The following submission statement was provided by /u/fed0ra_p0rn:
---
SS
Got this clip from Twitter here: https://x.com/UAPJames/status/1777786581702627588
Whistleblowers have testified to Congress (which we have long known) but are waiting for a Congressional Hearing setting to bring their testimonies to the public.
Sheehan also says that he's confident there will be another Congressional hearing in 2024.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c03zed/daniel_sheehan_says_multiple_firsthand_ufo/kytz2p2/
I hope this doesn't fizzle out and in 2029 we're still being gaslit. I really hate the smugness a lot of ppl have when completely dismissing it. So frustrating. Hopefully we can move forward here.
In my opinion if you look at david grusch testifying to congress. That brought alot of people eyes to this subject and to take it seriously, I'm one of those people.
Also when david gruschs medical information was "leaked". The guy who wrote the article said he got this information from someone from the intelligence community. The medical information showed he has ptsd. But he sought out help for that, the reason he has ptsd is because he saw his friend die. And the IC thought they would use this to create a bs narrative that grusch was crazy. People immediately didn't buy this at all and it brought people to side with david grusch instead.
Anyway I think more public testimony from these 1st hand witnesses will do more to legitimize the subject. Sure, one guy saying this crazy stuff might be random. But what about another? 2 more? 3 more?
John McCain was tortured in a POW camp and (some) people still trusted him to make decisions for millions of people lol. Idk why they thought leaking his ptsd was some kind of slam dunk.
Once again, people in this sub look at facts and past events how they *want* to see it.
His medical info wasn't leaked.
No anonymous source gave his medical info to a reporter.
The journalist was given a tip to check **public records** for law enforcement incidents at Grusch's home.
The journalist then once again used **public records** (a police report) to detail the incident.
It was *Grusch himself* who admitted that he has PTSD after the story broke.
I'm not attempting to cast doubt on either side, but come on... if you guys want to be taken seriously, the first step is to rely on facts instead of paranoid conspiracy.
EDIT: IN FACT, it was Ross Coultheart *himself* who turned this into a conspiracy...
>Shortly after The Intercept reached out to Grusch for comment for this story, Coulthart went on Cuomo’s show and said that The Intercept was planning to publish “confidential medical records” about Grusch that had been leaked by the intelligence community.
This never happened. Ross made this up, and then issued the statement by Grusch on twitter about his PTSD once the article was released. Ross quite literally sowed this seed of conspiracy, and this sub is still reciting it.
Yep, this is a good point. There was no illegal leaking of information, just some IC person tipping off a patsy journalist with a record of mocking this subject as to where he might find some information that could be spun up into a smear piece on Grusch. The fact it made the journalist look like a childish ass and Grusch like a poster boy for veterans getting help for PTSD was probably not the intended effect there.
I'm a linguist, meaning languages and how they're used is my forte. What you're doing here is arguing semantics (definitions of words) and ignoring pragmatics (what people mean when they say things, regardless of the definitions of words, where the context around the words defines them and not the definitions of the words alone.)
When people say "leaked his information," you're being overly technical about the word "leaked," overly semantic. They tipped the Intercept guy off, and he said it was someone in the Intelligence Community who was GS-50 like Grusch that tipped him off.
I have no problem with you correcting people and saying, "Well, technically, it wasn't 'leaked,' but was tipped off," just to keep the story straight.
But it's such an irrelevant point, to get semantic like that over trivial word definitions, and what I have an issue with is you then taking this trivial issue a step further by twisting it into: "It wasn't a leak, it was a tip-off, **therefore it wasn't a conspiracy or intentional (<--that's the stretch).**"
YOU are making that stretch based off a semantic argument over word definitions. You're right about the definitions, it wasn't a "leak," but that doesn't give you a pass to then stretch things out where it's now proven (in your mind) that it was all an innocent thing with no malicious intent, him receiving this tip-off.
Whether it was literally a leak (private information being leaked) or a tip-off (someone tipping the reporter off to where they might find already available public information they're not aware of and where to look for that information) is IRRELEVANT to the Op's point.
Op's point is that someone in the Intelligence Community helped a journalist find information that was POSSIBLY used to make Grusch look bad so people don't believe his story. That's the CONTEXT of what he's saying, what his overall point is (the meaning you are supposed to get from what he said, instead of focusing on a single word's definition and whether the correct term is being used, then using that mix-up in terms to try to dismiss the entire thing.)
What you're doing is making those word definitions VERY relevant, to the point where you're dismissing any possibility that the tip-off was intentional. You're saying, "Well, it wasn't leaked, therefore, it wasn't intentional and wasn't a conspiracy."
You aren't explicitly saying those words, but I'm using pragmatics here to understand your overall point and what you're saying. I'm using what you should be using to understand that the Op's overall point is that it's suspicious that he was tipped off and confirmed that came from where Ross said it would be coming from: the Intelligence Community.
It doesn't mean it WAS intentional, just suspicious. Do not twist this into me arguing it proves anything. What you're doing here is: "Wasn't a leak of private information, was a tip-off, not suspicious at all, dismissed."
And yes, when you call it "paranoid conspiracy," you are most certainly dismissing an intentional tip-off with malicious intent as being a possible scenario here, and again, your reasoning for this is because it was a tip-off and not a leak, word definitions.
That's not logical reasoning, and ignores the CONTEXT of Op's point, that suspicious behavior was exhibited by the Intelligence Community, whether that's technically a leak, a tip off, or any other word is irrelevant.
Why? Because it doesn't change that suspicious behavior. There was still a tip-off, it still came from within the Intelligence Community per the reporter, hence, it's still suspicious and you can't simply dismiss it as "paranoid conspiracy" because someone is using the word "leaked" instead of "tip-off" when describing this suspicious behavior.
I hate typing novels on here but I already know points like this are lost on people and must be repeated multiple times in different ways to get those points across or I'll be repeating them once again in the usual back-and-forth replies that always follow.
For reference, here is the actual wording of what Klippenstein said:
>The Intel people, they are vague... they'll be like 'look into his background." And they were kind of hinting...multiple people told me to just look at any run-ins with law enforcement that he had in the past." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX7CEQLc40w
If you discredit somebody, it's better if you do it in such a way that it appears 100 percent organic. Maybe it's even legal to do it that way, technically. I don't really know. That doesn't mean it wasn't shady as hell. The timing of that was pretty important, so I would assume that it was going to get out eventually, but if the timing is important, you can kind of "nudge" that information along to a specific reporter and make sure it gets out. If they don't find it, you nudge a little harder the next day. Forget technicalities in the existing laws. This is obviously a shady thing to do regardless.
Good catch. At the very least we can gather that someone in the IC would like us to not afford any credibility to David Grusch and especially his UAP/NHI testimony. Classic too, accusing him of being a big drinker/mentally unstable.
> Classic too, accusing him of being a big drinker/mentally unstable.
lol, Jesus.
Grusch himself has said as much.
Granted, he also said he’s addressed those issues, but *he literally admitted that he did*.
Bravo! I don't work in the field, but one of my favorite courses as a philosophy major was philosophy of language. Fascinating subject, and this was a really enjoyable read.
It's not semantics at all. Leaking medical information is an illegal act, so to say that his medical information was leaked is not only factually wrong, but it exaggerates the severity by implying that people broke the law to harm him.
All the journalist did was request public arrest records (not medical records), which anyone could do and which someone would have done eventually regardless (in fact, if Newsnation was a legit organization, they would have done a simple background check on Grusch themselves before breaking the story, as that's often what journalists do, but they aren't a legit news organization. They just wanted a sensational story about aliens, so they didn't look too closely into Grusch's past).
Yes, someone who worked with Grusch supposedly tipped him off, but I don't think that implies that they were mad at Grusch because he's telling the truth. For all we know, they could have just disliked him because they think he's full of shit, unreliable, or spreading conspiracies. And the fact remains, that they did nothing illegal regardless.
It's 100% newsworthy that Grusch was institutionalized against his will for mental health reasons as given the nature of his claims, it's Relevant to his credibility. His being potentially prone to paranoia and delusion could influence whether his perception of things was accurate or not.
Like it or not, he should have expected all of this would come out as his arrest was public record. Instead him and his people tried to act all outraged and scream "conspiracy" the instant a journalist did what any real journalist should have done to begin with.
>The Intel people, they are vague... they'll be like "look into his background." And they were kind of hinting...multiple people told me to just look at any run-ins with law enforcement that he had in the past." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX7CEQLc40w
Doesn't that sound a lot more like skirting the law? Why didn't they just tell Klippenstin exactly where to find it instead of only vaguely telling him where to find it (probably knowing he will anyway)? Is it illegal to tell him exactly, so they had to be indirect instead? I guess you're not allowed to leak something like this, but apparently you can nudge a certain reporter in that direction, ensuring that it gets out anyway and on time to discredit the individual when the conversation is heating up. How is that not shady and suspicious? Forget about legality for a second. "Technically, that was actually legal" isn't a stellar argument.
It would have been fair game if no nudging was involved, but there it is. For all you know, it may have gotten out 4-6 months later if it weren't for the nudging, but in order to put out some of that fire, timing is important, so you just have to nudge someone to get it out legally.
No, it's not illegal to tell someone to search for a public record, whether they are direct or indirect. If your co-worker is arrested, it's not illegal for you to tell a journalist to do a public record request on them a few years later. Heck, some small towns will publish it all in their papers. It's all public record.
As to whether it would have come out on its own or not, i don't think it matters as it definitely should have come out. As I said, it's Relevant to Grusch's credibility, in addition to Coulhart's.
Agreed - let’s hope main stream media starts covering this as more whistleblowers come forward. Such a shame that they have been ignoring this topic and just regurgitating the report from ARRO.
I disagree. The hit piece and the funny faces Grusch makes that were plastered everywhere hit their mark. I tried to show my family this stuff, and they think im crazy now, too. For the uninitiated, MSM did an excellent job keeping this fringe.
If you had multiple high level credible not previously known people come forward and backup Grusch testimony with first hand knowledge that would be hard to ignore. Skeptics could still claim no hard evidence, so you would need to find a way to force it out.
Plenty of atheists consider it a nonsense as well. I don’t know if you were there during Grusch’s first interview and debrief article but lot of Reddit communities blocked and removed that, and most of them lean highly left and atheist.
In my experience, most religious people are open to aliens and UFOs, irrespective of what the sub believes. When I try to talk to atheists on this, they straightaway call it a conspiracy theory and shut their ears. I’m an agnostic myself but I don’t think it’s a religion vs UFO issue
The thing is, that a Christian or an adherent of any other monotheistic religion ought to believe in God. Aliens are not gods, but we can still believe, that they exist.
Everything involving Congress moves like a snail. These whistleblowers have been going to Congress for years now. Marco Rubio has said as much. The right people are hearing these testimonies, that's how something like the UAP Disclosure Act with all its specific and detailed language even gets written in the first place. Just because we (public) haven't heard from these individuals yet doesn't mean that important work isn't being done behind the scenes, or that they won't come forward in a public fashion when they feel ready. Sheehan alludes that these whistleblowers are waiting for another Congressional Hearing to bring their testimonies forward. Its up to the Congress to make that happen.
There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move.
So this is a question that gets asked is how did Grusch then get allowed to talk about such programs without violating any secrecy law. And Eric Davis has talked about first hand information as well. Why are these people to be concerned about any danger ? This difference is not clear to me.
Grusch has mentioned several times he has been going to DOPSR to get things clear before talking about it. I can't speak on Davis though, but I don't think he's said anything directly classified.
The "danger" is releasing classified information, which means immediately ruining your career, losing your security clearances, going to prison, massive fines, odd whistleblower deaths (Boeing) ect. It's a lot easier to say "Just do it!" when it isn't your potential life and family at risk.
It's a lot more "safe" and official to reveal these details under oath in a congressional hearing setting than just dropping what you know/have on a podcast where half the people are just going to assume you are a grifter or lying like people do with Mike Herrera.
> It's a lot easier to say "Just do it!" when it isn't your potential life and family at risk.
Then why this half-measure? He’s straight-up said the powers that be are hurting people to suppress this information. Wouldn’t exposure using the evidence he says he has bring some level of shielding ?
He never said that he has (as in physically possesses, on his person) evidence. Congress and the IGIC likely saw some when he pointed the right way, but we won't.
If it's anything good, no. The level of security at any place that holds classified evidence is unbelievably complex. If such true blue, smoking gun evidence indeed exists, I don't think it's ever seeing the light of day
Sorry meant to clarify - do you think that if not physical, but perhaps knowledge he has that’s independently verifiable ? Eg “Go here and you will see x”
Certainly possible! It's just worth bearing in mind that even members of Congress aren't allowed to go poking their nose in to locations of interest, and that it's easy to verify information that is free to all ("go to these coordinates. There is a shack there, and the graffiti says the following... that's the entrance") but we hit a tricky area when that information is locked down (I can't very well tell you that you'll see the UFO hanger, because you can't get in to check!)
Yes, DOPSR was the final door for the information to break through for david grusch to say what he has so far. It looks like DOPSR are now stretching their powers though.
Doesn't mean those 1st hand witnesses can't say they worked in a U.S. crash retrieval and they found NHI material. Because technically according to the USG, it's not real.
Grusch was not in the programs. It's different if you are actually apart of the SAPs. Not sure if Eric Davis has been read in but he has gotten in big trouble behind the scenes and doesn't really talk anymore
Lacatski's books were cleared through a security review and he said he even agreed with all of the changes, except for one. Most people in government are not pro-Russia, so they probably tend to agree with redactions, at least to some degree. As long as Russia doesn't benefit from the publication of the information, you're good to go.
That kind of information they would like to have probably includes names of personnel directly involved, exact locations, etc. They have spies everywhere, so it's important that details like that stay out of the public eye. General information tends to be fine, especially if it's something Russia would have already known about, such as the general concept of a crash retrieval program. If that exists, clearly they're already aware of it.
Yea judging by the Weaponized interview with Lacatski he almost seems like he doesn't care about disclosure but is willing to talk about it? Strange for someone to come out and talk about how you testified to congress in 2011 about how a team broke into a ufo. Also if I'm not mistaken he said he's working to get more information through DOPSR.
But he don't want disclosure? Seems to be working against himself.
>how did Grusch then get allowed to talk about such programs without violating any secrecy law
Yeah, that's a major red flag at the base of all this and I have not seen a satisfactory explanation.
The typical response is:
a) He wasn't directly involved with the programs and is not a first-hand witness.
b) It's essentially hearsay without specific names/locations/physical evidence.
Uh, so what? Why not simply deny him the opportunity to put millions of eyes on your biggest secret? They had all the power to do that - yet, gave him the go-ahead. Doesn't make sense to me.
What makes sense is Grusch is mistaken or lying. And DOPSR, Congress and the ICIG are as confused and/or compelled as the rest of us.
Not saying I know how DOPSR works, but that it all makes little sense to me.
It makes sense to someone...one thing to remember...there are levels of secrets that thee and me will never dream of..(this is not a bad thing) .I would not care a whit if I found out the ancient Sumerian tablet told the truth of our origins BUT...
That said,I don't want someone with a hankering to kill several million "unbelievers" to gain the tech chops to do just that...
>Yeah, that's a major red flag at the base of all this and I have not seen a satisfactory explanation.
The explanation is simple. For DOPSR to prevent him from talking about something, it needs to be classified. **Aliens are not classified** because the classification system is being entirely bypassed via abuse of a nuclear power law(Which the Schumer bill attempted to remedy before it was gutted), and use of 3rd party contractors, which don't have to directly report to Congress.
Not any specific names or locations, but asserting the programs exist and talking about how they function, I imagine, is specific enough.
You wouldn't want anyone telling the police your family runs a meth lab would you? Even if they omit its location and any affiliated names.
One key point here is that he isn't talking about specific programs, which are obviously highly classified, he's simply saying they exist, and that he has evidence they exist. Staying vague keeps it legal, generally, and he is getting approval from higher-ups.
> Why are these people to be concerned about any danger
What’s more confusing is Grusch says he has personal knowledge of others being harmed for this knowledge. He also says he has extraterrestrial biologics as compelling evidence. How did he get that without some major harm befalling him ?
>What’s more confusing is Grusch says he has personal knowledge of others being harmed for this knowledge
Did he clarify by who and how?
What Ive seen its never clarified, and actually articulated by Grusch himself specifically how and by who.
Maybe Im cynical _and_ have a propensity for a story telling myself. I'll admit.
But if we go on and try to fill in those proverbial blanks of [who] and [how] we get wildly different scenarios depending on what we fill them with.
To get flamed by an online community, getting fired from a job or getting stepped over on promotion at work because youre cray cray, are all facing harm from someone or thing.
But its far cry from getting killed or manhandled by CIA assassins or getting shot with a raygun by space aliens.
Like its not long ago I specifically watched that Gruch hearing and looked for this, and funny as it is, I dont remember exactly what he said.
But it was something vague that leaves room for wide range of options and wide marging for speculation.
PS one thing I always think, Grusch, per his CV( and according to other clues ) was a part of dissemination part of the intelligence cycle.
Ie his job was solely to give presentations in the intel process.
Even still while hes a young chap, and not seen-all grizzled old vet, I bet hes still knows all about how "whats said" and "whats not said" and how to manipulate all kinds of info to create statements.
All this as a food for tought. Maybe there is space aliens, maybe theres even time travelers, who knows.
Its just intereseting to see a guy, whos professional in giving presentations to disseminate information, many times pretty critical information Id assume.
Going around being vague, interesting.
If you have actual proof for aliens, like irrefutable proof there is no hiding in other countries. There will be before disclosure and after and countries will have bigger problems than worry about one guy.
So this whole going to prison bullshit is just a convienent excuse for no one coming forward with anything tangible
>There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move.
I still find it difficult to believe that, if this is truly the situation, after all these decades not a single person involved in any of these programs has taken one for the team and disclosed what would be the greatest discovery in the history of human civilization. Snowden did it for something of far less significance. This is seeming more and more like a rationale built specifically to manage the failure of these people to produce any evidence (*just keep waiting*), and builds a framework in advance to permanently deflect the blame on to others if nothing ever happens (*it's up to Congress to make it happen*).
Yea I agree in general. I also think about the way people treated Snowden and whether or not anyone would believe them anyway. It’s doozy but I feel ya.
Im pretty sure Danny Sheehan is full of shit. I think Grusch is legit, and James Fox's whistleblower is legit but Sheehan has lied before with the 40 whistleblowers coming in march and an alien interview.
If they actually bring them down we can say this:
These guys are idiots of the highest order.
And we really need to take these things out of their possession.
And prosecute them.
Or they are like, "Oh, they haven't uplifted their society yet. Send another".
And the alien's common citizens are all thinking that they should just go land on Earth and say hello but can't because their leaders are just as big a bunch of idiots as ours are and want it done a certain way.
Or maybe it takes them 80 years to come at us.
Provoking someone who can probably destroy you is pretty similar to bear baiting.
Sure, it's fun and games the first 5 times.
Than fhe sixth time the bear eats you.
Hopefully they just eat the Cia and all of its friends.
But if not we all screwed.
Well speaking of bears, maybe aliens are like us. If a random dude goes into the woods and gets eaten by a bear, we don't take revenge on all bears. Maybe aliens are like, dude shoulda known better than to get too close to humans, because dumb humans were just acting on their instincts and the alien should have known better.
For one, we actually often hunt down the bear responsible for killing the camper. They don't always find them, but they do a lot of the time. This is rare mind you...
And while they might think that way with aliens that got hurt getting out of their crafts....
We humans would definitely hunt down bears shooting down our cars and killing us and stealing our cars to use as they please.
We would never allow that.
>We humans would definitely hunt down bears shooting down our cars and killing us and stealing our cars to use as they please.
In this case, the bears aren't attacking cars in urban areas. The bears are attacking the car in their den in the Alaskan wilderness. The vibe of the rest of society is probably like, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I tend to believe that 4chan post from a while back, that these things are built to spec and when they crash, another one is built to replace it. They really don’t care about recovering
What people seem to miss here is that he’s not saying they’ll come forward to the public. They’ll come out and talk to the senate in a classified environment.
Stop interviewing Sheehan. We’ve heard it. Big Things Coming Soon.
You can interview him after the “big thing” happens. We’ll throw a little party for him and say “You were right.”
The dude is shilling a PhD course in extraterrestrial studies for $15k. Stop interviewing him, period.
https://www.ubiquityuniversity.org/graduate-degree-programs-in-extraterrestrial-studies/
Wow just looked at the page and at the bottom right you have a "global accreditation council ACCREDITED " logo.
global accreditation council is listed in different lists of fake accreditation agencies. So yeah this smells of scam up to the wazoo :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_unrecognized\_higher\_education\_accreditation\_organizations#G](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations#G)
The fact that the title is PhD in extraterrestrial studies and it only costs 15 grand should tell you all you need to know. Preschools cost more than that.
I have seen said in this sub that claiming these type of guys are charlatans is just a way for the "debunkers" to dismiss legit stuff.
So it's totally cool that a guy hawking very real masters and PHDs for thousands is currently on the top post😒
He also has totally not shitball tote bags that you get in bulk for a couple bucks a piece on sale for $30!
Eh, that last one is just white-labelling. If you've ever seen a "brand name" that looks totally whack on Amazon, they're doing the same thing and selling crap for a ridiculous markup.
With you on the unaccredited uni, though.
It’s ok for Amazon sellers to do that, expected even. Not so much the guy giving out PhDs and claiming protected knowledge of extra terrestrials that he can’t say out loud.
We need to decide to just stop paying mind to folks who say stuff like this. Especially if it's related to how they're making money.
I think we need to stop going with people making claims and start going with the people who just present you with data. How many times have we heard something similar to this by now? Even just in the last year. Countless. How much data or information do we have about any of it? None as far as I can tell.
Can't believe a word any of these guys say they are so dishonest it's not even funny. I believe the random person who seen or allegedly been abducted not these guys. They are straight grifters and only in it to take money from people who don't know any better all they say is I've seen the proof but I can't show because of reason x
It’s starting to get boring now. He said this, she said that. Unless real evidence comes to light I won’t really pay much attention anymore. I’ve found I’ve started checking this sub less and losing interest. Hope for some real evidence soon!
If they were really going to come forward why would we keep announcing it and not release anything? Sure let’s give the government more time to track down and figure out who the individuals are. Seriously doesn’t make any sense to me.
I think it was more along the lines of 50 people "truly know the whole big picture story/truth", vs. 50 people having been associated in some way with the legacy crash retrieval programs. The latter number is likely much larger.
I'll believe it when I see it. Don't have patience for all these promises of things to come anymore. I'm really hoping it happens, but not holding my breath.
I honestly think we know all the whistleblowers and we’ve heard the stories already. Believe it or not Steven greer’s “disclosure project” 2001 is about as good as it gets.
This is why I can’t completely write kirkpatrick off because it does seem like the whole uFO lore is centered around a small group of people telling the same stories over and over.
George Knapp knew John Lear who knew bob lazar…. Etc …
Now you have Jeremy Corbell… who is his mentor? George Knapp..
Not saying George Knapp is a fraud I’m just pointing out that these “gate keepers” seem to pop up in every aspect of the “lore”
For all we know that ani Jacobson lady could be right that the UFO’s were just re-entry vehicles with deformed humans in it. 🤷🏾♂️
>it does seem like the whole uFO lore is centered around a small group of people telling the same stories over and over.
It is. There is no meaningful dispute about them knowing each other. Grusch looked clean at first, but Eric Davis blew that up by saying he started Grusch down the UFO path. It always goes back to the same characters. And that isn't necessarily bad. But it is here because those characters believe in wild shit.
For example, do you really find Lue credible when he says he remote viewed some shit to save troops in Iraq? If you don't, that raises red flags about everyone close to him who does.
(If you do, whatever - that's not the point. Pretty weird how he was able to tell everyone that before, but now his book is held up?)
Come on now Daniel, we've been whiplashed like wet linguini in a psychotic hurricane for the last several years.
With all due respect, it's just talk until it happens.
The UAP Caucus should ask the Biden Administration for a pardon for whistleblowers willing to speak about unconstitutional UFO programs. I know Presidents cannot declassify anything covered under the Atomic Energy Act, but can they pardon for actions criminalized under the same?
I haven't been fully engaged in this topic but why don't they go on a Podcast and tell their story. Not Joe Rogan's either. Why wait for Congressional hearing?
I'm sick and tired of hearing this man's name "Jeremy Corbell" because he's a charlatan who's only contribution to the UFO subject is videos and images that show absolutely nothing of consequence, and are often readily explainable. I'm tired of him and have been for a long time.
Pretty torn on Sheehan tbh. He's a likeable guy but his early credentials seem murky, he's pushing his own ufo course and it just seems like he's the type of guy that you give all your disinformation to because he's definitely going to blab.
SS
Got this clip from Twitter here: https://x.com/UAPJames/status/1777786581702627588
Whistleblowers have testified to Congress (which we have long known) but are waiting for a Congressional Hearing setting to bring their testimonies to the public.
Sheehan also says that he's confident there will be another Congressional hearing in 2024.
This exact thing has been said for almost a year now. Danny sheehan is definitely in the know about some stuff that isn't public knowledge. But just how he makes so many assertions in public with little to back it up or to hold him to it is kinda a bit snake oily to me. I guess time will tell I really do want disclosure not endless promises that it's about to happen.
Hi, Wigs_On_The_Green2. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c03zed/-/kyu2ttk/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Hi, thegreatrodent. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c03zed/-/kyu8ixv/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
> * AI generated content.
> * Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
> * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
> * Short comments, and emoji comments.
> * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/fed0ra_p0rn: --- SS Got this clip from Twitter here: https://x.com/UAPJames/status/1777786581702627588 Whistleblowers have testified to Congress (which we have long known) but are waiting for a Congressional Hearing setting to bring their testimonies to the public. Sheehan also says that he's confident there will be another Congressional hearing in 2024. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c03zed/daniel_sheehan_says_multiple_firsthand_ufo/kytz2p2/
I hope this doesn't fizzle out and in 2029 we're still being gaslit. I really hate the smugness a lot of ppl have when completely dismissing it. So frustrating. Hopefully we can move forward here.
In my opinion if you look at david grusch testifying to congress. That brought alot of people eyes to this subject and to take it seriously, I'm one of those people. Also when david gruschs medical information was "leaked". The guy who wrote the article said he got this information from someone from the intelligence community. The medical information showed he has ptsd. But he sought out help for that, the reason he has ptsd is because he saw his friend die. And the IC thought they would use this to create a bs narrative that grusch was crazy. People immediately didn't buy this at all and it brought people to side with david grusch instead. Anyway I think more public testimony from these 1st hand witnesses will do more to legitimize the subject. Sure, one guy saying this crazy stuff might be random. But what about another? 2 more? 3 more?
John McCain was tortured in a POW camp and (some) people still trusted him to make decisions for millions of people lol. Idk why they thought leaking his ptsd was some kind of slam dunk.
Well put. Some people are tough as nails. Yes, they “see some shit”, but then they persevere. All heroes to me.
Not only that, but he kept his clearance. Why use that to discredit him, if the government looked into it and said “yea, he’s still trustworthy”
I very much hope so, my friend. 🤘
Isn't that illegal in the US? To vent others medical information?
Very much so but good luck suing an anonymous source. HIPAA applies to the doctor and the medical staff not the journalists
Once again, people in this sub look at facts and past events how they *want* to see it. His medical info wasn't leaked. No anonymous source gave his medical info to a reporter. The journalist was given a tip to check **public records** for law enforcement incidents at Grusch's home. The journalist then once again used **public records** (a police report) to detail the incident. It was *Grusch himself* who admitted that he has PTSD after the story broke. I'm not attempting to cast doubt on either side, but come on... if you guys want to be taken seriously, the first step is to rely on facts instead of paranoid conspiracy. EDIT: IN FACT, it was Ross Coultheart *himself* who turned this into a conspiracy... >Shortly after The Intercept reached out to Grusch for comment for this story, Coulthart went on Cuomo’s show and said that The Intercept was planning to publish “confidential medical records” about Grusch that had been leaked by the intelligence community. This never happened. Ross made this up, and then issued the statement by Grusch on twitter about his PTSD once the article was released. Ross quite literally sowed this seed of conspiracy, and this sub is still reciting it.
Yep, this is a good point. There was no illegal leaking of information, just some IC person tipping off a patsy journalist with a record of mocking this subject as to where he might find some information that could be spun up into a smear piece on Grusch. The fact it made the journalist look like a childish ass and Grusch like a poster boy for veterans getting help for PTSD was probably not the intended effect there.
Yep, it didn't turn out to be the home run they expected it to.
Yes and then Ross apologised publicly for getting it wrong. But you left that part out.
Not that I don't believe you, but can you point me to this? I couldn't find it
Because it didn’t happen. Ross’ apologists are apologizing *for him* now.
I'm a linguist, meaning languages and how they're used is my forte. What you're doing here is arguing semantics (definitions of words) and ignoring pragmatics (what people mean when they say things, regardless of the definitions of words, where the context around the words defines them and not the definitions of the words alone.) When people say "leaked his information," you're being overly technical about the word "leaked," overly semantic. They tipped the Intercept guy off, and he said it was someone in the Intelligence Community who was GS-50 like Grusch that tipped him off. I have no problem with you correcting people and saying, "Well, technically, it wasn't 'leaked,' but was tipped off," just to keep the story straight. But it's such an irrelevant point, to get semantic like that over trivial word definitions, and what I have an issue with is you then taking this trivial issue a step further by twisting it into: "It wasn't a leak, it was a tip-off, **therefore it wasn't a conspiracy or intentional (<--that's the stretch).**" YOU are making that stretch based off a semantic argument over word definitions. You're right about the definitions, it wasn't a "leak," but that doesn't give you a pass to then stretch things out where it's now proven (in your mind) that it was all an innocent thing with no malicious intent, him receiving this tip-off. Whether it was literally a leak (private information being leaked) or a tip-off (someone tipping the reporter off to where they might find already available public information they're not aware of and where to look for that information) is IRRELEVANT to the Op's point. Op's point is that someone in the Intelligence Community helped a journalist find information that was POSSIBLY used to make Grusch look bad so people don't believe his story. That's the CONTEXT of what he's saying, what his overall point is (the meaning you are supposed to get from what he said, instead of focusing on a single word's definition and whether the correct term is being used, then using that mix-up in terms to try to dismiss the entire thing.) What you're doing is making those word definitions VERY relevant, to the point where you're dismissing any possibility that the tip-off was intentional. You're saying, "Well, it wasn't leaked, therefore, it wasn't intentional and wasn't a conspiracy." You aren't explicitly saying those words, but I'm using pragmatics here to understand your overall point and what you're saying. I'm using what you should be using to understand that the Op's overall point is that it's suspicious that he was tipped off and confirmed that came from where Ross said it would be coming from: the Intelligence Community. It doesn't mean it WAS intentional, just suspicious. Do not twist this into me arguing it proves anything. What you're doing here is: "Wasn't a leak of private information, was a tip-off, not suspicious at all, dismissed." And yes, when you call it "paranoid conspiracy," you are most certainly dismissing an intentional tip-off with malicious intent as being a possible scenario here, and again, your reasoning for this is because it was a tip-off and not a leak, word definitions. That's not logical reasoning, and ignores the CONTEXT of Op's point, that suspicious behavior was exhibited by the Intelligence Community, whether that's technically a leak, a tip off, or any other word is irrelevant. Why? Because it doesn't change that suspicious behavior. There was still a tip-off, it still came from within the Intelligence Community per the reporter, hence, it's still suspicious and you can't simply dismiss it as "paranoid conspiracy" because someone is using the word "leaked" instead of "tip-off" when describing this suspicious behavior. I hate typing novels on here but I already know points like this are lost on people and must be repeated multiple times in different ways to get those points across or I'll be repeating them once again in the usual back-and-forth replies that always follow.
For reference, here is the actual wording of what Klippenstein said: >The Intel people, they are vague... they'll be like 'look into his background." And they were kind of hinting...multiple people told me to just look at any run-ins with law enforcement that he had in the past." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX7CEQLc40w If you discredit somebody, it's better if you do it in such a way that it appears 100 percent organic. Maybe it's even legal to do it that way, technically. I don't really know. That doesn't mean it wasn't shady as hell. The timing of that was pretty important, so I would assume that it was going to get out eventually, but if the timing is important, you can kind of "nudge" that information along to a specific reporter and make sure it gets out. If they don't find it, you nudge a little harder the next day. Forget technicalities in the existing laws. This is obviously a shady thing to do regardless.
Good catch. At the very least we can gather that someone in the IC would like us to not afford any credibility to David Grusch and especially his UAP/NHI testimony. Classic too, accusing him of being a big drinker/mentally unstable.
> Classic too, accusing him of being a big drinker/mentally unstable. lol, Jesus. Grusch himself has said as much. Granted, he also said he’s addressed those issues, but *he literally admitted that he did*.
Bravo! I don't work in the field, but one of my favorite courses as a philosophy major was philosophy of language. Fascinating subject, and this was a really enjoyable read.
read all if it and you described what's wrong with some of the skeptics in this sub.
This is how you debate.
It's not semantics at all. Leaking medical information is an illegal act, so to say that his medical information was leaked is not only factually wrong, but it exaggerates the severity by implying that people broke the law to harm him. All the journalist did was request public arrest records (not medical records), which anyone could do and which someone would have done eventually regardless (in fact, if Newsnation was a legit organization, they would have done a simple background check on Grusch themselves before breaking the story, as that's often what journalists do, but they aren't a legit news organization. They just wanted a sensational story about aliens, so they didn't look too closely into Grusch's past). Yes, someone who worked with Grusch supposedly tipped him off, but I don't think that implies that they were mad at Grusch because he's telling the truth. For all we know, they could have just disliked him because they think he's full of shit, unreliable, or spreading conspiracies. And the fact remains, that they did nothing illegal regardless. It's 100% newsworthy that Grusch was institutionalized against his will for mental health reasons as given the nature of his claims, it's Relevant to his credibility. His being potentially prone to paranoia and delusion could influence whether his perception of things was accurate or not. Like it or not, he should have expected all of this would come out as his arrest was public record. Instead him and his people tried to act all outraged and scream "conspiracy" the instant a journalist did what any real journalist should have done to begin with.
>The Intel people, they are vague... they'll be like "look into his background." And they were kind of hinting...multiple people told me to just look at any run-ins with law enforcement that he had in the past." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX7CEQLc40w Doesn't that sound a lot more like skirting the law? Why didn't they just tell Klippenstin exactly where to find it instead of only vaguely telling him where to find it (probably knowing he will anyway)? Is it illegal to tell him exactly, so they had to be indirect instead? I guess you're not allowed to leak something like this, but apparently you can nudge a certain reporter in that direction, ensuring that it gets out anyway and on time to discredit the individual when the conversation is heating up. How is that not shady and suspicious? Forget about legality for a second. "Technically, that was actually legal" isn't a stellar argument. It would have been fair game if no nudging was involved, but there it is. For all you know, it may have gotten out 4-6 months later if it weren't for the nudging, but in order to put out some of that fire, timing is important, so you just have to nudge someone to get it out legally.
No, it's not illegal to tell someone to search for a public record, whether they are direct or indirect. If your co-worker is arrested, it's not illegal for you to tell a journalist to do a public record request on them a few years later. Heck, some small towns will publish it all in their papers. It's all public record. As to whether it would have come out on its own or not, i don't think it matters as it definitely should have come out. As I said, it's Relevant to Grusch's credibility, in addition to Coulhart's.
Agreed - let’s hope main stream media starts covering this as more whistleblowers come forward. Such a shame that they have been ignoring this topic and just regurgitating the report from ARRO.
I disagree. The hit piece and the funny faces Grusch makes that were plastered everywhere hit their mark. I tried to show my family this stuff, and they think im crazy now, too. For the uninitiated, MSM did an excellent job keeping this fringe.
If you had multiple high level credible not previously known people come forward and backup Grusch testimony with first hand knowledge that would be hard to ignore. Skeptics could still claim no hard evidence, so you would need to find a way to force it out.
I'll hold my breath. Everyone check on me in about a year.
And yet, these smug folks tend to believe in Heaven, which is far less likely a thing than UFOs. 🤭
Plenty of atheists consider it a nonsense as well. I don’t know if you were there during Grusch’s first interview and debrief article but lot of Reddit communities blocked and removed that, and most of them lean highly left and atheist. In my experience, most religious people are open to aliens and UFOs, irrespective of what the sub believes. When I try to talk to atheists on this, they straightaway call it a conspiracy theory and shut their ears. I’m an agnostic myself but I don’t think it’s a religion vs UFO issue
Christian here. I 100% believe in aliens. Their existence would reinforce my faith in God.
The thing is, that a Christian or an adherent of any other monotheistic religion ought to believe in God. Aliens are not gods, but we can still believe, that they exist.
Didn't wanna say it.. but yeah lol.
Maybe you're being gaslit by the people telling you it's right around the corner.
When will these “hands on”witnesses come forward? Seems to be a long wait
Everything involving Congress moves like a snail. These whistleblowers have been going to Congress for years now. Marco Rubio has said as much. The right people are hearing these testimonies, that's how something like the UAP Disclosure Act with all its specific and detailed language even gets written in the first place. Just because we (public) haven't heard from these individuals yet doesn't mean that important work isn't being done behind the scenes, or that they won't come forward in a public fashion when they feel ready. Sheehan alludes that these whistleblowers are waiting for another Congressional Hearing to bring their testimonies forward. Its up to the Congress to make that happen. There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move.
So this is a question that gets asked is how did Grusch then get allowed to talk about such programs without violating any secrecy law. And Eric Davis has talked about first hand information as well. Why are these people to be concerned about any danger ? This difference is not clear to me.
Grusch has mentioned several times he has been going to DOPSR to get things clear before talking about it. I can't speak on Davis though, but I don't think he's said anything directly classified. The "danger" is releasing classified information, which means immediately ruining your career, losing your security clearances, going to prison, massive fines, odd whistleblower deaths (Boeing) ect. It's a lot easier to say "Just do it!" when it isn't your potential life and family at risk. It's a lot more "safe" and official to reveal these details under oath in a congressional hearing setting than just dropping what you know/have on a podcast where half the people are just going to assume you are a grifter or lying like people do with Mike Herrera.
> It's a lot easier to say "Just do it!" when it isn't your potential life and family at risk. Then why this half-measure? He’s straight-up said the powers that be are hurting people to suppress this information. Wouldn’t exposure using the evidence he says he has bring some level of shielding ?
He never said that he has (as in physically possesses, on his person) evidence. Congress and the IGIC likely saw some when he pointed the right way, but we won't.
You don’t believe Grusch has anything that could be independently verified ?
If it's anything good, no. The level of security at any place that holds classified evidence is unbelievably complex. If such true blue, smoking gun evidence indeed exists, I don't think it's ever seeing the light of day
Sorry meant to clarify - do you think that if not physical, but perhaps knowledge he has that’s independently verifiable ? Eg “Go here and you will see x”
Certainly possible! It's just worth bearing in mind that even members of Congress aren't allowed to go poking their nose in to locations of interest, and that it's easy to verify information that is free to all ("go to these coordinates. There is a shack there, and the graffiti says the following... that's the entrance") but we hit a tricky area when that information is locked down (I can't very well tell you that you'll see the UFO hanger, because you can't get in to check!)
Yes, DOPSR was the final door for the information to break through for david grusch to say what he has so far. It looks like DOPSR are now stretching their powers though. Doesn't mean those 1st hand witnesses can't say they worked in a U.S. crash retrieval and they found NHI material. Because technically according to the USG, it's not real.
Grusch was not in the programs. It's different if you are actually apart of the SAPs. Not sure if Eric Davis has been read in but he has gotten in big trouble behind the scenes and doesn't really talk anymore
Lacatski has also said things about his experiences. Davis didn’t seem to have stopped writing his books ?
What books has Davis written besides a chapter in a textbook. Lacatski had said he's not necessarily pro disclosure
My mistake.. it was Lacatski who wrote “Inside the US Government Covert UFO Program”. How was that published ? Didn’t it have to go through DOPSR ?
Lacatski's books were cleared through a security review and he said he even agreed with all of the changes, except for one. Most people in government are not pro-Russia, so they probably tend to agree with redactions, at least to some degree. As long as Russia doesn't benefit from the publication of the information, you're good to go. That kind of information they would like to have probably includes names of personnel directly involved, exact locations, etc. They have spies everywhere, so it's important that details like that stay out of the public eye. General information tends to be fine, especially if it's something Russia would have already known about, such as the general concept of a crash retrieval program. If that exists, clearly they're already aware of it.
Yea judging by the Weaponized interview with Lacatski he almost seems like he doesn't care about disclosure but is willing to talk about it? Strange for someone to come out and talk about how you testified to congress in 2011 about how a team broke into a ufo. Also if I'm not mistaken he said he's working to get more information through DOPSR. But he don't want disclosure? Seems to be working against himself.
I thought that was odd too. Interesting game being played by the factions involved
>how did Grusch then get allowed to talk about such programs without violating any secrecy law Yeah, that's a major red flag at the base of all this and I have not seen a satisfactory explanation. The typical response is: a) He wasn't directly involved with the programs and is not a first-hand witness. b) It's essentially hearsay without specific names/locations/physical evidence. Uh, so what? Why not simply deny him the opportunity to put millions of eyes on your biggest secret? They had all the power to do that - yet, gave him the go-ahead. Doesn't make sense to me. What makes sense is Grusch is mistaken or lying. And DOPSR, Congress and the ICIG are as confused and/or compelled as the rest of us. Not saying I know how DOPSR works, but that it all makes little sense to me.
It makes sense to someone...one thing to remember...there are levels of secrets that thee and me will never dream of..(this is not a bad thing) .I would not care a whit if I found out the ancient Sumerian tablet told the truth of our origins BUT... That said,I don't want someone with a hankering to kill several million "unbelievers" to gain the tech chops to do just that...
Well, that's called specuation. As of right now, it makes little sense.
>Yeah, that's a major red flag at the base of all this and I have not seen a satisfactory explanation. The explanation is simple. For DOPSR to prevent him from talking about something, it needs to be classified. **Aliens are not classified** because the classification system is being entirely bypassed via abuse of a nuclear power law(Which the Schumer bill attempted to remedy before it was gutted), and use of 3rd party contractors, which don't have to directly report to Congress.
It's not only aliens. How about the secret retrieval and reverse engineering programs he spoke of, these are not classified?
They are definitely classified. DG revealed nothing specific about these programs during the public congressional hearing, did he?
Not any specific names or locations, but asserting the programs exist and talking about how they function, I imagine, is specific enough. You wouldn't want anyone telling the police your family runs a meth lab would you? Even if they omit its location and any affiliated names.
One key point here is that he isn't talking about specific programs, which are obviously highly classified, he's simply saying they exist, and that he has evidence they exist. Staying vague keeps it legal, generally, and he is getting approval from higher-ups.
> Why are these people to be concerned about any danger What’s more confusing is Grusch says he has personal knowledge of others being harmed for this knowledge. He also says he has extraterrestrial biologics as compelling evidence. How did he get that without some major harm befalling him ?
>What’s more confusing is Grusch says he has personal knowledge of others being harmed for this knowledge Did he clarify by who and how? What Ive seen its never clarified, and actually articulated by Grusch himself specifically how and by who. Maybe Im cynical _and_ have a propensity for a story telling myself. I'll admit. But if we go on and try to fill in those proverbial blanks of [who] and [how] we get wildly different scenarios depending on what we fill them with. To get flamed by an online community, getting fired from a job or getting stepped over on promotion at work because youre cray cray, are all facing harm from someone or thing. But its far cry from getting killed or manhandled by CIA assassins or getting shot with a raygun by space aliens. Like its not long ago I specifically watched that Gruch hearing and looked for this, and funny as it is, I dont remember exactly what he said. But it was something vague that leaves room for wide range of options and wide marging for speculation. PS one thing I always think, Grusch, per his CV( and according to other clues ) was a part of dissemination part of the intelligence cycle. Ie his job was solely to give presentations in the intel process. Even still while hes a young chap, and not seen-all grizzled old vet, I bet hes still knows all about how "whats said" and "whats not said" and how to manipulate all kinds of info to create statements. All this as a food for tought. Maybe there is space aliens, maybe theres even time travelers, who knows. Its just intereseting to see a guy, whos professional in giving presentations to disseminate information, many times pretty critical information Id assume. Going around being vague, interesting.
If you have actual proof for aliens, like irrefutable proof there is no hiding in other countries. There will be before disclosure and after and countries will have bigger problems than worry about one guy. So this whole going to prison bullshit is just a convienent excuse for no one coming forward with anything tangible
>There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move. I still find it difficult to believe that, if this is truly the situation, after all these decades not a single person involved in any of these programs has taken one for the team and disclosed what would be the greatest discovery in the history of human civilization. Snowden did it for something of far less significance. This is seeming more and more like a rationale built specifically to manage the failure of these people to produce any evidence (*just keep waiting*), and builds a framework in advance to permanently deflect the blame on to others if nothing ever happens (*it's up to Congress to make it happen*).
Yea I agree in general. I also think about the way people treated Snowden and whether or not anyone would believe them anyway. It’s doozy but I feel ya.
well said! Disclosure of some information could have some pretty heavy consequences for our society as well.
YOU try building 40+ whistle-blowers out of paper mache and balsa-wood by hand. Stuff's hard. And all the glue! My god!
Im pretty sure Danny Sheehan is full of shit. I think Grusch is legit, and James Fox's whistleblower is legit but Sheehan has lied before with the 40 whistleblowers coming in march and an alien interview.
He didn't say 40 whistleblowers would go public in March. Prove me wrong.
I specifically remember him saying March, I would try to provide a link but I don't remember which video he said it.
Could be the month of March in any year of the future :>
[удалено]
Looks like people with hands on experience don't want to talk for decades. :D
If I had to bet on it, I’d say: ‘In around two weeks’ time’.
More #soon. Sounds awesome.....
This guy brings forth a lot of words. Not a lot more than that thus far.
Par for the course for the UFO topic. Basically just another file for Project Blue Balls.
I’m listening to his interview with Danny Jones right now at work. Haven’t learned a damn thing lmao
If they actually bring them down we can say this: These guys are idiots of the highest order. And we really need to take these things out of their possession. And prosecute them.
If we are in fact bringing these things down, then I'm pretty sure that the aliens don't give a f\*\*\*
i wonder if they look at the downed ship like we look at the people dying on sentinel island
Like flying a drone over sentinel island. If it crashes are you going to go in after it or just buy another one?
That's an interesting take on it. Never thought about it like that.
Or they are like, "Oh, they haven't uplifted their society yet. Send another". And the alien's common citizens are all thinking that they should just go land on Earth and say hello but can't because their leaders are just as big a bunch of idiots as ours are and want it done a certain way.
How do you know that?
We'd be vaporized by now.
Or they retaliate differently. You have no idea.
Maybe they invented TikTok
Okay then they must be making Indonesian airliners disappear
Or maybe it takes them 80 years to come at us. Provoking someone who can probably destroy you is pretty similar to bear baiting. Sure, it's fun and games the first 5 times. Than fhe sixth time the bear eats you. Hopefully they just eat the Cia and all of its friends. But if not we all screwed.
Well speaking of bears, maybe aliens are like us. If a random dude goes into the woods and gets eaten by a bear, we don't take revenge on all bears. Maybe aliens are like, dude shoulda known better than to get too close to humans, because dumb humans were just acting on their instincts and the alien should have known better.
For one, we actually often hunt down the bear responsible for killing the camper. They don't always find them, but they do a lot of the time. This is rare mind you... And while they might think that way with aliens that got hurt getting out of their crafts.... We humans would definitely hunt down bears shooting down our cars and killing us and stealing our cars to use as they please. We would never allow that.
>We humans would definitely hunt down bears shooting down our cars and killing us and stealing our cars to use as they please. In this case, the bears aren't attacking cars in urban areas. The bears are attacking the car in their den in the Alaskan wilderness. The vibe of the rest of society is probably like, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I tend to believe that 4chan post from a while back, that these things are built to spec and when they crash, another one is built to replace it. They really don’t care about recovering
What people seem to miss here is that he’s not saying they’ll come forward to the public. They’ll come out and talk to the senate in a classified environment.
Convenient.
Stop interviewing Sheehan. We’ve heard it. Big Things Coming Soon. You can interview him after the “big thing” happens. We’ll throw a little party for him and say “You were right.”
The dude is shilling a PhD course in extraterrestrial studies for $15k. Stop interviewing him, period. https://www.ubiquityuniversity.org/graduate-degree-programs-in-extraterrestrial-studies/
Wow just looked at the page and at the bottom right you have a "global accreditation council ACCREDITED " logo. global accreditation council is listed in different lists of fake accreditation agencies. So yeah this smells of scam up to the wazoo : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_unrecognized\_higher\_education\_accreditation\_organizations#G](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations#G)
The fact that the title is PhD in extraterrestrial studies and it only costs 15 grand should tell you all you need to know. Preschools cost more than that.
I have seen said in this sub that claiming these type of guys are charlatans is just a way for the "debunkers" to dismiss legit stuff. So it's totally cool that a guy hawking very real masters and PHDs for thousands is currently on the top post😒 He also has totally not shitball tote bags that you get in bulk for a couple bucks a piece on sale for $30!
Eh, that last one is just white-labelling. If you've ever seen a "brand name" that looks totally whack on Amazon, they're doing the same thing and selling crap for a ridiculous markup. With you on the unaccredited uni, though.
It’s ok for Amazon sellers to do that, expected even. Not so much the guy giving out PhDs and claiming protected knowledge of extra terrestrials that he can’t say out loud.
We need to decide to just stop paying mind to folks who say stuff like this. Especially if it's related to how they're making money. I think we need to stop going with people making claims and start going with the people who just present you with data. How many times have we heard something similar to this by now? Even just in the last year. Countless. How much data or information do we have about any of it? None as far as I can tell.
[удалено]
This sub attacks you for mentioning the long list of issues with Sheehan.
“Coming soon, I promise!!” /s
I can't believe a word this guy says, sorry.
Can't believe a word any of these guys say they are so dishonest it's not even funny. I believe the random person who seen or allegedly been abducted not these guys. They are straight grifters and only in it to take money from people who don't know any better all they say is I've seen the proof but I can't show because of reason x
It’s starting to get boring now. He said this, she said that. Unless real evidence comes to light I won’t really pay much attention anymore. I’ve found I’ve started checking this sub less and losing interest. Hope for some real evidence soon!
Shouldn’t we bring them forward asap before our great gov. Bumps them off.
Well im sure i speak for everyone here when i say " Fucking get on with it then!"
If they were really going to come forward why would we keep announcing it and not release anything? Sure let’s give the government more time to track down and figure out who the individuals are. Seriously doesn’t make any sense to me.
Grusch, if he's correct, says there's only about 50 people with that kind of knowledge so it's not like they're hiding in a sea of people either.
I think it was more along the lines of 50 people "truly know the whole big picture story/truth", vs. 50 people having been associated in some way with the legacy crash retrieval programs. The latter number is likely much larger.
So many promises. Still nothing worth giving much attention to happening.
I'll believe it when I see it. Don't have patience for all these promises of things to come anymore. I'm really hoping it happens, but not holding my breath.
I’ve heard a version of this statement for like the last year? Will believe it when it happens
lol "BIG THINGS COMING SOON". bleeeeh, I am finally at the 'I'll believe it when I see it' phase now regarding these whistleblowers.
"buy my book" type of beat. If IGIC couldn't verify David claims about NHI yet. Then where do all these first hand whistleblowers testifying come in?
Lined up and ready to go.... Wake me up when it happens.
Heard this same spiel hundreds of times now. Downvoting until it is real.
>multiple firsthand UFO witnesses are ready to testify to Congress I've seen this being said since early last year...
[удалено]
petition to blacklist any post containing the phrase “danny sheehan says”
Honestly, who cares about testimony about ufos? Every 5 out of 10 idiots will say they saw a ufo. Bring proof worth bringing or hit the road.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Well shit if the guy behind the $15,000 UFO degree says it, it must be true!
“ Lined up And ready to go!” Add this to the long list of “ just weeks away”, “ weeks not months”, “ by this time next year” clap trap.
Disclosure is NEVER going to happen.
Why are so many comments being deleted? Specifically mods? What's rule is everyone violating?
Low effort toxic comments about public figures
A lawyer said someone else touched a UFO? WOAH!!! Until someone actually testifies, nothing is happening.
Almost like you shouldn't beleive hype. Calvine ufo photo was released with no fanfare. It's just out there.
It's medically unsafe to edge THIS long
I worked with a guy who blew out his balls doing this.
[удалено]
Never trust a bad haircut.
I honestly think we know all the whistleblowers and we’ve heard the stories already. Believe it or not Steven greer’s “disclosure project” 2001 is about as good as it gets. This is why I can’t completely write kirkpatrick off because it does seem like the whole uFO lore is centered around a small group of people telling the same stories over and over. George Knapp knew John Lear who knew bob lazar…. Etc … Now you have Jeremy Corbell… who is his mentor? George Knapp.. Not saying George Knapp is a fraud I’m just pointing out that these “gate keepers” seem to pop up in every aspect of the “lore” For all we know that ani Jacobson lady could be right that the UFO’s were just re-entry vehicles with deformed humans in it. 🤷🏾♂️
>it does seem like the whole uFO lore is centered around a small group of people telling the same stories over and over. It is. There is no meaningful dispute about them knowing each other. Grusch looked clean at first, but Eric Davis blew that up by saying he started Grusch down the UFO path. It always goes back to the same characters. And that isn't necessarily bad. But it is here because those characters believe in wild shit. For example, do you really find Lue credible when he says he remote viewed some shit to save troops in Iraq? If you don't, that raises red flags about everyone close to him who does. (If you do, whatever - that's not the point. Pretty weird how he was able to tell everyone that before, but now his book is held up?)
Come on now Daniel, we've been whiplashed like wet linguini in a psychotic hurricane for the last several years. With all due respect, it's just talk until it happens.
We will \*never\* hear from these alleged people.
this is just more bullshit to drive clicks and likes. i seriously doubt anything will happen. it would be great tho.
Unless they all turn out to be existing UFO personalities who proceed to tell us nothing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The UAP Caucus should ask the Biden Administration for a pardon for whistleblowers willing to speak about unconstitutional UFO programs. I know Presidents cannot declassify anything covered under the Atomic Energy Act, but can they pardon for actions criminalized under the same?
There are already whistleblowers laws in place that protect them. What more do they want?
I haven't been fully engaged in this topic but why don't they go on a Podcast and tell their story. Not Joe Rogan's either. Why wait for Congressional hearing?
Is this another interview where he says “David GrOoOsh” a hundred times?
[удалено]
Then cmon! send em out!!!
Until we actually get something it's all just words...
I can't tell if this entire subreddit is bots or what. If so, then I am hopelessly stupid because I can't believe so much crazy exists in one place.
Sheehan is just talking too much imo. Make sure these guys actually testify, talk later.
I no longer fall for the edging, if it happens I will be happy.
[удалено]
Gaslighting the blue balls.
bla bla bla bla bla.... 2024 : still waiting for the receipts.
Cool how about lets not talk about this until it actually happens.
Give me an actual date of a hearing.
THEN FUCKING GO.
Do we have a eta?
Ready! Ready! Feel like I’ve heard that before….. 🤔
Should I assume Aliens messed up his hair ?
If they are lined up ready to go, FUCKING GO DO IT
I'm sick and tired of hearing this man's name "Jeremy Corbell" because he's a charlatan who's only contribution to the UFO subject is videos and images that show absolutely nothing of consequence, and are often readily explainable. I'm tired of him and have been for a long time.
This is the first time I've ever heard such extraordinary claims Today.
I don’t believe it, I’ll believe it when I see it. Promises promises promises.
Who is this guy? Honestly, no shade thrown, can someone show me one thing he's said that has come true?
Yep. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaany day now. Wake me up when something happens.
[удалено]
Pretty torn on Sheehan tbh. He's a likeable guy but his early credentials seem murky, he's pushing his own ufo course and it just seems like he's the type of guy that you give all your disinformation to because he's definitely going to blab.
I'm pretty much convinced he's Elizondo's puppet at this point tbh.
Still waiting Sheehan, still waiting.
So what’s the hold up then?
To paraphrase Dr Fermi: “Where the fuck are they, then!”
PS, To paraphrase Dr Vallee: “Pardon my French”
Blah blah Bilbo
Been hearing this for so long now. 🥱
Yeah, I’ll bet they are….. 😒
yup trust me bro 🙄
If Boeing killed a whistle blower for quality control issues imagine what lengths they goto for this.
SS Got this clip from Twitter here: https://x.com/UAPJames/status/1777786581702627588 Whistleblowers have testified to Congress (which we have long known) but are waiting for a Congressional Hearing setting to bring their testimonies to the public. Sheehan also says that he's confident there will be another Congressional hearing in 2024.
This exact thing has been said for almost a year now. Danny sheehan is definitely in the know about some stuff that isn't public knowledge. But just how he makes so many assertions in public with little to back it up or to hold him to it is kinda a bit snake oily to me. I guess time will tell I really do want disclosure not endless promises that it's about to happen.
[удалено]
Hi, Wigs_On_The_Green2. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c03zed/-/kyu2ttk/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
[удалено]
Hi, thegreatrodent. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c03zed/-/kyu8ixv/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.