LIVE: Congress holds UFO hearing.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Now that I give it a second thought I'm seeing what you mean--- there could be some strategical brilliance in picking Grusch and his performance might be spot on.

It is weird that the mythology they are using is not only stale but some of it would be easy to paint someone as a loon with later.

It's quite possible that this "disclosure" operation is designed to be flushed at some point. Leaving the public still in the dark with the same old tales. So, yeah, good observation, sir.

And I do believe it's made to be "flushable" if needed.

It's fascinating to watch anyways. In a can't-look-away-from-the-trainwreck kind of way.

originally posted by: andre18
It's not about reading into things too deeply, it's about understanding the nuanced language often used in complex, sensitive, or classified discussions. This isn't a children's book, it's real-life potential disclosure. And in such scenarios, indirect confirmations like 'non-human biologics' can be as close to an 'admission' as you get.

I have seen many misunderstandings resulting from people that thought they understood nuanced language when in fact the other person was talking as plainly as they could.

The fact is that we cannot know what other people think, assuming things one way or the other is an easy way to be wrong, that's why I'm trying to point out that we should not try to ear what we want to ear when the only thing we really have is what was really said.

Without more information we cannot really know more than we already knew before this.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: andre18
It's not about reading into things too deeply, it's about understanding the nuanced language often used in complex, sensitive, or classified discussions. This isn't a children's book, it's real-life potential disclosure. And in such scenarios, indirect confirmations like 'non-human biologics' can be as close to an 'admission' as you get.

I have seen many misunderstandings resulting from people that thought they understood nuanced language when in fact the other person was talking as plainly as they could.

In a congressional hearing related to highly classified information, we aren't dealing with plain talk. It's more akin to deciphering coded language, where guarded responses are the norm.

When Grusch spoke about 'non-human biologics', he wasn't making a passing comment during a casual conversation. This was a calculated statement during a highly publicized hearing. In such a setting, plain language is seldom used, especially when discussing matters of such importance and sensitivity. Therefore, it would be a disservice to the complexity of the situation to interpret his statements as plain talk.

The fact is that we cannot know what other people think, assuming things one way or the other is an easy way to be wrong, that's why I'm trying to point out that we should not try to ear what we want to ear when the only thing we really have is what was really said.

Without more information we cannot really know more than we already knew before this.

We're discussing a topic that is inherently shrouded in ambiguity and secrecy. Reading between the lines is necessary to extrapolate meaning from statements that are deliberately cryptic or vague.

You see, in these high-stakes, high-secrecy discussions, every word is chosen carefully, meticulously selected. It's about making sense of the little scant and carefully veiled information we have.

Some degree of educated guesswork is inherent in dealing with such issues.

This isn't about assumptions; it's about deduction and interpretation.

originally posted by: andre18
This isn't about assumptions; it's about deduction and interpretation.

Deduction and interpretation based on assumptions, unless the people whose language you are interpreting told you what they meant to say.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: andre18
This isn't about assumptions; it's about deduction and interpretation.

Deduction and interpretation based on assumptions, unless the people whose language you are interpreting told you what they meant to say.

There's a distinction that needs to be made here. Deduction and interpretation are not simply born out of assumptions; they are guided by context, background knowledge, and the understanding of human communication patterns.

In a setting like a congressional hearing, we are working with more than just the words said. We have the speaker's position, their body language, the nature of the event, the historical context, and so much more. These factors provide the context within which the speaker's words take on deeper, sometimes more nuanced meanings. So, while it's ideal to have explicit clarification, in real-world scenarios, especially those that involve classified or sensitive information, that's rarely the case. We often have to rely on the clues available to us to understand the bigger picture.

Deduction and Interpretation: These are processes that use specific information or evidence to draw broader conclusions. For instance, if a person is saying something in a certain context, using certain words or phrases, we interpret those words based on that context, as well as our knowledge of how language is used. Deduction goes a step further, using those interpretations to infer additional information that isn't directly stated. Both of these processes are based on the actual data we have at hand (the words spoken, the context, etc.).

Assumptions: These on the other hand are beliefs or ideas we have that are not necessarily based on hard evidence. They can be based on our own biases, preconceived notions, or beliefs. We may make an assumption about what someone means without having any actual data to support that assumption.

So, it's not about baseless assumptions, it's about informed interpretation. When we talk about interpreting what Grusch said in the hearing, we're not making assumptions. We're not pulling ideas out of thin air. We're using the evidence available to us (his words, the context) to infer what he might be implying.

I think Grusch is the perfect image needed for this hypothetical psyop, similar to Elizondo---the biker, tattooed, ufo nerd helping the cool rocker Delonge...

I had a friend once, haven’t seen him in years; an honest-appearing guy you never think is lying to you---Grusch looks just like him.

Unfortunately, the folks from the ufo knowledge base know his words are too conventionally related to the past ufo rumor mill...so are suspicious.

But you see, that’s the point; this psyop is NOT for the ufo people. It's for the general public whose knowledge of ufo history is superficial at best.

The past psyops, Doty et al., have been for us, ufo folks. Now the virus is being spread to the unwary.

I figure it's our job to do as much as possible to throw sand in their op for the sake of the

I don't have much of an opinion re all this just yet, except perhaps to listen quietly and see what transpires in the future. I suspect it won't be easy for David Grusch and even perhaps for his wife Jessica. Maybe throwing rock's is a bit too soon yet?

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
I don't have much of an opinion re all this just yet, except perhaps to listen quietly and see what transpires in the future. I suspect it won't be easy for David Grusch and even perhaps for his wife Jessica. Maybe throwing rock's is a bit too soon yet?

BB….what’s Jessica’s work bio?

👽

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: andre18
His answer is a direct reply to pilots of the craft.

His answer was, if I'm not mistaken, "“As I’ve stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah”.

That may have been a direct answer to the above question but is not really an answer to the question, as he didn't say if we have the bodies of the pilots.

His answer says that we have biological material that came with some of the recoveries.
He didn't say the biological material was from the craft's pilot.
If the craft had fallen on a farm and killed a cow, the recovered pieces of the craft would have biologics, but completely unrelated to craft (up to the moment of impact against the cow).

I don't think that answer would be accepted in a court.

I know I wouldn't accept it and would ask for a clearer answer.

You would hope scientists would know animal DNA, and therefore grusch not mention a flat squirrel be a bad move,.because that'll be good for the SCIF haha. "It's a flat squirrel by the way".

Negative ramifications of hearing are coming out.

The head of AARO speaks loudly...
Not a happy man

The UFO congressional hearing was 'insulting' to US employees, a top Pentagon official says

LINK

WASHINGTON -- A top Pentagon official has attacked this week's widely watched congressional hearing on UFOs, calling the claims “insulting” to employees who are investigating sightings and accusing a key witness of not cooperating with the official U.S. government investigation.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick's letter, published on his personal LinkedIn page and circulated Friday across social media, criticizes much of the testimony from a retired Air Force intelligence officer that energized believers in extraterrestrial life and produced headlines around the world.

Retired Air Force Maj. David Grusch testified Wednesday that the U.S. has concealed what he called a “multi-decade” program to collect and reverse-engineer “UAPs,” or unidentified aerial phenomena, the official government term for UFOs.

Part of what the U.S. has recovered, Grusch testified, were non-human “biologics," which he said he had not seen but had learned about from “people with direct knowledge of the program."

A career intelligence officer, Kirkpatrick was named a year ago to lead the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO, which was intended to centralize investigations into UAPs. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies have been pushed by Congress in recent years to better investigate reports of devices flying at unusual speeds or trajectories as a national security concern.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong…..

The hearing was built up as having witnesses with firsthand accounts …at least I believe Burchett was giving that buildup.

In actuality……Fravor appears to be the only one to have had a firsthand experience.

Grusch….never actually saw, firsthand and “in person”, a landed or crashed craft or alien living or dead. I don’t consider written accounts or pictures as firsthand. If anything, they are secondhand.

When it comes to Graves…..for the life of me…it appears to me ….he’s never seen any of the craft “in person”…only what was seen on radar and other accounts from pilots in his squadron….imo….that’s secondhand information.

Could anyone point to a link …to where Graves said he actually saw a craft with his own eyes?

I read Fravor’s opening statement in the hearing, and he describes in detail, what his own eyes seen in person.

I read Graves opening statement in the hearing and he doesn’t mention anything about himself having seen the objects with his own eyes.

Graves states the following from his written statement “I have witnessed advanced UAP on multiple sensor systems firsthand,”………..sure….firsthand looking at his displays…..but not firsthand using his own eyes to see the craft.

Fravor, is imo…. the only firsthand witness…the other two are not.

So Burchett didn’t follow through to have all…firsthand witnesses, as he touted he would have….that I was led to believe.

👽

a reply to: andre18

This is a follow-up to our discussion about Grusch using the term "non-human biologics" to answer a question about recovery of UFO crew members, and provide an alternative answer to what I had been saying before, and would paint Grusch in a better light. Forget where I read it, but somewhere in a news story it was suggested that the recovered UFO crew members were some sort of synthetic AI being(s) which included non-human biologics in their composition. So that might be what Grusch was hinting at in his answer.

Such entities piloting UFO's seems a likely possibility, particularly if the craft can't go at superluminal speeds, and thus trips would likely take too long for living beings. It could also possibly explain the phenomenal acceleration observed in these craft, as biological beings would be crushed/squished by the forces involved.

originally posted by: introufo

Negative ramifications of hearing are coming out.

The head of AARO speaks loudly...
Not a happy man

Greenewald's interpretation of Kirkpatrick's Linked-in post is that it implies Grusch is a liar, though it doesn't mention Grusch by name. Specifically, Kirkpatrick's post says that in the hearings someone claimed to be a representative of their organization to the AARO team, which Greenewald thinks must be Grush who claimed he represented the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to AARO, and Kirkpatrick apparently claims that is false. Greenewald is astonished how what should be a simple fact, was Grusch a representative to AARO or not, seems to be in dispute. He recalls there were similar discrepancies in accounts by Lue Elizondo where sometimes the pentagon would not confirm, and would sometimes even deny Lue's claims, but then even the Pentagon reversed its own statements sometimes, contradicting itself.

Greenewald also wonders why Grusch lost his security clearance, and wonders if it might have something to do with trying to sell his story to Corbell and Knapp last year, before the DOPSR review which didn't happen until this year. Per Grusch's own statements, discussing this stuff before the DOPSR review would be illegal, yet he apparently did with Knapp and Corbell, so is that why Grusch lost his security clearance, Greenewald wonders?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
When it comes to Graves…..for the life of me…it appears to me ….he’s never seen any of the craft “in person”…only what was seen on radar and other accounts from pilots in his squadron….imo….that’s secondhand information.

Could anyone point to a link …to where Graves said he actually saw a craft with his own eyes?

This interview sort of implies Graves didn't see them with his own eyes. He says he would see them on radar, then on FLIR, then he would try to see them with his eyes but they were never there, he didn't know if their altitude had dropped by the time he got there or whatever. Graves says that two pilots in his same squadron finally did see one of the UAPs with their eyes, the two aircraft flew right past it and it was between their aircraft. He thinks their radar may have been malfunctioning because if had detected an object there, they wouldn't have flown so close to it. But if it was a balloon that didn't reflect radar, that might explain why it didn't show up on radar. For example, weather balloons need to have radar reflectors attached to them to be tracked by radar.

What the UFO looked like: Dark cube in a translucent sphere | Ryan Graves and Lex Fridman


By the way, there is a patent for what looks like a cube in a sphere radar reflector! Even to the detail of the apex of the cube being at the top of the sphere as Graves describes. I don't know if Graves knows that, but here's an article about that:

Are Some Of The UFOs Navy Pilots Are Encountering Actually Airborne Radar Reflectors?

If a pilot flew past that at 400 knots and said it looked like a cube in a translucent sphere, I'd say that description is pretty good for such a quick glance, though the part inside may not be exactly a cube on closer examination.

By the way you could put different packages inside a translucent spherical balloon, it wouldn't have to be a radar reflector, could be some package to collect SIGINT (signals intelligence) or whatever. The Chinese spy balloon shot down earlier this year was apparently much larger, but it was reported to be collecting SIGINT.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Thx Arbi…..that pretty much confirms Graves is a secondhander…..not a firsthand experiencer.

🍻


As for the patent……it’s not exactly how Graves described it….from his secondhand memory….he says the apex tips of the cube touched the inside wall of the sphere…….

Although your right….at the speed of the flyby…conceivably it may appear that the patented sphere could have been it…in terms of their eyes and perception.

He did mention however…..it wasn’t tethered…….but if your using some long A$$ fish line…..you’d never see it in a flyby.

👽

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Spacespider

Right. Hard evidence would make this worthwhile.

Lockheed, Raytheon, or one of the others has clearly made an Oppenheimer-like tech/science breakthrough.

These UAP events are likely testing of the breakthrough(s) and masking it in the fog of “alien or unknown” origins.

The military industrial complex learned its lesson in the 40’s. Since then, it’s been pretty good at developing next gen tech, but like in the 40’s, they’ve made a scientific breakthrough of some sort.

The “retrieval & reverse engineering” storyline makes the “unknown breakthrough” unlimited in nature for the Russian & Chinese intel communities.

My $ on Skunkworks. The UAP events make it possible gravity harnessing or new extreme power capabilities are being tested. Well done.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: andre18

This is a follow-up to our discussion about Grusch using the term "non-human biologics" to answer a question about recovery of UFO crew members, and provide an alternative answer to what I had been saying before, and would paint Grusch in a better light. Forget where I read it, but somewhere in a news story it was suggested that the recovered UFO crew members were some sort of synthetic AI being(s) which included non-human biologics in their composition. So that might be what Grusch was hinting at in his answer.

Such entities piloting UFO's seems a likely possibility, particularly if the craft can't go at superluminal speeds, and thus trips would likely take too long for living beings. It could also possibly explain the phenomenal acceleration observed in these craft, as biological beings would be crushed/squished by the forces involved.

Grusch stated in his News Nation interview, he couldn't rule out that these entities might be multidimensional beings. Therefore, using a term like 'non-human biologics' rather than directly calling them 'aliens' allows for a broader interpretation of what these beings could be.

The multidimensional alien aspect is further echoed by my other thread www.abovetopsecret.com... where a Youtuber also claims the multidimensional nature of these entities directly corroborating Grusch.

originally posted by: andre18

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: andre18

This is a follow-up to our discussion about Grusch using the term "non-human biologics" to answer a question about recovery of UFO crew members, and provide an alternative answer to what I had been saying before, and would paint Grusch in a better light. Forget where I read it, but somewhere in a news story it was suggested that the recovered UFO crew members were some sort of synthetic AI being(s) which included non-human biologics in their composition. So that might be what Grusch was hinting at in his answer.

Such entities piloting UFO's seems a likely possibility, particularly if the craft can't go at superluminal speeds, and thus trips would likely take too long for living beings. It could also possibly explain the phenomenal acceleration observed in these craft, as biological beings would be crushed/squished by the forces involved.

Grusch stated in his News Nation interview, he couldn't rule out that these entities might be multidimensional beings. Therefore, using a term like 'non-human biologics' rather than directly calling them 'aliens' allows for a broader interpretation of what these beings could be.

The multidimensional alien aspect is further echoed by my other thread www.abovetopsecret.com... where a Youtuber also claims the multidimensional nature of these entities directly corroborating Grusch.

Okaaaay. But you are talking past what I said, and now raising it to another level, discussing the possibility of multidimensional beings. I was merely acknowledging that Grusch may have been warranted in the answer he gave, which bothered me and at least one other member in the thread previously. Don't understand why you are bringing up the possibility of multidimensional beings in the context of that particular question Grusch answered.

Yes, I know there was also speculation on his part at least, in the hearing, that UAP may involve multidimensional travel and or beings, on account of how these craft can seemingly instantaneously appear and disappear. That is one possible explanation; another is that this apparent characteristic may be due to both visual and electromagnetic cloaking. Higher dimensional beings, to me, seems a bit of a stretch (but possible); however higher dimensional space travel seems more within the realm of possibility given String Theory and the idea of higher dimensions. It could well explain how such beings and their space craft can seemingly travel faster than light to make journeys from distant star systems.

Eric Weinstein gave an analogy for this: a needle on a record on a turn table, slowly revolving around and inwards in what can be described as two-dimensional travel (radial and angular). But if the needle is picked up, it can quickly "jump" around on the record, and this would correspond to travel in the third dimension as well (vertical in this case). So, if there are higher dimensions, it might be possible to make use of them to make an analogous jump in 4-D space time by making use of travel in a higher dimension.

The idea of higher dimensional beings living around us in 5+ D space time, ala Lovecraft's "From Beyond" is a bit harder to buy. One would think that we would see them a lot more often, just like Flatlanders would likely see evidence of 3-dimensional creatures and objects moving through their 2-D plane of existence.

originally posted by: andre18
The multidimensional alien aspect is further echoed by my other thread www.abovetopsecret.com... where a Youtuber also claims the multidimensional nature of these entities directly corroborating Grusch.

From my previous post on another thread….

Here’s what Grusch had to say about dimensional travel..,.

Grusch: And then in terms of multi-dimensionality, that kind of thing, the framework that I'm familiar with, for example, is something called the holographic principle.

It derives itself from general relativity and quantum mechanics and that is if you want to imagine 3D objects such as yourself casting a shadow onto a 2D surface, that's the holographic principle.

So you can be projected, quasi-projected from higher dimensional space to lower dimensional.

It's a scientific trope that you can actually cross, literally, as far as I understand, but there's probably guys with PhDs that we could probably argue about that.

Burlison: But you have not seen any documentation that that's what's occurring?

Grusch: Only a theoretical framework discussion, yes.

My physics is ehhh…..but I came across this which may elude to the kind of framework Grusch is talking about….

Source date March 2023: Is Our Universe a Hologram? Physicists Debate Famous Idea on Its 25th Anniversary

A quarter of a century ago a conjecture shook the world of theoretical physics. It had the aura of revelation. “At first, we had a magical statement ... almost out of nowhere,” says Mark Van Raamsdonk, a theoretical physicist at the University of British Columbia. The idea, put forth by Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., suggested something profound: that our universe could be a hologram. Much like a 3-D hologram emerges from the information encoded on a 2-D surface, our universe's 4-D spacetime could be a holographic projection of a lower-dimensional reality.

Specifically, Maldacena showed that a five-dimensional theory of a type of imaginary spacetime called anti–de Sitter space (AdS) that included gravity could describe the same system as a lower-dimensional quantum field theory of particles and fields in the absence of gravity, referred to as a conformal field theory (CFT). In other words, he found two different theories that could describe the same physical system, showing that the theories were, in a sense, equivalent—even though they included different numbers of dimensions, and one factored in gravity where the other didn't. Maldacena then surmised that this AdS/CFT duality would hold for other pairs of theories in which one had a single extra dimension, possibly even those describing 4-D spacetime akin to ours.

🤓

👽

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: andre18

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: andre18

This is a follow-up to our discussion about Grusch using the term "non-human biologics" to answer a question about recovery of UFO crew members, and provide an alternative answer to what I had been saying before, and would paint Grusch in a better light. Forget where I read it, but somewhere in a news story it was suggested that the recovered UFO crew members were some sort of synthetic AI being(s) which included non-human biologics in their composition. So that might be what Grusch was hinting at in his answer.

Such entities piloting UFO's seems a likely possibility, particularly if the craft can't go at superluminal speeds, and thus trips would likely take too long for living beings. It could also possibly explain the phenomenal acceleration observed in these craft, as biological beings would be crushed/squished by the forces involved.

Grusch stated in his News Nation interview, he couldn't rule out that these entities might be multidimensional beings. Therefore, using a term like 'non-human biologics' rather than directly calling them 'aliens' allows for a broader interpretation of what these beings could be.

The multidimensional alien aspect is further echoed by my other thread www.abovetopsecret.com... where a Youtuber also claims the multidimensional nature of these entities directly corroborating Grusch.

Okaaaay. But you are talking past what I said, and now raising it to another level, discussing the possibility of multidimensional beings. I was merely acknowledging that Grusch may have been warranted in the answer he gave, which bothered me and at least one other member in the thread previously. Don't understand why you are bringing up the possibility of multidimensional beings in the context of that particular question Grusch answered.

Yes, I know there was also speculation on his part at least, in the hearing, that UAP may involve multidimensional travel and or beings, on account of how these craft can seemingly instantaneously appear and disappear. That is one possible explanation; another is that this apparent characteristic may be due to both visual and electromagnetic cloaking. Higher dimensional beings, to me, seems a bit of a stretch (but possible); however higher dimensional space travel seems more within the realm of possibility given String Theory and the idea of higher dimensions. It could well explain how such beings and their space craft can seemingly travel faster than light to make journeys from distant star systems.

Eric Weinstein gave an analogy for this: a needle on a record on a turn table, slowly revolving around and inwards in what can be described as two-dimensional travel (radial and angular). But if the needle is picked up, it can quickly "jump" around on the record, and this would correspond to travel in the third dimension as well (vertical in this case). So, if there are higher dimensions, it might be possible to make use of them to make an analogous jump in 4-D space time by making use travel in a higher dimension.

The idea of higher dimensional beings living around us in 5+ D space time, ala Lovecraft's "From Beyond" is a bit harder to buy. One would think that we would see them a lot more often, just like Flatlanders would likely see evidence of 3-dimensional creatures and objects moving through their 2-D plane of existence.

When I bring up the possibility of multidimensional beings, I'm doing so in reference to Grusch's own words, not as a personal assertion. It's not about taking the concept literally but understanding the language used in the context of the given testimony.

It seems counterintuitive to assign the label 'synthetic AI beings' when Grusch has already broached the concept of these entities possibly being multidimensional. By suggesting they could be multidimensional, he's implying they might not be strictly what we term 'aliens', but entities operating within multiple dimensions. Hence, his use of the term 'non-human biologics' broadens the definitional parameters, allowing for a wider interpretation that can accommodate additional data as it becomes available.

Let's be clear, you've introduced the notion of 'synthetic AI beings' into the mix. Grusch has not shared this. It's not inherently wrong to speculate, but it's crucial we don't veer too far from what's actually been stated.

As Ophiuchus1 provided "

Here’s what Grusch had to say about dimensional travel..,.

Grusch: And then in terms of multi-dimensionality, that kind of thing, the framework that I'm familiar with, for example, is something called the holographic principle.

It derives itself from general relativity and quantum mechanics and that is if you want to imagine 3D objects such as yourself casting a shadow onto a 2D surface, that's the holographic principle.

So you can be projected, quasi-projected from higher dimensional space to lower dimensional.

It's a scientific trope that you can actually cross, literally, as far as I understand, but there's probably guys with PhDs that we could probably argue about that.

Burlison: But you have not seen any documentation that that's what's occurring?

Grusch: Only a theoretical framework discussion, yes.

I do absolutely agree with you; multidimensional travel in line with String Theory could indeed be a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena. Your reference to Eric Weinstein's analogy is a perfect illustration of this concept.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Actually Graves did testify to having visual contact with some UAP's, as well as sensor contact. Here is a link to video of that portion of his opening statement testimony (pertinent part 1:22-1:44), although admittedly it is not clear whether he saw it/them or other members of his squadron did.

Former Navy pilot Ryan Graves gives opening statement in UAP hearing