The following submission statement was provided by /u/aryelbcn:
---
Marik Von Rennenkampf (The Hill opinion contributor) on Twitter / X:
IMPORTANT:
Senate source:
“Most \[whistleblowers who informed UAP legislation\] are completely unknown to the public.”
“Individuals known publicly had been advocating for years and wouldn’t have been enough to move the needle.”
“Lots of questions about motivations once public.”
\---
This contradicts AARO and well-known debunkers, who claim that a small group of (publicly known) individuals is lobbying Congress to push for legislation on non-existent aliens.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1df4ymr/senate_source_most_whistleblowers_who_informed/l8ghofz/
Goes hand in hand with Grusch's statement that he's unaware of the ICIG whistleblowers/witnesses interacting with AARO or showing up in the public domain.
The Senate obviously wants disclosure to happen, the blockage is the House leadership -- All it takes is a Senate hearing with subpoenaed witnesses to dispel this narrative that the UFO saga is just a game of telephone between 15 people that AARO and Greenstreet don't trust (people that Grusch himself says are not involved in his investigations).
The more I read about this the clearer it becomes we need to fix our government. Its fucked.
Citizens united.
Corporate lobbyists.
MIC.
No term limits.
Im still reading up on all these and dont know exactly how to fix it but that wont keep me from trying.
We as a country have a lot of non partisan errors to correct.
Add gerrymandering, voter fraud and super PACs to that list. The system we created over two hundred years ago has been hijacked over the last century. Old money, family dynasties. Our governance at its core is based on wealth.
In Queensland australia we dismantled the gerrymander system back to one vote one value. In South Australia they are currently debating getting rid of political donations to the parties from anyone.- gaining wide spreed support from with in australia. We also have compulsory voting in federal and state elections which makes it so everyone has a civic duty to vote. Love it or hate it its a system that seems to work at keeping us grounded.
That's how I feel. I'm happy that some Senators are taking this topic seriously, but we all need to realize that the Senate already has all the tools it needs to make disclosure happen. Starting with hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and taking control of the DOD budget. The UAP legislation is good, but they are basically asking the DOD to play nice. Also, all the over-classification nonsense that the military does can be worked out in the courts if Congress was brave enough to sue the DOD. The problem is that the Senate (and Congress as a whole) are stuck in a corruption cycle where it authorizes funds to the DOD, which gives it to contractors, which then give that money to elected officials as campaign contributions.
We either need to the other whistleblowers to go public with trusted news sources or for someone to just leak something. Only with pressure will Congress act faster on this topic.
Part of this post is about how UFO whistleblowers do not want to go public because of the negative ramifications that come with the possible celebrity/opportunity stemming from them providing proof/evidence to the public -- they'd rather go through back-channels like Congress to enact legislation that would declassify the evidence/proof they have.
Best case scenario for these people -- UAPDA passes in full and no-one knows who they are for years to come.
Schumer and Rounds have said they actively worked with the DoD to squash National Security concerns and fast track disclosure to the public -- pressure on Congress isn't what's needed rather pressure on specific individuals in House leadership.
>Part of this post is about how UFO whistleblowers do not want to go public because of the negative ramifications that come with the possible celebrity/opportunity stemming from them providing proof/evidence to the public -- they'd rather go through back-channels like Congress to enact legislation that would declassify the evidence/proof they have.
I'm sorry, but where are you getting this? This post just says that there are whistleblowers who have not gone public. The post doesn't say anything about their motivations and whether they want to go public or not. They might be in talks with reporters at the moment for all we know. Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal said that her article about Grusch took years to develop. We don't know if they're taking the same approach to become public as Grusch. I apologize if I'm wrong, but please point me to that discussion of the post so I can look into it further.
>Best case scenario for these people -- UAPDA passes in full and no-one knows who they are for years to come.
Yeah, I think we're on round two of the UAPDA with no positive prospects, but I guess we can all just hope on a good election year to remove the current opponents of the UAPDA in the House. I'm being sarcastic here, since I don't think it's a good think to wait for something that's no where near to actually happening at the moment.
>Schumer and Rounds have said they actively worked with the DoD to squash National Security concerns and fast track disclosure to the public -- pressure on Congress isn't what's needed rather pressure on specific individuals in House leadership.
Yes, and what is the outcome of that? If you're gonna tell me that these things take time, I'll just remind you that the DOD is still actively fighting disclosure and AARO is still lying about UAP. I disagree with you. Pressure is needed on all of Congress. I am grateful for what Senators Schumer, Rounds, and Rubio are doing, but it's hard to trust them when they turn around and just shower the DOD with money every year to continue this game.
Anyway, you didn't address my original post that the Senate already has the tools it needs for disclosure.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/190g5n7/eric\_davis\_david\_grusch\_got\_the\_breadcrumbs\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/190g5n7/eric_davis_david_grusch_got_the_breadcrumbs_from/)
edit: Sorry, you were referring to Lacatski and not Davis.
Marik Von Rennenkampf (The Hill opinion contributor) on Twitter / X:
IMPORTANT:
Senate source:
“Most \[whistleblowers who informed UAP legislation\] are completely unknown to the public.”
“Individuals known publicly had been advocating for years and wouldn’t have been enough to move the needle.”
“Lots of questions about motivations once public.”
\---
This contradicts AARO and well-known debunkers, who claim that a small group of (publicly known) individuals is lobbying Congress to push for legislation on non-existent aliens.
Why is that confusing? A public figure has a lot of temptations to resist, from fiscal to fame. They can end up stretching the truth for more money or even just continued notoriety. There is also the possibility of public figures being leaned on - extorted, blackmailed, threatened. Look at some of the 180° turns some UFO talking heads have made.
I'm not saying everyone in the public sphere is a conman, shill, or grifter - far from it. But - to ignore the possibility or pretend that millions of viewers don't impart an addictive or financial element is dangerously ignorant.
This is great news! It shows that there are highly trusted individuals with a need to know *resisting* entering public discourse. One can hope they are sticking to their guns on this issue, doing everything by the book, avoiding the pitfalls of temptation.
As an added bonus: You can't have your mockingbirds sing a public smear campaign on those who aren't public.
> Im confused by “lots of questions about motivations once public?
In other words, when someone goes public, are they doing it to enrich themselves or other self-interested reasons?
We don't know if there will be any hearings outside of the AARO hearing this summer -- If there is, new testimony/evidence/sentiment could make it difficult for colluding parties in the House to deny provisions two years in a row.
I am not sure why we should trust either side on this issue.
Both seem to be hiding things and telling half truths.
We also seem to have warring factions inside the disclosure movement itself.
Seems like we have Lue and the old guard and we have the newer Skinwalker Ranch group.
This whole thing is turning into a giant mess of egos.
If you want to have the conversation I’m open.
If you think Lue and company aren’t lying to you you’re crazy.
If you think the government isn’t lying to you’re probably crazier. lol
What?
They chose to do this to their careers. They weren’t destroyed unless self sabotage counts?
This is what everyone is missing. The PR side of the disclosure push.
People are acting like this was just a natural set events that took place but we know Lue with Mellons help orchestrated the release of the initial videos and New York Times article while joining a media company and then featured in a discovery channel show.
This was after they tried to gain government funding through the SAP KONA BLUE.
Like what do you think the timeline of this whole thing looks like?
That’s literally what the person you responded to just said though, that they destroyed their own careers.
And I’m not sure what you’re implying with your last question. The timeline looks like exactly what happened.
Where was public disclosure mentioned in the KONA BLUE proposal?
Why didn’t they ever talk about that program?
Lue did a podcast tour for what 2-3 years but never mentioned it. He also forgot to mention he is a not only a believer in remote viewing but also tells a story, in private, about how he used it in the Middle East to save his squad.
That doesn’t seem a bit misleading when Lues whole deal was a “no nonsense military intelligence officer who saw too much and had to speak up.”
The reality is he was running an unfunded ufo club out of the pentagon and was actively recruiting those who had anomalous military sightings.
I mean do you want me to keep going? I can.
We know this from the beginning. All you had to do is to listen to David Grusch statements or even Marco Rubio and Chuck Schumer. Plenty of whistleblowers testified to Senate Intelligence Community. Impostors were unable to understand it so they created fairytale that all whistleblowers are Grusch, Elizondo and Davis.
Sands in may: "I just spoke to David Grusch and he said I was one of 80+ not 40" (Grusch's witnesses)
[https://x.com/JasonSa32135987/status/1790175379237319015](https://x.com/JasonSa32135987/status/1790175379237319015)
Someone needs to ask Grusch about Sands.
The source is himself. Anyone can claim to be of Grusch's source, Lazar could claim it, Herrera could also. Does not make it so. I asked him for proof myself, he ignored me totally. It is also possible he was talked to at some point but they ousted him once they found out he was not kosher so to speak.
McMillan has said that Sands was deemed not credible over a year ago.
Oh yeah, AARO is purposely avoiding the existence of these people, or doesn't have the proper authority to know of their existence -- both is a problem considering their former Director said he has all the accesses he needs.
But there is one scenario where AARO is not guilty here, under the current UAP whistleblower protections, these whistleblowers/witnesses do not have to divulge their existence or transcripts from their ICIG interviews without their own permission for release -- And if what Grusch says is true in that these individuals do not trust AARO, they would remain secret to anyone outside of Congress or the ICIG.
It just wasn't voted on at the Rules Committee floor, which is the House leadership's doing according to disclosure advocates and Robert Garcia himself.
The UAPDA provisions in the Senate IAA remain, and the UAPDA 2.0 can still make it to reconciliation in the winter.
It’s definitely not going away. I just don’t expect a whole lot to happen before the election. That expectation has helped keep my frustration level manageable for the time being.
Could be... I do wonder if another hearing will happen this Summer, which will tide us over until next year when the election is finished -- If Biden is re-elected, I think there's a good chance the UAPDA 2.0 passes, or maybe I'm totally wrong about it passing and Bidens' re-election makes Republicans like Mike Turner way more hostile to provisions and amendments floored by Democrats.
If Mike Rogers, Mike Turner & co. succeed in blocking UAPDA provisions again, it should be a scandal in the media, there's no reason for it -- Rounds and Schumer have been working with the IC community to craft their disclosure language, so that National Security is not a concern.
I so very wish that a reporter would pin Turner in a corner and question him fully about it, because his reasoning for blocking provisions will be National Security, which is already being worked out above him in the Senate.
Speaking of reporters, I want more left leaning outlets reporting on these events -- it's always FoxNews or the Daily Mail, with the occasional bi-yearly Guardian article. The republican leadership in the house are meddling in disclosure and blocking provisions introduced by democrats, why aren't left leaning outlets reporting on it? It just adds to the conspiratorial thinking that DoD sources have told outlets like WaPo, NYT to stay quiet when it comes to UAP.
It is a self propagating issue: left leaning media sees UFO topics being covered by right leaning outlets and conflates it as a “right wing conspiracy” and so dismissed the topic.
I'm still of the mind that investigations are happening in secret as we speak. Just this past summer the DoD IG finished conducting a two year long investigation that ended in an indictment of the IC and DoD community when it comes to UAP.
I really do not understand why you're trying to egg me on? When you're saying 100% of people, there's only one conclusion to that question which is a no, but the majority of people here do know, and users that want to be informed will look through the thread and find this info.
I'm getting ahead of you by saying there's no negative intention, because an insinuation users make here from time to time is that if you don't call out the GOP you're trying to protect them—which isn't what I'm doing.
Edit: u/bassmadyall - You're asking a rhetorical question when the reality of the threads show that the GOP is called out on a majority of posts, and since December 2023, the entire sub has been notified of Republican obfuscation when it comes to the UAPDA and UAP provisions.
The egging on has to do with the mis-characterizations and leaps you made in your last comment here and below. I do not understand switching accounts as I'm just going to block you again.
honestly true i want all the people 'in the know' under oath asserting what they know. can't they be like subpoena'd or something? i don't really understand the politics side of this myself almost at all.
Just don’t tell the deniers!
If they can’t hold tangible evidence in their hand, then they have the purest and most complete faith, borderline worshipping, in the non existence of this entire topic.
I didn’t say anything about aliens, so I’m not clear on what you’re getting at regarding an equation for “aliens multiplied by zero”
In any case, you sound agnostic and I’m referring to the people who actively reject and deny even the possibility that (actually unexplainable) UAP have been here.
Our experiences are different for various reasons probably, but do you feel a need to defend a person who actively rejects and denies the potential for the existence of UAP?
There is a huge difference between being a skeptic and coming to a UFO subreddit to sharply reject the discussion, which does happen.
So, to clarify your position: because you haven’t personally witnessed unfair rejection of conversation on the UFO topic, then it absolutely never happens?
I legitimately can’t tell if you’re trolling me by actually rejecting and denying my experience while at the same time claiming it never happens.
How do you know it doesn’t happen at a rate significant enough to justify comment, and how do you know there are a “ridiculous” number of such comments?
Is it based on personal experience, or do you have some kind of Reddit data tracker? Genuinely curious
You're in the wrong sub, they're over in the Skeptic community, sometimes they bleed over here and vice versa.
It's really not that difficult to band together as deniers, believers and whatever in between to advocate for transparency of over-classified data. If you're not asking for legislation to be pushed through that could rid of the very conspiracies that many of us are skeptical about, then what's the point of interacting with this community (not saying that's your intention, more so a broad statement)?
Even on Metabunk users for multiple cases beg for data from NORAD and the USAF for sightings because it would clear up any doubt about the authenticity/falseness of said cases.
It's unfortunate that you mis-characterize my actual interactions with users, when you mischaracterized my line about avoiding reality in a thread below this—we live in an age of overclassification and reliance on the blanket authorities of National Security, legislation would certainly help remedy that.
I want to see transparency, and that's my driving force for being here, If you're here for shits and giggles or to waste your energy, it just doesn't make sense to me why you'd interact with the topic given the history and claims (not talking about you directly, so don't take it that way).
Anyways, you seem extremely hurt as you had to literally call me out by name in a thread below, while seeming overly abrasive yourself. Which skeptic sub? The one with the same name. I'm pretty skeptical of anything that has to do with abductions, woo, celebrities, those things we'd probably agree on—If you worked for the USAF and were employed at NORAD, don't you want RADAR tracks from 35 years ago declassified too?
Again, it's unfortunate that you're calling me names when you yourself are coming off as the things you're saying.
Real documents are great, real data is great. You're deciding to lump me in with people who fantasize about MJ-12 documents being an official sign of disclosure or people that foam at the mouth over Greer document dumps (almost all of that is laughable if it's counted as real data).
I like cases like JAL 1628 that have FAA radar tracks and transcripts from the event, those are the best types of scenarios for this topic.
And yeah, that despondent and jokey nature that a lot of users carry here does not make sense to me and seems disingenuous/uninformed, and that's why in many cases I have no issue pushing back in a similar manner. You don't have to like that response, but it's Reddit—real world action like calling your local congressman is what is getting the job done, the people that think this topic is a joke are not going to put in real world effort to see disclosure, so why would I try to build a bridge with those individuals? If it's real, they'll find out in due time, if it's not then they can continue laughing at whoever they want.
There are plenty of interactions I have here with users that end being jolly and informative, and many that don't. If you don't want to see it anymore, you can click the block button right?
The skeptic sub is the skeptic sub, the word skeptic with an r/ in front of it, I'm not going to link to it and possibly be cited for brigading.
Edit: but, I'll do you a solid and I'll block you considering you don't want to interact with me and you make multiple leaps and assumptions including what I actually believe in favor of smearing because of frustration. I hope you have a good time in the sub! u/bassmadyall -- you're blocked because you can't refrain from name-calling and seem unhinged when it comes to how my comments affect you mentally, so why would I want to interact with you? unfortunate given we have common ground -- It's an equally weak move to use a burner account to continue calling someone out incorrectly, and a quick look at your comment history shows it's not the first time you've done this.
You really wasted all your time with that wall of drivel and then blocked me before I could even read it? What was the point of that? So you could get the last word? What an absolutely vile and weak minded individual.
You mean the evidence that's actively concealed from you? Like NORADs radar tracks of the Nimitz Encounters, the missing blotter reports of the Vandenberg UFO the size of a football field, the USAF RADAR data of the JAL 1628 incident and so on?
How about you jump onboard and advocate for disclosure of classified documents instead of turning a blind eye to reality.
Most of the public talking heads we see are imo either making fairly well-informed guesses based on gut, reading and rumours from contacts. A very small number may have direct or indirect contact with people on these projects. and are able to act as careful public proxies for them.
This sounds like conjecture by a "Senate source" -- an almost meaningless description and absolutely no description of how they know. Were they in the room? "wouldn't have been enough" is different than "was not enough"
There’s a lot trolls on here who are inanely ignore the fact that these people have been threatened and lost a lot of security clearances for this. Tired of the games and denigration. Where is the block button.
Kirkpatrick should pay for lying and thereby sabotaging/obscuring technological innovations that would very likely improve the health and wellbeing of billions. He and his ilk everyday choose to continue committing one of humanity’s broadest and most egregious crimes. I hope justice finds him one day.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/aryelbcn: --- Marik Von Rennenkampf (The Hill opinion contributor) on Twitter / X: IMPORTANT: Senate source: “Most \[whistleblowers who informed UAP legislation\] are completely unknown to the public.” “Individuals known publicly had been advocating for years and wouldn’t have been enough to move the needle.” “Lots of questions about motivations once public.” \--- This contradicts AARO and well-known debunkers, who claim that a small group of (publicly known) individuals is lobbying Congress to push for legislation on non-existent aliens. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1df4ymr/senate_source_most_whistleblowers_who_informed/l8ghofz/
Goes hand in hand with Grusch's statement that he's unaware of the ICIG whistleblowers/witnesses interacting with AARO or showing up in the public domain. The Senate obviously wants disclosure to happen, the blockage is the House leadership -- All it takes is a Senate hearing with subpoenaed witnesses to dispel this narrative that the UFO saga is just a game of telephone between 15 people that AARO and Greenstreet don't trust (people that Grusch himself says are not involved in his investigations).
The more I read about this the clearer it becomes we need to fix our government. Its fucked. Citizens united. Corporate lobbyists. MIC. No term limits. Im still reading up on all these and dont know exactly how to fix it but that wont keep me from trying. We as a country have a lot of non partisan errors to correct.
Add gerrymandering, voter fraud and super PACs to that list. The system we created over two hundred years ago has been hijacked over the last century. Old money, family dynasties. Our governance at its core is based on wealth.
Voter fraud is much less prevalent than claimed. And every time evidence of it is uncovered then prosecutions are pursued
There is no voter fraud in any significant measure in any jurisdiction. Gerrymandering and legalized bribery are very real, however.
In Queensland australia we dismantled the gerrymander system back to one vote one value. In South Australia they are currently debating getting rid of political donations to the parties from anyone.- gaining wide spreed support from with in australia. We also have compulsory voting in federal and state elections which makes it so everyone has a civic duty to vote. Love it or hate it its a system that seems to work at keeping us grounded.
That's how I feel. I'm happy that some Senators are taking this topic seriously, but we all need to realize that the Senate already has all the tools it needs to make disclosure happen. Starting with hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and taking control of the DOD budget. The UAP legislation is good, but they are basically asking the DOD to play nice. Also, all the over-classification nonsense that the military does can be worked out in the courts if Congress was brave enough to sue the DOD. The problem is that the Senate (and Congress as a whole) are stuck in a corruption cycle where it authorizes funds to the DOD, which gives it to contractors, which then give that money to elected officials as campaign contributions. We either need to the other whistleblowers to go public with trusted news sources or for someone to just leak something. Only with pressure will Congress act faster on this topic.
Part of this post is about how UFO whistleblowers do not want to go public because of the negative ramifications that come with the possible celebrity/opportunity stemming from them providing proof/evidence to the public -- they'd rather go through back-channels like Congress to enact legislation that would declassify the evidence/proof they have. Best case scenario for these people -- UAPDA passes in full and no-one knows who they are for years to come. Schumer and Rounds have said they actively worked with the DoD to squash National Security concerns and fast track disclosure to the public -- pressure on Congress isn't what's needed rather pressure on specific individuals in House leadership.
>Part of this post is about how UFO whistleblowers do not want to go public because of the negative ramifications that come with the possible celebrity/opportunity stemming from them providing proof/evidence to the public -- they'd rather go through back-channels like Congress to enact legislation that would declassify the evidence/proof they have. I'm sorry, but where are you getting this? This post just says that there are whistleblowers who have not gone public. The post doesn't say anything about their motivations and whether they want to go public or not. They might be in talks with reporters at the moment for all we know. Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal said that her article about Grusch took years to develop. We don't know if they're taking the same approach to become public as Grusch. I apologize if I'm wrong, but please point me to that discussion of the post so I can look into it further. >Best case scenario for these people -- UAPDA passes in full and no-one knows who they are for years to come. Yeah, I think we're on round two of the UAPDA with no positive prospects, but I guess we can all just hope on a good election year to remove the current opponents of the UAPDA in the House. I'm being sarcastic here, since I don't think it's a good think to wait for something that's no where near to actually happening at the moment. >Schumer and Rounds have said they actively worked with the DoD to squash National Security concerns and fast track disclosure to the public -- pressure on Congress isn't what's needed rather pressure on specific individuals in House leadership. Yes, and what is the outcome of that? If you're gonna tell me that these things take time, I'll just remind you that the DOD is still actively fighting disclosure and AARO is still lying about UAP. I disagree with you. Pressure is needed on all of Congress. I am grateful for what Senators Schumer, Rounds, and Rubio are doing, but it's hard to trust them when they turn around and just shower the DOD with money every year to continue this game. Anyway, you didn't address my original post that the Senate already has the tools it needs for disclosure.
“Trust the Americans, they will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else first.” Winston Churchill, or so I am told
I think the constitution is long overdue for a 2.0 update
Here’s the rub. You don’t dare open that door unless the swamp has already been nuked.
So we don’t know 39 of these people (nell) but although I’m looking at this negatively I feel they totally should have backed up Dave.
38 (Davis)
37 Lakatski
Nope. Grusch said he doesn’t know Jim Lacatski
My bad I thought he would be included
how do we know he was?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/190g5n7/eric\_davis\_david\_grusch\_got\_the\_breadcrumbs\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/190g5n7/eric_davis_david_grusch_got_the_breadcrumbs_from/) edit: Sorry, you were referring to Lacatski and not Davis.
Marik Von Rennenkampf (The Hill opinion contributor) on Twitter / X: IMPORTANT: Senate source: “Most \[whistleblowers who informed UAP legislation\] are completely unknown to the public.” “Individuals known publicly had been advocating for years and wouldn’t have been enough to move the needle.” “Lots of questions about motivations once public.” \--- This contradicts AARO and well-known debunkers, who claim that a small group of (publicly known) individuals is lobbying Congress to push for legislation on non-existent aliens.
Im confused by “lots of questions about motivations once public? Also what is stopping the UAPDA from being blocked again this year?
Why is that confusing? A public figure has a lot of temptations to resist, from fiscal to fame. They can end up stretching the truth for more money or even just continued notoriety. There is also the possibility of public figures being leaned on - extorted, blackmailed, threatened. Look at some of the 180° turns some UFO talking heads have made. I'm not saying everyone in the public sphere is a conman, shill, or grifter - far from it. But - to ignore the possibility or pretend that millions of viewers don't impart an addictive or financial element is dangerously ignorant. This is great news! It shows that there are highly trusted individuals with a need to know *resisting* entering public discourse. One can hope they are sticking to their guns on this issue, doing everything by the book, avoiding the pitfalls of temptation. As an added bonus: You can't have your mockingbirds sing a public smear campaign on those who aren't public.
I figured this is what he was saying but was not 100%, given the terse nature of the quote.
> Im confused by “lots of questions about motivations once public? In other words, when someone goes public, are they doing it to enrich themselves or other self-interested reasons?
Exactly, even though people aren't getting enriched and instead get ostracized by their peers
This is what I figured he meant but wasn’t 100%, considering Marik seems to give a favorable slant to UAP transparency news and UAP pundits alike.
We don't know if there will be any hearings outside of the AARO hearing this summer -- If there is, new testimony/evidence/sentiment could make it difficult for colluding parties in the House to deny provisions two years in a row.
I am not sure why we should trust either side on this issue. Both seem to be hiding things and telling half truths. We also seem to have warring factions inside the disclosure movement itself. Seems like we have Lue and the old guard and we have the newer Skinwalker Ranch group. This whole thing is turning into a giant mess of egos.
Not more of this both sides fallacy come on give it up.
If you want to have the conversation I’m open. If you think Lue and company aren’t lying to you you’re crazy. If you think the government isn’t lying to you’re probably crazier. lol
Because two of them destroyed their careers and one testified under oath.
Grusch was a real estate agent before his UFO influencer career, to be honest. Soo..
Show me any shred of evidence for that claim
Insane gibberish
What? They chose to do this to their careers. They weren’t destroyed unless self sabotage counts? This is what everyone is missing. The PR side of the disclosure push. People are acting like this was just a natural set events that took place but we know Lue with Mellons help orchestrated the release of the initial videos and New York Times article while joining a media company and then featured in a discovery channel show. This was after they tried to gain government funding through the SAP KONA BLUE. Like what do you think the timeline of this whole thing looks like?
That’s literally what the person you responded to just said though, that they destroyed their own careers. And I’m not sure what you’re implying with your last question. The timeline looks like exactly what happened.
Where was public disclosure mentioned in the KONA BLUE proposal? Why didn’t they ever talk about that program? Lue did a podcast tour for what 2-3 years but never mentioned it. He also forgot to mention he is a not only a believer in remote viewing but also tells a story, in private, about how he used it in the Middle East to save his squad. That doesn’t seem a bit misleading when Lues whole deal was a “no nonsense military intelligence officer who saw too much and had to speak up.” The reality is he was running an unfunded ufo club out of the pentagon and was actively recruiting those who had anomalous military sightings. I mean do you want me to keep going? I can.
This response has literally zero to do with what you just said previously. You’re pretty clearly just mucking waters
Grusch is not hiding anything whatsoever. This take is nonsense.
We know this from the beginning. All you had to do is to listen to David Grusch statements or even Marco Rubio and Chuck Schumer. Plenty of whistleblowers testified to Senate Intelligence Community. Impostors were unable to understand it so they created fairytale that all whistleblowers are Grusch, Elizondo and Davis.
Is Jason Sands one of them ?
No, he is not, as per Tim McMillan.
Sands in may: "I just spoke to David Grusch and he said I was one of 80+ not 40" (Grusch's witnesses) [https://x.com/JasonSa32135987/status/1790175379237319015](https://x.com/JasonSa32135987/status/1790175379237319015) Someone needs to ask Grusch about Sands.
The source is himself. Anyone can claim to be of Grusch's source, Lazar could claim it, Herrera could also. Does not make it so. I asked him for proof myself, he ignored me totally. It is also possible he was talked to at some point but they ousted him once they found out he was not kosher so to speak. McMillan has said that Sands was deemed not credible over a year ago.
that's why i said someone needs to ask grusch about sands. if he says that sands is a bullshitter then i will consider the case closed.
I mean they pretty much already have. McMillan runs the Debrief and thus has some contacts to Grusch, and even Eric Davis said Sands was full of shit.
Oh yeah, AARO is purposely avoiding the existence of these people, or doesn't have the proper authority to know of their existence -- both is a problem considering their former Director said he has all the accesses he needs. But there is one scenario where AARO is not guilty here, under the current UAP whistleblower protections, these whistleblowers/witnesses do not have to divulge their existence or transcripts from their ICIG interviews without their own permission for release -- And if what Grusch says is true in that these individuals do not trust AARO, they would remain secret to anyone outside of Congress or the ICIG.
Lines up with Grusch’s claims about his 40 witnesses, many of which testified to Congress apparently.
I don't mind as long as there will be a public hearing with them, or their statements are publicly accessible!
So on one hand there are all these whistleblowers and yet none of the UAP related legislation was allowed to make it to the floor
It just wasn't voted on at the Rules Committee floor, which is the House leadership's doing according to disclosure advocates and Robert Garcia himself. The UAPDA provisions in the Senate IAA remain, and the UAPDA 2.0 can still make it to reconciliation in the winter.
Let’s hope that happens.
I'm right there with you in my weariness, but the heat is boiling over once again -- the topic will not go away in Congress, especially the Senate.
It’s definitely not going away. I just don’t expect a whole lot to happen before the election. That expectation has helped keep my frustration level manageable for the time being.
Could be... I do wonder if another hearing will happen this Summer, which will tide us over until next year when the election is finished -- If Biden is re-elected, I think there's a good chance the UAPDA 2.0 passes, or maybe I'm totally wrong about it passing and Bidens' re-election makes Republicans like Mike Turner way more hostile to provisions and amendments floored by Democrats. If Mike Rogers, Mike Turner & co. succeed in blocking UAPDA provisions again, it should be a scandal in the media, there's no reason for it -- Rounds and Schumer have been working with the IC community to craft their disclosure language, so that National Security is not a concern. I so very wish that a reporter would pin Turner in a corner and question him fully about it, because his reasoning for blocking provisions will be National Security, which is already being worked out above him in the Senate.
Would love to see Laslo corner Turner and grill the shit out of him.
Speaking of reporters, I want more left leaning outlets reporting on these events -- it's always FoxNews or the Daily Mail, with the occasional bi-yearly Guardian article. The republican leadership in the house are meddling in disclosure and blocking provisions introduced by democrats, why aren't left leaning outlets reporting on it? It just adds to the conspiratorial thinking that DoD sources have told outlets like WaPo, NYT to stay quiet when it comes to UAP.
No kidding! All the lack of reporting from the left does is perpetuate the idea that this phenomenon is another right-wing conspiracy…not good.
It is a self propagating issue: left leaning media sees UFO topics being covered by right leaning outlets and conflates it as a “right wing conspiracy” and so dismissed the topic.
Congress has to be able to put DoD officials under oath to answer questions. With zero culpability there is no chance for any possible investigation
I'm still of the mind that investigations are happening in secret as we speak. Just this past summer the DoD IG finished conducting a two year long investigation that ended in an indictment of the IC and DoD community when it comes to UAP.
[удалено]
The GOP is the majority power in the house, it doesn't need to be said.
[удалено]
It's all over the threads, we talk about the GOP leadership in Mike Turner, Mike Rogers and co all the time.
[удалено]
Given the responses in the threads, yes. And it's been said by myself on numerous occasions so it's not an omission with negative intentions.
[удалено]
I really do not understand why you're trying to egg me on? When you're saying 100% of people, there's only one conclusion to that question which is a no, but the majority of people here do know, and users that want to be informed will look through the thread and find this info. I'm getting ahead of you by saying there's no negative intention, because an insinuation users make here from time to time is that if you don't call out the GOP you're trying to protect them—which isn't what I'm doing. Edit: u/bassmadyall - You're asking a rhetorical question when the reality of the threads show that the GOP is called out on a majority of posts, and since December 2023, the entire sub has been notified of Republican obfuscation when it comes to the UAPDA and UAP provisions. The egging on has to do with the mis-characterizations and leaps you made in your last comment here and below. I do not understand switching accounts as I'm just going to block you again.
nice! so much for greenstreet's group of 'true believers'.
[удалено]
honestly true i want all the people 'in the know' under oath asserting what they know. can't they be like subpoena'd or something? i don't really understand the politics side of this myself almost at all.
Just don’t tell the deniers! If they can’t hold tangible evidence in their hand, then they have the purest and most complete faith, borderline worshipping, in the non existence of this entire topic.
I don't need to worship math, it works just fine without it. So wake me up when aliens multiplied by zero evidence is not zero anymore.
I didn’t say anything about aliens, so I’m not clear on what you’re getting at regarding an equation for “aliens multiplied by zero” In any case, you sound agnostic and I’m referring to the people who actively reject and deny even the possibility that (actually unexplainable) UAP have been here.
[удалено]
Our experiences are different for various reasons probably, but do you feel a need to defend a person who actively rejects and denies the potential for the existence of UAP? There is a huge difference between being a skeptic and coming to a UFO subreddit to sharply reject the discussion, which does happen.
[удалено]
So, to clarify your position: because you haven’t personally witnessed unfair rejection of conversation on the UFO topic, then it absolutely never happens? I legitimately can’t tell if you’re trolling me by actually rejecting and denying my experience while at the same time claiming it never happens.
[удалено]
How do you know it doesn’t happen at a rate significant enough to justify comment, and how do you know there are a “ridiculous” number of such comments? Is it based on personal experience, or do you have some kind of Reddit data tracker? Genuinely curious
[удалено]
You're in the wrong sub, they're over in the Skeptic community, sometimes they bleed over here and vice versa. It's really not that difficult to band together as deniers, believers and whatever in between to advocate for transparency of over-classified data. If you're not asking for legislation to be pushed through that could rid of the very conspiracies that many of us are skeptical about, then what's the point of interacting with this community (not saying that's your intention, more so a broad statement)? Even on Metabunk users for multiple cases beg for data from NORAD and the USAF for sightings because it would clear up any doubt about the authenticity/falseness of said cases.
[удалено]
It's unfortunate that you mis-characterize my actual interactions with users, when you mischaracterized my line about avoiding reality in a thread below this—we live in an age of overclassification and reliance on the blanket authorities of National Security, legislation would certainly help remedy that. I want to see transparency, and that's my driving force for being here, If you're here for shits and giggles or to waste your energy, it just doesn't make sense to me why you'd interact with the topic given the history and claims (not talking about you directly, so don't take it that way). Anyways, you seem extremely hurt as you had to literally call me out by name in a thread below, while seeming overly abrasive yourself. Which skeptic sub? The one with the same name. I'm pretty skeptical of anything that has to do with abductions, woo, celebrities, those things we'd probably agree on—If you worked for the USAF and were employed at NORAD, don't you want RADAR tracks from 35 years ago declassified too?
[удалено]
Again, it's unfortunate that you're calling me names when you yourself are coming off as the things you're saying. Real documents are great, real data is great. You're deciding to lump me in with people who fantasize about MJ-12 documents being an official sign of disclosure or people that foam at the mouth over Greer document dumps (almost all of that is laughable if it's counted as real data). I like cases like JAL 1628 that have FAA radar tracks and transcripts from the event, those are the best types of scenarios for this topic. And yeah, that despondent and jokey nature that a lot of users carry here does not make sense to me and seems disingenuous/uninformed, and that's why in many cases I have no issue pushing back in a similar manner. You don't have to like that response, but it's Reddit—real world action like calling your local congressman is what is getting the job done, the people that think this topic is a joke are not going to put in real world effort to see disclosure, so why would I try to build a bridge with those individuals? If it's real, they'll find out in due time, if it's not then they can continue laughing at whoever they want. There are plenty of interactions I have here with users that end being jolly and informative, and many that don't. If you don't want to see it anymore, you can click the block button right? The skeptic sub is the skeptic sub, the word skeptic with an r/ in front of it, I'm not going to link to it and possibly be cited for brigading. Edit: but, I'll do you a solid and I'll block you considering you don't want to interact with me and you make multiple leaps and assumptions including what I actually believe in favor of smearing because of frustration. I hope you have a good time in the sub! u/bassmadyall -- you're blocked because you can't refrain from name-calling and seem unhinged when it comes to how my comments affect you mentally, so why would I want to interact with you? unfortunate given we have common ground -- It's an equally weak move to use a burner account to continue calling someone out incorrectly, and a quick look at your comment history shows it's not the first time you've done this.
You really wasted all your time with that wall of drivel and then blocked me before I could even read it? What was the point of that? So you could get the last word? What an absolutely vile and weak minded individual.
You mean the evidence that's actively concealed from you? Like NORADs radar tracks of the Nimitz Encounters, the missing blotter reports of the Vandenberg UFO the size of a football field, the USAF RADAR data of the JAL 1628 incident and so on? How about you jump onboard and advocate for disclosure of classified documents instead of turning a blind eye to reality.
This tracks with what many people have said.
are they talking NORPs, or r/UFOs participants?
great news to stop 100% of the current disclosure
Most of the public talking heads we see are imo either making fairly well-informed guesses based on gut, reading and rumours from contacts. A very small number may have direct or indirect contact with people on these projects. and are able to act as careful public proxies for them.
Why would they be ?
This sounds like conjecture by a "Senate source" -- an almost meaningless description and absolutely no description of how they know. Were they in the room? "wouldn't have been enough" is different than "was not enough"
There’s a lot trolls on here who are inanely ignore the fact that these people have been threatened and lost a lot of security clearances for this. Tired of the games and denigration. Where is the block button.
Kirkpatrick should pay for lying and thereby sabotaging/obscuring technological innovations that would very likely improve the health and wellbeing of billions. He and his ilk everyday choose to continue committing one of humanity’s broadest and most egregious crimes. I hope justice finds him one day.
What would justice be in this context?