I just wanted to share a little bit of my thought process and some references that I think others might find helpful when contemplating the veracity of Grusch’s claims. I think there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest what he claimed & testified under oath to is true. (I was just writing this up in response to another post and figured I would create a separate post on here).
1) Can we definitively say that UAPs are real, physical, objects that we cannot currently attribute to our own technology or any other nation state or private entity?
– Yes, this I think we can confirm based on open source knowledge today (i.e., report from AARO – see report here: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2023/3733-2023-consolidated-annual-report-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena)
– How can we know this is not US technology? a) The history of sightings reported by military personnel going back to the 1940’s. b) This tech would not be tested in close proximity to advanced military aircraft – creating a flight safety risk.
– Does this prove that we haven’t successfully reverse engineered some of this tech and that’s what some witness today? No, we cannot. However, the preponderance of evidence suggests that there’s more to it than US tech.
– Show the “UAP Reporting Trends” from AARO. Note that there is clearly an observation bias associated with our military assets and this is a worldwide phenomenon. UAP Reporting Trends:https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/UAP_Reporting_Trends_as_of_20Nov23.pdf?ver=dl2m2HXgCIMaJ9t5wBmk9Q%3d%3d
– FY2023 AARO report (unclassified) notes AARO has recieved 801 UAP reports. If we take those reports and align them with the AARO Reported UAP-Morphology, we get:
UAP Morphology (%)/(# Reported)
Orb (Round Sphere) 34% (272)
TicTac 2% (16)
Triangle 3% (24)
Disk 2% (16)
Cylinder 5% (40)
Oval 5% (40)
Square/Polygon 3% (24)
Ambiguous Sensor Contact 9% (72)
Other 7% (56)
Lights 30% (240)
Recent Developments taking this from a simmer to a boil:
– Following the Chinese balloon frenzy earlier this year, NORAD adjusted the radar filters and engaged 3 objects (what would otherwise be defined as UAP). We have yet to get any images, pictures of the objects, and we are told there was no recovery effort. Why is it that we release video from advanced fighters when we have an unsafe run-in with China or Russia and yet we have seen nothing from these shootdowns? Ask Congress if they have seen any video or radar data from these encounters?
Grusch Testimony
– I’m not going to list all the facts that support Grusch (40 witnesses, being assigned to the UAP Task Force to investigate these). But I would say make the analogy that Grusch is an investigator that was assigned to do detective work as part of the UAP Task Force. This is when over the course of years he accumulated 40 witnesses and documentation that was ultimately submitted to the ICIG (intel inspector general) which the ICIG found ‘credible and urgent’ and sent it directly to Congress.
– How does the ICIG define ‘urgent concern’? If we look at the “Semiannual report October 2021-March 2022” we find only 1 ‘urgent concern’ out of the more than 1,600 reports during that period. To be an ‘urgent concern’ it must be:
“A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.
A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.
An action, including a personnel action described in Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee’s reporting an “urgent concern” in accordance with this paragraph”
What are SAPs and what are the different kinds?
● Acknowledged SAPs: The majority of the inner details of an acknowledged SAP are shrouded in secrecy. However, as the name implies, the government, at minimum, admits the program exists. Oversight for acknowledged SAPs is provided by members of Congress from the appropriate committee that a SAP falls under.
● Unacknowledged SAPs: As the name implies, unacknowledged SAPs or “USAPs” are classified programs for which the mere existence can be denied to anyone who is not “read-in” to the program. Like acknowledged SAPs, lawmakers from appropriate Congressional committees are still briefed and provide oversight for USAPs.
● Waived-Unacknowledged SAPs: The most closely guarded of all secrets can be maintained
within waived-unacknowledged SAPs, or “Waived-USAPs.” A Waived-USAP is an unacknowledged SAP that has been formally exempted from the majority of oversight and reporting requirements by either the Secretary of Defense or the President.
——
Then there’s always so much history and statements by Astronauts, pilots, etc.
check out https://ufoquotes.com/
check out the the Canadian UAP reporting system. There are thousands of reports just like this one that I randomly pulled up: https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?cno%3d%26dtef%3d%26dtet%3d2023-02-17%26otp%3d-1%26ftop%3d%253e%253d%26ftno%3d0%26ijop%3d%253e%253d%26ijno%3d0%26olc%3d%26prv%3d-1%26rgn%3d-1%26tsbno%3d%26tsbi%3d-1%26arno%3d%26ocatno%3d%26ocatop%3d1%26oevtno%3d1024%252c%26oevtop%3d2%26evtacoc%3d3%26fltno%3d%26fltr%3d-1%26cars%3d-1%26acat%3d-1%26nar%3dnorad%26aiddl%3d-1%26aidxt%3d%26optdl%3d-1%26optcomt%3d%26optseq%3d%26optxt%3d%26opdlxt%3dResults%2bwill%2bappear%2bin%2bthis%2blist%26mkdl%3d-1%26mkxt%3d%26mdldl%3d-1%26mdlxt%3d%26cmkdl%3dC%26cmkxt%3d%26rt%3dQR%26hypl%3dy%26cnum%3d2023O0352
————-
What about the science side of things? Maybe this new tech that we’re testing in a satellite that just went up this past month has been known for decades but hidden in black projects?
“The ‘Impossible’ Quantum Drive that Defies Known Laws of Physics was just launched into space” (The Debrief) (https://thedebrief.org/exclusive-the-impossible-quantum-drive-that-defies-known-laws-of-physics-was-just-launched-into-space/)
– TLDR: entirely new form of propulsion using what is called Quantized Inertia (QI). Effectively an electric only form of propulsion. If I recall from the video linked below, this theory would explain the movement of planets in the universe & spin while General Relativity cannot. We should know and have scientific proof of this new form of propulsion within a few months as they test and prove what they’ve already observed in laboratories on smaller scale experiments.
Research Paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-017-3128-6
Video Overview of Theory explaining what it means: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45E822mP59Q
– Proxima Centauri b is ~4.24 light years away from earth
– e.g., using conventional chemical propulsion it would take us ~70,000 years to reach Centauri b
– using QI with a nuclear reactor (that’s already been proposed for space) would achieve this travel in 12 years. (see ~11 minutes into video). The thing is, this constantly accelerates and a lot of time is spent decelerating as well. so as you go farther into space, the relationship of distance and time compresses (i.e., you reach faster speeds the longer you travel and get their faster than this even implies).
—— Lastly, (and very important), per the Schumer/Rounds UAPDA: I think the fact it’s alleged UAPs have been classified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (inappropriately) is how this information could have been kept secret for so many years. That information is strictly need to know and is not shared with Congress and/or even President’s historically. Just think about it, under that law the DOE can say to the President, no, there’s no ‘need to know’ for you to have this information (just like if it were Nuclear weapons design schematics). I suspect that changed after the February shootdowns and Grusch allegations.
There’s so much more, I could spend all day doing this.
We should not be afraid to ask questions. We have to eliminate the stigma that causes everyone to try to explain these UAPs away as some USG tech or psyop.
——-
Can the group share in the replies links to previous claims/whistleblowers? I’m thinking historical claims going back to 60’s (e.g., Former Isreali space security chief said “There is an agreement between the U.S. government and the aliens. They signed a contract with us to do experiments here”. source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weird-news/former-israeli-space-security-chief-says-extraterrestrials-exist-trump-knows-n1250333) Or this one (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP68-00046R000200090025-2.pdf). There are so many… I would like to have a complete list…
submitted by /u/Blade1413
[link] [comments]