Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are “of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures,” he said.
Extraordinary claims -- extraordinary evidence.
Show us some of these fragments, please. You know, the ones with the special "vehicle morphologies", the "unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures" and stuff.
Otherwise, there's nothing to talk about here. And nothing fundamentally different from these claims than in all those glaring headlines we've been glancing past, at the top of few certain supermarket tabloids that don't need to be named -- for half a century now.
"Secret Government Base Has Wreckage of Alien Craft ..."
More specifically, you are entirely ignoring the context here.
> Other intelligence officials, both active and retired, with knowledge of these programs through their work in various agencies, have independently provided similar, corroborating information, both on and off the record.
> The whistleblower, David Charles Grusch, 36, a decorated former combat officer in Afghanistan, is a veteran of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). He served as the reconnaissance office’s representative to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force from 2019-2021. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the NGA’s co-lead for UAP analysis and its representative to the task force.
Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence. Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here.
Why on earth would the whistleblower have to be a scientist here? That's utter nonsense.
This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances.
Again, you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding "evidence" of some mystical quality, while entirely ignoring the information that is actually presented.
Here, the guy has supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions. The context checks out. To assume he was "lying" is what is preposterous.
You frame the events as if some noname-guy came up in a vacuum claiming incredible stuff. That is not at all what is happening.
You not knowing about all that and not even recognizing that this circumstance is affecting your judgement is remarkable.
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that high level government agents don't lie?
That he isn't no-name makes the lie more plausible of course. We're talking hypothetical and possibilities here, that you're completely rejecting the possibility of a government lie is pretty silly.
>supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions
I don't think you understand in the slightest what is being said here.
If you assume, this guy was lying on behalf of the government you might want to try to rationalize that, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
That idea about the US wanting to impress other nations with bogus UFO tech is ridiculously stupid. You completely underestimate other countries for instance.
You're largely attacking the person here, instead of their argument.
I think "lying on behalf of the government" happens like...constantly. (See: war in ukraine) I don't really think this guy is lying, but ruling it out is...well, "ridiculously stupid."
It doesn't have to be rationalized. There's a littany of reasons we could invent that could justify lying about UFOs. This government has many foolish people in positions of power. Those people in, in theory, can do foolish things that don't make any sense whatsoever.
And the claim we're up against is literally aliens. You gotta bring receipts on that, and war medals aren't enough.
I'm highly interested to see this develop, and I haven't chosen sides yet. I would fucking LOVE to see what the world does if they get smacked in the face with proof of aliens. I am giddy with excitement.
Given the history of this subject, it’s not unreasonable to assume that a mundane explanation like “he’s lying” is more likely than the extraordinary explanation of a worldwide decades-long conspiracy theory.
I mean, I hope it’s true. Aliens would be cool. But we’ve been here before.
This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances.
In a world of agencies famously riddled with incompetence, whose people have not only have been shown to be liars, time and time again -- but guess what: Their very purpose is to lie.
That's why we need something more to seek our teeth into than some whistleblower who says he's seen reports about such and such.
Witness testimony is evidence. You don't have to believe him, but it is specious to reject a witness's testimony primarily on the grounds that it is not evidence.
Nope, not good enough. Stanford Professor Garry Nolan only has some secondhand stories and odd bits of metal that could have come from anywhere. No real evidence, no chain of custody, no provenance.
(2) By my reading, the stuff he's talking about doesn't constitute (or even suggest) dispositive evidence of alien craft. Nor this guy even claiming that they are. All he's saying basically, is "Here's some fragments / MRI scans we don't understand, let's explore further".
(3) Even so, this stuff is many orders of magnitude weaker than the claims in the original article (literally "intact craft of alien origin"). So there's not even an analogy to be made here.
re (1), that guy (Dr. Garry Nolan) is quoted in the OP article, although upon reading the OP article again, it doesn't seem that the guy has first-hand knowledge of the supposed evidence, so it doesn't mean much.
Although I guess for (2), his quote in the OP article does imply that he believes that these could be alien craft.
(2) - Mmm, no, he doesn't say that. He just mutters a bit of innuendo about "Human civilization being utterly transformed by ...", without any explanation of what he's driving at specifically.
Weird. Definitely less reason to take this guy seriously. And really irresponsible and stupid of Vox to put an out of context quote like that out there, as if it says anything useful about anything.
Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything.
The original article seems to be implying that there's like some extraordinary clear evidence of a vehicle or something, which would be much more shocking.
The whistleblower claims, crash retrieval programs exist which are reported by very believable people in the government to have craft of non-human origin.
Your depiction of the story is clearly misleading. This here is a mere step in the direction of uncovering such "material evidence" as you would like to be presented right now, as if reality ever worked that way.
My comment was merely a reaction to the thread above, not the original article.
lisasays: this is rubbish because there's no first-hand evidence e.g. of the vehicle fragments of the Debrief article
phyallow: here's first-hand evidence [link to the vice article]
me: this is just weird bits of rock, which isn't obviously a vehicle fragment, and so this article isn't really as much of a proper response to lisasays' comment as it seems.
"Hearsay" is a derogatory term used to disparage evidence. It is entirely unscientific, as evidence is not ignored solely based on the messenger. You have to thoroughly evaluate the context, regardless of your personal preconceptions.
The guy has done a seven hour interview with Ross Coulthart, that is due to come out this week. He is reported to have such photos, documents, etc.
This story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude. You playing ignorant here is ridiculous.
This story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude, if it's true.
There have been "Retired intelligence officer says he has evidence of aliens" stories floating in fringe media for decades, and all of them have turned out to be cranks. Bob Lazar has been working this beat since 1989; where's the evidence?
Maybe eventually one of these times it'll all be true, but skepticism -- extreme skepticism -- should absolutely be the default position here.
Watergate had tapes, reams of documents - and riveting testimony under penalty of perjury. When we have that on the table in regard to this matter -- we'll have something to talk about.
> The events here are clearly indicative of something unusually important happening.
Yes, probably some kind of rather
involved psychological/propaganda operation to jump-start the public's faith in technology as the solution to manifestly worsening conditions, or to restore faith in institutions whose credibility is in tatters.
Evidence in real life is accumulative, not "holy grail style", like in the movies.
You build a case step by step, systematically establishing a context. Here you already missed all the prior foundational work.
On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". That is mere posturing.
You miss the slightly more important point of having been lied to your entire life by the government about fundamental topics, which is beginning to unravel here.
You not knowing about the already existing evidence is no proof of its inexistence.
What "legitimate experts" exactly are you referring to and where?
The whistleblower here is talking, among other important things, about a secret US military program attempting to reverse engineer non-human artifacts. Your demands here are out of context and nonsensical.
I might as well be the Queen of Romania as far as you're concerned.
And hey, you can believe whatever you want about this stuff. I really don't care. I do find most of the line of discussion here to be quite silly, though.
This guy (David Charles Grusch) has come forward. He is not yet showing us anything. I eagerly await him showing some actual artifacts, or at least authenticated documents and images of such artifacts. Until then this is a big nothingburger.
The mere circumstance of a person with his career going on record with such claims is a great deal and clearly indicative of something really unusual happening.
Ironically this is what many people thought when they saw Colin Powell go in front of the UN and do his song and dance about Iraq's WMD program. Which surely must have been a clear and present danger to the world at large, for this guy to go on record and stake his whole reputation and legacy on it.
And yet, when you actually listened to what the guy was saying ...
The point is that just because someone with a chest full of medals says something, that doesn't make it so. You have to look into the evidence for the thing itself.
I think it's clear we're talking past each other by this point. Again, you can fit this news story into your head however you like.
I hate to be pedantic, b--actually, that's not true; I enjoy it plenty well.
Hearsay is a TYPE of evidence, albeit not a particularly reliable type of evidence. But you are correct, it is hearsay, and in fact, its second-hand hearsay.
But more to Loquebantur's point here (I think this was his point), this IS fundamentally different than similar claims that came before. You have one guy from the government making these sorts of claims (that's not the different part, this next part is), and you have 2 other decorated government officials and colleagues willing to, not only speaking highly of Grusch's integrity, but CORROBORATING HIS EXACT CLAIMS, and even going on to provide a further anecdotes.
That's not what normally happens.
Also, it is fundamentally different for this reason as well: All of this information and whatever Grusch learned was provided to congress, behind closed door to those with the clearance to hear it. As far as I am aware of, this level of type of information has never been provided to congress before.
This not insignificant; Congress has the the power to subpoena information, compel testimony, and ultimately verify or debunk these claims and information. And ultimately, if they deem it pertinent to do so, they have the autonomy to inform the American public.
Now, not to totally invalidate your other point:
I do think it is important to keep in mind here that Grusch himself has not seen any direct or hard evidence of 'materials of exotic origin'. He is merely saying that several high-level individuals have confided in him what is presumably first hand experiences, which, as you know, is second-hand hearsay.
So this leaves open the possibility that the individuals who were confiding in Grusch, were fooling themselves, were in some way deceived, or perhaps even wanting to fool Grusch himself.
HN has effectively been taken over by a bunch of middle aged losers desperate to realize some sci fi dreams they had as children. You can also see it in both the ridiculous yet arrogantly confident predictions of AI utopias or dystopias that are basically just something they ripped out of a book or movie.
I think it's great that there's corroborating witnesses. But, you know, shows us the evidence. Show us you got something. Show us you're not all just talk. What are you afraid of? Show us.
Its hard to imagine so many people could have known about this for so long, yet it remained secret. I expect you could keep something like an assassination secret since everyone who knows about it is probably in some way complicit. Wouldn't be the case here.
Also of course the energy required to get to Earth from somewhere else, for an organism that used any kind of "vehicle" we could recognize as such, would be enormous.
Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that it was true, what so many people were claiming before that.
I agree that probably there needs to be more evidence than "trust me, I've done this for a long time" in order for us to assert there is extra-terrestrial intelligence. But, I wouldn't believe it's false just based on "it couldn't have been hidden for this long".
Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that it was true, what so many people were claiming before that.
For one thing your assumption here just isn't true. You might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged (since the late 90s or so) that such surveillance was most likely happening. And precursors of such technology were referenced in congressional hearings back in the 70s. This was all discussed openly and there was nothing conspiratorial about the topic at all.
For another -- just because certain things in the past that have been derided as conpiracy-fodder and then turned out to be true (MKULTRA, say) doesn't mean that some other thing X (that you happen to find nifty to believe in at the moment) just might be true, or will also be validated as such some day.
In short -- the presence "conspiracy-nut" stigma about something has no bearing on its scientific validity whatsoever. Either for or against.
But, I wouldn't believe it's false just based on "it couldn't have been hidden for this long".
No - one wisely judges them to be most likely false based on (1) lack of physical evidence, (2) Occam's Razor. Not because of what you're saying (which doesn't have any bearing on the topic at all).
> might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged...
There is a huge UAP community of believers. I don't see why a community belief makes it more legitimate. It's speculation until you have hard evidence, for the NSA thing that evidence was a whistleblower, what's the difference here??
You might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged (since the late 90s or so) that such surveillance was most likely happening.
You realize how easily this point can be applied to UFO discourse, right?
Not only is there an enormous backstory attached that people willfully choose to remain ignorant to, all kinds of people holding active positions in the highest relevant places are corroborating this.
Even more importantly perhaps, part of the story is a decades-long disinformation program conducted against the US population and government itself, by rouge elements in the intelligence community.
Well, did it remain secret? Seems like this has been openly recognized for quite awhile, but propaganda forces at play made it seems like you're a nutjob to believe it.
It wasn't secret. It was covered in disinformation so you would dismiss it, as you have, until it was officially confirmed, like it seems to be now. Previous government insiders have come forward with the same story, but have been dismissed, and the whole topic seen as crazy, because the carefully crafted disinformation counterintelligence campaign was working as intended.
That, along with black special access programs (like described in the article), covered with classified programs, is how you keep it, not secret, but "partially occluded."
The question is not: how? But: why? The answer is because they were afraid and in denial because it challenged their authority, and they wanted us to be in the same fear and denial, because then they can maintain "control".
Maybe now it's shifted. And that's good. Not because everybody gets to know there's aliens, but because the governing corporate superstructure is choosing to no longer continue to act like scared little idiots. And I think that will be better for all of us.
Of course evidence would be much better (though I'm not sure what kind of evidence I would actually trust). But if the story is true, it makes sense that we're not seeing anything: given that they're talking about an arms race with other countries, the US would not want to show any details that adversaries might not already know. Since the US government looked over everything they wouldn't allow actual evidence to be released.
I'm not saying this is true or false, but if it's true, we'd expect no actual evidence.
I totally agree. You say you’ve been covering up some big project for 70 years? Okay, where are the results? Otherwise your just fronting, desperate to cover your ignorance for what you don’t understand and which challenges your authority.
This is the governing superstructure’s chance to step up. I hope it takes it
Extraordinary claims -- extraordinary evidence.
Show us some of these fragments, please. You know, the ones with the special "vehicle morphologies", the "unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures" and stuff.
Otherwise, there's nothing to talk about here. And nothing fundamentally different from these claims than in all those glaring headlines we've been glancing past, at the top of few certain supermarket tabloids that don't need to be named -- for half a century now.