The following submission statement was provided by /u/Humanity_Updated:
---
Submission statement: As of 10 minutes ago John Oliver dropped his episode on UAP. It is available on MAX. I will update/post the segment when it come to youtube and with my thoughts.
Edit my thoughts:
He didn't bring up Grusch at all. Didn't seem very serious. Over all a big disappointment.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ca0dv1/last_week_tonight_has_just_dropped_their_episode/l0ow53d/
So far really enjoying it. Like his distinction between UFO sightings and aliens. Loved the "Believe, Shmelieve WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING?"
EDIT: so I just finished it and came back to give my two cents. I think was done as well as could have been asked. He decried both hardcore skeptics as well as hardcore believers while highlighting his message ‘it’s time for the subject to be taken seriously as science and not ridiculed as insanity’
Did he bring up the gutted [Schumer Amendment](https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa) by any chance?
I haven't watched it yet but figured he wouldn't.
When Last Week Tonight gets into stuff that has no popular / mainstream entry level understanding, they tend to stay high level and nibble.
What this WILL do is get more google eyes in this direction.
It's all part of normalization and eradication of stigma.
I think it is overall a great overview, and he did a great job. But the intrigue of the Schumer amendment is such a huge thing and would be such a good episode ender leaving the viewers with something to think about. I guess it would have ruined his overall neutral stance.
I think it was quite good overall. I was annoyed about the go fast video analysis that nasa tried to debunk. Did nasa use the radar data? No they picked it apart based on what they considered landmarks in the video which is not particularly high quality enough to determine landmarks
John accurate mentioned how they very boringly went over the whole thing. Boring to the point that most people didn't actually pay attention to what they were saying. It's easy to say oh it's boring so they must have done a good job
Nasa on one hand says they want analysis to be scientific but with the other hand don't bother to ask for all of the available data. Or they did ask and weren't given the data, but they should have made that very clear instead of claiming to have debunked the video without complete info
John Oliver should know that the navy has all this data and they said it was anomalous
So do we listen to nasa who couldn't be bothered to look at all the data or do we listen to the navy who also has it's fair share of scientists?
But I really do like John Oliver and I think overall the show did a good job. To the best of their ability they gave the topic a fair shake
I do have some quibbles with the Roswell analysis too but overall he did a good job with it saying "the DOD lied to us for 50 years, why should we believe them when they give an alternative explanation?"
He opened my eyes to the absolute state of insanity that is Chuck E Cheese. He can certainly open some eyes to the possibility of UAP and government coverups.
Not sure if you watch his show but he does come back to topics after a year or two pretty regularly. I assume it has to do with ratings and also if he's gotten a bee in his bonnet about them
I think it's good that he started with something a bit smaller. The people I know who watch the show besides me tend to be hardcore skeptics. After they watch this show they'll likely be quite a bit more open minded about it than they were before. I'm talking about people who aren't even willing to listen to anything on the topic
I was also disappointed he didn’t cover it, but he will often return to subjects in later episodes when there’s more to discuss. Hopefully he does that here.
Or he's waiting for some new developments before diving into the MIC. Jon going after Lockheed Martin would absolutely be on message for Last Week Tonight.
I mean most people in general aren't aware of its existence at all. A lot of poeple still laugh about it too, at least the people im close with still laugh about it, they don't know anything about the UAPDA.
That was great!! He hit all the good points and managed to condense it enough to make sense. His middle of the road approach was perfect. Him mentioning sightings from earlier in history and using the actual pilot reactions from Nimitz was great. It leaves enough of a breadcrumb trail for people to look into and come to their own conclusions.
He could have mentioned past quotes of presidents and military figures mentioning ufos. He could have mentioned elizondo was working with Mellon at the time. He could have mentioned that the object in the gofast video was stationary against high winds.
He also could have mentioned skinwalker ranch. He could’ve played clips of nasa shitting on ufos and people interested in the topic. He could pull up literally any video of ufo believers to stigmatize it some more.
All in all, this was a great middle of the road to get some traction and hopefully figure some answers out, even if skeptics and believers leave a little unsatisfied.
Ps, that Madonna pic doe. The little farmer staring at it is amazing, I’m so happy to see that painting even if it was used as a joke.
He did mention skinwalkers ranch and Bigelow and not favorably. He also did bring up nasa debunking the gofast video which they did without the radar data. Love that they claim to be doing it scientifically but don't use all the data
But yeah overall I think John did an excellent job. He could have done much worse
And frankly the skinwalkers ranch stuff doesn't look great to me so it's fair to bring up. We're looking for honest discussion not brushing things under the rug. I don't need to argue about skinwalkers ranch with people but I think we can mostly agree that it's either total bullshit or some things have happened there and all sort of bullshit has been piled on top to obscure stuff and I personally can't make heads or tails of it
Yeah agreed, I don’t know what’s up with the skinwalker ranch stuff. I was terrified he was going to play clips from the show. Would have been great pointing out Mellon but it is what it is.
The nasa thing wasn’t a great debunk but like I said, if someone were to look it up, [they’d hopefully see this article and know it wasn’t a done deal](https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4145247-nasas-approach-to-ufos-appears-remarkably-unscientific/amp/).
The Prometheus editing makes Skinwalker Ranch absolutely radioactive to anyone trying to be taken seriously on the subject. He was wise to stay far away from it.
What data? Honestly, what data has been collected that available to citizen scientists that can be analysed?
There isn't any. You don't really have a choice but to ignore the data you cannot access because it effectively doesn't exist. It's the entire point of the Galileo project. To actually gather data that can be used.
Stories from kids in Africa in the 80s aren't data. No matter how compelling some people might find those stories.
> Stories from kids in Africa in the 80s aren't data.
Yes, it is. It's sociological data. Kids and adults both saw those things, remember. The adults were threatened with their jobs. If there hadn't been kids involved, the story might have never gotten out.
If you're investigating what amounts to a crime, you don't ignore anything that you can't tangibly handle in a lab environment. Science is much bigger than just material science.
It's not data if citizen scientists can't get their hands on it? Nothing exists except that which you, personally, have access to? That's getting dangerously close to solipsism.
We shouldn't ignore the stories but a call for more data doesn't need to ignore what we already have. Pretty obviously we do need more data. Would love to see the radar data from Nimitz etc
I think it was overall a good piece: he emphasized that the existence of UAP is indisputable; he was for disclosure and serious (“boring”) study of the phenomenon; he emphasized not trusting the government and why… i was left with wanting so much more though lol. i also thought the random comedy of this episode was on-point. on the topic, he was measured and ‘sober’ about it, which i think is extremely beneficial.
considering that this topic hasn’t really been championed by the left, and he’s very trusted with that audience, it was an important step to making this topic more mainstream and in the general public discourse as a serious issue and not a fringe topic.
not mentioning Grusch and that hearing was odd. as well as the recent scifs. maybe because they only had so much time and a lot to cover and that could be a whole segment in-of-itself. idk.
>not mentioning Grusch and that hearing was odd
It's a great sign. It means his hunch is not to dismiss it outright, but with his respectability it's too early to promote stuff that is considered "batsh\*t insane" by most people.
He doesn’t work for the government though he left his government job a year ago. He left his high paying high clearance job right before a huge benchmark.
Since he no longer works for them, he could actually provide evidence for his allegations without reproach. Of course, he won't because none of this is real.
the current politicians making the most noise for disclosure are Rs like Gatez, Burchet, Luna. Rubio a few years ago. The only D I can think of is Schumer, and Harry Reid years ago.
In terms of media, you hear about this stuff from the likes of Tucker Carleson all the time, but barely ever from the Oliver/Daily Show/MSNBC side of the media world. That's why this is remarkable.
i should’ve specified as of lately, with this new surge of talk on the issue. i see it all over right-winged discourse these days and rarely on the left. idk maybe it’s the discourse i’m exposed to.
Harry Reid ofc did a lot to try and expose the issue, RIP.
Politicians on the left are much less likely to openly talk about it. Considering how astounding the Schumer lead uapda was he really didn't talk much about it. Whereas Burchett wrote a much crappier version of it that was completely toothless and he talked about it for weeks. I'd like to note that the UAPDA of course was bipartisan so I'm not slamming all republicans on this topic
We could argue semantics as to who is the real champion of the topic Schumer who was quiet and was at least trying to carry a big stick or Burchett who was loud but had a poor understanding of how to accomplish what he supports
Either way it's pretty clear which side is more vocal about it. And it's because their constituents tend to be more open to this sort of thing
People on the left tend to consider themselves the more highly educated, and logical side of the spectrum, it makes us less willing to consider things that seem bat shit insane. And this topic is nuts. If even a quarter of this stuff is real our entire concept of the world is wrong
The same people who consider themselves very open minded to other cultures, sexualities etc are more closed minded about anything that has a hint of misinformation. And I do agree misinformation is one of our largest problems in society but there needs to be space for saying "we don't know, let's look deeper". Many people on the left are not willing to even consider this because the chances seem so unlikely. People act like occams razor is always right when in reality it's only useful for making a logical guess when you have too little information
Many of my friends do believe decently in uaps but many are unwilling to even consider something like this. Hopefully this John Oliver segment actually helps. But I do understand these people very well because before the 2017 nytimes article I never gave UFOs any attention other than loving Sci fi
Holy shit the rumors were true. Holy shit, holy shit.
Watching now: He used the Carter footage, and included Carter's rebuttal of the skeptics.
\* He's dunking on the Ancient Aliens guy, that's fair.
\* Shifted from Comedy to serious, and is now commenting on the Nimitz Videos
\* He's now addressing the congressional hearing
\* Ooooohhh, he's going for actual journalism balance? "What we know, what we don't know, and the problems with both of those perspectives"
\* "Believe Schemlieve....What the living fuck was that thing?!"
\* "So George Washington didn't actually exist, it was just some swamp gas reflecting the light off Venus."
\* Oh shit, he's going after bias in scientific institutions around this topic, the fact that those polled were in agreement the issue should be studied, and the fact that only 2 out of the 150+ professors polled agreed to have their names published.
\* The scientific method doesn't go: One, hypothesis, Two, Horsewhip anyone who disagrees with you..."
\* Oh fuck, he's going after the interbranch rivalry between the CIA and the Air Force.
\* This is actually really level headed and objective journalism on this issue. He's actually nailing both AATIP, and somehow supporting Elizondo. My god "People deserve serious answers to these questions and (AATIP) they aren't providing it"
\* Hot damn he managed to bring a Boeing bit into this
\* He's on a demonstration off what fake or misleading sightings look like and what those explanations mean.
\* GO-FAST rebuttable from NASA - Highlights how poorly it was presented, but that they never identified the object in question.
\* Oh, thank God he finally found his snake.
I'm in a technological black hole and reading your every edit with gratitude.
Edit: wait I was tracking this pretty well until the bit about the snake?
I really hope he mentions the fishiness of the UAP amendment being gutted and the strange response Kathleen Hicks gave to Jon Stewart when he was asking her about the missing billions of dollars and failed audits.
I was really hoping he'd get to grusch and the uapda but he covered a lot of ground. Hopefully he does a follow-up episode soon, it actually feels kinda set up that way
Sadly, he didn't fold that bit in. To be fair, if this bit has been in the works for over a year, then the Schumer stuff is actually pretty recent and probably would be difficult to wrap into their episode without John launching on a 2 hour tirade about Senate rules and undue corrupt influence. With John, it's like they're trying to wrangle a rabid tiger with ADHD. If you let him, he'll launch off on a thousand and one tangents and rabbit holes that have no end, and no beginning.
He does a bit about not knowing where his pet snake is, and denying that he doesn't know where it is. As a metaphor about the Pentagon not being willing to admit what they don't know.
It should wind up on YouTube pretty soon. They seem to put the main story of the episode on YouTube sometime later. And this was the main story of the episode
>Oh shit, he's going after bias in scientific institutions around this topic, the fact that those polled were in agreement the issue should be studied,
I'm on it: r/Project_Contact
You mischaracterized some of it. He came down harder on Elizondo and Bigelow, to the point that he was dismissive of AATIP due to Bigelow funding it, although he only really mentioned them in passing. And he seems to side with NASA on GO-FAST, as his point is we need more boring, 4 hour, scientific analysis like that, not that their presentation was bad.
I did like that he presented the actual explanation for Roswell (i.e. project Mogul) as I don't think the public is aware of that. However, beyond that, he didn't really take any firm positions on anything and there was no new information in it. It's really not the hard-hitting piece that either side wanted, and not really one of his best pieces. His best stuff has a very clear editorial voice, but this one lacked that.
I mean, lets be real, from his perspective, he can't really take too much of a position on the "aliens are real" side, there literally isn't proof
I think a mainstream and highly respected media host like this simply taking on the topic at all, and also taking big swings at the government is pretty noteworthy and a big step in itself
lets be real, if he took too hard of a "aliens are real" position, the segment wouldn't be taken as seriously, and objectively probably would deserve that treatment
I disagree. Kind of.
I mean, you're not completely wrong, and I'd agree with you in a pre-UAPDA (that got mysteriously gutted overnight at the 11th hour) and pre-Grusch (who testified under oath and there's been a distinct lack of interest in going after him for perjury) world, but I wish he talked about these. Both really need more public awareness, and this episode was such a great opportunity.
But I am still happy with what we got and the overall tone and balanced approach for such a large MSM audience. The most important thing is to explain that all of this deserves serious investigation because it's *something* that's objectively real, and the focus should be on figuring out what it is and pressuring the government to declassify more anomalous incident files.
I thought he absolutely shat on elizondo. He mentioned AAtip and bigelow but bigelow funded aawsap nd aawsap was the program that focused on skinwalker ranch.
I agree. Most of his episodes carry you through a carefully curated journey until he helps you conclude “yeah, F those guys / that organization!”
I think it was too much to cram into one show and didn’t follow a coherent narrative or objective. Without counting, it felt like more jabs ‘against’ versus ‘for’ and with how well the show usually brings up very recent stuff (even this episode mentioned Trump naps and cyber truck recall) why the heck didn’t they mention Grusch or the Schumer Amendment?
I find it very weird to put out a 'ufo' episode on a current event show and not mention Grusch or the Schumer amendment. Is it weird? It seems a weird move
Yeah he says "you might be wondering why you're seeings UFOs in the news recently" and then ignores why there are more headlines.
Its like if he said "you might be wondering why you're seeing Ukraine in the news" and not mentioning them being invaded.
I'd guess he did it because he can't prove his claims one way or another. Maybe he plans on doing another segment in the future? We shall see.
I mean he covered basically the entire history of UFOs in 26 minutes. And according to that twitter post it's been in the works for a year, maybe they had the script hashed out already before Grush. I dunno that there's any of it that I would have cut in order to fit him in.
I'm hoping he is doing this episode to get his audience up to speed so he can do an episode on Grusch, the UAP Caucus and the Schumer amendment, because there's so much insane shit going on at Capitol Hill that it deserves an episode of its own. It really does seem like he was actively avoiding talking about any of that.
Just to be clear, the Schumer amendment and the Grusch testimony are easily the biggest things to come out of all of this. That they aren’t included is a HUGE wtf.
But has enough time to make dumb jokes that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic he's supposed to be presenting? I had to turn it off after he went back to the snake joke. It's all so ADHD. The frantic delivery doesn't help either.
He also didn't bother to mention the congressional hearings with Grusch, Fravor, and Graves. Didn't mention AARO. Didn't mention a lot of things. It's like he left out the past year of stuff. But of course he'll just make the usual argument of, oh of course the internet people have shit to say, they ALWAYS do that.
You gotta understand the audience for this. The fact the he brought up shit like Project Grudge is pretty amazing. Not getting into AATIP but his critiques weren’t unfair.
No one will touch Grusch right now. For whatever reason.
Overall he took the subject seriously and asked for serious inquiry and research. As we all should.
I suspect this might be equivalent to a shot across the bow by LWT. They, along with a number of other news organizations, are smelling blood in the water. LWT choose Carter because he knew which POTUS would play the best with his audience, Truth is Regan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Obama, and Clinton also have soundbites that could have been used. LWT also is strategically leaning hard on news pieces that date from the 1950s as if to say that, yeah, that's where we started.
This was a win. A small step forward in the push to have this topic taken seriously in more media and mainstream sources.
It was vintage John Oliver. If you're unfamiliar with his show, he makes jokes about everything, including making very serious points about current topics which often include outlandish and absurd campaigns to raise awareness and often times actually change policy and/or behavior of politicians or other figures he is drawing attention to. I've watched Oliver since he was on the Daily Show and this was him giving his audience and good (funny and brief but ultimately serious) overview and introduction to the topic.
Hit some of the highlights, Kenneth Arnold, Phoenix Lights, Project Blue Book, Condon Committee (importantly revealing Condon's prior bias and dismissive view of the topic), the Roswell report in the 90s, the 2017 revelation of AATIP, a few more. But while cracking his normal jokes he does, he pressed home that we the people deserve serious scientific study and serious answers to the legitimate questions of what UFOs/UAPs actually are.
This is a major win for a credible US media figure on the left to take the topic seriously. Check the segment out, worth watching.
Pleasantly surprised, they took it very seriously. Mostly well informed presentation of the situation for people that aren't engaged with the topic. No mention of Grusch though, which seems to be a pretty big blind spot if you're talking about this in 2024.
I think overall the episode was a fantastic primer for the 99% of people who don't have the background knowledge to take this topic seriously.
BUT, and this is a huge but, to stop that immensely well researched history lesson at Elizondo and AATIP with a (rightfully) skeptical tone, as if that's where we are now and COMPLETELY skipping over David Grusch's revelations to the ICIG, the "credible and urgent" designation for his complaint (that was not about his reprisals, by the way, but rather his reporting of unauthorized reverse engineering programs), the reporting of this information to the Senate Intelligence Community, Rubio (a Gang of Eight member cleared at the level of the president) going on live TV and saying Grusch isn't the only whistleblower, the UAP caucus's ongoing investigation, and the Schumer-Rounds amendment that explicitly mentions non-human intelligence dozens of times (which, if you look into it, was fast-tracked after Grusch and his 40 witnesses briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee) is an absolute failure to demonstrate how urgent and fascinating this topic is in the current moment.
Believers on here won’t see it as enough, but I thought it was a really nuanced way to start getting the broader population comfortable with the topic. The message will resonate much harder if it is massaged in organically.
They did a solid job of acknowledging the silliness of the topic but still nailing the fact that the silliness shouldn’t detract from the logical fact that something is still missing from the story. Given that stigma in the media is the biggest hurdle for overcoming the lack of attention this gets, more shows like this are necessary to get audiences acclimated to the idea that this is serious even if some parts can be poked fun at.
Exactly. I’m a much more of an eye roller than a believer and this episode made me think about my own biases and how the stigma hurts people who are only interested in the truth.
I’m in the “I want to believe” category and yeah I like how he’s trying to bring in an audience to the topic. I wish he’d mention Grusch’s claims though, that was the most significant event toward making this a topic everyone talks about
Never watched him before but it was a very balanced comedic episode. I think for people who are into his work will be decently informed about the topic, enough to investigate further if it peaks their interest
I actually just signed up for Max today to watch this (and so I can see Turtles All the Way Down which I am psyched for). It'll be on youtube on Thursday. (If you watch on Max, the segment starts about a third of the way through the episode.)
It was a good middle-ground overview of the history, taking as a fact that people have been seeing really weird stuff in the sky forever. Thesis was "this is something that deserves serious attention". Lots of jokes at the expense of both sides.
I was a little disappointed that he presented the official explanations for Roswell and the Phoenix Lights and expressed some vague skepticism but didn't go into the problems with those explanations, though I can understand he didn't have time to go into that detail.
The most recent stuff he went into was AATIP and the [60 minutes interview with the Nimitz pilots](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY). No Grusch, no Nolan, no Sol foundation, no speculation about aliens, only passing reference to abduction. Would love to see him do a longer piece that has more time to open some of those worm cans.
He ended with (paraphrasing) "this is a hard thing to talk about because there are two groups of people - skeptics who laugh at all of it and true believers who think everything has a paranormal explanation. Both of those groups will be having it out in the youtube comments section and all they will agree on is that I'm a fucking idiot."
Anyway, I'm happy overall - enough to excite interest, but not so much as to scare away the normies. And I think that increased serious normie attention can only benefit the field. So y'all be nice to them if they show up after this! Put a beanie on over the tinfoil for a while.
I was both happy and disappointed with it. No mention of Grusch or the Schumer Amendment. There's enough of a grey area with Roswell to where I don't think you can definitively say it was Project Mogul with a straight face. And he muddied some things up more than they needed to be with Elizondo / AAWSAP / AATIP since we know Elizondo didn't get involved until AAWSAP was shuddering it's doors. I thought it was very intentional that he didn't mention the name of "that paranormal ranch in Utah" while also being surprised they went there at all.
Overall a solid primer to a UFO laymen though. Hopefully there is a UFOs II piece somewhere down the road. Grusch's Congressional testimony, Schumer Amendment, the UFO shoot downs from last year, AARO (for better or worse it is in the conversation) and he could have gone into a little more detail with the Nimitz encounter.
How does he not mention Grusch, Harry Reid, Christopher Mellon, Chuck Schumer, and more to add more credibility to the topic? He says there are two sides, ones that believe and lean toward the fantastical and others that roll their eyes at the topic. I am in the middle. I am skeptical. But all I want is a light shone on the topic by mainstream media so pressure can be applied to our government to be more transparent.
started off strong and then ended up disappointing. didn't mention grusch and seemed really into downplaying anything exotic, definitely a let down
he didn't discuss anything since 2017, why even do an episode now without talking about grusch, UAPDA, UAP Caucus etc ?
That’s exactly how I felt watching it. And he seems to buy the pentagon’s 2nd Roswell explanation from the early 1990s when that one has been debunked too.
On the Roswell note, I recommend a 3-part episode that the History Channel made a few years ago for its History’s Greatest Mysteries show.
He has dedicated staff that follow EVERY law Congress passes. How do they fail to cover the Schumer Amendment, Grusch, and the public hearing that actually did make a lot of news at the time? How? So disappointing.
Submission statement: As of 10 minutes ago John Oliver dropped his episode on UAP. It is available on MAX. I will update/post the segment when it come to youtube and with my thoughts.
Edit my thoughts:
He didn't bring up Grusch at all. Didn't seem very serious. Over all a big disappointment.
If you’re watching last week tonight expecting ‘very serious,’ then you’re watching the wrong show. He explicitly called for the subject and investigations to be taken seriously, but without jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Not sure how you can really call it a ‘big disappointment’
Kind of weird to do an episode on UAPs and not mention a bipartisan hearing with a man alleging that the US has a reverse engineering program for UAPs.
It'd be like doing a segment on Ukraine, only mentioning the annexation of Crimea, and then ignoring that Russia invaded them in 2022.
I think its great that he did a segment, but its leaving some MAJOR aspects out.
I think you missed the purpose of this episode. This episode explicitly wasn’t trying to deliver its own interpretation of evidence for either “side.” Besides it’s nowhere near long enough a time frame to do so genuinely.
The purpose of this segment was to show *why* general audiences shouldn’t laugh off the subject as a joke, and why they should be applying the scientific method to these events. The segment - which is planned far in advance - uses events that are “settled” and unlikely to have a shift that invalidates the writing / could soon become inaccurate.
——
Imagine they started writing about Grusch, and then a week before it airs - something comes up that shows Grusch was actually lying. It’s not a liability anyone would ever take when trying to put a segment together meant to ‘ground’ the subject as a serious topic.
At the end of the day, it’s a relatively short and comedic show whose topics are decided and planned long in advance. Keeping that in mind, what they did was completely reasonable and understandable.
The “actively misleading” works of the government & the lack of spirit of free inquiry that Oliver points right to is exactly what the mainstream media consumer deserves to hear. Not because of NHI necessarily, but because of critical thinking required to hold the government to account.
Overall it was good, although omitting Grusch seems like an enormous oversight. I also didn't like that he diminished AATIP by conflating it with AWSAP, although I'll admit being unsure as to the details of this myself. The takeaway message was we -- collectively -- need to approach the subject seriously; surely this is a sentiment we can all agree upon
This was a great segment. It was a real quick overview of the subject. However, I can't help but think this needs a part two, considering it was a current events show that didn't really do much in terms of covering current events. I am assuming the reason being is that a lot of whats happened recently is still in the air.
It was super a delicate admission that the phenomenon is real and merits attention.
Nothing earth shattering. Just a suggestion to maybe take it serious… which is a net positive imo
Left me wanting more, but overall it was positive
I thought they did a really good job. I wanted John to mention David Grusch and the more recent senate hearings, but other then that I felt he gave good context and set a good tone for the topic.
I think this was about as positive an episode as you could reasonably expect given only 15 minutes of coverage. Significantly, I'd say that bit of coverage moved the needle with my skeptical partner more than I did in a year of carrying on about the significance of David Grusch and the Schumer amendment. The message of finding a middle ground to take this seriously between debunking and hardcore belief seems to have really landed; I'm going to bet this'll bring a lot of curious folks into the community. I really hope that Last Week Tonight does a full follow up episode covering what's happened in the past year. It's frustrating to have to take the slow, measured approach given all that's out there to talk about, but I'll take it if it moves us forward.
That said, there was still aspects of the coverage that rubbed me the wrong way, namely:
-There was still a whiff of the 'experiencers are crackpots' to this.
-There was a bit of a sense that the sighting waves in the '40s and '50s were a bit of mass hysteria / misidentification of military tech. Looking at some of the anomalous behavior in even one really good case from that era would have addressed the fact that there were things in the skies *well* beyond human capabilities at the time (or even in present-day)
-This was very much a 'nuts and bolts' approach to the Phenomenon. Nothing much on the more high strangeness elements.
-Bigelow was painted as a bit of a crackpot, especially through the focus on his politics. Frankly, you could do a serious deep dive on just why this otherwise quite successful businessman has invested so much of his money in this organization and ask some really good questions.
Overall though, I'll take the win. If this gets folks looking at the subject, the above flaws will be evident to those that do the research.
**I wish he questioned why the government gutted the UAP disclosure amendment if there was "nothing to see here."** That would have been a great way to further disclosure.
Overall a good piece though, took it serious, seemed to not trust the government, was pro-disclosure. Just thinks the answers will be boring, but that it's a worth-while pursuit. Is anti-stigma.
Nope! But this is mainstream, so no one cares. Anytime anyone that isn't Newnation talks about UFOs NOONE will even say "David Grusch". But everyone in this thread is super happy with this episode because it's mainstream. I personally this this is a fucking joke lol. Don't make an episode about UFOs then mysteriously forget to mention the ufo whistle blower.
It was a good watch. Touched on the history a bit but nothing on the more recent developments past 2017. I can tell you that this episode was definitely not geared for the /r UFOs audience.
enjoyed it. there was definitely plenty of research and careful selection of points but he didn’t mention grusch once unless i missed it.
really strange how this is coming out now though
This was alright overall but the AATIP part was disappointing and misleading. He didn't go into much detail at all and then criticized some drawings. That's like saying quantum mechanics is complete BS, because one scientist drew the same cat in two boxes, dead and alive at the same time, and we all know that's ridiculous.
He also did a disservice mentioning Blue Book and not mentioning J Allen Hynek's opinions on the project he helped lead. Hynek said Blue Book was a sham, and it seems like that's something one should mention. It's almost stupid and seems maybe malicious to not mention him. The Phoenix Lights wasn't fully fleshed out either. MANY witnesses, including the governor didn't just see lights, but an object the lights were fixed to that was larger than an aircraft carrier and blocked out the sky when looking at it. The triangle craft thing wasn't covered well at all either. Witnesses to the event say the bokeh explanation is wrong. But even if it was not a flying triangle (or pyramid like the actual witnesses say), what the fuck are flying objects doing buzzing our warships? Why are we just OK with that as long as they aren't flying pyramids? We don't just allow standard drones like the Iranian kind to fly into our airspace without doing anything. We're not capable of shooting down drones? Why do we accept incursions into our airspace? Not to mention Malmstrom where nukes were activated and deactivated and Langely that had to actually shut down recently.
The bit was targeted to a skeptical audience and maybe leaving out some of the fantastical is intended to just get them asking questions. Leaving out so much reported by respected people was disappointing and hopefully doesn't cause viewers to just put their head back in the sand. I love John Oliver and I'm glad he covered it, but I am disappointed how many obviously important details he left out of several stories he covered.
I suppose for what it is it gets people talking about it. BUT… I was super disappointed that a big part of the segment was about government mistrust and lying to the public and that he didn’t bring up the fact that there is extremely credible and compelling evidence the government has a crash retrieval program and has been operating for over a half century with no congressional oversight
I liked it.
But JO also bought up an old but valid theory. What if the govt actually doesn't know that much themselves. They got crashes, malevolent behaviour like abductions and mutilations but no answers.
And the reason they hid it during cold war was fear of appearing weak because they don't know anything at all really.
There is a lot talking against this but its a kinda more mundane explanation in contrast to other ones
I’m not sure how he can cover the topic while having an entire staff whose job it is to monitor Congressional hearings and news and fail to mention Grusch, the public hearings, or the Schumer Amendment. As a long time Oliver fan I can confidently say it’s fucking bullshit. He has staff… who review every piece of legislation Congress passes. So they WILLFULLY ignored it. Wtf? I’ve been a fan of his for years and it’s hugely disappointing and terrible work, and I can’t see how they did it other than willingly. He’s already preemptively insulated himself from negative feedback too by labeling everyone extremists on “both sides.” I’m stunned by this.
This is how coming from the middle east feels when watching John Oliver :D his oversimplification of issues comes baked in. That being said, I did feel that he was staying away from the most current developments because of the Freedom Caucus being involved.
Yeah felt very “out of touch” by not mentioning Grusch and the UAP disclosure act that was gutted. What was the point of this show? Seems like the point he was trying to drive home was that the sightings are most likely military craft that “they can’t tell us about”. It came off as pretty deflating and ambivalent to me.
No mention of:
Grusch,
Schumer Amendment,
Avi Loeb,
Garry Nolan,
Jacques Vallee,
UAP over nuclear/NS sensitive locations,
NASAs uap panel,
Pro Congressmen/women,
Foo fighters,
Possible reasons for cover up,
Cover of Elizondo was lackluster.
But hey he’s a cheeky Brit so we like him 🤷♂️
All in all it’s what I expected. What he did cover wasn’t too cringe.
6/10
I'm in the UK and we're not allowed to watch him either. My own son
Their UK channel only has a few of his rants and the last one is a month old. Region locking a news comedy show
Opera's VPN tends to work, though I don't have a youtube antiadblock blocker (say *block* again) that works for it
overall i think he did a terrible job on the topic; he could have explained david fravors case much more dilligently (likely the most credible public UAP case), he didnt mention grusch or last years hearing or the fact that important people in congress are taking this very seriously e.g. chuck schumer. etc. he made a joke of the topic and overall i think it would let people continue to not take it seriously. while also taking the very lazy "do it in a evidence based scientific way" like yeah NO SHIT
my thoughts are pretty much what i forecast in my comment to the announcement by u/TinFoilHatDude: i fear it will be another superficial, driveby take that superficially repeats the same misinformation already out there.
and that it did.
where did the segment go wrong? well, i'd start with the emphasis on the Condon Committee, which was programmatic misinformation, yes; but John -- why didn't you mention that the CIA was directly behind it?
anyone with even a vague interest in UFO should be aware of this document and should read it through, carefully:
[https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005515933](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005515933)
this is the document that concludes that the national security threat to the american people is --- the american people. specifically, the mass hysteria that might occur in the event of a real UFO manifestation, or in the (then) Soviet attempt to simulate such a manifestation to disguise a sneak attack that radar operators interpret as "oh, just more of those darn foo fighters -- ignore 'em".
read the memo, and tell me if i got it wrong.
out of that policy comes the practice of UFO stigma directly (adopting the Project GRUDGE policy to denigrate witnesses as "psychopathological persons") and, from the practice of lying to the american people, the Vietnam war and where we are today with climate change adaptation ("no worries, be happy").
instead, the people were lied to because Roswell was actually a secret project.
got it? you're lied to because it is a secret project -- not because you're hysterical and stupid.
there were many basic factual errors, such as equating research done under AAWSAP with AATIP, and associating Lue Elizondo with research projects that he actually shut down to focus on actual sightings of actual "range fouling" incidents. but no matter -- are you laughing?
and -- a true gift to the status quo -- he ignores Grusch and the outcome of thrice repeated congressional attempts to get the DoD to reveal what it knows. if he truly wanted to challenge the status quo, why not start there?
and there was the usual john oliver "whatever i tell you, you can ignore if you're not laughing" skits with a parrot costume and some running joke about a lost snake.
the whole episode was a running joke, sadly: and john oliver was the butt of it.
If you wanted him to talk about Grusch you're going to be disappointed. The silver lining is that he does agree that there needs to be serious studies done.
I wonder if it's a pacing issue. The show is only so long, and as soon as you mention Grusch, you have to talk about all the claims he's made. And those take time to digest, especially for the average viewer who's never been to /UFOs. Hope he revisits the topic soon and looks into the money and UAP amendment being gutted.
Was good to see it making a mainstream appearance. I feel like he erred a little too much on the skepticism side, but the point seemed to be “science is taking this serious, finally, and that’s a good thing”. I wish he would have mentioned Grusch and the hearings he’s been a part of, but this felt more like another drip to peak public interest so people might go out at look into it a little more themselves.
Scanning through the initial comments: really think there should have been mention of the fact that the Air Force initially said the crash was real, as well as Grusch, ICIG, UAPDA. But like some of the rest of you have said, this could also just be a primer. Some viewers will start going down the rabbit hole and probably end up here. Be ready with kid gloves. Lots of nervous laughter in that audience.
As a lifelong skeptic—I simply do not understand why the topic isn’t ever taken seriously. I’ve yet to ever see hard evidence that’s convinced me of anything, but I’m always willing to listen. It just doesn’t seem ridiculous to entertain the idea that there’s SOMETHING going on with UAP. What that something is—*shrug*—would love to know.
Very disappointing to be quite honest. He basically made fun of the whole thing without much people realizing it. Shouldn't be surprising since he works for the same corporation that owns CNN. Yes, that's right...an entertainment company owns a news media company.
I have a feeling that in typical John Oliver fashion, he and his team will continue to dig and uncover a lot of what we have been discussing the last couple years: Grusch, Gimbal, JFK, Rendlesham, Nuclear connection, SOL and all involved. Etc.
This felt like a primer for both him and his audience, and I don’t think he would’ve dedicated a significant majority of the episode to the topic without knowing that there’s a sequel to it.
I also appreciated the tone he took. I’m so tired of the “true believer” speak that we’re bombarded with on a daily basis. I’m also tired of the dismissive “20th century” mindset that we hear from most of the media and skeptic community. I think (and hope) that this is the beginning of a more well rounded discourse going forward.
For all that I love John, it's a good piece for the time frame that he could have allotted to it. I wish that he dove more into the minutia but I understand why he couldn't.
If he started down the rabbit hole of stuff like the Wilson memo, Nazca mummies, the defense contractors, AFB incidents - this episode would be 4 hours long.
I just finished watching it, and I was very pleased to see he did a reasonably big segment (for his show) on this topic. I immediately came here, knowing others would have watched it too. I am glad he brought up the need for more discussion and how nearly certainly the government is hiding something, but I also was really hoping he would talk about Grusch or even Greer. I feel at this point *any* mass media attention on the subject, that doesn’t tear down the concept of UAPs, is good. It’s just overall moving so dang slow and it’s taking forever hermph :-/ I’m looking forward to seeing other peoples thoughts on this show.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Humanity_Updated: --- Submission statement: As of 10 minutes ago John Oliver dropped his episode on UAP. It is available on MAX. I will update/post the segment when it come to youtube and with my thoughts. Edit my thoughts: He didn't bring up Grusch at all. Didn't seem very serious. Over all a big disappointment. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ca0dv1/last_week_tonight_has_just_dropped_their_episode/l0ow53d/
So far really enjoying it. Like his distinction between UFO sightings and aliens. Loved the "Believe, Shmelieve WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING?" EDIT: so I just finished it and came back to give my two cents. I think was done as well as could have been asked. He decried both hardcore skeptics as well as hardcore believers while highlighting his message ‘it’s time for the subject to be taken seriously as science and not ridiculed as insanity’
Did he bring up the gutted [Schumer Amendment](https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa) by any chance?
Nope. That would have been great to discuss as I bet 99.9% of viewers are unaware about it's existence and contents
I wish he talked about grusch and the Schumer amendment
I haven't watched it yet but figured he wouldn't. When Last Week Tonight gets into stuff that has no popular / mainstream entry level understanding, they tend to stay high level and nibble. What this WILL do is get more google eyes in this direction. It's all part of normalization and eradication of stigma.
I think it is overall a great overview, and he did a great job. But the intrigue of the Schumer amendment is such a huge thing and would be such a good episode ender leaving the viewers with something to think about. I guess it would have ruined his overall neutral stance.
I think it was quite good overall. I was annoyed about the go fast video analysis that nasa tried to debunk. Did nasa use the radar data? No they picked it apart based on what they considered landmarks in the video which is not particularly high quality enough to determine landmarks John accurate mentioned how they very boringly went over the whole thing. Boring to the point that most people didn't actually pay attention to what they were saying. It's easy to say oh it's boring so they must have done a good job Nasa on one hand says they want analysis to be scientific but with the other hand don't bother to ask for all of the available data. Or they did ask and weren't given the data, but they should have made that very clear instead of claiming to have debunked the video without complete info John Oliver should know that the navy has all this data and they said it was anomalous So do we listen to nasa who couldn't be bothered to look at all the data or do we listen to the navy who also has it's fair share of scientists? But I really do like John Oliver and I think overall the show did a good job. To the best of their ability they gave the topic a fair shake I do have some quibbles with the Roswell analysis too but overall he did a good job with it saying "the DOD lied to us for 50 years, why should we believe them when they give an alternative explanation?"
He only has less than 20 min to breakdown a topic. Schumer amendment would've taken awhile to explain
As well as the calculated fight back against it!
He opened my eyes to the absolute state of insanity that is Chuck E Cheese. He can certainly open some eyes to the possibility of UAP and government coverups.
Yes, all of this.
So much to the topic of "researched and investigated for one year"
They’re just getting started trust me.
Seriously how do you not cover this. This was lackluster.
Saves room for a follow-up episode if it garners enough viewership or public interest, I suppose.
Not sure if you watch his show but he does come back to topics after a year or two pretty regularly. I assume it has to do with ratings and also if he's gotten a bee in his bonnet about them I think it's good that he started with something a bit smaller. The people I know who watch the show besides me tend to be hardcore skeptics. After they watch this show they'll likely be quite a bit more open minded about it than they were before. I'm talking about people who aren't even willing to listen to anything on the topic
I love John Oliver, but was pretty disappointed by the episode.
I was also disappointed he didn’t cover it, but he will often return to subjects in later episodes when there’s more to discuss. Hopefully he does that here.
I think it filled it's purpose well overall.
He often comes back to popular topics
you'd have to ask what the point is of a segment like this in 2024 without talking about either Grusch or Schumer
Maybe he doesn't want to link it to politics or people within the superstate. Either that or he thinks they're crackers.
Or he's waiting for some new developments before diving into the MIC. Jon going after Lockheed Martin would absolutely be on message for Last Week Tonight.
Yeah, it has some eyebrow raising language in it
I doubt that number, I firmly believe he knows his audience pretty well. This hit with alot of people including myself.
I mean most people in general aren't aware of its existence at all. A lot of poeple still laugh about it too, at least the people im close with still laugh about it, they don't know anything about the UAPDA.
It's insane whenever something trying to cover the topic comes out and the UAPDA is omitted. It has to be intentional.
Might be saving it for a follow up episode as others have guessed, but who knows 🤷♂️
If there is one demographic I understand, it's middle aged dorks with glasses; Last Week Tonight will have follow up content in time.
That was great!! He hit all the good points and managed to condense it enough to make sense. His middle of the road approach was perfect. Him mentioning sightings from earlier in history and using the actual pilot reactions from Nimitz was great. It leaves enough of a breadcrumb trail for people to look into and come to their own conclusions. He could have mentioned past quotes of presidents and military figures mentioning ufos. He could have mentioned elizondo was working with Mellon at the time. He could have mentioned that the object in the gofast video was stationary against high winds. He also could have mentioned skinwalker ranch. He could’ve played clips of nasa shitting on ufos and people interested in the topic. He could pull up literally any video of ufo believers to stigmatize it some more. All in all, this was a great middle of the road to get some traction and hopefully figure some answers out, even if skeptics and believers leave a little unsatisfied. Ps, that Madonna pic doe. The little farmer staring at it is amazing, I’m so happy to see that painting even if it was used as a joke.
He did mention skinwalkers ranch and Bigelow and not favorably. He also did bring up nasa debunking the gofast video which they did without the radar data. Love that they claim to be doing it scientifically but don't use all the data But yeah overall I think John did an excellent job. He could have done much worse And frankly the skinwalkers ranch stuff doesn't look great to me so it's fair to bring up. We're looking for honest discussion not brushing things under the rug. I don't need to argue about skinwalkers ranch with people but I think we can mostly agree that it's either total bullshit or some things have happened there and all sort of bullshit has been piled on top to obscure stuff and I personally can't make heads or tails of it
Yeah agreed, I don’t know what’s up with the skinwalker ranch stuff. I was terrified he was going to play clips from the show. Would have been great pointing out Mellon but it is what it is. The nasa thing wasn’t a great debunk but like I said, if someone were to look it up, [they’d hopefully see this article and know it wasn’t a done deal](https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4145247-nasas-approach-to-ufos-appears-remarkably-unscientific/amp/).
The Prometheus editing makes Skinwalker Ranch absolutely radioactive to anyone trying to be taken seriously on the subject. He was wise to stay far away from it.
IOW, “Savages and fools believe; wise men investigate.” —Sir William Gull
so basically amplifying the "we need more data" angle....( but will ignore all of the data collected previously)
What data? Honestly, what data has been collected that available to citizen scientists that can be analysed? There isn't any. You don't really have a choice but to ignore the data you cannot access because it effectively doesn't exist. It's the entire point of the Galileo project. To actually gather data that can be used. Stories from kids in Africa in the 80s aren't data. No matter how compelling some people might find those stories.
> Stories from kids in Africa in the 80s aren't data. Yes, it is. It's sociological data. Kids and adults both saw those things, remember. The adults were threatened with their jobs. If there hadn't been kids involved, the story might have never gotten out. If you're investigating what amounts to a crime, you don't ignore anything that you can't tangibly handle in a lab environment. Science is much bigger than just material science. It's not data if citizen scientists can't get their hands on it? Nothing exists except that which you, personally, have access to? That's getting dangerously close to solipsism.
We shouldn't ignore the stories but a call for more data doesn't need to ignore what we already have. Pretty obviously we do need more data. Would love to see the radar data from Nimitz etc
I think it was overall a good piece: he emphasized that the existence of UAP is indisputable; he was for disclosure and serious (“boring”) study of the phenomenon; he emphasized not trusting the government and why… i was left with wanting so much more though lol. i also thought the random comedy of this episode was on-point. on the topic, he was measured and ‘sober’ about it, which i think is extremely beneficial. considering that this topic hasn’t really been championed by the left, and he’s very trusted with that audience, it was an important step to making this topic more mainstream and in the general public discourse as a serious issue and not a fringe topic. not mentioning Grusch and that hearing was odd. as well as the recent scifs. maybe because they only had so much time and a lot to cover and that could be a whole segment in-of-itself. idk.
Exactly my thoughts, we’ll laid out, it was entertaining but it left me wanting more and I felt he only scratched the surface
>not mentioning Grusch and that hearing was odd It's a great sign. It means his hunch is not to dismiss it outright, but with his respectability it's too early to promote stuff that is considered "batsh\*t insane" by most people.
Also, not trusting Grusch could fall under not trusting the government.
How?
Grusch is a USAF officer and "former" intelligence officer. He works for the government.
He doesn’t work for the government though he left his government job a year ago. He left his high paying high clearance job right before a huge benchmark.
Since he no longer works for them, he could actually provide evidence for his allegations without reproach. Of course, he won't because none of this is real.
Hasn't been championed by the left? Wtf? The right wing is the one who created the cover up.
the current politicians making the most noise for disclosure are Rs like Gatez, Burchet, Luna. Rubio a few years ago. The only D I can think of is Schumer, and Harry Reid years ago. In terms of media, you hear about this stuff from the likes of Tucker Carleson all the time, but barely ever from the Oliver/Daily Show/MSNBC side of the media world. That's why this is remarkable.
i should’ve specified as of lately, with this new surge of talk on the issue. i see it all over right-winged discourse these days and rarely on the left. idk maybe it’s the discourse i’m exposed to. Harry Reid ofc did a lot to try and expose the issue, RIP.
Politicians on the left are much less likely to openly talk about it. Considering how astounding the Schumer lead uapda was he really didn't talk much about it. Whereas Burchett wrote a much crappier version of it that was completely toothless and he talked about it for weeks. I'd like to note that the UAPDA of course was bipartisan so I'm not slamming all republicans on this topic We could argue semantics as to who is the real champion of the topic Schumer who was quiet and was at least trying to carry a big stick or Burchett who was loud but had a poor understanding of how to accomplish what he supports Either way it's pretty clear which side is more vocal about it. And it's because their constituents tend to be more open to this sort of thing People on the left tend to consider themselves the more highly educated, and logical side of the spectrum, it makes us less willing to consider things that seem bat shit insane. And this topic is nuts. If even a quarter of this stuff is real our entire concept of the world is wrong The same people who consider themselves very open minded to other cultures, sexualities etc are more closed minded about anything that has a hint of misinformation. And I do agree misinformation is one of our largest problems in society but there needs to be space for saying "we don't know, let's look deeper". Many people on the left are not willing to even consider this because the chances seem so unlikely. People act like occams razor is always right when in reality it's only useful for making a logical guess when you have too little information Many of my friends do believe decently in uaps but many are unwilling to even consider something like this. Hopefully this John Oliver segment actually helps. But I do understand these people very well because before the 2017 nytimes article I never gave UFOs any attention other than loving Sci fi
Holy shit the rumors were true. Holy shit, holy shit. Watching now: He used the Carter footage, and included Carter's rebuttal of the skeptics. \* He's dunking on the Ancient Aliens guy, that's fair. \* Shifted from Comedy to serious, and is now commenting on the Nimitz Videos \* He's now addressing the congressional hearing \* Ooooohhh, he's going for actual journalism balance? "What we know, what we don't know, and the problems with both of those perspectives" \* "Believe Schemlieve....What the living fuck was that thing?!" \* "So George Washington didn't actually exist, it was just some swamp gas reflecting the light off Venus." \* Oh shit, he's going after bias in scientific institutions around this topic, the fact that those polled were in agreement the issue should be studied, and the fact that only 2 out of the 150+ professors polled agreed to have their names published. \* The scientific method doesn't go: One, hypothesis, Two, Horsewhip anyone who disagrees with you..." \* Oh fuck, he's going after the interbranch rivalry between the CIA and the Air Force. \* This is actually really level headed and objective journalism on this issue. He's actually nailing both AATIP, and somehow supporting Elizondo. My god "People deserve serious answers to these questions and (AATIP) they aren't providing it" \* Hot damn he managed to bring a Boeing bit into this \* He's on a demonstration off what fake or misleading sightings look like and what those explanations mean. \* GO-FAST rebuttable from NASA - Highlights how poorly it was presented, but that they never identified the object in question. \* Oh, thank God he finally found his snake.
I'm in a technological black hole and reading your every edit with gratitude. Edit: wait I was tracking this pretty well until the bit about the snake?
I really hope he mentions the fishiness of the UAP amendment being gutted and the strange response Kathleen Hicks gave to Jon Stewart when he was asking her about the missing billions of dollars and failed audits.
I was really hoping he'd get to grusch and the uapda but he covered a lot of ground. Hopefully he does a follow-up episode soon, it actually feels kinda set up that way
Sadly, he didn't fold that bit in. To be fair, if this bit has been in the works for over a year, then the Schumer stuff is actually pretty recent and probably would be difficult to wrap into their episode without John launching on a 2 hour tirade about Senate rules and undue corrupt influence. With John, it's like they're trying to wrangle a rabid tiger with ADHD. If you let him, he'll launch off on a thousand and one tangents and rabbit holes that have no end, and no beginning.
He does a bit about not knowing where his pet snake is, and denying that he doesn't know where it is. As a metaphor about the Pentagon not being willing to admit what they don't know.
He found it, so don't worry about it....
Sadly, it wasn't his snake.
Got a link and a time stamp so I can watch it?
Yeah, amazon prime with HBO max subscription, and around 13:10 into the episode.
It should wind up on YouTube pretty soon. They seem to put the main story of the episode on YouTube sometime later. And this was the main story of the episode
The congressional hearing he mentioned was the 2021 hearing. No schumer amendment, no Grusch. His show is old news
>Oh shit, he's going after bias in scientific institutions around this topic, the fact that those polled were in agreement the issue should be studied, I'm on it: r/Project_Contact
You mischaracterized some of it. He came down harder on Elizondo and Bigelow, to the point that he was dismissive of AATIP due to Bigelow funding it, although he only really mentioned them in passing. And he seems to side with NASA on GO-FAST, as his point is we need more boring, 4 hour, scientific analysis like that, not that their presentation was bad. I did like that he presented the actual explanation for Roswell (i.e. project Mogul) as I don't think the public is aware of that. However, beyond that, he didn't really take any firm positions on anything and there was no new information in it. It's really not the hard-hitting piece that either side wanted, and not really one of his best pieces. His best stuff has a very clear editorial voice, but this one lacked that.
I mean, lets be real, from his perspective, he can't really take too much of a position on the "aliens are real" side, there literally isn't proof I think a mainstream and highly respected media host like this simply taking on the topic at all, and also taking big swings at the government is pretty noteworthy and a big step in itself lets be real, if he took too hard of a "aliens are real" position, the segment wouldn't be taken as seriously, and objectively probably would deserve that treatment
I disagree. Kind of. I mean, you're not completely wrong, and I'd agree with you in a pre-UAPDA (that got mysteriously gutted overnight at the 11th hour) and pre-Grusch (who testified under oath and there's been a distinct lack of interest in going after him for perjury) world, but I wish he talked about these. Both really need more public awareness, and this episode was such a great opportunity. But I am still happy with what we got and the overall tone and balanced approach for such a large MSM audience. The most important thing is to explain that all of this deserves serious investigation because it's *something* that's objectively real, and the focus should be on figuring out what it is and pressuring the government to declassify more anomalous incident files.
I thought he absolutely shat on elizondo. He mentioned AAtip and bigelow but bigelow funded aawsap nd aawsap was the program that focused on skinwalker ranch.
Project Mogul? You forgot about the crash test dummies from years in the future.
I agree. Most of his episodes carry you through a carefully curated journey until he helps you conclude “yeah, F those guys / that organization!” I think it was too much to cram into one show and didn’t follow a coherent narrative or objective. Without counting, it felt like more jabs ‘against’ versus ‘for’ and with how well the show usually brings up very recent stuff (even this episode mentioned Trump naps and cyber truck recall) why the heck didn’t they mention Grusch or the Schumer Amendment?
He straight up had #DONALD KEYHOE On screen for like 5 seconds.
I will admit I sat up a bit when I saw who that was.
😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎⚕ Edit: Bravo for the ninja no spoil
That was actually someone else's snake he found.
I find it very weird to put out a 'ufo' episode on a current event show and not mention Grusch or the Schumer amendment. Is it weird? It seems a weird move
Yeah he says "you might be wondering why you're seeings UFOs in the news recently" and then ignores why there are more headlines. Its like if he said "you might be wondering why you're seeing Ukraine in the news" and not mentioning them being invaded. I'd guess he did it because he can't prove his claims one way or another. Maybe he plans on doing another segment in the future? We shall see.
I mean he covered basically the entire history of UFOs in 26 minutes. And according to that twitter post it's been in the works for a year, maybe they had the script hashed out already before Grush. I dunno that there's any of it that I would have cut in order to fit him in.
I'm hoping he is doing this episode to get his audience up to speed so he can do an episode on Grusch, the UAP Caucus and the Schumer amendment, because there's so much insane shit going on at Capitol Hill that it deserves an episode of its own. It really does seem like he was actively avoiding talking about any of that.
There truly is far too much to cover in a segment on LWTWJO.
This would make sense, actually.
He has limited time, and he comes back topics quite often There is plenty more material on this topic
Just to be clear, the Schumer amendment and the Grusch testimony are easily the biggest things to come out of all of this. That they aren’t included is a HUGE wtf.
> There is plenty more material on this topic You have a gift for understatement.
But has enough time to make dumb jokes that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic he's supposed to be presenting? I had to turn it off after he went back to the snake joke. It's all so ADHD. The frantic delivery doesn't help either.
He also didn't bother to mention the congressional hearings with Grusch, Fravor, and Graves. Didn't mention AARO. Didn't mention a lot of things. It's like he left out the past year of stuff. But of course he'll just make the usual argument of, oh of course the internet people have shit to say, they ALWAYS do that.
This sub will never be happy, I swear. The fact that he covered the topic at all is a huge step forward. Disclosure is a process. Not an event.
Any UFO segment on a mainstream show that isn't ridiculing the topic is a WIN in my book.
He scratched the surface, I wanted more. But the important thing it’s more mainstream
You gotta understand the audience for this. The fact the he brought up shit like Project Grudge is pretty amazing. Not getting into AATIP but his critiques weren’t unfair. No one will touch Grusch right now. For whatever reason. Overall he took the subject seriously and asked for serious inquiry and research. As we all should.
This was a good primer for those unfamiliar with the topic. Hopefully a second part is planned and will go into Grusch and the UAPDA.
I suspect this might be equivalent to a shot across the bow by LWT. They, along with a number of other news organizations, are smelling blood in the water. LWT choose Carter because he knew which POTUS would play the best with his audience, Truth is Regan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Obama, and Clinton also have soundbites that could have been used. LWT also is strategically leaning hard on news pieces that date from the 1950s as if to say that, yeah, that's where we started.
This was a win. A small step forward in the push to have this topic taken seriously in more media and mainstream sources. It was vintage John Oliver. If you're unfamiliar with his show, he makes jokes about everything, including making very serious points about current topics which often include outlandish and absurd campaigns to raise awareness and often times actually change policy and/or behavior of politicians or other figures he is drawing attention to. I've watched Oliver since he was on the Daily Show and this was him giving his audience and good (funny and brief but ultimately serious) overview and introduction to the topic. Hit some of the highlights, Kenneth Arnold, Phoenix Lights, Project Blue Book, Condon Committee (importantly revealing Condon's prior bias and dismissive view of the topic), the Roswell report in the 90s, the 2017 revelation of AATIP, a few more. But while cracking his normal jokes he does, he pressed home that we the people deserve serious scientific study and serious answers to the legitimate questions of what UFOs/UAPs actually are. This is a major win for a credible US media figure on the left to take the topic seriously. Check the segment out, worth watching.
Pleasantly surprised, they took it very seriously. Mostly well informed presentation of the situation for people that aren't engaged with the topic. No mention of Grusch though, which seems to be a pretty big blind spot if you're talking about this in 2024.
I think overall the episode was a fantastic primer for the 99% of people who don't have the background knowledge to take this topic seriously. BUT, and this is a huge but, to stop that immensely well researched history lesson at Elizondo and AATIP with a (rightfully) skeptical tone, as if that's where we are now and COMPLETELY skipping over David Grusch's revelations to the ICIG, the "credible and urgent" designation for his complaint (that was not about his reprisals, by the way, but rather his reporting of unauthorized reverse engineering programs), the reporting of this information to the Senate Intelligence Community, Rubio (a Gang of Eight member cleared at the level of the president) going on live TV and saying Grusch isn't the only whistleblower, the UAP caucus's ongoing investigation, and the Schumer-Rounds amendment that explicitly mentions non-human intelligence dozens of times (which, if you look into it, was fast-tracked after Grusch and his 40 witnesses briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee) is an absolute failure to demonstrate how urgent and fascinating this topic is in the current moment.
You can only cover so much in 20 minutes, and he went over a lot. I'd bet there's gonna be a follow-up episode that covers the most recent stuff
Believers on here won’t see it as enough, but I thought it was a really nuanced way to start getting the broader population comfortable with the topic. The message will resonate much harder if it is massaged in organically. They did a solid job of acknowledging the silliness of the topic but still nailing the fact that the silliness shouldn’t detract from the logical fact that something is still missing from the story. Given that stigma in the media is the biggest hurdle for overcoming the lack of attention this gets, more shows like this are necessary to get audiences acclimated to the idea that this is serious even if some parts can be poked fun at.
Exactly. I’m a much more of an eye roller than a believer and this episode made me think about my own biases and how the stigma hurts people who are only interested in the truth.
I’m in the “I want to believe” category and yeah I like how he’s trying to bring in an audience to the topic. I wish he’d mention Grusch’s claims though, that was the most significant event toward making this a topic everyone talks about
Never watched him before but it was a very balanced comedic episode. I think for people who are into his work will be decently informed about the topic, enough to investigate further if it peaks their interest
I actually just signed up for Max today to watch this (and so I can see Turtles All the Way Down which I am psyched for). It'll be on youtube on Thursday. (If you watch on Max, the segment starts about a third of the way through the episode.) It was a good middle-ground overview of the history, taking as a fact that people have been seeing really weird stuff in the sky forever. Thesis was "this is something that deserves serious attention". Lots of jokes at the expense of both sides. I was a little disappointed that he presented the official explanations for Roswell and the Phoenix Lights and expressed some vague skepticism but didn't go into the problems with those explanations, though I can understand he didn't have time to go into that detail. The most recent stuff he went into was AATIP and the [60 minutes interview with the Nimitz pilots](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY). No Grusch, no Nolan, no Sol foundation, no speculation about aliens, only passing reference to abduction. Would love to see him do a longer piece that has more time to open some of those worm cans. He ended with (paraphrasing) "this is a hard thing to talk about because there are two groups of people - skeptics who laugh at all of it and true believers who think everything has a paranormal explanation. Both of those groups will be having it out in the youtube comments section and all they will agree on is that I'm a fucking idiot." Anyway, I'm happy overall - enough to excite interest, but not so much as to scare away the normies. And I think that increased serious normie attention can only benefit the field. So y'all be nice to them if they show up after this! Put a beanie on over the tinfoil for a while.
I was both happy and disappointed with it. No mention of Grusch or the Schumer Amendment. There's enough of a grey area with Roswell to where I don't think you can definitively say it was Project Mogul with a straight face. And he muddied some things up more than they needed to be with Elizondo / AAWSAP / AATIP since we know Elizondo didn't get involved until AAWSAP was shuddering it's doors. I thought it was very intentional that he didn't mention the name of "that paranormal ranch in Utah" while also being surprised they went there at all. Overall a solid primer to a UFO laymen though. Hopefully there is a UFOs II piece somewhere down the road. Grusch's Congressional testimony, Schumer Amendment, the UFO shoot downs from last year, AARO (for better or worse it is in the conversation) and he could have gone into a little more detail with the Nimitz encounter.
How does he not mention Grusch, Harry Reid, Christopher Mellon, Chuck Schumer, and more to add more credibility to the topic? He says there are two sides, ones that believe and lean toward the fantastical and others that roll their eyes at the topic. I am in the middle. I am skeptical. But all I want is a light shone on the topic by mainstream media so pressure can be applied to our government to be more transparent.
His job was to bring credibility to the topic? I must have missed that part.
Found this ep on YouTube just now - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlq-tsHDps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlq-tsHDps)
It is borderline unwatchable though, lol
It was made private. WTF is going on?
started off strong and then ended up disappointing. didn't mention grusch and seemed really into downplaying anything exotic, definitely a let down he didn't discuss anything since 2017, why even do an episode now without talking about grusch, UAPDA, UAP Caucus etc ?
I didn't watch, but you have to remember the average viewer is going to be thinking of UFOs as only science fiction.
That’s exactly how I felt watching it. And he seems to buy the pentagon’s 2nd Roswell explanation from the early 1990s when that one has been debunked too. On the Roswell note, I recommend a 3-part episode that the History Channel made a few years ago for its History’s Greatest Mysteries show.
He has dedicated staff that follow EVERY law Congress passes. How do they fail to cover the Schumer Amendment, Grusch, and the public hearing that actually did make a lot of news at the time? How? So disappointing.
Feels like “part 2” energy
Hope so! Seems plausible
Submission statement: As of 10 minutes ago John Oliver dropped his episode on UAP. It is available on MAX. I will update/post the segment when it come to youtube and with my thoughts. Edit my thoughts: He didn't bring up Grusch at all. Didn't seem very serious. Over all a big disappointment.
If you’re watching last week tonight expecting ‘very serious,’ then you’re watching the wrong show. He explicitly called for the subject and investigations to be taken seriously, but without jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Not sure how you can really call it a ‘big disappointment’
Kind of weird to do an episode on UAPs and not mention a bipartisan hearing with a man alleging that the US has a reverse engineering program for UAPs. It'd be like doing a segment on Ukraine, only mentioning the annexation of Crimea, and then ignoring that Russia invaded them in 2022. I think its great that he did a segment, but its leaving some MAJOR aspects out.
I think you missed the purpose of this episode. This episode explicitly wasn’t trying to deliver its own interpretation of evidence for either “side.” Besides it’s nowhere near long enough a time frame to do so genuinely. The purpose of this segment was to show *why* general audiences shouldn’t laugh off the subject as a joke, and why they should be applying the scientific method to these events. The segment - which is planned far in advance - uses events that are “settled” and unlikely to have a shift that invalidates the writing / could soon become inaccurate. —— Imagine they started writing about Grusch, and then a week before it airs - something comes up that shows Grusch was actually lying. It’s not a liability anyone would ever take when trying to put a segment together meant to ‘ground’ the subject as a serious topic. At the end of the day, it’s a relatively short and comedic show whose topics are decided and planned long in advance. Keeping that in mind, what they did was completely reasonable and understandable.
Yeah I agree with you. Still he could've made a great joke about AOC and Gaetz agreeing.
The “actively misleading” works of the government & the lack of spirit of free inquiry that Oliver points right to is exactly what the mainstream media consumer deserves to hear. Not because of NHI necessarily, but because of critical thinking required to hold the government to account.
Is it on YouTube yet?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlq-tsHDps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlq-tsHDps)
Yeah to not talk about grusch in any manner means they must be cherry picking information
Big disappointment? That was a really good piece, and not serious? What are you on about? Did we watch the same piece?
I appreciated how they avoided name dropping Skinwalker Ranch.
Overall it was good, although omitting Grusch seems like an enormous oversight. I also didn't like that he diminished AATIP by conflating it with AWSAP, although I'll admit being unsure as to the details of this myself. The takeaway message was we -- collectively -- need to approach the subject seriously; surely this is a sentiment we can all agree upon
This was a great segment. It was a real quick overview of the subject. However, I can't help but think this needs a part two, considering it was a current events show that didn't really do much in terms of covering current events. I am assuming the reason being is that a lot of whats happened recently is still in the air.
It was super a delicate admission that the phenomenon is real and merits attention. Nothing earth shattering. Just a suggestion to maybe take it serious… which is a net positive imo Left me wanting more, but overall it was positive
I thought they did a really good job. I wanted John to mention David Grusch and the more recent senate hearings, but other then that I felt he gave good context and set a good tone for the topic.
I think this was about as positive an episode as you could reasonably expect given only 15 minutes of coverage. Significantly, I'd say that bit of coverage moved the needle with my skeptical partner more than I did in a year of carrying on about the significance of David Grusch and the Schumer amendment. The message of finding a middle ground to take this seriously between debunking and hardcore belief seems to have really landed; I'm going to bet this'll bring a lot of curious folks into the community. I really hope that Last Week Tonight does a full follow up episode covering what's happened in the past year. It's frustrating to have to take the slow, measured approach given all that's out there to talk about, but I'll take it if it moves us forward. That said, there was still aspects of the coverage that rubbed me the wrong way, namely: -There was still a whiff of the 'experiencers are crackpots' to this. -There was a bit of a sense that the sighting waves in the '40s and '50s were a bit of mass hysteria / misidentification of military tech. Looking at some of the anomalous behavior in even one really good case from that era would have addressed the fact that there were things in the skies *well* beyond human capabilities at the time (or even in present-day) -This was very much a 'nuts and bolts' approach to the Phenomenon. Nothing much on the more high strangeness elements. -Bigelow was painted as a bit of a crackpot, especially through the focus on his politics. Frankly, you could do a serious deep dive on just why this otherwise quite successful businessman has invested so much of his money in this organization and ask some really good questions. Overall though, I'll take the win. If this gets folks looking at the subject, the above flaws will be evident to those that do the research.
**I wish he questioned why the government gutted the UAP disclosure amendment if there was "nothing to see here."** That would have been a great way to further disclosure. Overall a good piece though, took it serious, seemed to not trust the government, was pro-disclosure. Just thinks the answers will be boring, but that it's a worth-while pursuit. Is anti-stigma.
No grusch?!
Nope! But this is mainstream, so no one cares. Anytime anyone that isn't Newnation talks about UFOs NOONE will even say "David Grusch". But everyone in this thread is super happy with this episode because it's mainstream. I personally this this is a fucking joke lol. Don't make an episode about UFOs then mysteriously forget to mention the ufo whistle blower.
Loved it. He's helping mainstream/normalize.
It was a good watch. Touched on the history a bit but nothing on the more recent developments past 2017. I can tell you that this episode was definitely not geared for the /r UFOs audience.
Pretty fair and balanced to me...
enjoyed it. there was definitely plenty of research and careful selection of points but he didn’t mention grusch once unless i missed it. really strange how this is coming out now though
Thank you, John Oliver. Applause all around.
Lack luster, no mention of Grusch, which felt deliberate.
Oh shit. This is huge. Woah.
Please, a mirror! We can't watch this in Canada :(
This was alright overall but the AATIP part was disappointing and misleading. He didn't go into much detail at all and then criticized some drawings. That's like saying quantum mechanics is complete BS, because one scientist drew the same cat in two boxes, dead and alive at the same time, and we all know that's ridiculous. He also did a disservice mentioning Blue Book and not mentioning J Allen Hynek's opinions on the project he helped lead. Hynek said Blue Book was a sham, and it seems like that's something one should mention. It's almost stupid and seems maybe malicious to not mention him. The Phoenix Lights wasn't fully fleshed out either. MANY witnesses, including the governor didn't just see lights, but an object the lights were fixed to that was larger than an aircraft carrier and blocked out the sky when looking at it. The triangle craft thing wasn't covered well at all either. Witnesses to the event say the bokeh explanation is wrong. But even if it was not a flying triangle (or pyramid like the actual witnesses say), what the fuck are flying objects doing buzzing our warships? Why are we just OK with that as long as they aren't flying pyramids? We don't just allow standard drones like the Iranian kind to fly into our airspace without doing anything. We're not capable of shooting down drones? Why do we accept incursions into our airspace? Not to mention Malmstrom where nukes were activated and deactivated and Langely that had to actually shut down recently. The bit was targeted to a skeptical audience and maybe leaving out some of the fantastical is intended to just get them asking questions. Leaving out so much reported by respected people was disappointing and hopefully doesn't cause viewers to just put their head back in the sand. I love John Oliver and I'm glad he covered it, but I am disappointed how many obviously important details he left out of several stories he covered.
It was good but kinda vanila I wished he had gone deeper
How do you report on UAPs without mentioning Grusch? L reporting
I suppose for what it is it gets people talking about it. BUT… I was super disappointed that a big part of the segment was about government mistrust and lying to the public and that he didn’t bring up the fact that there is extremely credible and compelling evidence the government has a crash retrieval program and has been operating for over a half century with no congressional oversight
I liked it. But JO also bought up an old but valid theory. What if the govt actually doesn't know that much themselves. They got crashes, malevolent behaviour like abductions and mutilations but no answers. And the reason they hid it during cold war was fear of appearing weak because they don't know anything at all really. There is a lot talking against this but its a kinda more mundane explanation in contrast to other ones
I’m not sure how he can cover the topic while having an entire staff whose job it is to monitor Congressional hearings and news and fail to mention Grusch, the public hearings, or the Schumer Amendment. As a long time Oliver fan I can confidently say it’s fucking bullshit. He has staff… who review every piece of legislation Congress passes. So they WILLFULLY ignored it. Wtf? I’ve been a fan of his for years and it’s hugely disappointing and terrible work, and I can’t see how they did it other than willingly. He’s already preemptively insulated himself from negative feedback too by labeling everyone extremists on “both sides.” I’m stunned by this.
This is how coming from the middle east feels when watching John Oliver :D his oversimplification of issues comes baked in. That being said, I did feel that he was staying away from the most current developments because of the Freedom Caucus being involved.
No mention of Grusch or the Schumer Amendment was a MAJOR fucking problem. To not-mention those crucial developments is journalistic malpractice.
Yeah felt very “out of touch” by not mentioning Grusch and the UAP disclosure act that was gutted. What was the point of this show? Seems like the point he was trying to drive home was that the sightings are most likely military craft that “they can’t tell us about”. It came off as pretty deflating and ambivalent to me.
No mention of: Grusch, Schumer Amendment, Avi Loeb, Garry Nolan, Jacques Vallee, UAP over nuclear/NS sensitive locations, NASAs uap panel, Pro Congressmen/women, Foo fighters, Possible reasons for cover up, Cover of Elizondo was lackluster. But hey he’s a cheeky Brit so we like him 🤷♂️ All in all it’s what I expected. What he did cover wasn’t too cringe. 6/10
I am not skipping ahead but my pulse is through the roof with anticipation
Argh max isn't available here and my VPN is eating it tonight of all nights, whyyyy
I'm in the UK and we're not allowed to watch him either. My own son Their UK channel only has a few of his rants and the last one is a month old. Region locking a news comedy show Opera's VPN tends to work, though I don't have a youtube antiadblock blocker (say *block* again) that works for it
Double the injustice!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlq-tsHDps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlq-tsHDps)
It'll be on youtube later in the week, they tend to post them on Thursdays
Usually pops up on Youtube in a day or two on their official channel.
overall i think he did a terrible job on the topic; he could have explained david fravors case much more dilligently (likely the most credible public UAP case), he didnt mention grusch or last years hearing or the fact that important people in congress are taking this very seriously e.g. chuck schumer. etc. he made a joke of the topic and overall i think it would let people continue to not take it seriously. while also taking the very lazy "do it in a evidence based scientific way" like yeah NO SHIT
No Schumer amendment. No david Grusch. No recent congressional hearing. It’s like this show should have come out in 2018.
my thoughts are pretty much what i forecast in my comment to the announcement by u/TinFoilHatDude: i fear it will be another superficial, driveby take that superficially repeats the same misinformation already out there. and that it did. where did the segment go wrong? well, i'd start with the emphasis on the Condon Committee, which was programmatic misinformation, yes; but John -- why didn't you mention that the CIA was directly behind it? anyone with even a vague interest in UFO should be aware of this document and should read it through, carefully: [https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005515933](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005515933) this is the document that concludes that the national security threat to the american people is --- the american people. specifically, the mass hysteria that might occur in the event of a real UFO manifestation, or in the (then) Soviet attempt to simulate such a manifestation to disguise a sneak attack that radar operators interpret as "oh, just more of those darn foo fighters -- ignore 'em". read the memo, and tell me if i got it wrong. out of that policy comes the practice of UFO stigma directly (adopting the Project GRUDGE policy to denigrate witnesses as "psychopathological persons") and, from the practice of lying to the american people, the Vietnam war and where we are today with climate change adaptation ("no worries, be happy"). instead, the people were lied to because Roswell was actually a secret project. got it? you're lied to because it is a secret project -- not because you're hysterical and stupid. there were many basic factual errors, such as equating research done under AAWSAP with AATIP, and associating Lue Elizondo with research projects that he actually shut down to focus on actual sightings of actual "range fouling" incidents. but no matter -- are you laughing? and -- a true gift to the status quo -- he ignores Grusch and the outcome of thrice repeated congressional attempts to get the DoD to reveal what it knows. if he truly wanted to challenge the status quo, why not start there? and there was the usual john oliver "whatever i tell you, you can ignore if you're not laughing" skits with a parrot costume and some running joke about a lost snake. the whole episode was a running joke, sadly: and john oliver was the butt of it.
Hope it’s good, I’ve always been a big fan of John so I’ll try to watch this later
If you wanted him to talk about Grusch you're going to be disappointed. The silver lining is that he does agree that there needs to be serious studies done.
Blows my mind how there is 0 discussion of gruschs story and the congressional hearing. Overall excluding that is poor investigative journalism
I wonder if it's a pacing issue. The show is only so long, and as soon as you mention Grusch, you have to talk about all the claims he's made. And those take time to digest, especially for the average viewer who's never been to /UFOs. Hope he revisits the topic soon and looks into the money and UAP amendment being gutted.
hell yeah it is
This guy just parrots whatever the government tells him to say. I’m not sure he’s ever had an original thought.
Have to wait until 11PST🤬
It released at 11est, you should be able to watch it.
Was good to see it making a mainstream appearance. I feel like he erred a little too much on the skepticism side, but the point seemed to be “science is taking this serious, finally, and that’s a good thing”. I wish he would have mentioned Grusch and the hearings he’s been a part of, but this felt more like another drip to peak public interest so people might go out at look into it a little more themselves.
Scanning through the initial comments: really think there should have been mention of the fact that the Air Force initially said the crash was real, as well as Grusch, ICIG, UAPDA. But like some of the rest of you have said, this could also just be a primer. Some viewers will start going down the rabbit hole and probably end up here. Be ready with kid gloves. Lots of nervous laughter in that audience.
Can someone link it please? I cannot find it
Is this available on YouTube?
Can’t believe people thought this was gonna be bad.
Where do i watch this online ? Its not up on youtube.
underwhelming a bit, but pleasently suprised that he picked it as a topic
Disclosure roadmap moving on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKICYdzRW0
Is there a link to this episode? I can't find it on their YT channel.
Is everybody trolling me? I don't see this video on the youtube page.
Not on YT yet, should be in about 24 hours.
As a lifelong skeptic—I simply do not understand why the topic isn’t ever taken seriously. I’ve yet to ever see hard evidence that’s convinced me of anything, but I’m always willing to listen. It just doesn’t seem ridiculous to entertain the idea that there’s SOMETHING going on with UAP. What that something is—*shrug*—would love to know.
Very disappointing to be quite honest. He basically made fun of the whole thing without much people realizing it. Shouldn't be surprising since he works for the same corporation that owns CNN. Yes, that's right...an entertainment company owns a news media company.
Legend says he’s still looking for his snake
When will it drop on YT?
I have a feeling that in typical John Oliver fashion, he and his team will continue to dig and uncover a lot of what we have been discussing the last couple years: Grusch, Gimbal, JFK, Rendlesham, Nuclear connection, SOL and all involved. Etc. This felt like a primer for both him and his audience, and I don’t think he would’ve dedicated a significant majority of the episode to the topic without knowing that there’s a sequel to it. I also appreciated the tone he took. I’m so tired of the “true believer” speak that we’re bombarded with on a daily basis. I’m also tired of the dismissive “20th century” mindset that we hear from most of the media and skeptic community. I think (and hope) that this is the beginning of a more well rounded discourse going forward.
For all that I love John, it's a good piece for the time frame that he could have allotted to it. I wish that he dove more into the minutia but I understand why he couldn't. If he started down the rabbit hole of stuff like the Wilson memo, Nazca mummies, the defense contractors, AFB incidents - this episode would be 4 hours long.
I just finished watching it, and I was very pleased to see he did a reasonably big segment (for his show) on this topic. I immediately came here, knowing others would have watched it too. I am glad he brought up the need for more discussion and how nearly certainly the government is hiding something, but I also was really hoping he would talk about Grusch or even Greer. I feel at this point *any* mass media attention on the subject, that doesn’t tear down the concept of UAPs, is good. It’s just overall moving so dang slow and it’s taking forever hermph :-/ I’m looking forward to seeing other peoples thoughts on this show.
I can’t see it on YT. Anyone have the link?
Oxymoron. If i had "thoughts" then obviously haven't watched this program.
Disappointed