User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 11:58:26 AM EDT
[#1]
“Biologics came with some of the [crashed] UAP recoveries”
WOW |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:02:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Fravor's testimony here near the end reminds me of the hearing in Escape from the Planet of the Apes. There was actually audience reaction to some of his comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:03:23 PM EDT
[#3]
I wonder if this is even being taken seriously outside that room
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:06:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Rep. Ogle has stated that if the committee is not allowed to interview Grusch in a SCIF, he will personally invoke the Holman rule:
"The Holman rule is a rule in the United States House of Representatives that allows amendments to appropriations legislation that would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal employees, or cut a specific program." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:13:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cypher214]
[#5]
This idiot Raskin clearly tuned out during the hearing and now he's just asking questions that have already been answered.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:15:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cypher214]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: He was evasive on the first question, not so on the next. That leads to speculation, which is what this hearing is supposed to minimize. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Congressman: You've stated that the US is in possession of alien spacecraft and bodies. Have you personally seen the spacecraft? Witness: I have to be careful how I answer that in open testimony. I can answer that question behind closed doors. C: Have you personally seen the bodies? W: No. Hmmm... That's not new. Grusch has already stated he's been told about the bodies by multiple people, independently, and he then did his diligence for 4 years to substantiate what he was told. He was evasive on the first question, not so on the next. That leads to speculation, which is what this hearing is supposed to minimize. Grusch is walking a very fine line with what he's able to discuss. Put yourself in his shoes, under oath, and your answers would sound a little dodgy too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:16:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boom_Stick: I wonder if this is even being taken seriously outside that room Yes. 100% |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:19:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Squatch]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Grusch is walking a very fine line with what he's able to discuss. Put yourself in his shoes and your answers would sound a little dodgy too. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Congressman: You've stated that the US is in possession of alien spacecraft and bodies. Have you personally seen the spacecraft? Witness: I have to be careful how I answer that in open testimony. I can answer that question behind closed doors. C: Have you personally seen the bodies? W: No. Hmmm... That's not new. Grusch has already stated he's been told about the bodies by multiple people, independently, and he then did his diligence for 4 years to substantiate what he was told. He was evasive on the first question, not so on the next. That leads to speculation, which is what this hearing is supposed to minimize. Grusch is walking a very fine line with what he's able to discuss. Put yourself in his shoes and your answers would sound a little dodgy too. I've written Congressional testimony before. Number one rule is "answer the question, and nothing but the question." An answer of "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" to one question, then a definitive "no" to another, similar question does not lend credibility to either the testimony or the witness. If anything, he should have been consistent, and answered "I can't tell you in open testimony" to both questions (or any question with a similar bent). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:23:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Adjourned. The hearing was almost 2.5 hours long. One for the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:25:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: I've written Congressional testimony before. Number one rule is "answer the question, and nothing but the question." An answer of "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" to one question, then a definitive "no" to another, similar question does not lend credibility to either the testimony or the witness. If anything, he should have been consistent, and answered "I can't tell you in open testimony" to both questions (or any question with a similar bent). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Congressman: You've stated that the US is in possession of alien spacecraft and bodies. Have you personally seen the spacecraft? Witness: I have to be careful how I answer that in open testimony. I can answer that question behind closed doors. C: Have you personally seen the bodies? W: No. Hmmm... That's not new. Grusch has already stated he's been told about the bodies by multiple people, independently, and he then did his diligence for 4 years to substantiate what he was told. He was evasive on the first question, not so on the next. That leads to speculation, which is what this hearing is supposed to minimize. Grusch is walking a very fine line with what he's able to discuss. Put yourself in his shoes and your answers would sound a little dodgy too. I've written Congressional testimony before. Number one rule is "answer the question, and nothing but the question." An answer of "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" to one question, then a definitive "no" to another, similar question does not lend credibility to either the testimony or the witness. If anything, he should have been consistent, and answered "I can't tell you in open testimony" to both questions (or any question with a similar bent). Grusch has essentially said he has seen photos of the craft but only heard about the bodies. You seem to be nitpicking just to find SOMETHING to go after his credibility. |
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:27:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Watched last half and it was very good and worthwhile. The cat is out of the bag so to speak.
My take is still that this is all planned out as the decision for partial disclosure has been made. The hearings are getting it all into the record. We are still around step #3 that I wrote about in another thread. Still 5-6 more steps to go but things are accelerating |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:27:51 PM EDT
[#12]
One of my fears is that they’ll take all further discussion on UAPs 100% secret due to it being “a threat”.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:32:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Squatch]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Grusch has essentially said he has seen photos of the craft but only heard about the bodies. You seem to be nitpicking just to find SOMETHING to go after his credibility. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Congressman: You've stated that the US is in possession of alien spacecraft and bodies. Have you personally seen the spacecraft? Witness: I have to be careful how I answer that in open testimony. I can answer that question behind closed doors. C: Have you personally seen the bodies? W: No. Hmmm... That's not new. Grusch has already stated he's been told about the bodies by multiple people, independently, and he then did his diligence for 4 years to substantiate what he was told. He was evasive on the first question, not so on the next. That leads to speculation, which is what this hearing is supposed to minimize. Grusch is walking a very fine line with what he's able to discuss. Put yourself in his shoes and your answers would sound a little dodgy too. I've written Congressional testimony before. Number one rule is "answer the question, and nothing but the question." An answer of "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" to one question, then a definitive "no" to another, similar question does not lend credibility to either the testimony or the witness. If anything, he should have been consistent, and answered "I can't tell you in open testimony" to both questions (or any question with a similar bent). Grusch has essentially said he has seen photos of the craft but only heard about the bodies. You seem to be nitpicking just to find SOMETHING to go after his credibility. Not nitpicking, but a criticism of his testimony based upon my own experience in preparing the same. I found Grusch to be the least credible witness of the three. He was inconsistent in his approach to answering questions, which is an indicator of evasiveness (at best) or untruthfulness (at worst). Even the retired CDR sitting to his left, whose testimony was at times jocular and tongue-in-cheek, was much more credible as he had personal knowledge of the events under question and never gave an evasive answer. ETA: let me put it this way. Were I a Congressman on that committee, I would urge action based upon the testimony of the retired USN CDR but not based on the testimony of Grusch. (Testimony in a closed door session may cause me to believe differently, however.) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:39:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: So far, we've heard bureaucrats give non-answers in these hearings. In this hearing, we have 3 highly credible individuals testifying under oath about unknown objects in our airspace and one of them has straight up said "yes, the United States possesses non-human craft". The assertion is AARO/Kirkpatrick is lying to Congress and part of the cover up. If you don't think that's big, I don't know what to tell you. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Oh for fuck's sake. You think something big will come of this? This time it's different? It's just more psyop, like it always has been. So far, we've heard bureaucrats give non-answers in these hearings. In this hearing, we have 3 highly credible individuals testifying under oath about unknown objects in our airspace and one of them has straight up said "yes, the United States possesses non-human craft". The assertion is AARO/Kirkpatrick is lying to Congress and part of the cover up. If you don't think that's big, I don't know what to tell you. You’ve also got Grusch in particular not giving a negative answer to several very serious question, but an “I can’t speak of that in here” - which is an affirmative but without any detail |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:43:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: ETA - that same witness just now, in response to Congresswoman Mace: "I personally haven't seen anything." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:44:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Hearing was mostly what I expected...I just wish Burchett didn't use the term "dagummit" so much.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 12:52:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JQ66: You’ve also got Grusch in particular not giving a negative answer to several very serious question, but an “I can’t speak of that in here” - which is an affirmative but without any detail At work trying to watch/hear, but his answer to something along the lines of "Has the US Government had contact with NHI" was this form of answer. I took it as an affirmative. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 1:31:21 PM EDT
[#18]
IMO Grusch did better today than he did in the interview he gave to those reporters a month or so ago. More credible this time, and his willingness to name names (of people and contractors) with direct knowledge added to that credibility.
I will need to watch the whole hearing this evening, but the portions I saw were way more compelling than I anticipated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 2:06:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rubik: IMO Grusch did better today than he did in the interview he gave to those reporters a month or so ago. More credible this time, and his willingness to name names (of people and contractors) with direct knowledge added to that credibility. I will need to watch the whole hearing this evening, but the portions I saw were way more compelling than I anticipated. Yeah this wasn’t exactly the standard droning C-Span fare, was it? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 2:21:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Not nitpicking, but a criticism of his testimony based upon my own experience in preparing the same. I found Grusch to be the least credible witness of the three. He was inconsistent in his approach to answering questions, which is an indicator of evasiveness (at best) or untruthfulness (at worst). Even the retired CDR sitting to his left, whose testimony was at times jocular and tongue-in-cheek, was much more credible as he had personal knowledge of the events under question and never gave an evasive answer. ETA: let me put it this way. Were I a Congressman on that committee, I would urge action based upon the testimony of the retired USN CDR but not based on the testimony of Grusch. (Testimony in a closed door session may cause me to believe differently, however.) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Congressman: You've stated that the US is in possession of alien spacecraft and bodies. Have you personally seen the spacecraft? Witness: I have to be careful how I answer that in open testimony. I can answer that question behind closed doors. C: Have you personally seen the bodies? W: No. Hmmm... That's not new. Grusch has already stated he's been told about the bodies by multiple people, independently, and he then did his diligence for 4 years to substantiate what he was told. He was evasive on the first question, not so on the next. That leads to speculation, which is what this hearing is supposed to minimize. Grusch is walking a very fine line with what he's able to discuss. Put yourself in his shoes and your answers would sound a little dodgy too. I've written Congressional testimony before. Number one rule is "answer the question, and nothing but the question." An answer of "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" to one question, then a definitive "no" to another, similar question does not lend credibility to either the testimony or the witness. If anything, he should have been consistent, and answered "I can't tell you in open testimony" to both questions (or any question with a similar bent). Grusch has essentially said he has seen photos of the craft but only heard about the bodies. You seem to be nitpicking just to find SOMETHING to go after his credibility. Not nitpicking, but a criticism of his testimony based upon my own experience in preparing the same. I found Grusch to be the least credible witness of the three. He was inconsistent in his approach to answering questions, which is an indicator of evasiveness (at best) or untruthfulness (at worst). Even the retired CDR sitting to his left, whose testimony was at times jocular and tongue-in-cheek, was much more credible as he had personal knowledge of the events under question and never gave an evasive answer. ETA: let me put it this way. Were I a Congressman on that committee, I would urge action based upon the testimony of the retired USN CDR but not based on the testimony of Grusch. (Testimony in a closed door session may cause me to believe differently, however.) I tend to agree. As I expected Grusch testimony didn't pass the sniff test in many ways. My big question is, why was Clapper sitting directly behind Grusch? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 2:52:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Solo_: Negative, that's not Grusch's opening statement - that's Grave's (pilot). Grusch's should be even more revealing - he should be directly imply that he has proof of non human technology AND biology. ETA this is Grusch's -damn I don't know how to link Twitter [tweet]https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1683916952215904290?[/tweet] Anyway, cropped center statement that summarizes everything (Grusch) https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/F1543KiWYAw1zqG-2897692.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/F16Gta-XgAcAC1l-2897698.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Solo_: Originally Posted By brass: This One?
The actual link: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Ryan-HOC-Testimony.pdf Text of PDF: Grusch's should be even more revealing - he should be directly imply that he has proof of non human technology AND biology. ETA this is Grusch's -damn I don't know how to link Twitter [tweet]https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1683916952215904290?[/tweet] Anyway, cropped center statement that summarizes everything (Grusch) https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/F1543KiWYAw1zqG-2897692.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/F16Gta-XgAcAC1l-2897698.jpg Part of that jumped out at me that gives a big hint of part of the reason this has been kept quiet. It will disrupt religions heavily. A second hint that "Non Human" is possibly more than one context. an ontological (earth-shattering) shock ontological on·to·log·i·cal (ŏn′tə-lŏj′ĭ-kəl) adj. 1. Of or relating to ontology. 2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being. 3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 3:04:40 PM EDT
[#22]
I honestly don’t know why (with one exception I’ll outline below) people keep thinking religions would be disrupted if it was proven we were not alone in the universe (be it true aliens or interdimensional beings).
The only caveat - speaking hypothetically of course, I am a believer - would be if these aliens created us. And that bears a **very** heavy burden of proof. |
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 3:20:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: I honestly don’t know why (with one exception I’ll outline below) people keep thinking religions would be disrupted if it was proven we were not alone in the universe (be it true aliens or interdimensional beings). The only caveat - speaking hypothetically of course, I am a believer - would be if these aliens created us. And that bears a **very** heavy burden of proof. Intend to agree. I don't think disclosure would be that impactful to most religions. Having said that, there are quite a few eyewitness accounts from people who claim to have met beings that look almost exactly like us. I would think that the chances of natural selection arriving at two almost identical looking beings on different planets is near zero. If true, I understand why governments would want to keep that hidden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 3:22:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Solo_]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: Part of that jumped out at me that gives a big hint of part of the reason this has been kept quiet. It will disrupt religions heavily. A second hint that "Non Human" is possibly more than one context. ontological on to log i cal ( n t -l j -k l) adj. 1. Of or relating to ontology. 2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being. 3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God. I'm SO ready to study all of this in depth... I'm loving this. It feels I had been ready for this for a lifetime. PS seen some bits and pieces of the hearing and I thought it was on point, very impressive - it seems the rapport between all the parties was excellent. I'm an Immigrant (was born here but grew up abroad and only came back years ago) so my view of certain typical American things is often incomplete and maybe too simplistic - but it all "looked" very good to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 3:31:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Another question I haven't recalled seeing an answer to: Why do water bottles keep shrinking? It's like a double shot glass with a lid now.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 3:38:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: I honestly don’t know why (with one exception I’ll outline below) people keep thinking religions would be disrupted if it was proven we were not alone in the universe (be it true aliens or interdimensional beings). The only caveat - speaking hypothetically of course, I am a believer - would be if these aliens created us. And that bears a **very** heavy burden of proof. I don't know why it would negate anything but the views of the "We're alone" atheists. We've been hearing about UFOs and other races (Nephilim or Aryan) since biblical times, just diminished in translations a bit and described oddly as there were no other flying machines to compare to (other than birds). Could be Humans are "The Chosen Ones" that were led out of Egypt, rather than Nephilim hybrids of some sort as a rough example of a ton of "wiggle room" for there to be other out there and potentially as a Creator. People that have driven into their minds existing iconography as "This is what it looks like" might have an issue but not because of the information, but their idolatry of symbols is broken. Those are the groups with an inflexible view of God/creator, which will be upset, as well as the atheists which use the absence of other races as proof (several "types" of atheists around out there, some militant) Multiple races of beings are not omitted though some practices are. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 3:59:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Squatch]
[#27]
Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!"
If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:06:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: I honestly don’t know why (with one exception I’ll outline below) people keep thinking religions would be disrupted if it was proven we were not alone in the universe (be it true aliens or interdimensional beings). The only caveat - speaking hypothetically of course, I am a believer - would be if these aliens created us. And that bears a **very** heavy burden of proof. Speaking to my own faith and beliefs, I don't think it would. But I haven't thought of every scenario. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:08:43 PM EDT
[#29]
The optimum Gaetz and his testimony (play it, it's brief and worth it)
 BREAKING NEWS: Matt Gaetz Details Shocking UAP Evidence That 'I And I Alone Have Observed' |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:24:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:27:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rob78: Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rob78: Originally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:40:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Also, Grusch is very much a black and white, data type and he stated that he will not subscribe to a hypothetical origin, hence him using the very generic term "non-human biologic". He uses that term in his description but he clearly answers "yes" to the (paraphrased) question "have we recovered non-human pilots?". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:42:12 PM EDT
[#33]
This has been an astonishing and historic event. I’m extremely happy with the entire bipartisan effort, the witnesses, and the tone of the event.
This is an unprecedented secret cracked open, greater than any clandestine program or conspiracy in known human history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:44:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: I honestly don't know why (with one exception I'll outline below) people keep thinking religions would be disrupted if it was proven we were not alone in the universe (be it true aliens or interdimensional beings). The only caveat - speaking hypothetically of course, I am a believer - would be if these aliens created us. And that bears a **very** heavy burden of proof. More and more, I think an explanation along these lines is mostly likely. Their origin may be E.T. or it may be interdimensional and those may end up being the same thing, and I think they've been here far longer than we have and have a vested interest in us as a species. I've never been a forgotten civilization(s) advocate, but my thinking is moving more in that direction. One thing I do believe, is that mankind's history is VASTLY different than we currently believe. We may well be one of an infinite number of mankinds and humans or near-humans may be scattered across the galaxy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 4:48:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: I don't know why it would negate anything but the views of the "We're alone" atheists. We've been hearing about UFOs and other races (Nephilim or Aryan) since biblical times, just diminished in translations a bit and described oddly as there were no other flying machines to compare to (other than birds). Could be Humans are "The Chosen Ones" that were led out of Egypt, rather than Nephilim hybrids of some sort as a rough example of a ton of "wiggle room" for there to be other out there and potentially as a Creator. People that have driven into their minds existing iconography as "This is what it looks like" might have an issue but not because of the information, but their idolatry of symbols is broken. Those are the groups with an inflexible view of God/creator, which will be upset, as well as the atheists which use the absence of other races as proof (several "types" of atheists around out there, some militant) Multiple races of beings are not omitted though some practices are. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By macman37: I honestly don’t know why (with one exception I’ll outline below) people keep thinking religions would be disrupted if it was proven we were not alone in the universe (be it true aliens or interdimensional beings). The only caveat - speaking hypothetically of course, I am a believer - would be if these aliens created us. And that bears a **very** heavy burden of proof. I don't know why it would negate anything but the views of the "We're alone" atheists. We've been hearing about UFOs and other races (Nephilim or Aryan) since biblical times, just diminished in translations a bit and described oddly as there were no other flying machines to compare to (other than birds). Could be Humans are "The Chosen Ones" that were led out of Egypt, rather than Nephilim hybrids of some sort as a rough example of a ton of "wiggle room" for there to be other out there and potentially as a Creator. People that have driven into their minds existing iconography as "This is what it looks like" might have an issue but not because of the information, but their idolatry of symbols is broken. Those are the groups with an inflexible view of God/creator, which will be upset, as well as the atheists which use the absence of other races as proof (several "types" of atheists around out there, some militant) Multiple races of beings are not omitted though some practices are. Religion will adjust and adapt. It always has and always will. The faith in Yehwey, for example, has survived a cataclysmic flood, enslavment in egypt, exodus, the fall of solomon, exile to babylon, persia, rome, Jesus, rome again, the dark ages, Martin Luther, Mohammed, Smith, Copernicus…. And so very many more changes and challenges to the world and it’s viewpoints. And that’s just what 1/2 of the world’s believe. Billions follow faiths that are ancient and seen the world change. It’s going to be OK. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:01:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DeepSky]
[#36]
I was expecting a big fat nothing during this testimony. I was very wrong. Long way to go but the ball was definitely moved forward. I expect things to ramp up from here.
This “disclosure” small “d” was significant but it doesn’t shake my religious faith in any way. Even if we were created by EBE (which is a very large leap) who created them? At this moment it seems our World and our existence is being expanded exponentially. Shocking in one sense but if you have followed this subject for any amount of time it’s not surprising. Hang on for the ride……. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:07:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By rob78: Originally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. Too many charlatans have made a name for themselves, peddling recycled "information". I thought this Lou Alizondo character had all the same hallmarks. "I know, but I can't tell" "I had super top secret clearance" States that he was part of .gov teams that can't be corroborated. Lots of claims that are also logically and substantively weak. IMO, he was a low level staffer who may have been a part of some gov group. Now he's just making hay while he can. The universe is vast. I do think there are other intelligent life forms out there. Whether they're visiting is another matter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:11:32 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rob78: The universe is vast. I do think there are other intelligent life forms out there. Whether they're visiting is another matter. Not anymore. I have done extensive research as many other members here and a growing number of people in general. The reporting from thousands of people, sometimes in groups (seeing the same thing) is at this point, self evident. These are 'intelligent craft', 'maneuvered intelligently' and it's been in various shapes and forms seen for decades. Decades. You can grab a number of books from a handful of credible, high level investigative journalists - we're not in 1973 anymore. These things are real, they're here and they're not ours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:11:37 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By linx310: Yeah I think he did So, does the mean the 1941 Cape Girardeau (Missouri) and WW2-era "Battle of Los Angeles" are potentially real encounters? (Battle of LA is a factual event; it's just always been blamed on "war jitters"). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:19:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Originally Posted By aswrg7: So, does the mean the 1941 Cape Girardeau (Missouri) and WW2-era "Battle of Los Angeles" are potentially real encounters? (Battle of LA is a factual event; it's just always been blamed on "war jitters"). Yes, I mentioned this very thing on another forum. Many previous bits of information, accounts etc… are going to get second and third looks now. I expect additional whistle blowers to start flooding out. It’s going to get crazy for a bit with lots of noise but like everything it will settle down to a very new normal…. Whatever that means….. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:19:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DeepSky]
[#41]
Dupe post. Deleted.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:43:48 PM EDT
[#42]
I think the Aliens might see the rate of progress of humans and recognize we will develop to their level enough to threaten them, so they are disclosing what the rules are
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:46:52 PM EDT
[#43]
I don't believe anything coming from government. When I see an alien step out of a UFO in person I'll believe it
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:48:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brass]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By aswrg7: So, does the mean the 1941 Cape Girardeau (Missouri) and WW2-era "Battle of Los Angeles" are potentially real encounters? (Battle of LA is a factual event; it's just always been blamed on "war jitters"). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By aswrg7: Originally Posted By linx310: Yeah I think he did So, does the mean the 1941 Cape Girardeau (Missouri) and WW2-era "Battle of Los Angeles" are potentially real encounters? (Battle of LA is a factual event; it's just always been blamed on "war jitters"). I think both of those are candidates for what is being seen. As I've stated before, there are thousands of images and reports simply tossed aside in Project Blue Book with the flimsiest of excuses. Pulling some of those together and trends appear, forgot the site but there was a collection of several I'd not heard of prior to that which showed US and outside US footage in similar time frames. The project Blue Book is out there and a lot more is searchable but a lot is dry and I don't know how to pull all images from the report(s). Link to an image list of the report with just the text. I can't find the preliminary reports with images that was later "abridged". People asking about "why don't they contact us", maybe the Washington Invasion in 1952 and they didn't really receive a positive reception and is hardly ever even spoken of these days. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 5:52:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rob78: Too many charlatans have made a name for themselves, peddling recycled "information". I thought this Lou Alizondo character had all the same hallmarks. "I know, but I can't tell" "I had super top secret clearance" States that he was part of .gov teams that can't be corroborated. Lots of claims that are also logically and substantively weak. IMO, he was a low level staffer who may have been a part of some gov group. Now he's just making hay while he can. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 6:18:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rob78: Too many charlatans have made a name for themselves, peddling recycled "information". I thought this Lou Alizondo character had all the same hallmarks. "I know, but I can't tell" "I had super top secret clearance" States that he was part of .gov teams that can't be corroborated. Lots of claims that are also logically and substantively weak. IMO, he was a low level staffer who may have been a part of some gov group. Now he's just making hay while he can. The universe is vast. I do think there are other intelligent life forms out there. Whether they're visiting is another matter. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rob78: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By rob78: Originally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. Too many charlatans have made a name for themselves, peddling recycled "information". I thought this Lou Alizondo character had all the same hallmarks. "I know, but I can't tell" "I had super top secret clearance" States that he was part of .gov teams that can't be corroborated. Lots of claims that are also logically and substantively weak. IMO, he was a low level staffer who may have been a part of some gov group. Now he's just making hay while he can. The universe is vast. I do think there are other intelligent life forms out there. Whether they're visiting is another matter. Lue is still subject to various NDA's and levels of classification. He tries to say as much as he can without getting into legal trouble. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 6:22:40 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By rob78: Originally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. Grusch's testimony is exactly what I expected from someone with autism who has only been cleared to discuss certain information in a public setting. If you walked up on a crashed ship with dead bodies in it, could you say with certainty they're "aliens from another planet"? There is a very good reason they're using "Non-Human Intelligence" to describe these things instead of "Extraterrestrials" because my assumption is there is zero proof that they are beings from another planet in our universe but the layman jumps to that explanation because of Hollywood and a lack of open mindedness to other explanations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 6:39:40 PM EDT
[#48]
How about that, CBS is posting the whole hearing.
 Attached Filehttps://www.youtube.com/live/SNgoul4vyDM?si=mQLzR_fcxkLfLgjc |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 6:42:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cypher214]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sq40: How about that, CBS is posting the whole hearing. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/49447/IMG_5978_jpeg-2898786.JPG https://www.youtube.com/live/SNgoul4vyDM?si=mQLzR_fcxkLfLgjc As much as I hate him, I think Chuck Schumer getting involved signaled a shift/next phase in the whole process. Congress has heard enough from whistleblowers in closed sessions to start taking this issue seriously and they're realizing AARO is full of shit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2023 6:44:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brass]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Grusch's testimony is exactly what I expected from someone with autism who has only been cleared to discuss certain information in a public setting. If you walked up on a crashed ship with dead bodies in it, could you say with certainty they're "aliens from another planet"? There is a very good reason they're using "Non-Human Intelligence" to describe these things instead of "Extraterrestrials" because my assumption is there is zero proof that they are beings from another planet in our universe but the layman jumps to that explanation because of Hollywood and a lack of open mindedness to other explanations. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By Squatch: Originally Posted By rob78: Originally Posted By Squatch: Thinking about Grusch's testimony, something else bugs me. The "non-human biologics", appears to be a deliberately misleading answer - seems to lead a person to think, "if it's not human, it must be an extraterrestrial being!" If somebody stumbled upon Sputnik 2 with no information as to the nature of that spacecraft, they would find a "non-human biologic" creature in the pilot's seat. Inside would be an example of canis familiaris, known to its owners as Laika, but most definitely, unquestionably a "non-human biologic", but a very common terrestrial being, nonetheless. Mace even specifically asks about extraterrestrials, Grusch answers that he's not going to answer that in open testimony. She backs off, asking if they were human or non-human, to which he responds "non-human biologics". So, the thing he seems unwilling to answer is if they're extraterrestrial or not, fueling speculation on the part of observers. I wonder why that is...is he trying to sensationalize his own testimony? Maybe "they" are terrestrial non-human beings? As in, been here a long time and not exactly space aliens. FWIW, I don't know what to believe yet. Evidence is mounting, but its still not concrete. Don't get me wrong - I am firmly in the camp that there is life outside of our own planet, and that it's entirely possible that some of it has made its way here. I'm just not happy with Grusch's testimony, at all. It was logically and substantively weak - from stem to stern. Grusch's testimony is exactly what I expected from someone with autism who has only been cleared to discuss certain information in a public setting. If you walked up on a crashed ship with dead bodies in it, could you say with certainty they're "aliens from another planet"? There is a very good reason they're using "Non-Human Intelligence" to describe these things instead of "Extraterrestrials" because my assumption is there is zero proof that they are beings from another planet in our universe but the layman jumps to that explanation because of Hollywood and a lack of open mindedness to other explanations. Could be generic if they're not humanoid. Like something from the movie Arrival. How would you describe it other than non-human intelligence and not ChatGPT type artificial intelligence so calling it "biological". Several ways to read it.  |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
