He never saw anything himself. He has no pictures, no video, not a shred of evidence. All he has is what he says others have told him.
He gave specifics about how the intel agencies are covering up the UAP programs by using Special Access Programs that are not accessible to Congress, and how what they are not releasing should be released under law (citing specific US law codes). He also answered a congressman’s question about how they are funding these projects without Congressional approval, by saying they are “misappropriating funds” and said he has provided evidence of such to the Inspector General.
FYI this is big news, that a member of the intel community testified under oath to Congress that their is a UFO / UAP project being illegally withheld from government oversight.
In addition to all that, the Air Force pilots testified under oath before Congress that these UAP sightings are happening frequently and have been happening for decades, and that the craft exhibit characteristics that indicate technology that vastly exceeds anything we could touch with our own defense capabilities. Members of Congress expressed concern that this is a “grave threat to national security” on the record.
Did Grusch testify about his conspiracy theory that the Pope helped smuggle a UFO out of Mussolini’s Italy to the U.S.?
He did actually bring up that his knowledge of events went back to the 1930s… which I’m assuming is that theory.
Seems like a pretty important thing to forget to mention to congress…
He is not there to provide a synopsis of the NewsNation interview, but rather to answer the specific questions posed by Congress. He stated multiple times during the hearing that what he is allowed to publicly say is all available in the NewsNation interview.
Well then it seems like a major oversight of congress to not investigate his claim that the Catholic Church is in the business of smuggling UFOs and hiding their involvement.
You’ll have to take that up with your Representative, assuming you’re a United States citizen.
Congress has nothing, that means zero, to do with the Catholic church or the pope. You’re welcome for the help in understanding how things work.
Nope. I wouldn’t put it past those greasy popes to do something like that though.
I heard the Pope smokes dope on a rope.
One thing’s for sure. If he’s lying about being prepared to present the evidence he claims to have, we’ll hear about the perjury charges in the near future. If that doesn’t happen, things get much more interesting.
Realistically I expect to be hearing about a perjury charge, but part of me hopes for the longshot chance of being proven wrong.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General received his official whistleblower complaint along with evidence, and they stated his case was “credible and urgent” and Grusch is being represented by the former Inspector General for the case. He definitely has evidence to back up what he’s saying, at least in part.
Like everything, there is lots of grey area between “evidence of aliens” and “lying”. He probably has evidence of something, but it’s debatable whether it’s evidence of everything he claims. He won’t necessarily get perjury charges for interpreting evidence in a peculiar way.
said he has provided evidence of such to the Inspector General.
I missed that, do you have an approximation on when during the hearing he said it?
Nope. You can probably look for it on C-SPAN’s recording of the hearing though.
I assume it will be transcribed and put online pretty quick. Makes for easy searching. Still worth a shot, I’ve seen people make notes of video timestamps almost like others highlight text.
He provided the evidence to the Inspector General.
No he didn’t because he didn’t have any to provide.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Not providing any publicly == not providing any.
This is such a strong statement when operational security is a requirement for investigations into intelligence workers.
He didn’t see graphite on the roof, because there wasn’t any
UFOs and non-human bodies does not mean aliens. I am not surprised at all that they have remnants of other countries stealth planes or whatever to gain intelligence. I have non-human bodies in my house, I have 2 cats.
But unlike him, I have actually seen these non-human bodies for myself.
I thought we all agreed this dude was a scam artist a while ago. Wake me up when something actually interesting happens outside of grasping at straws for attention. Every single hyped up reveal this guy has done has been the same recycled shit.
I do believe there is life on other planets for sure, I just don’t believe the government is capable of covering it up. And I definitely don’t believe the fucking pope smuggled an alien spacecraft back in 1930 lmao
That’s my take on all this as well. He’s confirming the existence of unknown crafts (plenty of powers could have “unidentified crafts” to the US, simply because we haven’t identified it yet. It’s not like wreckage found will be stamped “This is from a new Russian MIG”), and same with non-human bodies. It doesn’t say they aren’t identified, he says non-human. If they weren’t identified, wouldn’t they be saying unknown species? I can’t watch the video yet cause of work, but does he combine the two into “these non-human bodies are associated with the UFOs”? Cause otherwise, it’s nothing.
The bipartisan cooperation from from congress was surprising - Didn’t know Gaetz could sound so level-headed.
One of the members said it well - If there’s a mystery craft out there that can outfly any known military vehicle, that’s a national security concern, regardless of where it came from or who it belongs to. And if a black-budget entity in the government is siphoning taxpayer funds to research this kind of technology, there should be at least some level of oversight.
Really hoping they pull Grusch into a SCIF and take this further. There wasn’t much new info today, but this is the first step to formalize what we know so far and get the wheels of disclosure turning.
Couldn’t agree more with everything you said. Well put.
I always appreciate when politicians set aside their differences to work on an issue. Some of the representatives I disagree with or otherwise despise, but I can still respect individual actions like this.
Regardless of origin of these craft, this exposes security flaws and abuse of power by groups in the government and private sector. This will likely be the main subject that congress and the senate will pursue. As much as we want to hear about the NHI aspect of this, it’s a harder subject for Congress to justify pursuing than security and potential financial abuse of these groups. Along the way we can slowly get the disclosure that the UAP/UFO community seeks.
This is what felt bizarre for me about this hearing, a lot of these people shouldn’t be on the same panel together according to their differences yet they came together to tackle this issue as if they’re the best of friends behind the public eye.
Do you think the oath swearing lends credibility to the statements?
Considering the consequences of getting caught lying under oath to Congress, I personally believe it lends credibility to the person’s testimony. However, I understand that others may not feel the same way.
Proving he’s lying would be… difficult.
Or easy considering the evidence he is providing them in a closed door session or SCIF.
Is there any way to find out what sort of evidence he’s volunteered to present in a SCIF? From what I understood (not native English speaker) there were certain confirmations he’d only be willing to make in a secure location, but I didn’t catch any mentions of actual evidence.
To me it seems the statements he’s only willing to make in a SCIF was of the “Yes I can confirm that we have alien bodies.” type. That’s kinda already implicit.
The evidence Mr. Grusch provided included photographic evidence, documents relating to the programs, names and locations of the programs, as well as the identities of those running them. He also provided a list of names of individuals currently and previously working in these programs.
The only thing that has been publicly confirmed is the formal whistleblower complaint that was sent to the Inspector General. It’s worth noting that the Inspector General conducted their own investigation into the claims Mr. Grusch made. All of the “classified evidence” and witnesses with firsthand knowledge were provided to the Inspector General, along with whistleblowers whose identities are even unknown to David Grusch, but who corroborated his claims. At the end of the investigation, the Inspector General deemed Mr. Grusch’s claims as both “credible and urgent”.
I hope I was able to answer your question. Your English is very good for a non native speaker!
The evidence Mr. Grusch provided included […]
But if the only thing that’s been publicly confirmed is the whistleblower complaint, then how do you know what sort of evidence has been handed over? Without sarcasm, perhaps you or someone you know are an insider?
From my investigations, starting with the article in “The Debrief”, Grusch have provided testimony but no evidence to congress. Many hours of transcribed testimony. But no photographic evidence or documents.
When the Intelligence Community IG commented on the whistleblower complaint - he talked about the reprisals Grusch faced and not the content of the whistleblowing. The DoD IG that treated Grusch’ report in 2019 found the accusations to be not credible.
Unfortunately your reply leave me with more questions than answers. I’d love to be convinced about your claims, but then you’d have to show me how you know some of these things instead of just claiming it be like that.
But if the only thing that’s been publicly confirmed is the whistleblower complaint, then how do you know what sort of evidence has been handed over? Without sarcasm, perhaps you or someone you know are an insider?
I don’t have anything that would satisfy you in regards to this. I’m relying on the reporting by journalists such as Ross Coulthart, Christopher Sharp, Michael Shellenberger, whom I trust and find credible.
From my investigations, starting with the article in “The Debrief”, Grusch have provided testimony but no evidence to congress. Many hours of transcribed testimony. But no photographic evidence or documents.
From my understanding there was roughly 11 hours of closed door hearings with congressional lawyers. The issue was getting people in the room with the right clearances to view the evidence. Again, reported on by the same journalists.
When the Intelligence Community IG commented on the whistleblower complaint - he talked about the reprisals Grusch faced and not the content of the whistleblowing. The DoD IG that treated Grusch’ report in 2019 found the accusations to be not credible.
It has been suggested that the statement “credible and urgent” pertained to the issue of reprisals rather than the content of the whistleblowing. However, this has been refuted by individuals who have spoken with Mr. Grusch. According to him, the phrase was in reference to the entire contents of the whistleblower complaint, not just the reprisals. I’ll need to locate a source for you on this matter. I’m also interested in the 2019 IG statement if you could provide a source. I’d appreciate the opportunity to read that. Thank you.
Unfortunately your reply leave me with more questions than answers. I’d love to be convinced about your claims, but then you’d have to show me how you know some of these things instead of just claiming it be like that.
I apologize in advance. I fully realize that what I say may not be convincing to you or others. Honestly, I’m not trying to persuade you in one way or the other. People’s standards of proof vary widely. I’m relying on the reporting of journalists whom I find reliable. Anything I express on this platform is my own opinion or belief. I strive to cite and relay information as accurately as possible. I’m simply interested in this topic and aim to uncover the truth, whatever that may be.
I believe he said he would volunteer names and government entities who were behind the spending and coverups. He also mentioned an actual answer to what “non-human biological” meant and where certain UAPs were being housed.
Yes, I heard he’d answer many of those questions you mention as long as it was in a secure facility.
If I told you I could make false claims and provide an example, would you agree that claims, statements and testimonies should not be considered as evidence? Keep in mind that I replied to someone claiming that Grusch had provided evidence.
Watch:
Spiro Agnew is the mastermind behind it all, it’s all done by Park Rangers and accountants residing in a compound three miles south of Disney World are responsible for hiding the spending. Non-human biological entities are cat-people and the UFO’s are all stored in the Denver Airport basements.
Sorry, but I said that “…he said he would volunteer”. I did not say that Grusch had provided evidence. There’s a difference. Have you watched the hearing?
edit: I read that wrong. I thought you were referring to my post as the one you replied to since it was the one you were replying to. carry on :)
He may very well sincerely believe everything he’s saying, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Perhaps he’s been lied to, or perhaps he’s just crazy. Who knows?
Well, he doesn’t act crazy, nor does he present what I see as crazy claims so I’m comfortable to exclude “crazy” from the list.
Still it feels like not enough people here is open to the possibility of Grusch being fed lies and believing it himself, or even that the entire thing being a limited hangout.
Not in the least.
Ignorant question incoming: Why does it seem like aliens only want to deal with America, why not other countries?
If you are to believe what has been stated by David Grusch and others, The United States is not the only country. I recommend the UAP Guide on the sidebar as a pretty good baseline to get up to speed, if you are curious. I linked you to the section called “Global phenomena”.
I hope I was able to answer your question.
Thanks for this, will take an in depth look!
Good luck! There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers.
deleted by creator
Does Michael Caine realize he sounds like he’s talking about his stash of blow when he introduces himself?
That’s a really thought-provoking question. Beyond the fact we don’t hear our own voices in the same way as others hear us (due to our own cranial vibrations I seem to remember?), do our self-image and voice projection match how others look at us, see us and in this case, hear us?
I will have to meditate on the matter.
If I poop on a plate and my partner eats it would that be more sanitary than just pooping in their mouth?
Well that’s certainly a disgusting question, but is it stupid? To find the answer we’ll have to investigate several important topics, from personal hygiene to germ theory. The resulting knowledge could literally mean the difference between life and death in certain situations.
Seeing how this thread took off, I would like to mention that I have updated the Featured post in regards to the hearing. I will try to add relevant information to that post and continue the discussion in regards to the hearing for when this post inevitably fades away due to new posts.
Another knob looking for their 15 minutes- that possesses no first hand knowledge of any events, that has gotten far more than the 15 minutes they wanted.
When will this cycle end?
Pretend Grusch wasn’t there. Do you feel that way about Graves and Fravor?
Yes.
Just so I understand, you think the first pilot to engage with the Tic Tac craft is relaying second hand information?
I think it didn’t happen to begin with. It was a drone. Nothing more. And the reason they’re not saying it is because theres probably something they don’t want to admit about it.
Contrary to popular belief when it comes to aliens and UFOs, the American government is shady as shit. It never stops amazing me how honest people seem to thing the government becomes when it comes to divulging information on unidentified craft.
Ok, it would be better to say that now there’s something to discuss.
I have wondered many times if this isn’t some new tech that was being tested. The reason I don’t think it is, is in this situations they typically would have debriefed the pilots and everyone else who might have seen it, and told them not to discuss it (like in a “you will never fly again” way).
That would them mean it’s the same situation but the craft belonged to another government.
I guess I am not sure who that ended up getting to that point in the ocean without otherwise being detected.
Since we know Russia is essential incapable of tech like this, that would probably mean China made this.
But they don’t seem likely to walk to a battle group so close to the US and engage in jamming sensors and so on. They will mess with an individual boat in disputed waters, I’ll give you that.
So, we are back to “it’s US tech” but they treated this like no other interaction when experimental craft are involved and ton of people are involved in the cover up. Other people were flying with Fravor that day including a second set of planes that went out when he returned (that’s who filmed the Tic Tac video). There were radar operators, other people who watched the video after it was brought back to the carrier, etc.
I don’t know what happened but I don’t think it was testing range stuff.
Graves encounter, I think is possibly more likely since it is possible it since kind of holo projection that’s so far in advance of anything commercially available that it’s hard to imagine combined with also being able to affect an entire groups sensors to fake imagery etc (very much possible if done with permission and cooperation). Still, he seems very credible and again was not the only observed of this.
What’s the point of a whistleblower if he can only talk in a scif behind closed doors 🚪? It does seem to be bi-partisan with minimal politicking.
The bi-partisanship probably deserves it’s own headline.
Were they really under oath? I couldn’t watch it live, but there was a post on this community a few days ago of this Tweet specifically saying the witnesses wouldn’t be under oath.
Yes. There was some mixed reporting leading up to the hearing on if it would be under oath or not. All 3 witnesses stood up and swore an oath before the hearing began.
swore an oath before the hearing began.
That doesn’t sound like an actually binding for perjury type oath.
The oaths took place after the hearing began, I mispoke. What I meant was before the questions began.
Yes, they were under oath. Link to the video and timestamped of the oath: https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY?feature=share&t=2506
That damned TR-3B is going to end up being real, I just know.
What is TR 3b?
Just a patent for a UFO made back in the 2000’s by a US Navy guy, along with patents for zero-point energy and anti-gravity drives.
Oh that’s quite neat
