LIVE: Congress holds UFO hearing.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

First……I’m just using the “new” name Biologics for a being which I presume that is what Grusch calls them or it.

Then I just presume that Biologics are bipedal beings.

But I see your point….the biologics could be no more than intelligent Hortas’s.

I guess after the dust settles for using the new catch name……whatever “It” is called….it points to what he has seen in pictures and or what’s been told to him.

“Something” is piloting the craft ….and it’s not autonomously being flown without a pilot…as I understand it so far.

I get the feeling Grusch is using Biologics to describe possible multi races of living or quasi living organisms anything from snails to Kanamits.

Imo…

👽

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Mantiss2021

First……I’m just using the “new” name Biologics for a being which I presume that is what Grusch calls them or it.

Then I just presume that Biologics are bipedal beings.

But I see your point….the biologics could be no more than intelligent Hortas’s.

I guess after the dust settles for using the new catch name……whatever “It” is called….it points to what he has seen in pictures and or what’s been told to him.

“Something” is piloting the craft ….and it’s not autonomously being flown without a pilot…as I understand it so far.

I get the feeling Grusch is using Biologics to describe possible multi races of living or quasi living organisms anything from snails to Kanamits.

Imo…

👽

I'm getting really irked with all this continuing non-disclosure mixed with buzz words from these people.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'm getting really irked with all this continuing non-disclosure mixed with buzz words from these people.

I would imagine many are. I doubt you would be alone with that sentiment.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I love how he said bilogics ... If there was a need to separate "beings" into biologics and non-biologics, it means that at least some "proof" exist for other side too - non-biologics / mechanical / digital / maybe energy etc.

a reply to: ArMaP

It turns out he was questioned further about non human biologics

Mrs Luna: Why is it that you referred to the phenomenon as non-human intelligence, why do you deviate from the basis of extraterrestrial life?

David Grusch: I think the phenomenon is very complex and I like to leave an open mind analytically to specific origin."

0:39

a reply to: andre18


David "thinks" the phenomenon is complex.

Yes , well am pretty sure many could/ would say the same. No mystery there bla bla bla.

a reply to: andre18

David Grusch: I think the phenomenon is very complex and I like to leave an open mind analytically to specific origin."

An eloquent sentence but he is still saying absolutely nothing.

a reply to: quintessentone

As an Ol saying goes….

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…….baffle them with bull$hit

- W.C. Fields


👽

a reply to: quintessentone

His response reflects the complexity of the UAP phenomenon and the challenges in defining its nature based on our limited understanding.

His choice of 'non-human biologics' over 'extraterrestrial life' indicates a broader perspective, allowing room for multiple possibilities, such as multidimensional beings, that may not fit our traditional concept of 'extraterrestrial life.'

It's not a matter of him 'saying absolutely nothing,' but rather an acknowledgment that we may not yet have the language or concepts to fully encompass what we're dealing with.

It's wise to avoid drawing premature conclusions in such a complex and largely uncharted field.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: quintessentone

His response reflects the complexity of the UAP phenomenon and the challenges in defining its nature based on our limited understanding.

His choice of 'non-human biologics' over 'extraterrestrial life' indicates a broader perspective, allowing room for multiple possibilities, such as multidimensional beings, that may not fit our traditional concept of 'extraterrestrial life.'

It's not a matter of him 'saying absolutely nothing,' but rather an acknowledgment that we may not yet have the language or concepts to fully encompass what we are dealing with.

It's wise to avoid drawing premature conclusions in such a complex and largely uncharted field.

I get it, my imagination has already taken me there in regards to complex interdimensional holographic/biological travel but it's all fantasy at this point with no disclosure of what they do actually have in their possession. I want more scientific specifics explained even if it's so complex it's beyond my mind, so I can then actually start theorizing instead of fantasizing about what may not be on the table for truth.

a reply to: andre18

I’m curious to know….if others within SAP’s use the tag Biologics…or is it just him.

If it’s just him….that uses the tag …then he’s creating a new word for his own meanings.

If it’s a tag used within the SAP’s……then there ought to be unclassified or classified (but exposed) documents somewhere online etc. showing that tag (or noun)

Back in the day…..we used to call them E.B.E.’s … Extraterrestrial Biological Entities



👽

It's wise to avoid drawing premature conclusions in such a complex and largely uncharted field.

Well blame David for that. What else can the public do at this point in time?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: andre18

I’m curious to know….if others within SAP’s use the tag Biologics…or is it just him.

If it’s just him….that uses the tag …then he’s creating a new word for his own meanings.

If it’s a tag used within the SAP’s……then there ought to be unclassified or classified (but exposed) documents somewhere online etc. showing that tag (or noun)

Back in the day…..we used to call them E.B.E.’s … Extraterrestrial Biological Entities

👽

It doesn't necessarily mean he's creating a new term. He's simply employing a broader descriptor, one that encompasses more than just 'extraterrestrial biological entities.'

The term could also be employed by others within SAPs, reflecting a shift in how the field is conceptualizing these entities. In any evolving field, terminology will shift and expand as our understanding deepens.

So, the use of 'non-human biologics' versus 'E.B.E.s' may simply be indicative of the evolution in thought regarding the UAP phenomenon.

a reply to: andre18

I see what your saying…..but I’m also asking if Biologics is part of an established, published, lexicon that others use in SAP’s and has been in use for some time after it may have morphed from E.B.E. as you suggested.

Words are important in this context…..labels….tags…are important.

I want to know….where is the precedence before Grusch…..using the tag Biologics.

No person…..imo…should take it upon themselves to coin words without peer review and acceptance when dealing in such serious matters.

It adds to convolution, misinterpretation, etc.

Making up words to sound smart…is dumb.

👽

originally posted by: Baablacksheep

It's wise to avoid drawing premature conclusions in such a complex and largely uncharted field.

Well blame David for that. What else can the public do at this point in time?

Rather than blaming one person for our collective lack of definitive knowledge, the best thing any of us can really do is take stance of patience and openness.

a reply to: andre18


You said.

the best thing any of us can really do is take stance of patience and openness.

Really?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: andre18

I see what your saying…..but I’m also asking if Biologics is part of an established, published, lexicon that others use in SAP’s and has been in use for some time after it may have morphed from E.B.E. as you suggested.

Words are important in this context…..labels….tags…are important.

I want to know….where is the precedence before Grusch…..using the tag Biologics.

No person…..imo…should take it upon themselves to coin words without peer review and acceptance when dealing in such serious matters.

It adds to convolution, misinterpretation, etc.

Making up words to sound smart…is dumb.

👽

It's definitely novel terminology without precedence.

In rapidly evolving fields, language often needs to adapt to encompass new understandings and concepts. This doesn't necessarily mean it's an attempt to 'sound smart' or create confusion, but rather an effort to accurately describe novel concepts that older terms may not adequately capture.

Grusch's comments are part of a larger dialogue. While we don't have full access to the inner workings of SAPs or their specific terminologies, we are witnessing a piece of an ongoing conversation.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: andre18


You said.

the best thing any of us can really do is take stance of patience and openness.

Really?

Why not?

I highly doubt you're motivated to investigate this further within a scholarly inquiry, delving deeper into the scientific research and theoretical constructs.

a reply to: andre18

Beyond the defining the term Biologics….in the vid clip you provided…..the following discussion on the clip, was about George Knapp and his trip to Russia for UFO information…that he mentioned in his letter to Congress for the hearing.

I suspect News Nation will be making it into the next talking point for the next few days and possibly beyond….if it gains traction with the mainstream media.

👽

Here’s the latest News Nation round table panel aftermath post the Hearing… with some regurgitated playback’s


👽