warning after claiming to have seen classified UFO footage that hasn’t been released to the public.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., speculated extraterrestrial life forms could have technology that humanity “can’t handle” during an appearance on the “Event Horizon” podcast.

The House Oversight Committee is preparing a hearing to discuss Grusch’s unverified claims. Burchett and fellow Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida will lead the committee’s investigation.

Susan Gough, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense, told Fox News Digital in a previous email June 6 there is no “verifiable information to substantiate the claims.”

VIDEO LINK: Rep. Burchett: UFO hearing will happen by end of the month

 

[wegs]

The government hears you MR, and it's going to give us some answers!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senators-move-require-release-us-government-ufo-records-2023-07-14/

 

[Magical Realist]

The government hears you MR, and it's going to give us some answers!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senators-move-require-release-us-government-ufo-records-2023-07-14/

I sure hope so. I would like to see some of these photos/videos that lead them to posit the metallic sphere uaps.

 

[Magical Realist]

WASHINGTON—"The Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing (Wed, July 26, 10:00 AM) titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency.” The subcommittee hearing will explore firsthand accounts of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) and assess the federal government’s transparency and accountability regarding UAPs’ possible threats to U.S. national security. This hearing will also highlight legislative efforts to bring transparency to UAPs and require the federal government to provide the American people with information about potential risks to public safety and national security.

“The Pentagon and Washington bureaucrats have kept this information hidden for decades, and we’re finally going to shed some light on it. We’re bringing in credible witnesses who can provide public testimony because the American people deserve the truth. We’re done with the cover-ups,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.).

In 2022, at the direction of Congress, the Department of Defense created the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to investigate UAP reports. The federal government spends millions of dollars examining UAPs yet refuses to be forthcoming with the American people as it continues to declassify certain videos and studies on various UAP incidents with little clarity on the subject’s origins."

https://oversight.house.gov/release/national-security-subcommittee-to-hold-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/

 

[C C]

[...] “The Pentagon and Washington bureaucrats have kept this information hidden for decades, and we’re finally going to shed some light on it. We’re bringing in credible witnesses who can provide public testimony because the American people deserve the truth. We’re done with the cover-ups,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.). [...]

https://oversight.house.gov/release/national-security-subcommittee-to-hold-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/

Well, that's about as official as it gets. We already know Grusch loves to talk about talk, so hopefully the other squealers witnesses really do know where The Highway Butcher buried the bodies where the debris stash is stored, along with the reverse-engineered warp drives.

To be live streamed at: https://oversight.house.gov/

Wednesday, July 26, 2023

TIME: 10:00 a.m. ET

LOCATION: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building

WITNESSES:

• Ryan Graves, Executive Director, Americans for Safe Aerospace
• Rt. Commander David Fravor, Former Commanding Officer, Black Aces Squadron, U.S. Navy
• David Grusch, Former National Reconnaissance Officer Representative, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Task Force, Department of Defense

 

[James R]

WASHINGTON—"The Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing (Wed, July 26, 10:00 AM) titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency.” The subcommittee hearing will explore firsthand accounts of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) and assess the federal government’s transparency and accountability regarding UAPs’ possible threats to U.S. national security.

I wonder how much time this meeting will waste in hearing Fravor tell his story for the n-th time.

How many committees on UFOs is enough? We already have the ongoing NASA investigation, and the AARO one. What is this new subcommittee going to do? Set up yet another committee to conduct the same investigations for a third time?

This hearing will also highlight legislative efforts to bring transparency to UAPs and require the federal government to provide the American people with information about potential risks to public safety and national security.

Aren't these things already in the remit of the NASA and AARO investigations?

“The Pentagon and Washington bureaucrats have kept this information hidden for decades, and we’re finally going to shed some light on it. We’re bringing in credible witnesses who can provide public testimony because the American people deserve the truth. We’re done with the cover-ups,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.).

How does Rep. Burchett know that Washington bureaucrats have kept information hidden for decades? Is he privy to the hidden information?

In 2022, at the direction of Congress, the Department of Defense created the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to investigate UAP reports. The federal government spends millions of dollars examining UAPs yet refuses to be forthcoming with the American people as it continues to declassify certain videos and studies on various UAP incidents with little clarity on the subject’s origins."

It was understood from the start that the AARO would not be "forthcoming" on matters affecting national security, was it not?

Does Burchett want the US military's capabilities and intelligence gathering made completely public?

It sounds like Burchett is looking for a cover-up conspiracy among faceless "Washington bureaucrats". How likely is it that he will be satisfied with the findings of a subcommittee that needs to rely on Washington bureaucrats for its investigations?

 

[Yazata]

WASHINGTON—"The Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing (Wed, July 26, 10:00 AM) titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency.”

I expect to watch it if they live-stream it.

The subcommittee hearing will explore firsthand accounts of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) and assess the federal government’s transparency and accountability regarding UAPs’ possible threats to U.S. national security.

At the very least, it will enable these witnesses to tell their stories in sworn testimony before Congress and placed in the public record, without DoD officials releasing it in almost totally-redacted bits and pieces in response to FOIA requests, with unknown motives of their own.

This hearing will also highlight legislative efforts to bring transparency to UAPs and require the federal government to provide the American people with information about potential risks to public safety and national security.

Good luck with that. The DoD will inevitably shriek about "dangers to national security" in releasing any more of the information they have. (Such as the videos that have been submitted with many UAP reports, radar data etc.)

And even if the military does release more information, the "skeptics" opposite numbers will still suspect that the government is still hiding the best stuff: crashed saucers, dead aliens on ice, etc. I'm not sure how anything said in a Congressional hearing could eliminate that kind of suspicion.

“The Pentagon and Washington bureaucrats have kept this information hidden for decades, and we’re finally going to shed some light on it. We’re bringing in credible witnesses who can provide public testimony because the American people deserve the truth. We’re done with the cover-ups,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.).

It's a worthy intention. But I question how productive it will be.

In 2022, at the direction of Congress, the Department of Defense created the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to investigate UAP reports. The federal government spends millions of dollars examining UAPs yet refuses to be forthcoming with the American people as it continues to declassify certain videos and studies on various UAP incidents with little clarity on the subject’s origins."

https://oversight.house.gov/release/national-security-subcommittee-to-hold-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/

Most of the videos that they have supposedly declassified were originally leaked. I'm not sure that they have voluntarily released any videos, apart from that spherical flying object seen over Iraq or someplace. The "studies" released so far (the preliminary assessment etc.) were just short summary reports that seem to have been written with the intention to say as little as possible.

Which is likely because they don't know much more, but their obvious failure to be more forthcoming does create the suspicion in some minds (the "skeptics" opposite numbers) that a huge coverup is happening.

I'll watch this hearing with interest, but with little expectation that anything new will be revealed.

The most interesting bit to me is that members of Congress who have heard the classified briefings are starting to look like they believe that the American (and world) people are being bullshitted. I'd like to see them try to make that case without revealing classified information.

 

[Magical Realist]

I will probably just watch the clips and highlights from the meeting. As often as I've heard Fravor's and Graves' accounts of the uaps, I'm always open to any new details they might have to offer. It's good that we can get their sworn testimony congressionally "set in stone" so to speak. It helps build the case for them being highly credible and reliable eyewitnesses.

 

[James R]

Yazata,

I expect to watch it if they live-stream it.

That's good. Can you please post a summary of what goes on, if you watch it?

At the very least, it will enable these witnesses to tell their stories in sworn testimony before Congress and placed in the public record, without DoD officials releasing it in almost totally-redacted bits and pieces in response to FOIA requests, with unknown motives of their own.

Do you think the witnesses will say anything new? They have all done the talk-show circuits on youtube, at the UFO conventions etc. There's no problem with having one more official record, of course.

Good luck with that. The DoD will inevitably shriek about "dangers to national security" in releasing any more of the information they have. (Such as the videos that have been submitted with many UAP reports, radar data etc.)

Of course, and then the UFO Believer community will shriek about how the government is still covering up stuff they think the American public has a right to know etc. etc.

Did anybody go into this thinking that another government inquiry would stop the conspiracy theories or change the beliefs of dyed-in-the-wool UFO believers? No matter what NASA and AARO eventually concludes, it will be business as usual for the UFO believer crowd.

And even if the military does release more information, the "skeptics" opposite numbers will still suspect that the government is still hiding the best stuff: crashed saucers, dead aliens on ice, etc. I'm not sure how anything said in a Congressional hearing could eliminate that kind of suspicion.

My thoughts exactly.

Most of the videos that they have supposedly declassified were originally leaked. I'm not sure that they have voluntarily released any videos, apart from that spherical flying object seen over Iraq or someplace.

Weren't the "go fast" and "tic tac" videos officially released by the Pentagon? Were they leaked first?

The "studies" released so far (the preliminary assessment etc.) were just short summary reports that seem to have been written with the intention to say as little as possible.

The public session held by NASA was a progress report, of sorts. It seems like they have collated a whole bunch of reports, categorised various features of the reports, and compiled some statistics. Also, it sounds like they have made a few positive IDs (i.e. "solved" a few of the reports), which turned out not to be aliens. They have also concluded, unsurprisingly, that a lot of the reports lack enough detail and specifics to enable a "solution". One of the main messages from the public meeting was that better data is needed. Which says a lot, since the UFO believer community has had 70 years to compile better data, yet we tend to keep seeing the same uninspiring stuff.

Which is likely because they don't know much more, but their obvious failure to be more forthcoming does create the suspicion in some minds (the "skeptics" opposite numbers) that a huge coverup is happening.

I'm not sure what you think they haven't been forthcoming about - other than the things they said they wouldn't be forthcoming about right at the start: matters of national security, exposing details of America's military and surveillance capabilities, and those kinds of things.

I'll watch this hearing with interest, but with little expectation that anything new will be revealed.

Definitely worth a watch.

The most interesting bit to me is that members of Congress who have heard the classified briefings are starting to look like they believe that the American (and world) people are being bullshitted.

Which particular members are you referring to? Is Rep. Burchett one of those people who has heard the classified briefings? From what I've seen (which admittedly is not much), it seems like he is a bit upset that he hasn't been shown the classified material.

Do you know of any members of Congress who have actually been briefed about the classified material and who have publically commented that they believe there's a coverup going on?

 

[Yazata]

Wow! Holy Crap!! The Congressional hearing was much more interesting and informative than I expected. I encourage everyone to watch a video of it if one is available. (Talk about pouring gasoline on conspiracy theories!!)

Here's some things that caught my attention in no particular order (my comments are in parentheses):

A Congressman said that AARO tells them that they have 171 "uncharacterized" cases that displayed "unusual" flight performance characteristics.

Graves said that all UAP video is classified secret or above. (Seemingly explaining the military's refusal to release any video in response to FOIA requests.)

Grusch seemed to me to be more credible and authoritative than I expected. He's a former military intelligence officer who went on to become a high-ranking official at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in charge of handling UAP phenomena for that agency. He says that multiple individuals came to him and told him very specific information about recovered alien vehicles and what he termed "biologics" that were recovered as well. Including information on where the work was being conducted and by whom. When he tried to inquire further in intelligence community circles about these reports, he was denied further information. He spoke darkly about threats including death threats which he didn't want to get into, but which he told Congress that he's willing to discuss in closed session in the SCIF. (And a Congresswoman revealed that "the intelligence community" was making it almost impossible for members of Congress to use the SCIF.)

Members of Congress revealed that when they tried to pass a law requiring the FAA to pass civilian UAP reports they receive to Congress as well, the "intelligence community" opposed the proposed law and ended up killing it.

Fravor said that some of these UAPs appeared to him and others to use "active jamming" of radar and other sensor frequencies. And the radar tapes of his encounter disappeared into a black hole of secrecy.

Graves said that sightings of UAPs is quite common in the military, primarily off both coasts in military operating areas, and they continue today. Aircraft flying to and from Hawaii see them. He estimated that 95% of the UAPs seen are never formally reported, for fear of career damage. Some airlines have apparently ordered their pilots not to report them. But pilots talk among themselves.

Graves said that the UAP he saw and the morphology most common on the east coast was grey cubes inside transparent spheres, with the corners of the cube apparently contacting the sphere. He spoke of one stationing itself where jets entered and left a training area off Virginia Beach, where one jet flew past it about 50 feet away. (Very close in aircraft terms.) After that close encounter, training was halted for the day for safety reasons.

When asked what kind of aerodynamic behavior they found anomalous, Graves and Fravor said the ability to station-keep motionless above a single spot even in high wind, the ability to descend and ascend between space and sea level in seconds, the ability to accelerate from motionless to mach instantaneously, and the ability to make sharp right angle turns. They said that no exhaust or heat signature were observed. They agreed that these performance characteristics far exceed the known aeronautical engineering state of the art in the US or any other country.

Graves described a previously unknown (to outsiders) UAP incident at (then) Vandenberg Air Force Base (it's Space Force Base now) in California (I didn't catch the date, but it's in the video) where multiple military and civilian contractors saw a large red cubical object flying in a seemingly purposeful manner over the base.

The members of Congress described another incident of their own in which an aircraft from Eglin Air Force Base saw what was described as four objects flying in diamond formation. Radar also detected them. When members of Congress visited the base and asked to see the radar recordings and speak to the pilot, they were initially denied access. They were later given access to the pilot who told them that when his jet approached the objects, all the sensors on his aircraft simultaneously quit.

The members of Congress showed considerable interest in the existence of programs that are "above" Congressional oversight about which Congress is never informed. If the Constitutional branches of government isn't in charge of them, who is? The answer from Grusch was "top senior executives" both inside and outside the government. (The "deep state".) When asked who pays for them if they never appear in Congressional appropriations, Grusch's answer was a combination of fraud (money appropriated for one thing being diverted to something different) and what he termed IRAD (independent R&D privately funded by contractors).

Grusch stated that some National Geospatial Intelligence Agency satellite data contains UAP information. When asked for details, he said he could only discuss it in closed session in the SCIF. One of the Congressmen said that satellite UAP data isn't revealed, even to Congress.

Grusch says that several of his sources have spoken to AARO, but seemed to be ignored. Members of Congress wondered if Sean Kirkpatrick's testimony to them had been truthful.

Assuming that the US really has extraterrestrial artifacts etc, Grusch was asked how long the US has known about this. Grusch says that as far as he knows, since the 1930's.

Members of Congress asked about whether anyone had been killed. There was some confusion about whether the question was about killed by the deep-state for talking, or killed by UAPs. Grusch hinted about fatalities among technicians investigating extraterrestrial tech, apparently not as the result of hostile action but rather the result of accidents with unknown tech. But again he would only provide details in closed session in the SCIF.

When asked what kind of information a proper UAP investigation needs, Graves said good reliable data on 1. kinematics (movements, velocities, accelerations) and 2. interactions (both among themselves, with aircraft and with things on the ground.

The question was asked, if Congress wants more information, where should they go? Grusch's answer was they won't tell you anything unless you ask directly and specifically. Then they will say it's classified and stone-wall you. Grusch said he's willing to tell them who to talk to, but only in closed session in the SCIF.

Recently declasssified classified annexes to the 1970's Nuclear Arms Treaty between the US and Soviet Union had specific provisions for UFOs and codes to be used for them. When asked if the codes had ever been used in practice, it seems there was another refusal to divulge.

I can't say for a moment that I believe all of this. But it's possible and it definitely needs to be followed up on. The members of Congress spoke about organizing the closed classified session in the SCIF and about the possibility of legislation resulting from this information.

Given that Grusch was the star of the morning, and much of what he said was total bombshells, I expect a full-pressure attempt at character assassination to begin immediately, not only by Mick and his crowd, but from the deep-state spooks as well. That being said, today is probably going to go down in history as an epochal day in UFOlogy.

And I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how well the hearing went. Members of Congress from both parties were collegial, bipartisan and professional, asking very good questions. It seems that everyone, left, right and middle is interested in this subject.

 

[DaveC426913]

Link to the recording?

 

[Yazata]

Here's the video

[video=youtube]

 

[C C]

Link to the recording?

EDIT: Woops, sorry. Yazata posted seconds prior. I'd delete this post if there was a button for it.

SECOND EDIT: Well, we already knew both parties of legislators were being drawn deeper into "X-Files" conspiracy land. I expect the Pentagon is frustrated that these yokels are interfering with their urgent need to get some key items reverse-engineered before China invades Taiwan.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ufo-he...s-whistleblower-conference-david-grusch-2023/

"At Wednesday's hearing, lawmakers of both parties expressed anger about their inability to get information about UAP from the military and intelligence agencies, describing a system of overclassification that shields reports of incident from public view. "

 

[Yazata]

Other takes on it:

https://www.space.com/us-hiding-evidence-alien-intelligence-ufo-whistleblower-claims

https://www.newsweek.com/key-takeaways-ufo-hearings-1815517

https://www.extremetech.com/defense...ufo-transparency-at-house-oversight-committee

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/cover-up-retaliation-ufo-hearing

https://time.com/6298287/congress-ufo-hearing/

Mick must be having total apoplexy! And I can already hear Australian teeth grinding from here in California.

 

[origin]

Wow! Holy Crap!! The Congressional hearing was much more interesting and informative than I expected. I encourage everyone to watch a video of it if one is available. (Talk about pouring gasoline on conspiracy theories!!)

Looks like a bunch of crap to me. I would absolutely love to be wrong, but I don't think so.
This is from a USA Today article:
In the interview, Grusch claimed that he became aware of the Pentagon's program that oversaw the collection of up to a dozen alien spacecraft, and in some cases, the bodies themselves of the otherworldly pilots.
A dozen crashed UFO's? What are these aliens like the worst drivers ever or are there like hundreds of thousands alien flying around?
I think it is going to turn out that this particular guy is a bit of a nut.

Again I hope we really are being visited by aliens but all we have is big talk about this supposed clear evidence and you never see it.

 

[C C]

And I guess here is the part where Grusch says he is going to provide a list of witnesses to grill during another hearing. Individuals both accommodating and unfriendly.

Full Transcript of Subcommittee Hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (sloppy, AI generated)
https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full...-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/
- - - - - - -

NANCY MACE: Okay. You’ve stated that the government is in possession of potentially non-human spacecraft. Based on your experience and extensive conversations with experts, do you believe our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials?

GRUSCH: Something I can’t discuss in a public setting.

Okay. I can’t ask when you think this occurred. If you believe we have a crashed craft as stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?

As I’ve stated publicly already in my News Nation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries. Yeah.

Were they, I guess, human or non-human?

Biologics: non-human. And that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.

And was this documentary evidence as video, photos, eyewitness? Like, how would that be determined?

The specific documentation I would have to talk to you in a skiff about.

Okay. And you may or may not be able to answer my last question, and maybe we get into a skiff at the next hearing that we have. But who in the government -- either what agency, subagency, what contractors -- who should be called into the next hearing about UAPs, either in a public setting or even in a private setting? And you probably can’t name names, but what agencies or organizations, contractors, et cetera, do we need to call in to get these questions answered?

Whether it’s about funding, what programs are happening, and what’s out there, I can give you a specific, cooperative and hostile witness list of specific individuals that were in those.

And how soon can we get that list?

I’m happy to provide that to you after the hearing.

Super. Thank you. And I yield back.

Above segment is in the final part of this short clip of the hearing.

 

[James R]

Thanks for the report, Yazata.

It sounds like Fravor said more or less what we would have expected him to say. If it wasn't clear before, there is now no doubt that Fravor is firmly in the alien Believers camp.

Grusch seems to have made a whole bunch of claims about various information and objects and stuff existing, but without providing anything of substance to substantiate his claims. He also alleged a bunch of conspiracies, essentially, which also remain unverified. I don't know anything much about him, so I can't speak to his general credibility on these matters.

I haven't watched the video. I might give it a watch later.

A Congressman said that AARO tells them that they have 171 "uncharacterized" cases that displayed "unusual" flight performance characteristics.

Sounds unremarkable. Why are they uncategorised? Has the AARO just not got around to categorising them? Also, I assume these are reports, not the outcomes of investigations. Is that correct?

Graves said that all UAP video is classified secret or above. (Seemingly explaining the military's refusal to release any video in response to FOIA requests.)

It certainly makes sense that any military video might be automatically classified. (Is "secret" a low classification level, or a high classification level?) It's not so much that the UAPs need to be kept secret. It seems more likely that the military wants to keep certain details about its own operations and capabilities secret, which makes some sense from a national security standpoint.

Grusch ... says that multiple individuals came to him and told him very specific information about recovered alien vehicles and what he termed "biologics" that were recovered as well.

Yeah, but he didn't actually name names, did he? In fact, whenever he was pushed to give details of people he alleges have the actual goods on the aliens, he declined, it seems. I wonder whether anybody will follow up those claims.

Including information on where the work was being conducted and by whom. When he tried to inquire further in intelligence community circles about these reports, he was denied further information. He spoke darkly about threats including death threats which he didn't want to get into, but which he told Congress that he's willing to discuss in closed session in the SCIF.

What is the SCIF?

(And a Congresswoman revealed that "the intelligence community" was making it almost impossible for members of Congress to use the SCIF.)

How so?

Members of Congress revealed that when they tried to pass a law requiring the FAA to pass civilian UAP reports they receive to Congress as well, the "intelligence community" opposed the proposed law and ended up killing it.

That makes sense. Civilian UAP reports undoubtedly contain information on military assets from time to time. For reasons of national security, presumably the intelligence community wants a chance to vet those reports before they are potentially made public.

Fravor said that some of these UAPs appeared to him and others to use "active jamming" of radar and other sensor frequencies. And the radar tapes of his encounter disappeared into a black hole of secrecy.

Nothing new there from Fravor. Of course, it is quite possible that Fravor is just mistaken about the active jamming. As for classified radar records (if they exist at all), see above.