Hacker News Reader

Comment by King-Aaron | Hacker News Reader

Except now they have it on legal public record in front of congressmen a testimony that states

- aliens exist - they have recovered technology - they have recovered bodies - there's a shadow government of people approving access to information on a higher level than the government - money is being directly taken out of other projects and/or services to fund UAP projects - there is an active disinformation program in the government directly regarding UAPs - people have been criminally abused by government contractors over this - there's massive mismanagement with government military contractors

Etc etc. If you're a UFO nerd you've heard it all before, but this is pretty big stuff to have on record, and that's the main thing. A lot of that needs to be followed up legally, and it sounds like a lot more is going to be discussed behind closed doors.

View on HN

My concern here is that if these testimonies can’t be linked to evidence, the entire subject will be once again be discredited, goodwill from legislators will evaporate and the status quo will remain - that being UAPs being genuine alien devices or no.

The part that never adds up to me is the complete lack of concrete evidence in the open (when there is ubiquitous technology for detection in the hands of the public), or the implied astonishing competence of governments and agencies cooperating internationally to keep alien intelligence hidden. We couldn't prevent a pandemic, have lost nuclear weapons and are watching the planet die due to carbon emissions… yet somehow the alien-intelligence-suppression-network works?

There is classified physical documentation that the IGIC is in possession of and has spent nearly four years verifying and found to be credible and corroborated by dozens of first hand witnesses over the course of their investigation.

Unfortunately all of that is still classified but congresspeople who have been briefed have been sufficiently motivated to introduce legislation to investigate further (as Chuck Schumer has recently done in the Senate).

It could be the phenomenon that has the astonishing competence.

There is evidence and it has been submitted to the relevant parties.

>aliens exist - they have recovered technology - they have recovered bodies - there's a shadow government of people approving access to information on a higher level than the government

wait... someone testified _under oath_ that these things exist? Either they're lying/exaggerating, or they just announced the single largest discovery in the history of the human race? I feel stupid just typing this...

> Either they're lying/exaggerating

Or mistaken, or they're accurately reporting what someone else told them, who was lying/exaggerating/mistaken.

Yep, would probably be the dawn of a new era if proven to be true publicly.

I know, right? Artificial intelligence, Aliens, and.... what would complete the trifecta?

(Please don't say Armageddon!)

The year of the Linux desktop?

The only thing more unbelievable than aliens, I am afraid

Could be Armageddon. Maybe they want a new vacation home and they are prepping the battlefield and doing some recon.

I think aliens exist, just not on earth. There's too much out there for this not to be true.

Our first encounter with extraterrestrial life will probably be microbes, exciting but not exactly little green men from X-Files.

Here is the question and answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ7Dw-739VY&t=7626s

Grusch states they have "biologics" that are "non-human" based on people he talked to

> based on people he talked to

So it's a complete nothing burger.

I guess, if you completely ignore what's been said through this hearing.

There's a reason hearsay evidence is not accepted in courts.

Yeah, technically he could say what he did if they pulled a vial of terrestrial pond scum or a goldfish out of the craft. She should have followed up, not with 'non-human', but with 'non-terrestrial'.

That testimony was all meaningless, a total nothingburger. No hard evidence. And just because the witnesses testified under oath doesn't mean they were accurate or truthful. If they want to be taken seriously then let's see some actual artifacts or specimens.

I do support continuing the Congressional investigation. Even if there are no aliens, they might find evidence of misuse of government funds or violations of oversight rules. Let's get clear on how our tax dollars are being spent. Members of the Defense and Intelligence committees are cleared at the highest levels so there's no legal reason to conceal the existence of any programs from them.

Someone saying something on the record doesn't make it true.

Yeah, that's more about emotional validation for the UFO believers than anything about actual facts.

Someone willing to enter into a SCIF with congress regarding these claims is most certainly more than a nothingburger.

I understand the skepticism but really think most of you don't understand that there's a lot going on in this hearing.

Im going to go on the record that the Bush Cabal, with HW Bush killing JFK, and then with his minion, attempted to assasinate Reagan, but failed - then succeeded in the CIA take over of the USA with clinton, Obama, etc - does not make that true - but its all on record...

> they have recovered bodies

My assumption is that they recovered apes placed into advanced test drones. After all, apes were put into early test spacecraft in the 1950s and 1960s. But today animal rights is a bigger concern, and the use of animal test subjects could cause controversy, so they want to keep that quiet. Hence the person testifying would disclose that only in a SCIF.

> - aliens exist - they have recovered technology - they have recovered bodies - there's a shadow government of people approving access to information on a higher level than the government - money is being directly taken out of other projects and/or services to fund UAP projects

OK.

> - there is an active disinformation program in the government directly regarding UAPs

Would that active disinformation program include having people go testify to Congress, in front of cameras, and tell them what's in my first quoted section?

More generally, any time someone says "there is a disinformation campaign saying X", there is a greater than zero chance that, yes, there is a disinformation campaign, and that person making that claim is (knowingly or not) part of that campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com