291–300 of 673 posts
One thing I find amazing is the diversity of UAP vehicles. It used to be saucers, then silvery orbs, tic tac pills, triangles with bright lights , and now during the hearing we learn about dark cubes in translucent spheres! I mean... how many different alien races exactly are playing tourists over here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Willing to get arrested would be a huge signal that he's an actual whistleblower and not full of shit! There's almost no chance he'd face any consequences given the topic and the amount of support he'd have the from the public, and even then, Daniel Hale's sentence for disclosing dozens of classified documents to reporters was ~3.5yrs in jail. The LARPers pretending like he'd be sent to gitmo are completely in lala l…
We only have one life, nobody wants to sacrifice 3 years of it. Just because you and I consider potential alien life disclosures to be important doesn't mean we have the right to demand someone with that knowledge sacrifice their own life for us to have it. If I had hardcore proof of definite alien life on earth but by revealing it I'd spend time in prison, would I do it? Or would I be content to know that in the 4-b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked in a SCIF for a short time for a defense contractor. It was a while ago, and I'm fuzzy about what I can and cannot say about how things worked in there, so I'd rather not say anything specific. What I can say is that it's trivial to keep things you don't want leaving a SCIF in the SCIF.
I’m definitely not military, so I can’t speak from experience here. I just find it hard to believe that the military puts all of this information into decentralized air-gapped silos that are completely cut off from the outside world. Information isn’t useful when it can’t be searched, cross-referenced and analyzed. How does data enter a SCIF? because it obviously doesn’t originate there. Do people walk in with thumb…
We weren't generating information though, we were generating products. Products (physical or non-physical) get "used" as opposed to "searched".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We only have one life, nobody wants to sacrifice 3 years of it. Just because you and I consider potential alien life disclosures to be important doesn't mean we have the right to demand someone with that knowledge sacrifice their own life for us to have it. If I had hardcore proof of definite alien life on earth but by revealing it I'd spend time in prison, would I do it? Or would I be content to know that in the 4-b…
If you wanted the latter, you wouldn't repeatedly go on national TV claiming a giant conspiracy and then testify in front of congress.. In any case, I'm not "demanding" that he do something that could result in jail time but rather pointing out that based on his own telling of his own story, he should be happy to do so. That he's not is strongly indicative that he's full of shit.
The general response in this discussion is skeptical, and I can understand the hesitation to broach the UFO/UAP topic, particularly when the topic has been vilified for literally decades. However, we are now in a legitimately different era of discussion of these topics, and you have to be willing to open your mind to the idea that these efforts are legitimate. The bipartisanship at the hearing is to be commended, and…
We know that intel agencies and military routinely lie to Congress; many times historically and several major ones in just my lifetime: - Iraq WMDs - dragnet surveillance - ANA will fight the Taliban We also know they obscure the truth, eg Victoria Nuland responding to the question about “chemical or biological weapons” in Ukraine by nodding as she spoke about “research labs”. We also know the CIA has previously hack…
Since you mention the "yellow-cake uranium," you should read the history of that situation. It wasn't a single person's word before Congress that Saddam Hussein had the uranium but the result of an elaborate document forgery which was proven as false within a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
However, each case you cite is either the justification or result of a highly-publicized event (Iraq invasion, Snowden investigation, Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine war). The UAP situation is quashed and remains a verboten subject in many circles, particularly in the media. As such, the UAP situation is distinct from those you mention.
You do suggest that this may be a way to raise military funding. If money was the end goal, they'd say that the US military could disable UAPs if we had more firepower or plowed more money into R&D to realize next-gen systems sooner. None of that was said, and both the witnesses and members of Congress directly contradict this theory. The witnesses admit that our existing military systems and any that we may build in the next "10-20 years" are inadequate to deal with the observed UAPs.
Some of my favorite questioning in the hearing came from AOC, who, when asking about increasing transparency in reporting UAP incidents, asked: "For the record, if you were me, where would you look? Titles? Programs? Departments? Regions? If you could just name...anything." Grusch responded he tell her "specifically" where to look but only in a classified briefing, which she took well enough.
>This is FUD until there’s evidence — these people have zero credibility.
They're individuals with verified and decorated military service records and have provided sworn testimony to Congress under penalty of perjury, which is far from zero credibility. As an anonymous individual posting on Hacker News, I have zero credibility beyond what anyone chooses to believe, and I suppose that's the main point: extraordinary claims require belief in extraordinary evidence.
On Dave Grusch and his claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower...
On David Fravor and his incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked in a SCIF for a short time for a defense contractor. It was a while ago, and I'm fuzzy about what I can and cannot say about how things worked in there, so I'd rather not say anything specific. What I can say is that it's trivial to keep things you don't want leaving a SCIF in the SCIF.
Fair enough. My experience is fairly recent but it might also be a military vs intelligence agency thing. All the classified/SCIF systems I used were networked, though the networks were physically segmented and most of the classified systems I used did not have internet access. Whether that counts as "air gapped" in your book I dunno, but I never came across anything like the room out of the original Mission Impossib…
Lucky for earth this all happens in US airspace eh?
If you need any further proof this country has a hard time innovating anymore, this UFO story push that coincides with the start of another Cold War is a great example. I remember listening to Art Bell as a kid, fascinated with the stories of aliens, MIB, military coverups, etc… with former military men telling a lot of the stories. Then I read Carl Sagan and realized how silly it all was. Then I learned how the gove…
> When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. Critics of this claim note that the report actually proved that the "unknowns" were distinctly different from the "knowns" at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%. They further claimed that the residual 3% would probably disappear if more complete data were available. Critics counter that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information", whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination. Also, the "unknowns" tended to represent the higher quality cases, q.e. reports that already had better information and witnesses. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book]
That said, this misinformation only highlights that the Air Force was trying to minimize UFOs, not increase their presence in the public consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe merge the three video links and keep the news stories separate?
Which is the best video link and which is the best article link?
Best article link - Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880471 - July 2023 (13 comments)
Let's assume he's not a nut job... So why is he bringing to light secrets which could negatively affect U.S. security? Especially as a career Air Force officer and intelligence services member. Whether you agree that this info should be public or not, there's something odd about this person's 180 degree flip. From swearing an oath to protect the country and its secrets, to insisting those secrets become public. Really?
Let's also assume his story is real: The tech could be nuclear weapon level science, so secrecy would nominally be a good thing. But he doesn't seem to know what it is, and has decided that it doesn't matter anyways. What would possess him to face public ridicule, criticism, career damage and all that to be a whistleblower for something that could potentially be dangerous if public knowledge?
It just doesn't add up.
Also, it seems to me the last president wouldn't have been able to keep it a secret had he known about it. Which leads to all sorts of "Independence Day" style conspiracy theories. Occam's Razor says it just isn't true.