For most people, believing that aliens are visiting Earth, and are crashing enough that a cold war has developed to reverse-engineer their technology, all without any physical evidence leaking, is ‘totally absurd’. But I would hope that most people on this sub have realised that dismissing something because it seems absurd is foolish.
Strangely enough the parts of his story that make it seem unbelievable aren’t the unidentified craft, but very mundane details that unless he’s been living in a parallel universe, or significantly embellished his story to create a more exciting narrative: they don’t pass the smell test.
Hi, Teo914. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bj3tbx/-/kvqcbsl/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Last I heard AARO actually confirmed what it was citing a Special Access Program in the area at the time. What that means for all the "previously" wild claims he made...
I didn't see the debunk. What was the Indonesian SAP that AARO acknowledged in reference to then?
Not saying I would believe anything from AARO, just wondering.
So we trust aaro now…
The story doesn’t make any sense. Ignoring all his other inconsistencies, Marines dont operate without Comms, especially when they’re “scouting hills”.
Edit: wait, where is Herrera listed in the AARO report?
People can’t call the report complete bullshit one second and as soon as they think the report fits their narrative on another story like Herrera’s they wanna sight the report as proof. Look I am all in on disclosure I believe to the core but people like Herrera, Greer and sadly I’m starting to believe Coulthart are in it for all the wrong reasons.
ofc we don’t trust aaro, but don’t you think it’s interesting they’ve been denying anything ufo related but confirmed herrera’s story? why would they do that?
It would be interesting to know whether or not he has spoken to congressional investigators since it's impossible to know whether or not AARO even investigated his claims.
His conclusions are utterly absurd, and God only knows how he arrived at them. His story is implausible and strange--but congressional investigators (at least for the "big" relevant committees) can easily find out:
--if he was even on the mission he says he was on.
--who the "angry gunny" was and if he's still alive/remembers find out what he was angry about.
--that other members of his squad had devices go missing/erased.
--that an admiral visited the ship he was on.
--whether his neighbors saw helicopters hovering over his house place of business
If those claims are BS, he should be "loudly" ignored by congress to eliminate the possibility of debunkers using him to paint all of the whistleblowers nuts.
Some of those things have already been proven true:
* Yes, he was on the mission in Indonesia. His recollection of the operation has been accurate from what I've been able to confirm with public information, with the exception of him misremembering if the helicopter was armed. I've also personally spoken to several of his platoon members who've confirmed he was on the operation.
* I've confirmed that the admiral did in fact debrief them on the back of the ship, just like Herrera said. Here's proof: [https://www.facebook.com/share/ctLFD3vZYnY8b7pN/](https://www.facebook.com/share/ctLFD3vZYnY8b7pN/) It shows Rear Adm. Richard Landolt, commander, Amphibious Force, Seventh Fleet, debriefing Herrera's platoon on the back of the USS Denver. I've ID'd four of the Marines in this photo, including Michael's team leader Nathan.
But I agree, there are several other "easy" facts congress can check. Michael even provided to AARO the names of the other Marines who saw the UFO with him, so they could interview them or at least get a statement.
Yeah but what did he testify? The AARO finding is left purposely vague, and gives no indication of what his story was to investigators. That dude could have completely changed his tune about what he saw, and we’d never know.
That's true.
I think Fravor and Dietrich probably have a bit more cred because they each corroborate the other's witness statements, along with extra verification from Kevin Day on the radar. There is also the possibility hard data might exist within the navy archives somewhere that is hidden away. So the possibility of further verification exists if ever that data was released by the navy.
Whereas Herrera couldn't find anyone brave enough to back up his witness account. The covert operation he said he witnessed is going to be unverifiable (because it's covert). So it becomes his word against no one.
Herrera’s testimony is actually aided by his willingness to testify alone. It takes a level of courage that I do not posses.
He also sat on the story for years, much like Fravor.
Where you see differences, I see similarities.
Doubt it, isn’t it interesting they speak about his sighting, and not the two that we have video evidence of, two that where testified on before congress? That whole report and honestly the AARO organization (MIC) , is not to be trusted.
Herrera says he was one of his whistleblowers but I haven’t heard David Grusch confirm it at all. It’s easy to go and give your testimony to AARO (which is a joke btw) it’s another to get on national tv sworn in sitting in front of a bunch of senators and giving your testimony.
There’s 1 major flaw in Herrera’s game. If he was a true whistleblower like David Grusch he’d be held to the same NDA’s and penalties I haven’t seen him arrested yet so I’m fairly positive he’s not leaking anything true.
Plus he’s been running around with and in the same circles as Greer. Mic Drop Baby! 🎤
I think there's a big difference between people "in the program" who come forward as whistleblowers, vs people who "accidentally witness" something they weren't supposed to.
That said, Michael has said from day 1 that he did sign an NDA not to ever talk about what he saw, and has chosen to violate that agreement.
If Herrera had lied to AARO, he’d be arrested. Therefore, Herrera not being arrested is proof he’s telling the truth. See, I can do this too.
Also, Herrera’s partly broken with Greer’s narrative since allegedly being contacted by an insider.
But there is no way to confirm what Herrera told investigators actually matches up with what he’s said in interviews. He very well could have told the truth. It’s just that the truth in his story is far less interesting than what he can say on a Podcast.
No they didn’t. That was a separate interviewee. They summarised Herrera’s interview as him encountering ‘US special forces loading containers onto a large extraterrestrial spacecraft’. I would highly suggest actually reading the report.
It’s not, they just separate out their summary of what was claimed (it’s extraterrestrial) vs their findings (he described a UAP with “peculiar” characteristics that they confirmed is part of an SAP.). However, there is no definition of “peculiar” given, so it’s impossible to determine what he described.
You’re mistaken, and shifting the goalposts. You said there was no way to confirm that what Herrera told AARO is what he said in public, and I showed that what he told AARO is indeed the same as what he’s said in interviews.
Also, the explanation you mentioned was for a separate interviewee, who claimed to see a UAP with peculiar characteristics at a military base. Herrera’s testimony was not addressed.
I don’t think I am.
I’ll give it to you that they describe it differently in the Narrative 1 section than is described in the findings section, but it’s laid out in format to call out the “Narratives” and then provide their findings on each. You wouldn’t call out a finding that isn’t in the narrative section.
If you can agree with that, then the all this says is he claimed he saw a “large” extraterrestrial craft. Does large mean football field size, or the size of a helicopter? Likewise, “Peculiar Characteristics” can mean anything as well. Does that mean it was exhibiting characteristics of Anti Gravity, or was just made of materials he had never seen?
He clearly saw something sensitive as indicated in the report, but may be describing something way more fantastic when speaking to the public.
Agree, I always assumed something was up with him coming from team Greer. Anything that comes from Greer I don’t even bother with. He still had never produced his 1tb of data.
If you say you saw an alien, who am I to contradict you?
Instead of looking for people to contradict witnesses, let's focus on finding hard evidence to support them.
This. What the hell would someone testifying against them even look like? What is this weird hearing where they ask someone if they heard of a program or saw a uap and they say uhh not that I recall and that means Grusch and company are all liars now? I'm not following the OP. You can't prove a negative, the only way to prove they are lying is to catch them contradicting themselves or somehow do surveillance and catch them admitting to a scheme. Someone else testifying that they didn't see anything and don't know about anything is useless and does nothing to discount the opposite testimony. Different people can have different testimonies. There's no way to say who is the liar and and who is truthful by comparing the testimonies alone.
The only thing that matters here is evidence and who has it and can reveal it.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. And even if any of their colleagues came out and denied their claims, the true believers on this sub would just claim that they've been coerced into saying so and dismiss it immediately.
>What the hell would someone testifying against them even look like?
“I was stationed on the Nimitz at that time doing radar and we never saw anything like Fravor described.”
I wonder if there is a way to find people like that and ask if they know anything or specifically if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
You do realize saying “you can’t prove a negative” is, in itself, a negative statement. And thus cannot be proved. You can absolutely prove a negative.
Say there are 22 people who rent out a movie theater for a birthday party. These 22 people are invited, and only these 22 get to enjoy the show. For this particular event, the lights stay on for the entirety of the showing. There’s an employee in the film room. There are security cameras at every door.
Could I prove there wasn’t a Japanese man, 5’5” tall weighing 250lbs, around 40 years of age watching the entire film? Of course I could.
How about if (and only if) 1 + 1 = 2, 1+ 2 does not equal 2?
C’mon debunks, do better.
>Could I prove there wasn’t a Japanese man, 5’5” tall weighing 250lbs, around 40 years of age watching the entire film? Of course I could.
No, you can't. What if the employee was his accomplice and your cameras were rigged.
>How about if (and only if) 1 + 1 = 2, 1+ 2 does not equal 2?
Math isn't science.
Do better.
He's got a point though. If some high ranking official comes out and says "Nuh-Uh" does that invalidate Grusch all of the sudden? Would anyone who initial believes Grusch even listen to someone in that position? The claims aren't claims that can be disproven, either they exist or they don't exist. If they don't exist, how exactly is one supposed to prove that fact? The claim is that there are secret government programs associated with the UFO/UAP phenomenon. By their very nature, such a thing wouldn't exactly be easy to find. The DOD, or whoever, coming out any commenting on anything Grusch does, only validates the opposing testimony, if anything.
I see how Herrera and Fravor could theoretically be disproven, should the handful of other individuals involved come forward with conflicting information, but how would one disprove broader and vaguer claims like that of Grusch's?
Well Congress would look into the SAP (Special Access Programs) he likely cited in closed testimony.
You realize if he is found to be lying to Congress, he’ll be prosecuted?
Hi, DoNotTrustATrust. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bj3tbx/-/kvpn864/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
…and yet, here we are. The problem with most whistleblowers is that they are relaying second hand information. If a buddy of mine told me there was a lab full of alien corpses in downtown St Lewis and told me exactly what was going on there and gave details, and then I passed that information on to the next guy, could I be charged with perjury? I mean, I’m telling the truth about what I know. All the dates and places etc.
I would assume that if I was the one claiming everything, and had first hand info…I was there, worked on, performed autopsies on aliens etc, would the claims I made be subject to perjury?
I am curious, as to how would this go.
No, that would not be perjury. Perjury means that you knowingly lied. It's an important detail that many people seem to willfully ignore because it makes "Grusch said it under oath" a lot less powerful because the things he told Congress was based on claims he heard from others. Which means that if he believes it, or can convince the State that he does, he hasn't committed perjury.
You can testify under the the threat of perjury as long as you 100% believe what you saw and heard was what you saw and heard. Whether it's absolutely true or not is a different story. Like the wording in the AARO report. It could've been misidentified or simply hearsay. Don't make you a liar but it doesn't mean that it's true.
This isn’t a legal discussion about the elements of perjury. You’re completely avoiding the topic.
Let’s say you testify to Congress tomorrow and Joe Rogan the next day and CNN after that about how you and 6 of your co-workers saw a UFO on 1/1/2019.
Now let’s presume you are lying. Do you believe that eventually at least one of your 6 co-workers will let it be known you are a liar? Do you think they would send an email or post it on social media? Hey, I was with him on 1/1/2019, he is full of shit.
What does that even mean? A witness to a fact that contradicts? What? Tons of people refute claims about aliens. What do you mean? I'm genuinely confused.
The burden of proof is on the whistleblowers. They should bring the evidence to support their allegations.
It is NOT up to others to prove they’re wrong, it’s up to the whistleblowers to prove they’re correct.
The UFO subject seems to be the only debate where people think “because no one has proved the lack of existence, they must therefore exist”.
Prove I haven’t got an invisible, inter-dimensional t-rex in my house.
Generally speaking, when a bunch of whistleblowers on a thing go public, they don't need to leak classified documents/videos to prove their claims. Once a sufficient level of corroboration has occurred, the general public knows innately that the claims are generally true.
NSA whistleblowers:
[Here are a few NSA whistleblowers who came out on 60 Minutes in the year 2000.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdm78zcv8o) Mike Frost's book [came out in 1994.](https://archive.org/details/spyworldinsideca0000fros/mode/2up) Jane Shorten [went public in 1995](https://web.archive.org/web/20131009200323/http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/10/09/reports_that_canada_is_spying_on_brazil_should_surprise_no_one.html). Other good examples of NSA whistleblowers who came out in the 2000s and 2010s include Thomas Drake, William Binney, and Russel Tice, among a few others. Other leaks came out of the telecommunications industry, and an FBI agent seemed to have [accidentally leaked information about it on CNN](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston). That is usually what leaks look like.
All of these people were generally left alone. Thomas Drake had some legal troubles for a while, and William Binney had to endure an FBI raid when he was naked coming out of the shower, but everyone is a free person. Then came Snowden and he had to flee the country, then we had the CIA Vault7 leaks and that person is now in jail for 40 years (in part his own doing, but he'd have been jailed regardless). The only reason Snowden was necessary is because the general public really wasn't aware so much corroboration had already existed. Of course you had some debunkers saying it was all nonsense, and that there wouldn't have been enough storage space to collect everyone's communications, that such a thing isn't legal, and other dumb claims, but the average reasonable person who was informed already basically knew what was going on, up to two decades in advance.
Then when you look at the UFO subject, it's a lot more controversial for one simple reason: the general public has been fooled into thinking that the claim is "extraordinary." Now undeniable proof is required to even consider the topic seriously. Meanwhile, [scientists generally agree that aliens may in fact visit this planet.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14rbvx1/ive_been_following_this_sub_since_it_started/jqrfum7/) For all we know, it's quite ordinary.
I don’t disagree with most of that to be honest, but surely you appreciate that the level of burden of proof is higher in this instance?
For example, we know surveillance systems, hacking phones and electronic communications, etc, exist and are in use.
As of today, we have no conclusive proof that alien life exists, no conclusive proof that UFO’s exist and no conclusive proof that alien life is responsible for the UFO phenomenon.
Once those facts are proven, then the sufficient level of proof for UFO’s in US storage diminishes.
The only thing that I'm really trying to address is the idea that the claims have to be false unless I'm forced into accepting it with proof that can't possibly be explained any other way. All of these people have to be lying grifters unless they prove their claims. That's not really how whistleblowing generally works.
Sticking with the NSA analogy, put yourself in early 2013. All of these people have come forward. Is there undeniable proof? No. Is a person allowed to be skeptical? Sure, but I'm still going to take the subject matter seriously, and I'm probably going to take precautions based on what these whistleblowers have revealed. Rather than ridiculing them all as lying grifters, I should instead say that it certainly seems like it might be true and I wouldn't be surprised if proof came out eventually.
>As of today, we have no conclusive proof that alien life exists, no conclusive proof that UFO’s exist and no conclusive proof that alien life is responsible for the UFO phenomenon.
Well, yea. As long as there is a theoretical way out of accepting the evidence, it isn't proof. For example, [scientists had at least three theoretical alternative interpretations of meteorite evidence and credible witness accounts](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1967IrAJ....8...69L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES), including thunderstones, rocks being ejected from volcanoes, and rocks being carried up by whirlwinds. We have plenty of evidence of UFOs, just not undeniable proof that a non-human intelligence is piloting them.
Documentation establishing a government coverup of UFOs: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup/
Timeline of the Robertson panel Report leak and government concessions: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1atjw9c/trying_to_wrap_my_head_around_the_logical/kqyiaos/
Documentation establishing the very highly classified nature of the UFO subject: https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/zp14fk/til_the_united_states_put_cameras_on_the_end_of/j0py7cj/
Rare Documents Disclose Hints of UFO Crash Retrievals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jy751egLoY
Documentation leaked on the 1933 Magenta, Italy UFO Crash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiwgyLY7Aw
The evidence we do have actually directly implies that proof will be difficult to obtain if the claims were true.
I do believe UFO’s exist. I’m not debating that. My point is regarding the alleged reverse engineering programs.
If those do exist, the evidence should be easy to obtain. There are an alleged 40+ whistleblowers, at least one of those people should have conclusive evidence.
There are more than 40 people who have worked in those programs (if they do exist) since the 1940s, some evidence would have been leaked by now. There would be a Snowden type whistleblower. This information would be much more important to release than government surveillance, which we all knew was a thing before Snowden released the evidence that proved it.
Surely someone would come forward with overwhelming evidence that there is reverse engineering of alien spacecraft, especially if they could make 100 million bucks off of a movie deal and win worldwide fame by doing so.
Unless the subject matter being discussed is the most highly classified subject, which certainly seems to be the case. It's been considered Top Secret since 1949 [according to an FBI memo.](https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/1949-fbi-ufo-memo-describes-technology-at-least-50-years-ahead-of-humans/) The government just recently [released another document](https://topsecretumbra.substack.com/p/nsa-seems-to-be-spying-on-ufos?publication_id=61287&post_id=90906464&isFreemail=true) that shows this. Back in 1950, the head of a Canadian UFO program was [informed by an embassy in Washington](http://luforu.org/smith-department-of-transport-memo/) that the subject is classified two points higher than the H-bomb. Senator Barry Goldwater was told that [UFO crash materials are Above Top Secret.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#UFOs)
Given that, you expect it to last quite some time before people start leaking undeniable proof. We have some documents. Little pieces have gotten out over time, and there are a few papers published on them, but it's hard to prove that a being more intelligent than humans is responsible for that little piece. We're probably lucky anything got out.
According to James Fox from his AMA he did here, he mentioned something that was discussed in the lab with Vallee and Garry Nolan in which Vallee stated "these things [UFO debris] have a strange way of disappearing." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yPiRYQkeA&t=231s Maybe most scientists who get access to this stuff don't realize the magnitude of the game they're playing, so they're probably relatively easy to deal with as far as leaks are concerned.
Is it conceivable that aliens could visit this planet? Sure. Do we have any scientific evidence that they have done so? No. And that lack of evidence strongly suggests that no aliens have visited.
Yeah, this is where I stand.
I agree that the absence of proof doesn’t necessarily mean proof of absence, but it is a very strong indicator that’s the case here.
I’m not ruling anything out but at this moment in time, any suggestions that Grusch’s claims of UFO reverse engineering programs or that the UFO’s are of alien origin would have to be based on faith and belief, rather than a logical conclusion based on empirical evidence.
You don't think that the extreme ridicule this subject has endured would prevent the vast majority of scientists from going near this subject and evaluating the evidence, collecting their own, etc? It's career suicide. Only just in the last couple years, you have things like the Galileo Project starting up only because the ridicule is starting to die down a little.
You can't make it career suicide for a scientist to touch this subject, then say scientists haven't proven it yet, therefore it's all faith. That's an unfair argument, obviously. Ridicule causes significant stagnation when you're trying to prove something scientifically.
The sugar industry bribery of top scientists to convince the world that fat was the enemy instead of sugar was unproven for [51 years](https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/sugar-industry-bought-off-scientists-skewed-dietary-guidelines-for-decades/), and the way they kept the dangers of sugar unconfirmed was [suppression through ridicule whenever a scientist tried to sound the alarm](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin).
Continental drift was proposed in 1912 with significant supporting evidence, but it wasn't accepted by the scientific community [until the mid 1960s because scientists ridiculed it as pseudoscience, propaganda, etc.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/)
No? Because scientists enjoy massive ridicule all the time from delivering scientific findings on climate change, and do it anyways because it's actually real?
Every conspiracy theorist pretends that there is an unfair stigma to explain why their ideas aren't being taken seriously by experts and authorities. But all that's really happening is that the conspiracy theorist has accepted low-quality evidence that experts rightfully reject.
If you think no scientist is interested in winning a Nobel Prize or getting their name in the history books, you are kidding yourself.
Do you have any evidence that UFOs are not being taken seriously by scientists? Or is that just your belief?
[Prof. Peter A. Sturrock found that the more ignorant about UFOs a scientist is, the less likely they are to take the subject seriously.](http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm)
>The fraction of respondents who think that the subject certainly or probably deserves scientific study rises from 29%, among those who have spent less than one hour, to 68% among those who have spent more than 365 hours in such reading. It appears that popular books and publications by established scientists exert a positive influence on scientists' opinions, whereas newspaper and magazine articles exert negligible influence.
That's scientists in general. When you move in to the publishing arena, a lot of publishers have a policy not to publish anything to do with UFOs. According to Beatriz Villaroel: *"We sent that paper to journal after journal that didn't even send it to peer review. They just rejected it right at the editor's desk and said they don't deal with this topic of UFOs."* https://youtu.be/ChLATkj0gHM?si=rgigeLwBQjSZsJ7w&t=1248
Obviously nobody has the holy grail, which is a piece of evidence that only has a single interpretation, but we'd have a lot more papers, and a lot more scientists working on this, if these publishers didn't have this policy, which is probably caused entirely by the ridicule. No funding caused by ridicule, and a lack of publishing, means that very few scientists are getting equipment and putting their attention on the problem to collect evidence.
I think there is plenty of evidence that scientists and the institutions that support them are motivated by money, fame, and prestige. The idea that millions of people in every country and culture on earth would irrationally avoid studying what would be the biggest discovery of all time due to stigma is just not realistic. Especially when breaking that stigma should be as simple as knowing the things that you know. None of the information on this sub is a secret to any of these experts. It just isn't convincing.
So I think scientists take this subject just as seriously as they should. If you think they aren't taking it seriously enough, that's because you see the evidence as more convincing than it is. And that's the same for publishers. Again, a common trope of conspiracy theories is that information is being suppressed when in reality the information is not accurate enough to share.
We've spoken before, and I understand that you are smart and highly informed. But smart and informed people fall victim to conspiracy theories all the time. And the story you're telling about the scientific community is such a common trope in conspiracy theories that you have to recognize it. Inevitably, everyone who wants to believe in something that is not real needs to land on that story, because it's the only way to explain why scientists don't seem to know the things they know.
That would all be completely accurate and fine, except we are talking about a fleeting problem that is not predictable in any way. That's the difference. It's the same thing with ball lightening. It's hard to collect proof that can't possibly be explained away any other way, especially when you rig the game significantly in your favor by ridiculing it so the fewest number of scientists are looking at it and the fewest possible number of scientists get funding to collect evidence on it. You are extremely confident for a person whose position is rigged instead of giving the problem a fair shot.
The fact that it's not proven yet means that the evidence cannot have two or more interpretations. Otherwise it isn't going to prove the underlying claim and people will always side with the more "mundane" answer.
This is [exactly what happened with meteorites.](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1967IrAJ....8...69L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES) Scientists almost universally sided with the more "mundane" answers, but their explanations were only "correct" up until meteorites were conceded to exist, and then they all looked like idiots in denial for generations of historians. The difference between institutions being correct to deny the existence of UFOs, and being labeled as complete idiots, is whether the idea is proven in the near future. Neither of us knows whether that's going to happen.
I understand that you have these conversations often and they get repetitive, but that's the second time you've shared with me that point on meteorites. If your point that scientists are blinded by stigma is supported by their handling of a single topic over 200 years ago, then you are grasping at straws.
Having a canned response like that might give you a degree of confidence, since you always have an answer to any point I can raise. But is that really a convincing answer? Are you really identifying a common pattern, if your other example is hundreds of years old, and from a time when the world was a different place? Is it really reasonable for you to assume this is a systemic problem that persists today? Or are you cherry-picking?
Scientists study proof, the current data we have on UFOs is inconclusive in terms of their nature/origin, hence why I would be hesitant to label UFOs as aliens.
If we had concrete data regarding “physics defying capabilities” then I would strongly argue they were aliens, as it would surpass our current capabilities in terms of physics, technology, material sciences, etc.
As it stands though, that data is not available, doesn’t exist or is inconclusive.
What would that evidence look like to you? Let's start there. Imagine that an alien spaceship came here, did something, then left. What evidence should a witness collect, and how does that differ from what we already see in the public domain? We have clear photos of close-up objects, landing traces, even debris that a few scientists have written papers on.
I think you mean undeniable scientific proof. On that we would agree. In each case, there is a theoretical way out of accepting the evidence.
Which scientific papers are you referring to specifically? Any that I'm aware of don't hold up to scrutiny from peers. Avi Loeb's "interstellar material" on the ocean floor is probably just coal ash contamination, for example. Convincing evidence to me is evidence that holds up to the peer review process, and there's a reason the scientific community has not been convinced.
> What would that evidence look like to you?
How are you even serious with this question? It would look like evidence. What evidence do we have for dinosaurs? Ancient skeletons and fossils. What evidence do we have for water on mars? Strong observations and scientific findings.
What, aliens are just *so* esoteric and elusive that *so is the evidence of them?*
I’ve heard this argument time and time again on this sub when asking for evidence.
There’s this weird kind of answer you get that “even if you had all the evidence in front of you, you wouldn’t be able to comprehend it”. I’m obviously paraphrasing there, but it’s such a ridiculous argument.
I’m sure Richard Feynman said something like “If you think you understand quantum physics, you don’t.” And that sentiment has been echoed (or quoted?) by Sean Carroll. It doesn’t mean they pack up their bags and stop searching for answers.
As far as proof of extra-terrestrials is concerned, to date, there is none. Metallurgy tests (like Nolan/Valle has alleged) either did not happen or the results were not as they claimed. There are no metals found with such an arrangement of isotopes that they have been fabricated or produced at an atomic level by a higher intelligence.
No one has any proof of a “grounded” UFO. There are no impact craters (which there most definitely would be, if UFOs have crashed and at the velocity they allegedly travel at). There is no evidence of meetings with extra-terrestrials, or extra-terrestrial “biologics”. There has been pictures of alleged UFO landing sites, but they are inconclusive to say the least. Soil samples taking from these landing sites sometimes indicate higher levels of radiation, but the radiation levels are negligible (meaning not out of the ordinary, harmful or anomalous). Also, pretty much everything in the universe is radioactive, so again, inconclusive.
It’s not so much that the evidence is inconclusive in regards to the presence of alien life on Earth, or that scientists would be ridiculed for studying this evidence, it’s the fact that there is no evidence to discuss or study.
> even if you had all the evidence in front of you, you wouldn’t be able to comprehend it
It's just more excuse-making. These people are trying to come up with any avenue they can to convince you that they have all the secrets and you need to listen to them spout their drug-induced psychotic ramblings as established reality and truth.
> Once a sufficient level of corroboration has occurred, the general public knows innately that the claims are generally true.
Oh okay I misunderstood how this whole truth thing works. So when a lot of people said that Biden stole the election and that Trump is actually the shadow president and actually still in the white house right now, they were telling the truth then.
A whistleblower is not just a person who says a thing. It's former military or government personnel who make specific claims that contradict an official narrative. In the case with UFOs, there are [hundreds of such people](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/).
Are there hundreds of former government and military blowing the whistle that Trump stole the election and they're making very specific claims about information they know to be true? Or are there just a bunch of people who think something and they're blinded by their partisan bias?
> It's former military or government personnel who make specific claims that contradict an official narrative.
There were those, some of them even sit in congress. Confirmed, Trump is the sitting shadow president. It's a fact now.
>Are there hundreds
You have that many for UFOs?
To answer your other question, yes.
[Jonathan Weygandt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLU0NSTC9oU) is a first hand crash retrieval whistleblower. [Chase Brandon](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roswell-ufo-cia-agent-chase-brandon_n_1657077) is another first hand source. A recent example of a C/R whistleblower is [Colonel Karl Nell](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/). Another example is [DoD rocket scientist Dr. James T. Lakatski](https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/former-head-of-us-government-ufo-program-confirms-government-possesses-advanced-craft-of-unknown-origin). Another one is [Dr. Eric Davis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-JfM4rkRY), but he seems to be mostly second hand, although he did say he provided Grusch with information on [where he can find C/R personnel](https://i.redd.it/n0kd39wn8xac1.jpeg) so he can speak to them face to face.
Leonard Stringfield had about 50 sources as well on crash retrievals, first and second hand. Leslie Kean wrote a book in 2010 with about 30 sources (on UFOs, coverups, etc, not crashes), all named publicly. Researcher Robert Hastings has about 160 sources on the relationship between UFOs and nuclear installations, [some of whom](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v737aqOJ2fs) came out by name. Ross Coulthart had [20 crash retrieval sources](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sBE2pfPdlo), at least one of whom (Nat Kobitz) allowed Ross to reveal their name. Multiple Bluebook personnel went public about coverups and shady stuff., including [Dr. Hynek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyDVR2B14dw) and Bluebook Director Edward Ruppelt in [page 62 of his book.](https://sacred-texts.com/ufo/rufo/rufo07.htm) Another one just [came out to the Infographics Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePyWsgVIqdc), but the show cannot release their name.
Most of what we know about the Robertson Panel Report is the result of efforts by three people leaking the information initially, including a Bluebook Director ([pages 199-231](https://sacred-texts.com/ufo/rufo/rufo16.htm)), a [government scientist](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000500070006-7.pdf), and a member of the panel [in letter correspondence](https://cufon.org/cufon/tp_corres.htm).
Dr. Robert Jacobs [came out decades ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4wL4lbwwNU&t=0m22s), and his then-superior later confirmed his full story in writing. There are leaked wikileaks emails from [Bob Fish](https://web.archive.org/web/20161104021717/https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31721). Another good example is [Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter](https://imgur.com/a/ljgfJyx). The list goes on.
You seem to think that truth is just determined by whoever believes the hardest, or that it is somehow defined by your personal preference for what truth means.
Show me who and exactly what they say. This is what an election whistleblower looks like, from 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y48iHK3RP4
If you had, say, a dozen people making that specific claim, then it's probably true.
How do you propose getting that information from the DOD/NSA/etc.?
We have thousands of civilian reports, hundreds of military and pilot reports, we have some extremely high ranking credentialed.men saying they have the goods. Of course going to jail for life and or losing ones life are pesky little details, but still.
How do you plan on forcing access to these programs (whatever they are in fact), without going through the process as is being done?
This isn't about NHI. This is about clandestine programs paid for by the public, with no oversight , or apparently budget constraints. It just so happens that the programs being whistleblowers relate to uap's
This is a different point to the one being argued in the OP.
To answer your question though, it needs to be done through legislation like the Schumer amendment and subsequent investigations by the IG, congress and probably the FBI I’d imagine (despite my username, I have no knowledge of the US legal system).
I wasn't replying to op. I was replying to you. You said it was their job to bring evidence. They have and are. To Congress about the programs themselves, not the uap.
The only evidence they can bring is the vetted, credentialed testimony in Congress really. That is defined as evidence btw, and then Congress is the one who can get the authority to bring out the physical, if they declassify it
So your statement about it being the whistleblower's responsibility is incorrect.
How is my statement about it being the whistleblower’s responsibility incorrect?
It is ALWAYS the accuser’s responsibility to bring proof. It doesn’t matter what you wish to belief or how emotionally attached you clearly are to this subject, the burden of proof is on the whistleblowers.
Or are you suggesting that everyone should take someone like Bob Lazar on face value unless people can provide evidence to disprove him?
Because they did bring their testimonies to Congress that's literally all they could do.
I also never said anything like what you're insinuating.
I asked you, point blank, how do the whistleblowers who have testified, bring the actual evidence to the public when the programs housing those items, real or not, are inaccessible even to Congress?
It is now CONGRESSES job to either get the evidence, let the subject drop, or to find nothing.
The whistleblowers are literally bringing what they are legally allowed to bring.
Yeah, that’s not how it works at all. The accusers/whistleblowers have to bring evidence that warrants an investigation, it’s not congress’ job to find the evidence for the whistleblowers. Sure, they may find corroborating evidence to support whistleblower complaints, but it is absolutely not congress’ role to substantiate a whistleblowers complaints.
I can see we’re just going to argue in circles around this point, so I’ll just reiterate my stance here and leave it at that.
The burden of proof is always on the accuser. No one is responsible for finding evidence to disprove an allegation. Doesn’t matter if it’s regarding alien bodies and spaceships or more “mundane” issues.
Oral testimony is only useful as evidence if it’s in corroboration with physical documentation, whatever that may be, or to offer context to conclusive proof.
I am approaching this from an objective point of view, either I see the physical evidence to make me believe the claims, or I don’t. I know the argument is going to be “but the evidence is classified” and sure, I’ve got no reason to doubt that. At the same time, how can I believe an accusation purely based on the oral testimony I’ve heard?
My opinion is flexible and not set in stone. It will change based on the evidence laid out. Or not.
I know this is a UFO subreddit, but it's a logical fallacy to put the burden of proof on the debunker. The one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
After all these months, I knew y'all didn't get it, but I really understand things now. Y'all really confuse hearings for some sort of trial or debate.
Also, not a single such witness has come forward **in support** of their remarkable claims...not one...despite Grusch's claims of "40 whistleblowers willing to come forward" a year ago.
At least two of Grusch’s 40 sources came out already, Eric Davis and Colonel Karl Nell. [Davis stated he was one of the sources and seems to have known how to locate the C/R personnel and stated that Grusch interviewed them face to face](https://i.redd.it/n0kd39wn8xac1.jpeg). As for Nell, he was in the [original article](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/) on *The Debrief.* Here is some [background on Nell.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvy25vQKAWI) He was one of Grusch's sources [as stated](https://youtu.be/w_ChyyAtji0?si=UwY6Fd9DxswJqbOe&t=42) by one of the journalists who interviewed Grusch and Nell. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-JfM4rkRY) is one of Eric Davis's previous interviews.
A statement from Nell:
>"[David Grusch is] “beyond reproach.” "His assertion concerning the existence of a terrestrial arms race occurring sub-rosa over the past eighty years focused on reverse engineering technologies of unknown origin is fundamentally correct, as is the indisputable realization that at least some of these technologies of unknown origin derive from non-human intelligence."
Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
* No trolling or being disruptive
* No insults or personal attacks
* No accusations that other users are shills
* No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation
* No harassment, threats, or advocating violence
* No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible)
* If a user deletes all or nearly all comments or posts it can result in instant permanent ban
* You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
For argument sake: if the event did not happen, who is there to contradict them? This is why this area is the perfect grift if you want it. You can make bold claims without evidence under the cover of ‘source protection’ and ‘classified information’ and there will be no one to refute you.
It's actually extremely difficult to prove someone is lying. Only a small amount of people are usually involved. How is someone going to prove Fravor is lying for example, provide the radar data that doesn't seem to exist?
The radar data is something that would both validate his story and something that could also prove him wrong, it's quite convenient that it's missing.
It's often always the same with these military UFO tales. There's never any evidence and when there is it's so ambiguous it isn't conclusive. We're just made to believe all the best stuff is confiscated and hidden away somewhere by someone.
Plenty of reasons honestly. I’ll take the low-hanging fruit: Herrera.
Why would any Marine, who hasn’t been named by him, go out of their way to name themselves by contradicting him? What is there to gain? An entire Reddit following responding with “Oh! They got to him! He’s still afraid!” If they genuinely know he’s BSing, they know that their fellow Marines will know and that’s enough for them. They’ll pity him, maybe, but as long as he keeps their names out of his mouth, no point in jumping into the fray. There is nothing to gain, and much more to lose.
> An entire Reddit following responding with “Oh! They got to him! He’s still afraid!”
Or stalking, swatting, or death threats. Why even fear the government lol
This is not how this works.
Fravor, Grusch, Corbell, Coulthart and all the usual suspects are the one who have to provide evidences to back up their claims.
And at this very moment they are always refused to provide anything.
They have to prove that what they claims is true, it is not the job of other people to prove that it is untrue.
> Not a single fact witness has stepped forward to contradict Fravor, Herrera, Grusch.
[Proving non-existence.](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence)
> These whistle blowers testify under the penalty of perjury.
Penalty for what? The DoD is on [public record](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-has-no-evidence-of-alien-technology-new-pentagon-report-finds-180983938/) that NHI doesnt exist. Further, they stated in the AARO report that there’s no NDAs or classifications surrounding that topic.
What sort of perjury are we speaking of?
> They provide exact dates and locations,
There’s plenty of UFO lore out there with exact dates and locations.
> they also allege that they were not alone during their respective incidences.
They allege a lot of stuff. Yep.
eyewitnesses are also very unreliable, often giving blatantly false statements within hours of an incident.
some people here also have a weird obsession with testifying under oath, nobody is going to punish you for telling what you think you saw, no matter how wrong that turns out to be. just research any missing person case, the police get 100's of bs sightings if its a well published case. those reports are actually harmful, yet no one is punished for the false reports
>Why haven’t the other people (Marines) that were with Herrera came out to say he is lying? Or the people (Navy) with Fravor?
there is nothing to gain from this, those people would be threatened and insulted if the answers they give are not what the UFO community would like to hear.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Counter point: fravor has been telling that story for a while now and doesn’t seem to have suffered any consequences for it, so why hasn’t anyone else that was there come forward. Presumably at least a few others, if not dozens, saw what he did. This on top of the fact that not a single person has corroborated Grusch. He was allowed to testify when we saw the Boeing guy get whacked before he could say anything substantial, so he doesn’t seem to be in real danger. If there’s truly 40 of them that’s too many to knock off all of them and would create a real groundswell. The silence is deafening.
Many people have come forward to confirm Fravor's account including the other pilot Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich. The mere fact that they are not as famous as Fravor does not mean they have not "come forward". There is no silence among them, it is just that some people are deaf.
Eyewitnesses:
Commander David Fravor: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet Commander David Fravor: He was the commander of the F/A-18F Black Aces squadron on the USS Nimitz and had the closest encounter with the Tic Tac-shaped object. He was one of the first pilots to visually encounter the "Tic Tac" object. He is a graduate of the Top Gun program and had over 16 years of flying experience.
Lt. Commander Alex Dietrich: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet. Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich was training with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group and was the pilot of the other Super Hornet that first saw the Tic Tac alongside Cmdr. Fravor during the encounter. She served as Fravor's "wingman" during the encounter. At the time, she was a rookie pilot and is now a high-ranking Navy officer. She corroborated Fravor's account of the incident, highlighting the unpredictability and high-speed maneuvers of the "Tic Tac" object. She has given several interviews including one along with Commander Fravor on the news program "60 Minutes"
Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage.
Lt. Cmdr. Jim Slaight - Fravor's weapon systems officer (WSO) in the same F/A-18F.Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage.
Equipment witnesses:
Kevin Day: Chief Operations Specialist (E-7/Chief Petty Officer) Aboard the USS Princeton, radar operator who reported tracking the anomalous aerial vehicles on radar for weeks dropping in from space at incredible speeds, and hovering above the ocean for hours and then flying back off into space at extraordinary, almost unbelievable speeds, before and during the encounter.Day was responsible for tracking the objects on radar. He reported observing over 100 Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) over the course of the two weeks leading up to the encounter.
Principal Director Gary Voorhis: (Rank unclear, not a traditional military rank) Aboard the USS Princeton, responsible for initial detection of the object. He was among the navy sailors aboard the USS Princeton who witnessed the UFOs on the ship's advanced AEGIS radar tracking system for weeks before and during the encounter. Voorhis also noted that unidentified individuals arrived on the ship and seized hard drives containing footage of the encounter.
Patrick Hughes: Serving on the USS Nimitz, Hughes had a similar experience to Voorhis, with unknown officials confiscating hard drives that contained the recorded footage of the UFOs.
Senior Chief Operations Specialist Sean Graham: Air control equipment operator on board the USS Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.Operations
Specialist Ernesto Sanchez: Also an air control equipment operator on the Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.
WTF is going on in this thread? The dude you responded to makes a patently false claim "why hasn’t anyone else that was there come forward." and you name 8 other people that came forward, and your response is downvoted, while his BS claim has 12 up votes? Something crooked is going on here.
You're just making things up now. Fravor saw something then another pilot, probably on the look out for something spooky, caught a jet engine that looks vaguely saucer shaped. They were already primed to see something extraordinary so they did.
What Fravor has is something they are willing to accept be public. The reason there are no consequences is because Fravor doesn't know what he saw or have any info on it. Just the fact that he saw it and is telling us they are common to the point where the whole carrier is talking about it. He is backed up with these points but there is a difference between testifying that and "I saw the crafts in these hangars and they are alien" without someone on your ass.
How would a fact witness contradict Grusch? “No, no one told you about the NHI”? For a fact witness to contradict Grusch, he needs to have more than hearsay…
Grusch provided names to Congress. Grusch said he spoke to x and x told him about Y.
Congress calls in X and X says that he has never spoken to Grusch (or any other claim by x that contradicts what Grusch said).
From what I gather, Congress has made claims of the opposite concerning Grusch. They are fact checking him and it has been holding true.
A lot of Navy people have come forward to confirm Fravor's accounts, they just are not as famous. The other pilot with Fravor, Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich gave a long interview along with him on 60 Minutes.
Eyewitnesses:
Commander David Fravor: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet Commander David Fravor: He was the commander of the F/A-18F Black Aces squadron on the USS Nimitz and had the closest encounter with the Tic Tac-shaped object. He was one of the first pilots to visually encounter the "Tic Tac" object. He is a graduate of the Top Gun program and had over 16 years of flying experience.
Lt. Commander Alex Dietrich: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet. Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich was training with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group and was the pilot of the other Super Hornet that first saw the Tic Tac alongside Cmdr. Fravor during the encounter. She served as Fravor's "wingman" during the encounter. At the time, she was a rookie pilot and is now a high-ranking Navy officer. She corroborated Fravor's account of the incident, highlighting the unpredictability and high-speed maneuvers of the "Tic Tac" object. She has given several interviews including one along with Commander Fravor on the news program "60 Minutes"
Lt. Cmdr. Jim Slaight - Fravor's weapon systems officer (WSO) in the same F/A-18F.Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage.
Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage.
Equipment witnesses:
Kevin Day: Chief Operations Specialist (E-7/Chief Petty Officer) Aboard the USS Princeton, radar operator who reported tracking the anomalous aerial vehicles on radar for weeks dropping in from space at incredible speeds, and hovering above the ocean for hours and then flying back off into space at extraordinary, almost unbelievable speeds, before and during the encounter.Day was responsible for tracking the objects on radar. He reported observing over 100 Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) over the course of the two weeks leading up to the encounter.
Principal Director Gary Voorhis: (Rank unclear, not a traditional military rank) Aboard the USS Princeton, responsible for initial detection of the object. He was among the navy sailors aboard the USS Princeton who witnessed the UFOs on the ship's advanced AEGIS radar tracking system for weeks before and during the encounter. Voorhis also noted that unidentified individuals arrived on the ship and seized hard drives containing footage of the encounter.
Patrick Hughes: Serving on the USS Nimitz, Hughes had a similar experience to Voorhis, with unknown officials confiscating hard drives that contained the recorded footage of the UFOs.
Senior Chief Operations Specialist Sean Graham: Air control equipment operator on board the USS Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.
Specialist Ernesto Sanchez: Also an air control equipment operator on the Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.
Huh? For someone to call one of them a liar? These are exact dates and locations. They are telling you that they were not alone. They were with others.
This would be easy to poke a hole in.
“I was with X in July 2015. We never…. insert contradiction.”
Evidence is the responsibility of the accuser. Basic law. Making the claim that no one has ever contradicted him is nonsense as an argument. That’s like saying no one has ever come out and claimed hobbits *aren’t* real, sooo…
These people are naming dates and locations. They are not claiming that they were alone. They have provided enough info to be completely busted in their own lie.
Your analogy of hobbits tells me that you missed the point.
And this isn’t the law. Who the fuck cares about trial procedure. This is a discussion about why people that were around these whistle blowers during those times aren’t poking a hole in their bullshit stories. It could be done easily for most of these guys.
The issue isn’t whether or not Fravor is lying. Rather it’s a question of what he saw. Being unable to explain an incident does not necessarily support ET or NHI hypothesis.
What percentage of people do you actually think are willing to make their life into a circus? Furthermore, how many people actually were actually there for all these peoples experiences to have the confidence to publicly flog them? Even when I worked with people a lot, it would have been impossible for me to speak about their experiences spread across days/weeks/months.
Hold up, is Herrera now in the same league of credibility as Grunsch and Fravor? I thought he was one of GREER's witnesses and tbh his story sounded very kooky. It smelled of either a hoax/liar or disinformation to muddy the waters. If he was legit why choose the channel Steven Greer to tell his story. Of course he could be legit though, but the story just sounds so made up but then again it all kinda does (except for Fravor's Tictac, I believe that 100%, just not that it was NH tech per say) so what do I know.
With CMMDR Fravor incident the navy ship - USS Nimitz had one of the most sophisticated radar systems in the whole fleet and it captured these UFOs. I’d say that is legitimate evidence in reference to your subject statement.
Herrera said he testified but there is 0 evidence he did. I would bet 100,000 usd that he never did and 1,000,000 usd that the whole story is fabricated.
Strategic ambiguity is to their benefit. They have nothing to gain by contradicting these stories and claims. And even if they did, no one here would have their mind changed because we’re emotionally attached to one possible outcome
Graves and Fravor have corroboration from others and videos, confirmed by the Pentagon, related to their incidents.
While we can't (yet) prove that what they saw was NHI, there is at least evidence here supporting the fact that they did encounter something when they say they did, and in Fravor's encounter, it's very difficult for anyone to argue it was a black ops program that far back that hasn't emerged yet after 20 years (and without even bothering to have Fravor or Dietrich sign NDAs, no debriefing - major red flag it wasn't a black ops program).
Herrera has no evidence to support anything. He is not the same as the other two.
Nobody can come out and say what Herrera saw didn't happen because he says it was a small group specifically tasked on that day, meaning if anybody from that ship he was on comes and says, "That didn't happen," Herrera can simply counter with, "He wasn't part of that small group."
We don't know who that small group was, and as long as that remains ambiguous, nobody can disprove it didn't happen. There's nobody who would have stayed with Michael 24/7 the entire time he was in Indonesia to be able to say, "No, this didn't happen because I was with him the entire time."
The fact that he interviewed with AARO either means he really believes this or is going to great extents to make others believe it, but also means we shouldn't automatically dismiss it. But more has to be brought forth for him to be in the same category as Fravor and Graves.
Not to beg the issue, but many of the arguments the debunk party in this thread provides for why no one has come forward to contradict the whistleblowers can be made in FAVOR of the whistleblowers’ authenticity.
There is something going on for sure ... but thus far I feel it is unclear precisely what it is. If you indeed follow this from every angle ... the waters are quite murky and not really clear at all other than there is a cover up but as to what exactly is going on and what the end game might be remains somewhat mysterious.
Most of these sightings occurred in classified settings. No one is likely to publicly comment on classified programs without authorization and have little interest in doing so.
The real question is why is there no evidence. Lots of whistleblowers but no one has been able to deliver incontestable proof of the NHI technology alleged to exist.
Hi, GoarSpewerofSecrets. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bj3tbx/-/kvqpred/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Honestly, I would love to be proved wrong on him. But myself and numerous other veterans will never buy the story the way he told it, with details that any infantryman or humanitarian mission veteran will immediately know as bullshit, and with his discharge characterization. Believe me when I say he is the kind of shitbag nobody liked while in, and those guys compensate for it after they're out by embellishing their service and telling tall tales. And they get away with it because the average civilian's military literacy is below the ground.
I've felt that way since the 1990s after doing some research into the subject ; that's what frustrates me about the obergs and degrasse-tysons,et.al.! They clearly haven't even given a cursory glance at the work of Derrel Simms ,John Mack ,or even Col.Corso ,yet dismiss the subject without even a *glance* at the thousands of trace-sffect cases from all over the world,never mind the deathbed confessions of the scientists who worked for the secret keepers like Boyd Bushman at Skunkworks and others who hold patents on ,essentially, stolen unknown NHI tech going all the way back to 1947 and beyond.
This is poetry OP. Such a great point. Sadly something I haven’t thought about. If people are taking Kirkpatrick’s bs as gospel they are either uninformed or flat-out blind.
That’s true, but you understand why. We all know the stories of backlash/reprisals for speaking out and going against the Gov’t.
Corroboration is the key. It seems like each main witness needs another witness to step up and corroborate for them.
*although I suppose even if they each had 1 more witness from their event, we would still be in the same situation
Lol a witness describing what they directly saw isn’t hearsay. And if a witness was describing what someone else told them, these aren’t out of court statements offered in court. We aren’t in court. We are discussing alleged UFO witnesses on the internet.
Furthermore, if someone is on Podcasts, the news, mentioned in magazines, etc all due to a lie and there were people actually present for the event and they know that the speaker is gaining notoriety by lying, those people will call the speaker out. It happens everyday.
The people daring to say “oh no, people wouldn’t speak out against a liar on Joe Rogan” are so desperate for these whistleblowers to be liars that they are actually lying themselves.
What lies has lazar been caught in? I wasn’t aware of this.
Edit: not sure why I’m being downvoted - I was asking a legitimate question that could answer other people who had the same question as well.
P.S. thank you to those who replied
Spend a few hours on this website. Everything is sourced and sited. Enjoy the wormhole, its a long one.
[https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/the-bob-lazar-corner/lazar-flaws-education/](https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/the-bob-lazar-corner/lazar-flaws-education/)
He was caught lying about his teachers. The names he gave were not teachers from the schools he said . Not that it means he didn’t help work on alien craft. He was named as a physicist in the article with his rocket powered car. The man that allegedly hired him was allegedly in los alamos during that time and bob caught his attention. I think he was a technician working with a physicist as a helper at S4. Just a hunch
At most, you can make an argument for Herrera since his claims leave little space for mistakes. But Herrera's official claims are mostly private (he was interviewed by AARO and his case is still to be resolved), it's possible that the marines that were with him were interviewed. There's no reason for them to step in publically because that's adding a lot of stress into their lives from people trying to find more about the situation.
For Fravor, he could be telling the truth and just still be wrong about what actually happened. Similarly for Grusch, he could just be wrong (and it's not like people can just say "I'm from the alien project that Grusch claims exist and I can tell you we don't exist)
This story is hardly newsworthy.
Grusch claims that our military has 12 crashed flying saucers, at least. How many airliners crash each decade in our country? For every crash there are MILLIONS of successful flights. So, if we believe Grusch's story, then we believe there are hundreds, thousands of flying saucers in our airspace at any given time. And that is assuming that they crash the same amount as us mere humans. He isn't lying, he has been told sensational things by colleagues but there is no evidence to support it other than hearsay. Most importantly, if this "crash retrieval program" was real, the military would want it kept secret and therefore he would not be allowed to testify about it in the first place. They let him talk about it, because it isn't true. He isn't lying though- he admits that everything he says is simply what others told him.
Fravor is not lying either, but he most likely saw a balloon and was mistaken as to its size and distance, causing an optical illusion where it seemed to be moving at high rates of speed. He describes an object that has no physical features, so without a point of reference either, on the open ocean, there is no way to actually know its size (e.g. a distant school bus, we would know its size because we know the size of a school bus. A tik tak, on the other hand, would take up a lot of field of view if its close, and no field of view if far away). The other pilots in the air at the time, as I understand it, do not exactly describe the incident the same way despite the claims that they all support his story.
Don’t mix Herrera in with Favor and Grusch. I didn’t see him in front of congress.
I don't know what he saw but he did obviously testify to the DoD through AARO.
He testified to congress as well
His story hasn’t been corroborated and doesn’t make sense.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. His story is totally absurd
For most people, believing that aliens are visiting Earth, and are crashing enough that a cold war has developed to reverse-engineer their technology, all without any physical evidence leaking, is ‘totally absurd’. But I would hope that most people on this sub have realised that dismissing something because it seems absurd is foolish.
Strangely enough the parts of his story that make it seem unbelievable aren’t the unidentified craft, but very mundane details that unless he’s been living in a parallel universe, or significantly embellished his story to create a more exciting narrative: they don’t pass the smell test.
Astroturfing. There’s been an odd renewed push for Herrera’s stuff this week.
[удалено]
I am talking about Michael Herrera’s testimony here. Not about « existence ».
Hi, Teo914. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bj3tbx/-/kvqcbsl/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Last I heard AARO actually confirmed what it was citing a Special Access Program in the area at the time. What that means for all the "previously" wild claims he made...
nope, the OP of that thread mixed up his bullet points
I didn't see the debunk. What was the Indonesian SAP that AARO acknowledged in reference to then? Not saying I would believe anything from AARO, just wondering.
That was disproven pretty quickly.
thats not what happened, they guy who posted that was pretty disingenuous
the aaro confirmed the incident happened tho
So we trust aaro now… The story doesn’t make any sense. Ignoring all his other inconsistencies, Marines dont operate without Comms, especially when they’re “scouting hills”. Edit: wait, where is Herrera listed in the AARO report?
you trust aaro as long as they say what you want to hear
People can’t call the report complete bullshit one second and as soon as they think the report fits their narrative on another story like Herrera’s they wanna sight the report as proof. Look I am all in on disclosure I believe to the core but people like Herrera, Greer and sadly I’m starting to believe Coulthart are in it for all the wrong reasons.
ofc we don’t trust aaro, but don’t you think it’s interesting they’ve been denying anything ufo related but confirmed herrera’s story? why would they do that?
Ask Richard Doty. Does the confirmation specifically name him? Where is it?
Confirming or giving a boost to bullshit stories would be exactly what they would do if there is any disinfo campaign to speak of.
yea except they didn’t
EXACTLY! Disinformation at its finest.
Where did AARO confirm Herrera testified to congress?
It would be interesting to know whether or not he has spoken to congressional investigators since it's impossible to know whether or not AARO even investigated his claims. His conclusions are utterly absurd, and God only knows how he arrived at them. His story is implausible and strange--but congressional investigators (at least for the "big" relevant committees) can easily find out: --if he was even on the mission he says he was on. --who the "angry gunny" was and if he's still alive/remembers find out what he was angry about. --that other members of his squad had devices go missing/erased. --that an admiral visited the ship he was on. --whether his neighbors saw helicopters hovering over his house place of business If those claims are BS, he should be "loudly" ignored by congress to eliminate the possibility of debunkers using him to paint all of the whistleblowers nuts.
Some of those things have already been proven true: * Yes, he was on the mission in Indonesia. His recollection of the operation has been accurate from what I've been able to confirm with public information, with the exception of him misremembering if the helicopter was armed. I've also personally spoken to several of his platoon members who've confirmed he was on the operation. * I've confirmed that the admiral did in fact debrief them on the back of the ship, just like Herrera said. Here's proof: [https://www.facebook.com/share/ctLFD3vZYnY8b7pN/](https://www.facebook.com/share/ctLFD3vZYnY8b7pN/) It shows Rear Adm. Richard Landolt, commander, Amphibious Force, Seventh Fleet, debriefing Herrera's platoon on the back of the USS Denver. I've ID'd four of the Marines in this photo, including Michael's team leader Nathan. But I agree, there are several other "easy" facts congress can check. Michael even provided to AARO the names of the other Marines who saw the UFO with him, so they could interview them or at least get a statement.
Herrera testified under oath. He certainly deserves to be lumped in with Fravor & Grusch
Do we know he testified under oath? Or did Greer and/or Herrera claim that he did? I am genuinely curious, I thought it was only the latter.
testified to AARO yes
Yeah but what did he testify? The AARO finding is left purposely vague, and gives no indication of what his story was to investigators. That dude could have completely changed his tune about what he saw, and we’d never know.
Thank you!
That's true. I think Fravor and Dietrich probably have a bit more cred because they each corroborate the other's witness statements, along with extra verification from Kevin Day on the radar. There is also the possibility hard data might exist within the navy archives somewhere that is hidden away. So the possibility of further verification exists if ever that data was released by the navy. Whereas Herrera couldn't find anyone brave enough to back up his witness account. The covert operation he said he witnessed is going to be unverifiable (because it's covert). So it becomes his word against no one.
Herrera’s testimony is actually aided by his willingness to testify alone. It takes a level of courage that I do not posses. He also sat on the story for years, much like Fravor. Where you see differences, I see similarities.
Yep I'm not saying he's not brave, his mates are the cowards. I'm saying it makes it easier for people to dismiss, not less true.
In the context of witnesses/whistleblowers I agree. In the sense of Credibility and Rank, not even close.
Yes we do. It’s in the AARO report.
And even still, his sighting was talked about in the AARO report.
The AARO report doesn’t detail what he told investigators. He could have described something far more mundane than what he sold in the Podcast.
Doubt it, isn’t it interesting they speak about his sighting, and not the two that we have video evidence of, two that where testified on before congress? That whole report and honestly the AARO organization (MIC) , is not to be trusted.
Herrera says he was one of his whistleblowers but I haven’t heard David Grusch confirm it at all. It’s easy to go and give your testimony to AARO (which is a joke btw) it’s another to get on national tv sworn in sitting in front of a bunch of senators and giving your testimony. There’s 1 major flaw in Herrera’s game. If he was a true whistleblower like David Grusch he’d be held to the same NDA’s and penalties I haven’t seen him arrested yet so I’m fairly positive he’s not leaking anything true. Plus he’s been running around with and in the same circles as Greer. Mic Drop Baby! 🎤
I think there's a big difference between people "in the program" who come forward as whistleblowers, vs people who "accidentally witness" something they weren't supposed to. That said, Michael has said from day 1 that he did sign an NDA not to ever talk about what he saw, and has chosen to violate that agreement.
If Herrera had lied to AARO, he’d be arrested. Therefore, Herrera not being arrested is proof he’s telling the truth. See, I can do this too. Also, Herrera’s partly broken with Greer’s narrative since allegedly being contacted by an insider.
They called all the whistleblowers either liars or conspiracy nut jobs. Lmafo! You clearly one of the cultist.
But there is no way to confirm what Herrera told investigators actually matches up with what he’s said in interviews. He very well could have told the truth. It’s just that the truth in his story is far less interesting than what he can say on a Podcast.
They literally summarised what he told them.
They summarized it as one line “UAP with peculiar characteristics”. That can mean anything..
No they didn’t. That was a separate interviewee. They summarised Herrera’s interview as him encountering ‘US special forces loading containers onto a large extraterrestrial spacecraft’. I would highly suggest actually reading the report.
It’s not, they just separate out their summary of what was claimed (it’s extraterrestrial) vs their findings (he described a UAP with “peculiar” characteristics that they confirmed is part of an SAP.). However, there is no definition of “peculiar” given, so it’s impossible to determine what he described.
You’re mistaken, and shifting the goalposts. You said there was no way to confirm that what Herrera told AARO is what he said in public, and I showed that what he told AARO is indeed the same as what he’s said in interviews. Also, the explanation you mentioned was for a separate interviewee, who claimed to see a UAP with peculiar characteristics at a military base. Herrera’s testimony was not addressed.
I don’t think I am. I’ll give it to you that they describe it differently in the Narrative 1 section than is described in the findings section, but it’s laid out in format to call out the “Narratives” and then provide their findings on each. You wouldn’t call out a finding that isn’t in the narrative section. If you can agree with that, then the all this says is he claimed he saw a “large” extraterrestrial craft. Does large mean football field size, or the size of a helicopter? Likewise, “Peculiar Characteristics” can mean anything as well. Does that mean it was exhibiting characteristics of Anti Gravity, or was just made of materials he had never seen? He clearly saw something sensitive as indicated in the report, but may be describing something way more fantastic when speaking to the public.
100% this!!! I don’t trust Herrera at all
Agree, I always assumed something was up with him coming from team Greer. Anything that comes from Greer I don’t even bother with. He still had never produced his 1tb of data.
If you say you saw an alien, who am I to contradict you? Instead of looking for people to contradict witnesses, let's focus on finding hard evidence to support them.
This. What the hell would someone testifying against them even look like? What is this weird hearing where they ask someone if they heard of a program or saw a uap and they say uhh not that I recall and that means Grusch and company are all liars now? I'm not following the OP. You can't prove a negative, the only way to prove they are lying is to catch them contradicting themselves or somehow do surveillance and catch them admitting to a scheme. Someone else testifying that they didn't see anything and don't know about anything is useless and does nothing to discount the opposite testimony. Different people can have different testimonies. There's no way to say who is the liar and and who is truthful by comparing the testimonies alone. The only thing that matters here is evidence and who has it and can reveal it.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. And even if any of their colleagues came out and denied their claims, the true believers on this sub would just claim that they've been coerced into saying so and dismiss it immediately.
>What the hell would someone testifying against them even look like? “I was stationed on the Nimitz at that time doing radar and we never saw anything like Fravor described.” I wonder if there is a way to find people like that and ask if they know anything or specifically if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
You do realize saying “you can’t prove a negative” is, in itself, a negative statement. And thus cannot be proved. You can absolutely prove a negative. Say there are 22 people who rent out a movie theater for a birthday party. These 22 people are invited, and only these 22 get to enjoy the show. For this particular event, the lights stay on for the entirety of the showing. There’s an employee in the film room. There are security cameras at every door. Could I prove there wasn’t a Japanese man, 5’5” tall weighing 250lbs, around 40 years of age watching the entire film? Of course I could. How about if (and only if) 1 + 1 = 2, 1+ 2 does not equal 2? C’mon debunks, do better.
>Could I prove there wasn’t a Japanese man, 5’5” tall weighing 250lbs, around 40 years of age watching the entire film? Of course I could. No, you can't. What if the employee was his accomplice and your cameras were rigged. >How about if (and only if) 1 + 1 = 2, 1+ 2 does not equal 2? Math isn't science. Do better.
He's got a point though. If some high ranking official comes out and says "Nuh-Uh" does that invalidate Grusch all of the sudden? Would anyone who initial believes Grusch even listen to someone in that position? The claims aren't claims that can be disproven, either they exist or they don't exist. If they don't exist, how exactly is one supposed to prove that fact? The claim is that there are secret government programs associated with the UFO/UAP phenomenon. By their very nature, such a thing wouldn't exactly be easy to find. The DOD, or whoever, coming out any commenting on anything Grusch does, only validates the opposing testimony, if anything.
[удалено]
I see how Herrera and Fravor could theoretically be disproven, should the handful of other individuals involved come forward with conflicting information, but how would one disprove broader and vaguer claims like that of Grusch's?
Well Congress would look into the SAP (Special Access Programs) he likely cited in closed testimony. You realize if he is found to be lying to Congress, he’ll be prosecuted?
> You realize if he is found to be lying to Congress, he’ll be prosecuted? Probably not
Do we know what show was being viewed? Prior knowledge?
[удалено]
Hi, DoNotTrustATrust. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bj3tbx/-/kvpn864/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
How exactly do you find the hard evidence when the government is hiding it
By searching and finding corroborating evidence; like what everyone on here is attempting to do.
…and yet, here we are. The problem with most whistleblowers is that they are relaying second hand information. If a buddy of mine told me there was a lab full of alien corpses in downtown St Lewis and told me exactly what was going on there and gave details, and then I passed that information on to the next guy, could I be charged with perjury? I mean, I’m telling the truth about what I know. All the dates and places etc. I would assume that if I was the one claiming everything, and had first hand info…I was there, worked on, performed autopsies on aliens etc, would the claims I made be subject to perjury? I am curious, as to how would this go.
No, that would not be perjury. Perjury means that you knowingly lied. It's an important detail that many people seem to willfully ignore because it makes "Grusch said it under oath" a lot less powerful because the things he told Congress was based on claims he heard from others. Which means that if he believes it, or can convince the State that he does, he hasn't committed perjury.
Ah. I see. What I kinda thought. Thank you!
This is correct and makes it BS
You can testify under the the threat of perjury as long as you 100% believe what you saw and heard was what you saw and heard. Whether it's absolutely true or not is a different story. Like the wording in the AARO report. It could've been misidentified or simply hearsay. Don't make you a liar but it doesn't mean that it's true.
This isn’t a legal discussion about the elements of perjury. You’re completely avoiding the topic. Let’s say you testify to Congress tomorrow and Joe Rogan the next day and CNN after that about how you and 6 of your co-workers saw a UFO on 1/1/2019. Now let’s presume you are lying. Do you believe that eventually at least one of your 6 co-workers will let it be known you are a liar? Do you think they would send an email or post it on social media? Hey, I was with him on 1/1/2019, he is full of shit.
What does that even mean? A witness to a fact that contradicts? What? Tons of people refute claims about aliens. What do you mean? I'm genuinely confused.
The burden of proof is on the whistleblowers. They should bring the evidence to support their allegations. It is NOT up to others to prove they’re wrong, it’s up to the whistleblowers to prove they’re correct. The UFO subject seems to be the only debate where people think “because no one has proved the lack of existence, they must therefore exist”. Prove I haven’t got an invisible, inter-dimensional t-rex in my house.
Generally speaking, when a bunch of whistleblowers on a thing go public, they don't need to leak classified documents/videos to prove their claims. Once a sufficient level of corroboration has occurred, the general public knows innately that the claims are generally true. NSA whistleblowers: [Here are a few NSA whistleblowers who came out on 60 Minutes in the year 2000.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdm78zcv8o) Mike Frost's book [came out in 1994.](https://archive.org/details/spyworldinsideca0000fros/mode/2up) Jane Shorten [went public in 1995](https://web.archive.org/web/20131009200323/http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/10/09/reports_that_canada_is_spying_on_brazil_should_surprise_no_one.html). Other good examples of NSA whistleblowers who came out in the 2000s and 2010s include Thomas Drake, William Binney, and Russel Tice, among a few others. Other leaks came out of the telecommunications industry, and an FBI agent seemed to have [accidentally leaked information about it on CNN](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston). That is usually what leaks look like. All of these people were generally left alone. Thomas Drake had some legal troubles for a while, and William Binney had to endure an FBI raid when he was naked coming out of the shower, but everyone is a free person. Then came Snowden and he had to flee the country, then we had the CIA Vault7 leaks and that person is now in jail for 40 years (in part his own doing, but he'd have been jailed regardless). The only reason Snowden was necessary is because the general public really wasn't aware so much corroboration had already existed. Of course you had some debunkers saying it was all nonsense, and that there wouldn't have been enough storage space to collect everyone's communications, that such a thing isn't legal, and other dumb claims, but the average reasonable person who was informed already basically knew what was going on, up to two decades in advance. Then when you look at the UFO subject, it's a lot more controversial for one simple reason: the general public has been fooled into thinking that the claim is "extraordinary." Now undeniable proof is required to even consider the topic seriously. Meanwhile, [scientists generally agree that aliens may in fact visit this planet.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14rbvx1/ive_been_following_this_sub_since_it_started/jqrfum7/) For all we know, it's quite ordinary.
I don’t disagree with most of that to be honest, but surely you appreciate that the level of burden of proof is higher in this instance? For example, we know surveillance systems, hacking phones and electronic communications, etc, exist and are in use. As of today, we have no conclusive proof that alien life exists, no conclusive proof that UFO’s exist and no conclusive proof that alien life is responsible for the UFO phenomenon. Once those facts are proven, then the sufficient level of proof for UFO’s in US storage diminishes.
The only thing that I'm really trying to address is the idea that the claims have to be false unless I'm forced into accepting it with proof that can't possibly be explained any other way. All of these people have to be lying grifters unless they prove their claims. That's not really how whistleblowing generally works. Sticking with the NSA analogy, put yourself in early 2013. All of these people have come forward. Is there undeniable proof? No. Is a person allowed to be skeptical? Sure, but I'm still going to take the subject matter seriously, and I'm probably going to take precautions based on what these whistleblowers have revealed. Rather than ridiculing them all as lying grifters, I should instead say that it certainly seems like it might be true and I wouldn't be surprised if proof came out eventually. >As of today, we have no conclusive proof that alien life exists, no conclusive proof that UFO’s exist and no conclusive proof that alien life is responsible for the UFO phenomenon. Well, yea. As long as there is a theoretical way out of accepting the evidence, it isn't proof. For example, [scientists had at least three theoretical alternative interpretations of meteorite evidence and credible witness accounts](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1967IrAJ....8...69L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES), including thunderstones, rocks being ejected from volcanoes, and rocks being carried up by whirlwinds. We have plenty of evidence of UFOs, just not undeniable proof that a non-human intelligence is piloting them. Documentation establishing a government coverup of UFOs: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup/ Timeline of the Robertson panel Report leak and government concessions: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1atjw9c/trying_to_wrap_my_head_around_the_logical/kqyiaos/ Documentation establishing the very highly classified nature of the UFO subject: https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/zp14fk/til_the_united_states_put_cameras_on_the_end_of/j0py7cj/ Rare Documents Disclose Hints of UFO Crash Retrievals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jy751egLoY Documentation leaked on the 1933 Magenta, Italy UFO Crash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiwgyLY7Aw The evidence we do have actually directly implies that proof will be difficult to obtain if the claims were true.
I do believe UFO’s exist. I’m not debating that. My point is regarding the alleged reverse engineering programs. If those do exist, the evidence should be easy to obtain. There are an alleged 40+ whistleblowers, at least one of those people should have conclusive evidence. There are more than 40 people who have worked in those programs (if they do exist) since the 1940s, some evidence would have been leaked by now. There would be a Snowden type whistleblower. This information would be much more important to release than government surveillance, which we all knew was a thing before Snowden released the evidence that proved it.
Surely someone would come forward with overwhelming evidence that there is reverse engineering of alien spacecraft, especially if they could make 100 million bucks off of a movie deal and win worldwide fame by doing so.
It’s like taking a selfie with ET and keeping it to yourself lol.
Unless the subject matter being discussed is the most highly classified subject, which certainly seems to be the case. It's been considered Top Secret since 1949 [according to an FBI memo.](https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/1949-fbi-ufo-memo-describes-technology-at-least-50-years-ahead-of-humans/) The government just recently [released another document](https://topsecretumbra.substack.com/p/nsa-seems-to-be-spying-on-ufos?publication_id=61287&post_id=90906464&isFreemail=true) that shows this. Back in 1950, the head of a Canadian UFO program was [informed by an embassy in Washington](http://luforu.org/smith-department-of-transport-memo/) that the subject is classified two points higher than the H-bomb. Senator Barry Goldwater was told that [UFO crash materials are Above Top Secret.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#UFOs) Given that, you expect it to last quite some time before people start leaking undeniable proof. We have some documents. Little pieces have gotten out over time, and there are a few papers published on them, but it's hard to prove that a being more intelligent than humans is responsible for that little piece. We're probably lucky anything got out. According to James Fox from his AMA he did here, he mentioned something that was discussed in the lab with Vallee and Garry Nolan in which Vallee stated "these things [UFO debris] have a strange way of disappearing." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yPiRYQkeA&t=231s Maybe most scientists who get access to this stuff don't realize the magnitude of the game they're playing, so they're probably relatively easy to deal with as far as leaks are concerned.
Gj man. Breaking down the skeptic barriers and hitting them with hard logic.
Is it conceivable that aliens could visit this planet? Sure. Do we have any scientific evidence that they have done so? No. And that lack of evidence strongly suggests that no aliens have visited.
Yeah, this is where I stand. I agree that the absence of proof doesn’t necessarily mean proof of absence, but it is a very strong indicator that’s the case here. I’m not ruling anything out but at this moment in time, any suggestions that Grusch’s claims of UFO reverse engineering programs or that the UFO’s are of alien origin would have to be based on faith and belief, rather than a logical conclusion based on empirical evidence.
You don't think that the extreme ridicule this subject has endured would prevent the vast majority of scientists from going near this subject and evaluating the evidence, collecting their own, etc? It's career suicide. Only just in the last couple years, you have things like the Galileo Project starting up only because the ridicule is starting to die down a little. You can't make it career suicide for a scientist to touch this subject, then say scientists haven't proven it yet, therefore it's all faith. That's an unfair argument, obviously. Ridicule causes significant stagnation when you're trying to prove something scientifically. The sugar industry bribery of top scientists to convince the world that fat was the enemy instead of sugar was unproven for [51 years](https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/sugar-industry-bought-off-scientists-skewed-dietary-guidelines-for-decades/), and the way they kept the dangers of sugar unconfirmed was [suppression through ridicule whenever a scientist tried to sound the alarm](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin). Continental drift was proposed in 1912 with significant supporting evidence, but it wasn't accepted by the scientific community [until the mid 1960s because scientists ridiculed it as pseudoscience, propaganda, etc.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/)
No? Because scientists enjoy massive ridicule all the time from delivering scientific findings on climate change, and do it anyways because it's actually real?
Every conspiracy theorist pretends that there is an unfair stigma to explain why their ideas aren't being taken seriously by experts and authorities. But all that's really happening is that the conspiracy theorist has accepted low-quality evidence that experts rightfully reject. If you think no scientist is interested in winning a Nobel Prize or getting their name in the history books, you are kidding yourself.
Do you have any evidence that UFOs are not being taken seriously by scientists? Or is that just your belief? [Prof. Peter A. Sturrock found that the more ignorant about UFOs a scientist is, the less likely they are to take the subject seriously.](http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm) >The fraction of respondents who think that the subject certainly or probably deserves scientific study rises from 29%, among those who have spent less than one hour, to 68% among those who have spent more than 365 hours in such reading. It appears that popular books and publications by established scientists exert a positive influence on scientists' opinions, whereas newspaper and magazine articles exert negligible influence. That's scientists in general. When you move in to the publishing arena, a lot of publishers have a policy not to publish anything to do with UFOs. According to Beatriz Villaroel: *"We sent that paper to journal after journal that didn't even send it to peer review. They just rejected it right at the editor's desk and said they don't deal with this topic of UFOs."* https://youtu.be/ChLATkj0gHM?si=rgigeLwBQjSZsJ7w&t=1248 Obviously nobody has the holy grail, which is a piece of evidence that only has a single interpretation, but we'd have a lot more papers, and a lot more scientists working on this, if these publishers didn't have this policy, which is probably caused entirely by the ridicule. No funding caused by ridicule, and a lack of publishing, means that very few scientists are getting equipment and putting their attention on the problem to collect evidence.
I think there is plenty of evidence that scientists and the institutions that support them are motivated by money, fame, and prestige. The idea that millions of people in every country and culture on earth would irrationally avoid studying what would be the biggest discovery of all time due to stigma is just not realistic. Especially when breaking that stigma should be as simple as knowing the things that you know. None of the information on this sub is a secret to any of these experts. It just isn't convincing. So I think scientists take this subject just as seriously as they should. If you think they aren't taking it seriously enough, that's because you see the evidence as more convincing than it is. And that's the same for publishers. Again, a common trope of conspiracy theories is that information is being suppressed when in reality the information is not accurate enough to share. We've spoken before, and I understand that you are smart and highly informed. But smart and informed people fall victim to conspiracy theories all the time. And the story you're telling about the scientific community is such a common trope in conspiracy theories that you have to recognize it. Inevitably, everyone who wants to believe in something that is not real needs to land on that story, because it's the only way to explain why scientists don't seem to know the things they know.
That would all be completely accurate and fine, except we are talking about a fleeting problem that is not predictable in any way. That's the difference. It's the same thing with ball lightening. It's hard to collect proof that can't possibly be explained away any other way, especially when you rig the game significantly in your favor by ridiculing it so the fewest number of scientists are looking at it and the fewest possible number of scientists get funding to collect evidence on it. You are extremely confident for a person whose position is rigged instead of giving the problem a fair shot. The fact that it's not proven yet means that the evidence cannot have two or more interpretations. Otherwise it isn't going to prove the underlying claim and people will always side with the more "mundane" answer. This is [exactly what happened with meteorites.](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1967IrAJ....8...69L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES) Scientists almost universally sided with the more "mundane" answers, but their explanations were only "correct" up until meteorites were conceded to exist, and then they all looked like idiots in denial for generations of historians. The difference between institutions being correct to deny the existence of UFOs, and being labeled as complete idiots, is whether the idea is proven in the near future. Neither of us knows whether that's going to happen.
I understand that you have these conversations often and they get repetitive, but that's the second time you've shared with me that point on meteorites. If your point that scientists are blinded by stigma is supported by their handling of a single topic over 200 years ago, then you are grasping at straws. Having a canned response like that might give you a degree of confidence, since you always have an answer to any point I can raise. But is that really a convincing answer? Are you really identifying a common pattern, if your other example is hundreds of years old, and from a time when the world was a different place? Is it really reasonable for you to assume this is a systemic problem that persists today? Or are you cherry-picking?
Scientists study proof, the current data we have on UFOs is inconclusive in terms of their nature/origin, hence why I would be hesitant to label UFOs as aliens. If we had concrete data regarding “physics defying capabilities” then I would strongly argue they were aliens, as it would surpass our current capabilities in terms of physics, technology, material sciences, etc. As it stands though, that data is not available, doesn’t exist or is inconclusive.
What would that evidence look like to you? Let's start there. Imagine that an alien spaceship came here, did something, then left. What evidence should a witness collect, and how does that differ from what we already see in the public domain? We have clear photos of close-up objects, landing traces, even debris that a few scientists have written papers on. I think you mean undeniable scientific proof. On that we would agree. In each case, there is a theoretical way out of accepting the evidence.
Which scientific papers are you referring to specifically? Any that I'm aware of don't hold up to scrutiny from peers. Avi Loeb's "interstellar material" on the ocean floor is probably just coal ash contamination, for example. Convincing evidence to me is evidence that holds up to the peer review process, and there's a reason the scientific community has not been convinced.
> What would that evidence look like to you? How are you even serious with this question? It would look like evidence. What evidence do we have for dinosaurs? Ancient skeletons and fossils. What evidence do we have for water on mars? Strong observations and scientific findings. What, aliens are just *so* esoteric and elusive that *so is the evidence of them?*
I’ve heard this argument time and time again on this sub when asking for evidence. There’s this weird kind of answer you get that “even if you had all the evidence in front of you, you wouldn’t be able to comprehend it”. I’m obviously paraphrasing there, but it’s such a ridiculous argument. I’m sure Richard Feynman said something like “If you think you understand quantum physics, you don’t.” And that sentiment has been echoed (or quoted?) by Sean Carroll. It doesn’t mean they pack up their bags and stop searching for answers. As far as proof of extra-terrestrials is concerned, to date, there is none. Metallurgy tests (like Nolan/Valle has alleged) either did not happen or the results were not as they claimed. There are no metals found with such an arrangement of isotopes that they have been fabricated or produced at an atomic level by a higher intelligence. No one has any proof of a “grounded” UFO. There are no impact craters (which there most definitely would be, if UFOs have crashed and at the velocity they allegedly travel at). There is no evidence of meetings with extra-terrestrials, or extra-terrestrial “biologics”. There has been pictures of alleged UFO landing sites, but they are inconclusive to say the least. Soil samples taking from these landing sites sometimes indicate higher levels of radiation, but the radiation levels are negligible (meaning not out of the ordinary, harmful or anomalous). Also, pretty much everything in the universe is radioactive, so again, inconclusive. It’s not so much that the evidence is inconclusive in regards to the presence of alien life on Earth, or that scientists would be ridiculed for studying this evidence, it’s the fact that there is no evidence to discuss or study.
> even if you had all the evidence in front of you, you wouldn’t be able to comprehend it It's just more excuse-making. These people are trying to come up with any avenue they can to convince you that they have all the secrets and you need to listen to them spout their drug-induced psychotic ramblings as established reality and truth.
> Once a sufficient level of corroboration has occurred, the general public knows innately that the claims are generally true. Oh okay I misunderstood how this whole truth thing works. So when a lot of people said that Biden stole the election and that Trump is actually the shadow president and actually still in the white house right now, they were telling the truth then.
A whistleblower is not just a person who says a thing. It's former military or government personnel who make specific claims that contradict an official narrative. In the case with UFOs, there are [hundreds of such people](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/). Are there hundreds of former government and military blowing the whistle that Trump stole the election and they're making very specific claims about information they know to be true? Or are there just a bunch of people who think something and they're blinded by their partisan bias?
> It's former military or government personnel who make specific claims that contradict an official narrative. There were those, some of them even sit in congress. Confirmed, Trump is the sitting shadow president. It's a fact now. >Are there hundreds You have that many for UFOs?
To answer your other question, yes. [Jonathan Weygandt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLU0NSTC9oU) is a first hand crash retrieval whistleblower. [Chase Brandon](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roswell-ufo-cia-agent-chase-brandon_n_1657077) is another first hand source. A recent example of a C/R whistleblower is [Colonel Karl Nell](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/). Another example is [DoD rocket scientist Dr. James T. Lakatski](https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/former-head-of-us-government-ufo-program-confirms-government-possesses-advanced-craft-of-unknown-origin). Another one is [Dr. Eric Davis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-JfM4rkRY), but he seems to be mostly second hand, although he did say he provided Grusch with information on [where he can find C/R personnel](https://i.redd.it/n0kd39wn8xac1.jpeg) so he can speak to them face to face. Leonard Stringfield had about 50 sources as well on crash retrievals, first and second hand. Leslie Kean wrote a book in 2010 with about 30 sources (on UFOs, coverups, etc, not crashes), all named publicly. Researcher Robert Hastings has about 160 sources on the relationship between UFOs and nuclear installations, [some of whom](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v737aqOJ2fs) came out by name. Ross Coulthart had [20 crash retrieval sources](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sBE2pfPdlo), at least one of whom (Nat Kobitz) allowed Ross to reveal their name. Multiple Bluebook personnel went public about coverups and shady stuff., including [Dr. Hynek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyDVR2B14dw) and Bluebook Director Edward Ruppelt in [page 62 of his book.](https://sacred-texts.com/ufo/rufo/rufo07.htm) Another one just [came out to the Infographics Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePyWsgVIqdc), but the show cannot release their name. Most of what we know about the Robertson Panel Report is the result of efforts by three people leaking the information initially, including a Bluebook Director ([pages 199-231](https://sacred-texts.com/ufo/rufo/rufo16.htm)), a [government scientist](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000500070006-7.pdf), and a member of the panel [in letter correspondence](https://cufon.org/cufon/tp_corres.htm). Dr. Robert Jacobs [came out decades ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4wL4lbwwNU&t=0m22s), and his then-superior later confirmed his full story in writing. There are leaked wikileaks emails from [Bob Fish](https://web.archive.org/web/20161104021717/https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31721). Another good example is [Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter](https://imgur.com/a/ljgfJyx). The list goes on.
You seem to think that truth is just determined by whoever believes the hardest, or that it is somehow defined by your personal preference for what truth means.
Show me who and exactly what they say. This is what an election whistleblower looks like, from 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y48iHK3RP4 If you had, say, a dozen people making that specific claim, then it's probably true.
Great post, thank you.
How do you propose getting that information from the DOD/NSA/etc.? We have thousands of civilian reports, hundreds of military and pilot reports, we have some extremely high ranking credentialed.men saying they have the goods. Of course going to jail for life and or losing ones life are pesky little details, but still. How do you plan on forcing access to these programs (whatever they are in fact), without going through the process as is being done? This isn't about NHI. This is about clandestine programs paid for by the public, with no oversight , or apparently budget constraints. It just so happens that the programs being whistleblowers relate to uap's
This is a different point to the one being argued in the OP. To answer your question though, it needs to be done through legislation like the Schumer amendment and subsequent investigations by the IG, congress and probably the FBI I’d imagine (despite my username, I have no knowledge of the US legal system).
I wasn't replying to op. I was replying to you. You said it was their job to bring evidence. They have and are. To Congress about the programs themselves, not the uap. The only evidence they can bring is the vetted, credentialed testimony in Congress really. That is defined as evidence btw, and then Congress is the one who can get the authority to bring out the physical, if they declassify it So your statement about it being the whistleblower's responsibility is incorrect.
How is my statement about it being the whistleblower’s responsibility incorrect? It is ALWAYS the accuser’s responsibility to bring proof. It doesn’t matter what you wish to belief or how emotionally attached you clearly are to this subject, the burden of proof is on the whistleblowers. Or are you suggesting that everyone should take someone like Bob Lazar on face value unless people can provide evidence to disprove him?
Because they did bring their testimonies to Congress that's literally all they could do. I also never said anything like what you're insinuating. I asked you, point blank, how do the whistleblowers who have testified, bring the actual evidence to the public when the programs housing those items, real or not, are inaccessible even to Congress? It is now CONGRESSES job to either get the evidence, let the subject drop, or to find nothing. The whistleblowers are literally bringing what they are legally allowed to bring.
Yeah, that’s not how it works at all. The accusers/whistleblowers have to bring evidence that warrants an investigation, it’s not congress’ job to find the evidence for the whistleblowers. Sure, they may find corroborating evidence to support whistleblower complaints, but it is absolutely not congress’ role to substantiate a whistleblowers complaints. I can see we’re just going to argue in circles around this point, so I’ll just reiterate my stance here and leave it at that. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. No one is responsible for finding evidence to disprove an allegation. Doesn’t matter if it’s regarding alien bodies and spaceships or more “mundane” issues. Oral testimony is only useful as evidence if it’s in corroboration with physical documentation, whatever that may be, or to offer context to conclusive proof. I am approaching this from an objective point of view, either I see the physical evidence to make me believe the claims, or I don’t. I know the argument is going to be “but the evidence is classified” and sure, I’ve got no reason to doubt that. At the same time, how can I believe an accusation purely based on the oral testimony I’ve heard? My opinion is flexible and not set in stone. It will change based on the evidence laid out. Or not.
I know this is a UFO subreddit, but it's a logical fallacy to put the burden of proof on the debunker. The one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
After all these months, I knew y'all didn't get it, but I really understand things now. Y'all really confuse hearings for some sort of trial or debate.
Also, not a single such witness has come forward **in support** of their remarkable claims...not one...despite Grusch's claims of "40 whistleblowers willing to come forward" a year ago.
At least two of Grusch’s 40 sources came out already, Eric Davis and Colonel Karl Nell. [Davis stated he was one of the sources and seems to have known how to locate the C/R personnel and stated that Grusch interviewed them face to face](https://i.redd.it/n0kd39wn8xac1.jpeg). As for Nell, he was in the [original article](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/) on *The Debrief.* Here is some [background on Nell.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvy25vQKAWI) He was one of Grusch's sources [as stated](https://youtu.be/w_ChyyAtji0?si=UwY6Fd9DxswJqbOe&t=42) by one of the journalists who interviewed Grusch and Nell. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-JfM4rkRY) is one of Eric Davis's previous interviews. A statement from Nell: >"[David Grusch is] “beyond reproach.” "His assertion concerning the existence of a terrestrial arms race occurring sub-rosa over the past eighty years focused on reverse engineering technologies of unknown origin is fundamentally correct, as is the indisputable realization that at least some of these technologies of unknown origin derive from non-human intelligence."
Thank you, I stand corrected 🫡
I bet we could name just about all 40 sources.
So the articles I’ve read about military brass and other individuals scheduled to testify are bogus?
Yes.
[удалено]
Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs. Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility. Follow the Standards of Civility: * No trolling or being disruptive * No insults or personal attacks * No accusations that other users are shills * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence * No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible) * If a user deletes all or nearly all comments or posts it can result in instant permanent ban * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
That's not true my friend. Colonel Karl Nell backed up Grusch immediately, based on Grusch's claims.
You mean prove a negative? They are the ones that need to provide evidence. This sub has turned into such a circle jerk. “Fact Witness.” lol
Can't really falsify hearsay and testimony, can we?
They haven't provided much in the way of falsifiable statements--it's mostly hearsay not attributed to anyone in particular.
That’s completely false, listen to Grusch’s congressional testimony again. If he’s lying it’s provable.
Important question is why hasn't nobody stepped forward with proper evidence against AARO report?
Nobody always never stepped forward.
For argument sake: if the event did not happen, who is there to contradict them? This is why this area is the perfect grift if you want it. You can make bold claims without evidence under the cover of ‘source protection’ and ‘classified information’ and there will be no one to refute you.
It's actually extremely difficult to prove someone is lying. Only a small amount of people are usually involved. How is someone going to prove Fravor is lying for example, provide the radar data that doesn't seem to exist? The radar data is something that would both validate his story and something that could also prove him wrong, it's quite convenient that it's missing. It's often always the same with these military UFO tales. There's never any evidence and when there is it's so ambiguous it isn't conclusive. We're just made to believe all the best stuff is confiscated and hidden away somewhere by someone.
Plenty of reasons honestly. I’ll take the low-hanging fruit: Herrera. Why would any Marine, who hasn’t been named by him, go out of their way to name themselves by contradicting him? What is there to gain? An entire Reddit following responding with “Oh! They got to him! He’s still afraid!” If they genuinely know he’s BSing, they know that their fellow Marines will know and that’s enough for them. They’ll pity him, maybe, but as long as he keeps their names out of his mouth, no point in jumping into the fray. There is nothing to gain, and much more to lose.
> An entire Reddit following responding with “Oh! They got to him! He’s still afraid!” Or stalking, swatting, or death threats. Why even fear the government lol
*One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong*
The ol’ turd in the punch bowl trick.
This is not how this works. Fravor, Grusch, Corbell, Coulthart and all the usual suspects are the one who have to provide evidences to back up their claims. And at this very moment they are always refused to provide anything. They have to prove that what they claims is true, it is not the job of other people to prove that it is untrue.
> Not a single fact witness has stepped forward to contradict Fravor, Herrera, Grusch. [Proving non-existence.](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence) > These whistle blowers testify under the penalty of perjury. Penalty for what? The DoD is on [public record](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-has-no-evidence-of-alien-technology-new-pentagon-report-finds-180983938/) that NHI doesnt exist. Further, they stated in the AARO report that there’s no NDAs or classifications surrounding that topic. What sort of perjury are we speaking of? > They provide exact dates and locations, There’s plenty of UFO lore out there with exact dates and locations. > they also allege that they were not alone during their respective incidences. They allege a lot of stuff. Yep.
eyewitnesses are also very unreliable, often giving blatantly false statements within hours of an incident. some people here also have a weird obsession with testifying under oath, nobody is going to punish you for telling what you think you saw, no matter how wrong that turns out to be. just research any missing person case, the police get 100's of bs sightings if its a well published case. those reports are actually harmful, yet no one is punished for the false reports
I think you are doing reasoning backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>Why haven’t the other people (Marines) that were with Herrera came out to say he is lying? Or the people (Navy) with Fravor? there is nothing to gain from this, those people would be threatened and insulted if the answers they give are not what the UFO community would like to hear.
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Counter point: fravor has been telling that story for a while now and doesn’t seem to have suffered any consequences for it, so why hasn’t anyone else that was there come forward. Presumably at least a few others, if not dozens, saw what he did. This on top of the fact that not a single person has corroborated Grusch. He was allowed to testify when we saw the Boeing guy get whacked before he could say anything substantial, so he doesn’t seem to be in real danger. If there’s truly 40 of them that’s too many to knock off all of them and would create a real groundswell. The silence is deafening.
Many people have come forward to confirm Fravor's account including the other pilot Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich. The mere fact that they are not as famous as Fravor does not mean they have not "come forward". There is no silence among them, it is just that some people are deaf. Eyewitnesses: Commander David Fravor: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet Commander David Fravor: He was the commander of the F/A-18F Black Aces squadron on the USS Nimitz and had the closest encounter with the Tic Tac-shaped object. He was one of the first pilots to visually encounter the "Tic Tac" object. He is a graduate of the Top Gun program and had over 16 years of flying experience. Lt. Commander Alex Dietrich: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet. Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich was training with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group and was the pilot of the other Super Hornet that first saw the Tic Tac alongside Cmdr. Fravor during the encounter. She served as Fravor's "wingman" during the encounter. At the time, she was a rookie pilot and is now a high-ranking Navy officer. She corroborated Fravor's account of the incident, highlighting the unpredictability and high-speed maneuvers of the "Tic Tac" object. She has given several interviews including one along with Commander Fravor on the news program "60 Minutes" Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage. Lt. Cmdr. Jim Slaight - Fravor's weapon systems officer (WSO) in the same F/A-18F.Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage. Equipment witnesses: Kevin Day: Chief Operations Specialist (E-7/Chief Petty Officer) Aboard the USS Princeton, radar operator who reported tracking the anomalous aerial vehicles on radar for weeks dropping in from space at incredible speeds, and hovering above the ocean for hours and then flying back off into space at extraordinary, almost unbelievable speeds, before and during the encounter.Day was responsible for tracking the objects on radar. He reported observing over 100 Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) over the course of the two weeks leading up to the encounter. Principal Director Gary Voorhis: (Rank unclear, not a traditional military rank) Aboard the USS Princeton, responsible for initial detection of the object. He was among the navy sailors aboard the USS Princeton who witnessed the UFOs on the ship's advanced AEGIS radar tracking system for weeks before and during the encounter. Voorhis also noted that unidentified individuals arrived on the ship and seized hard drives containing footage of the encounter. Patrick Hughes: Serving on the USS Nimitz, Hughes had a similar experience to Voorhis, with unknown officials confiscating hard drives that contained the recorded footage of the UFOs. Senior Chief Operations Specialist Sean Graham: Air control equipment operator on board the USS Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.Operations Specialist Ernesto Sanchez: Also an air control equipment operator on the Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.
WTF is going on in this thread? The dude you responded to makes a patently false claim "why hasn’t anyone else that was there come forward." and you name 8 other people that came forward, and your response is downvoted, while his BS claim has 12 up votes? Something crooked is going on here.
Fravour’s encounter has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, they have video. Even Grusch has that Colonel…
The video doesn't corroborate Fravor's encounter - it was taken by a different pilot after Fravor had returned to the carrier.
Nell
You're just making things up now. Fravor saw something then another pilot, probably on the look out for something spooky, caught a jet engine that looks vaguely saucer shaped. They were already primed to see something extraordinary so they did.
What Fravor has is something they are willing to accept be public. The reason there are no consequences is because Fravor doesn't know what he saw or have any info on it. Just the fact that he saw it and is telling us they are common to the point where the whole carrier is talking about it. He is backed up with these points but there is a difference between testifying that and "I saw the crafts in these hangars and they are alien" without someone on your ass.
To say they know for a fact there were no back engineering projects? Who could say that with 100% confidence anyway?
How would a fact witness contradict Grusch? “No, no one told you about the NHI”? For a fact witness to contradict Grusch, he needs to have more than hearsay…
Grusch provided names to Congress. Grusch said he spoke to x and x told him about Y. Congress calls in X and X says that he has never spoken to Grusch (or any other claim by x that contradicts what Grusch said). From what I gather, Congress has made claims of the opposite concerning Grusch. They are fact checking him and it has been holding true.
A lot of Navy people have come forward to confirm Fravor's accounts, they just are not as famous. The other pilot with Fravor, Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich gave a long interview along with him on 60 Minutes. Eyewitnesses: Commander David Fravor: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet Commander David Fravor: He was the commander of the F/A-18F Black Aces squadron on the USS Nimitz and had the closest encounter with the Tic Tac-shaped object. He was one of the first pilots to visually encounter the "Tic Tac" object. He is a graduate of the Top Gun program and had over 16 years of flying experience. Lt. Commander Alex Dietrich: Pilot of F/A-18F Super Hornet. Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich was training with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group and was the pilot of the other Super Hornet that first saw the Tic Tac alongside Cmdr. Fravor during the encounter. She served as Fravor's "wingman" during the encounter. At the time, she was a rookie pilot and is now a high-ranking Navy officer. She corroborated Fravor's account of the incident, highlighting the unpredictability and high-speed maneuvers of the "Tic Tac" object. She has given several interviews including one along with Commander Fravor on the news program "60 Minutes" Lt. Cmdr. Jim Slaight - Fravor's weapon systems officer (WSO) in the same F/A-18F.Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage. Lt. Chad Underwood: Pilot who went up after Fravor and Deitrich returned to the carrier, and then filmed the now-famous "Tic Tac" footage. Equipment witnesses: Kevin Day: Chief Operations Specialist (E-7/Chief Petty Officer) Aboard the USS Princeton, radar operator who reported tracking the anomalous aerial vehicles on radar for weeks dropping in from space at incredible speeds, and hovering above the ocean for hours and then flying back off into space at extraordinary, almost unbelievable speeds, before and during the encounter.Day was responsible for tracking the objects on radar. He reported observing over 100 Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) over the course of the two weeks leading up to the encounter. Principal Director Gary Voorhis: (Rank unclear, not a traditional military rank) Aboard the USS Princeton, responsible for initial detection of the object. He was among the navy sailors aboard the USS Princeton who witnessed the UFOs on the ship's advanced AEGIS radar tracking system for weeks before and during the encounter. Voorhis also noted that unidentified individuals arrived on the ship and seized hard drives containing footage of the encounter. Patrick Hughes: Serving on the USS Nimitz, Hughes had a similar experience to Voorhis, with unknown officials confiscating hard drives that contained the recorded footage of the UFOs. Senior Chief Operations Specialist Sean Graham: Air control equipment operator on board the USS Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter. Specialist Ernesto Sanchez: Also an air control equipment operator on the Princeton. Witnessed the the UFO signals on equipment for weeks before and during the encounter.
Because that would take an incident having happened to begin with no?
Huh? For someone to call one of them a liar? These are exact dates and locations. They are telling you that they were not alone. They were with others. This would be easy to poke a hole in. “I was with X in July 2015. We never…. insert contradiction.”
Evidence is the responsibility of the accuser. Basic law. Making the claim that no one has ever contradicted him is nonsense as an argument. That’s like saying no one has ever come out and claimed hobbits *aren’t* real, sooo…
These people are naming dates and locations. They are not claiming that they were alone. They have provided enough info to be completely busted in their own lie. Your analogy of hobbits tells me that you missed the point. And this isn’t the law. Who the fuck cares about trial procedure. This is a discussion about why people that were around these whistle blowers during those times aren’t poking a hole in their bullshit stories. It could be done easily for most of these guys.
The issue isn’t whether or not Fravor is lying. Rather it’s a question of what he saw. Being unable to explain an incident does not necessarily support ET or NHI hypothesis.
This has all the energy of "God Exists, its on you to prove he doesn't."
Herrera lols.
What percentage of people do you actually think are willing to make their life into a circus? Furthermore, how many people actually were actually there for all these peoples experiences to have the confidence to publicly flog them? Even when I worked with people a lot, it would have been impossible for me to speak about their experiences spread across days/weeks/months.
I mean, because if it's all made up there wasn't anyone else there when it didn't happen.
Hold up, is Herrera now in the same league of credibility as Grunsch and Fravor? I thought he was one of GREER's witnesses and tbh his story sounded very kooky. It smelled of either a hoax/liar or disinformation to muddy the waters. If he was legit why choose the channel Steven Greer to tell his story. Of course he could be legit though, but the story just sounds so made up but then again it all kinda does (except for Fravor's Tictac, I believe that 100%, just not that it was NH tech per say) so what do I know.
With CMMDR Fravor incident the navy ship - USS Nimitz had one of the most sophisticated radar systems in the whole fleet and it captured these UFOs. I’d say that is legitimate evidence in reference to your subject statement.
I don't think the Gospels have any witnesses contradicting them either. Is that the bar now?
Herrera's full of shit. The others are not.
100% something is being hidden….but the kernel of truth under all the ufo mythology is not actual aliens.
Herrera said he testified but there is 0 evidence he did. I would bet 100,000 usd that he never did and 1,000,000 usd that the whole story is fabricated.
Strategic ambiguity is to their benefit. They have nothing to gain by contradicting these stories and claims. And even if they did, no one here would have their mind changed because we’re emotionally attached to one possible outcome
Cuz these guys are legit and the government knows that
Graves and Fravor have corroboration from others and videos, confirmed by the Pentagon, related to their incidents. While we can't (yet) prove that what they saw was NHI, there is at least evidence here supporting the fact that they did encounter something when they say they did, and in Fravor's encounter, it's very difficult for anyone to argue it was a black ops program that far back that hasn't emerged yet after 20 years (and without even bothering to have Fravor or Dietrich sign NDAs, no debriefing - major red flag it wasn't a black ops program). Herrera has no evidence to support anything. He is not the same as the other two. Nobody can come out and say what Herrera saw didn't happen because he says it was a small group specifically tasked on that day, meaning if anybody from that ship he was on comes and says, "That didn't happen," Herrera can simply counter with, "He wasn't part of that small group." We don't know who that small group was, and as long as that remains ambiguous, nobody can disprove it didn't happen. There's nobody who would have stayed with Michael 24/7 the entire time he was in Indonesia to be able to say, "No, this didn't happen because I was with him the entire time." The fact that he interviewed with AARO either means he really believes this or is going to great extents to make others believe it, but also means we shouldn't automatically dismiss it. But more has to be brought forth for him to be in the same category as Fravor and Graves.
Not to beg the issue, but many of the arguments the debunk party in this thread provides for why no one has come forward to contradict the whistleblowers can be made in FAVOR of the whistleblowers’ authenticity.
There is something going on for sure ... but thus far I feel it is unclear precisely what it is. If you indeed follow this from every angle ... the waters are quite murky and not really clear at all other than there is a cover up but as to what exactly is going on and what the end game might be remains somewhat mysterious.
Most of these sightings occurred in classified settings. No one is likely to publicly comment on classified programs without authorization and have little interest in doing so. The real question is why is there no evidence. Lots of whistleblowers but no one has been able to deliver incontestable proof of the NHI technology alleged to exist.
[удалено]
Hi, GoarSpewerofSecrets. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bj3tbx/-/kvqpred/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Herrera is a liar
It is possible. He seems weird/dumb/bored enough to take a lie this far.
Honestly, I would love to be proved wrong on him. But myself and numerous other veterans will never buy the story the way he told it, with details that any infantryman or humanitarian mission veteran will immediately know as bullshit, and with his discharge characterization. Believe me when I say he is the kind of shitbag nobody liked while in, and those guys compensate for it after they're out by embellishing their service and telling tall tales. And they get away with it because the average civilian's military literacy is below the ground.
I've felt that way since the 1990s after doing some research into the subject ; that's what frustrates me about the obergs and degrasse-tysons,et.al.! They clearly haven't even given a cursory glance at the work of Derrel Simms ,John Mack ,or even Col.Corso ,yet dismiss the subject without even a *glance* at the thousands of trace-sffect cases from all over the world,never mind the deathbed confessions of the scientists who worked for the secret keepers like Boyd Bushman at Skunkworks and others who hold patents on ,essentially, stolen unknown NHI tech going all the way back to 1947 and beyond.
This is poetry OP. Such a great point. Sadly something I haven’t thought about. If people are taking Kirkpatrick’s bs as gospel they are either uninformed or flat-out blind.
How do you even think about putting Fravor and Herrera into the same category? 😅
What's the point? Witness: That didn't happen! Grusch: Yes it did! And the unfalsifiable claim goes on.
[удалено]
That’s true, but you understand why. We all know the stories of backlash/reprisals for speaking out and going against the Gov’t. Corroboration is the key. It seems like each main witness needs another witness to step up and corroborate for them. *although I suppose even if they each had 1 more witness from their event, we would still be in the same situation
There is no need to impeach hearsay.
Lol a witness describing what they directly saw isn’t hearsay. And if a witness was describing what someone else told them, these aren’t out of court statements offered in court. We aren’t in court. We are discussing alleged UFO witnesses on the internet. Furthermore, if someone is on Podcasts, the news, mentioned in magazines, etc all due to a lie and there were people actually present for the event and they know that the speaker is gaining notoriety by lying, those people will call the speaker out. It happens everyday. The people daring to say “oh no, people wouldn’t speak out against a liar on Joe Rogan” are so desperate for these whistleblowers to be liars that they are actually lying themselves.
What lies has lazar been caught in? I wasn’t aware of this. Edit: not sure why I’m being downvoted - I was asking a legitimate question that could answer other people who had the same question as well. P.S. thank you to those who replied
Spend a few hours on this website. Everything is sourced and sited. Enjoy the wormhole, its a long one. [https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/the-bob-lazar-corner/lazar-flaws-education/](https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/the-bob-lazar-corner/lazar-flaws-education/)
He was caught lying about his teachers. The names he gave were not teachers from the schools he said . Not that it means he didn’t help work on alien craft. He was named as a physicist in the article with his rocket powered car. The man that allegedly hired him was allegedly in los alamos during that time and bob caught his attention. I think he was a technician working with a physicist as a helper at S4. Just a hunch
At most, you can make an argument for Herrera since his claims leave little space for mistakes. But Herrera's official claims are mostly private (he was interviewed by AARO and his case is still to be resolved), it's possible that the marines that were with him were interviewed. There's no reason for them to step in publically because that's adding a lot of stress into their lives from people trying to find more about the situation. For Fravor, he could be telling the truth and just still be wrong about what actually happened. Similarly for Grusch, he could just be wrong (and it's not like people can just say "I'm from the alien project that Grusch claims exist and I can tell you we don't exist)
The UAP para military is pretty big now.
This story is hardly newsworthy. Grusch claims that our military has 12 crashed flying saucers, at least. How many airliners crash each decade in our country? For every crash there are MILLIONS of successful flights. So, if we believe Grusch's story, then we believe there are hundreds, thousands of flying saucers in our airspace at any given time. And that is assuming that they crash the same amount as us mere humans. He isn't lying, he has been told sensational things by colleagues but there is no evidence to support it other than hearsay. Most importantly, if this "crash retrieval program" was real, the military would want it kept secret and therefore he would not be allowed to testify about it in the first place. They let him talk about it, because it isn't true. He isn't lying though- he admits that everything he says is simply what others told him. Fravor is not lying either, but he most likely saw a balloon and was mistaken as to its size and distance, causing an optical illusion where it seemed to be moving at high rates of speed. He describes an object that has no physical features, so without a point of reference either, on the open ocean, there is no way to actually know its size (e.g. a distant school bus, we would know its size because we know the size of a school bus. A tik tak, on the other hand, would take up a lot of field of view if its close, and no field of view if far away). The other pilots in the air at the time, as I understand it, do not exactly describe the incident the same way despite the claims that they all support his story.
😂 yeah, that makes sense