25
UFO hearing key takeaways: What a whistleblower told Congress about UAP
(www.cbsnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)
News
13 readers
2 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
While I can't speak for the congresspeople's motivations, Grusch seems very credible and someone who could reasonably make such claims given his background and experience. More info about his claims here.
Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and it's hard to know what's really there given the classified nature of a lot of this. I'm hoping for more information to either prove or disprove his claims.
It's a great deal for Grusch too. Massive media attention he can turn into book deals and speaking engagements for a lifetime and zero consequences for never even trying to provide proof of his claims. He gets to be a lifetime hero to people that 'want to believe' and in a month no one else will remember his name enough to challenge any of his claims.
Perhaps so, but if that was all that was going on here I'm surprised Grusch got to be front and center at this congressional hearing. His testimony seemed to indicate that he has shared classified, vetted information with congress in closed sessions, and he seems like an educated man who not only has clearance but also a degree in physics.
Grusch seems more credible than, say, Bob Lazar, or other such people who seem to be courting the UFO believer circuit, but it's hard to know for sure, especially as a member of the public. I don't feel like I have enough information to make my mind up about him but there's enough there to indicate he should be listened to and his claims examined.
Also, it's worth noting he wasn't the only witness. Pilots David Fravor and Ryan Graves also made similar claims about UAPs, although their testimony wasn't as incredible as some of what Grusch had to say.
My understanding is that Grusch has not actually claimed to have first-hand evidence of anything he claims. He is relying on some other source telling him they've seen crazy shit, essentially.
Yes, my understanding is also that he supposedly interviewed a lot of other people with clearance, and because of that a lot of the details and sources and evidence can't be shared. The other pilots had firsthand accounts, IIRC, as well as video and sensor evidence.
Perhaps this hearing will encourage declassification like they did with the JFK stuff, and put the matter to bed either way. Schumer & Rounds have introduced legislation to that effect.
See my first point about this being a political brownie-points bonanza. They've got a hot stage and a rising star. Of course they're going to make a good show of it. And even with zero evidence- enthusiastic members of the public can't get enough and will go on and on about how credible this guy seems because he's saying things they really, really want to be true.
He's not making a book though or any typical grifter behavior.
Not yet π΅πΆπ΅
"I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access,β basically adds up to "I totally worked on this super secret project that I can't tell you about".
He never actually said he has any evidence, just beliefs.
He's not a whistle-blower, he's a dupe.