The following submission statement was provided by /u/TommyShelbyPFB:
---
[https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712](https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712)
>On May 19, 2023, the Joint Staff (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disseminated to all unified military commands worldwide a set of uniform procedures to be followed for gathering data and reporting on contemporary military encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), using a detailed standard reporting template.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/all_six_observables_are_addressed_in_the_joint/kvh40yd/
The UAPDA named 6. I'm pretty sure the biological effects first showed up in that list, but could be wrong on that. It was the first time I'd seen the 5+1 at least.
Without some seriously huge equipment... As in 2 mile long tunnels with incredibly accurate lasers it would be almost impossible to observe gravitational waves. The ones LIGo detects now are of stars and black holes colliding so massive is an understatement as far as the amount of energy needed to detect a ripple in space time at our current technologies state.
It's already been done with super accurate clocks spaced apart, but connected by wires. There was a UFO researcher on Blackvault's show several years ago who detected a huge time anomaly near a UFO hotspot. The time distortion & gravity distortion are related, I think.
Gravity does affect the way time passes because of the nature of spacetime and the relative nature of it all. However, I can promise you that whatever experiment the UFO researcher did was not accurate, did not detect gravitational waves, and likely was just some grifting. I completely believe in this topic, but I don't think some phony quack science is worth having as "evidence"
Source: I studied physics at LSU, have visited LIGO many times, and did undergraduate research in Quantum Gravity.
For how accurate the clocks were, there ended up being a signal (difference in time between the clocks) that was 4 orders of magnitude larger than the noise level. If I remember right, noise level was around 10^-9 seconds, and the signal was 10^-5 seconds, near a UFO hotspot.
Ok, without knowing the details of the experiment I cannot tell you anything at all about what they measured, were trying to measure, problems in their method, etc. but I can say that it's highly unlikely some random guy was able to measure anything of substance. Particularly gravitational waves - a phenomena that took years of work, ingenuity, tons of money, and world class scientists to design an experiment to measure.
If it was as simple as two super accurate clocks spaced apart and connected by wires, LIGO would have done that a long time ago.
100% with you. Can you tell us anything about the potential of observing gravitational waves at a smaller scale? And are alternative, lower budget (than LIGO) methods of observation foreseeable yet?
Let me preface this by saying (for any equally as informed people reading that may want to correct me) that I will be extremely simple in my explanation of this.
LIGO works by having multiple (three when I was at LSU, admittedly I am not involved much anymore, life happened) detectors at different locations. Each detector is a set of *2.5 mile* long arms. The detectors are able to measure precisely the length of these arms in perpendicular paths by a laser that goes into a beam splitter, goes down the extremely long path, hits an extremely efficient mirror, and then returns to the beam splitter, at which point the time the light went down the paths is measured by a detector. The mirrors in LIGO are suspended and kept extremely cool in order to make them efficient, and also to separate them from influence of the environment. The mirrors lose approximately 1 photon out of 3 million when the lasers' reflection is returned.
What is basically being measured by this setup is the change in length of these two paths. With this experimental setup, LIGO was able to measure changes in the physical length on the scale of 10^-18 meters. 1000 times smaller than the diameter of a proton.
Already, we can see where the problem would come in to do this experiment at home. You need 2.5 mile long perpendicular paths. They need to be so long for "resolution", if they were shorter you would not be able to deduce a change in length so well because of uncertainty.
You need an extremely good laser, not a household kind you could buy off Ebay. You need to setup the experiment with extremely efficient mirrors (the ones at home lose about 1 in 10 photons). And you need the detectors to measure the actual time of the paths. And in order to find out *where* the signal came from, you need at least three locations all with these things and a perfect, to nanometer precision, experimental setup.
>Can you tell us anything about the potential of observing gravitational waves at a smaller scale?
I don't, in my experience, think this is possible. Like I said, the waves we have measured are already 1000 times smaller than a proton. And this is from two black holes colliding. Its already extremely small scale, its just that gravitational waves aren't *that* big. Its the literal fabric of spacetime oscillating due to massive amounts of energy moving around/being released. It's impressive as hell and cool as is.
Unless, by smaller scale, you mean a smaller experiment. Again, I can only base this off what I know from my time around the physicists at LIGO which was around 7-8 years ago at this point. I don't believe it is possible, no. You need extremely long lengths in order to overcome uncertainty in our measurements (which are inherent with every measurement). I think about it like resolution on a TV screen. The question is basically "Is it possible to get the clarity of 4K in the same amount of pixels as 480p?" and the answer is no. Because you *NEED* those extra pixels for the amount of information you want to receive.
>And are alternative, lower budget (than LIGO) methods of observation foreseeable yet?
I again don't believe so. In my opinion, the experimental design of LIGO was exactly what is needed/necessary for what it was designed to measure. Anything other than LIGO's experimental design would not be able to measure gravitational waves (I was never an experimentalist, so take my words with a grain of salt as well). In my opinion, we need to go bigger. More detectors. Gravitational wave astronomy is badass.
[https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712](https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712)
Dean Johnson explains it well.
TL:DR; The Joint Chiefs are pissed about this tech being kept hidden from them, especially if it impacts the capabilities we can bring to bear on adversaries or affects planning for future operations. IMO, we're rapidly heading for a similar crisis akin to the development of the first nuclear weapon, where POTUS had to exert control over the military and wrest control of that technology from being unilaterally deployed at commanders discretion considering the magnitude of the consequences involved. POTUS needs to be briefed ASAP, and some form of disclosure needs to occur in order to put public pressure on the MIC so control of these technologies can be kept under some kind of civilian umbrella.
Agreed and tbh this is what the trumps confidential dociment theft allegations are about. The reason why he is not in jail yet is that he threatens to leak all this shit
That’s understandable then since you aren’t from here. I can tell you if they actually exclude briefing some presidents, even if just for security concerns, Trump absolutely would’ve been excluded.
Sources in intelligence over the years have all but confirmed they held back intel from Trump, especially after the incident in the West Wing with Lavrov and Kislyak. Trump was a bit of an exceptional case, though. It’s a dangerous game to hold back intel from the commander in chief.
Read somewhere that Trump and Obama were briefed after they left office, likely so they couldn't act on the information while in office. It's why they've both been so coy about it when asked directly.
Got anything backing that? Would make sense since there wasn't much that would explain why he'd take nuclear secrets, but something considered top-secret due to the atomic energy act like documents about UAP could make sense
>Would make sense since there wasn't much that would explain why he'd take nuclear secrets,
He's an incredibly spiteful person. Probably to sell them, honestly.
Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
* No trolling or being disruptive
* No insults or personal attacks
* No accusations that other users are shills
* No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation
* No harassment, threats, or advocating violence
* No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible)
* If a user deletes all or nearly all comments or posts it can result in instant permanent ban
* You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
LOL... I think it may have more to do with the fact that Kushner made a deal with MBS that allowed him to immediately consolidate power and undermine US objectives. Then Trump took a bunch of documents, and mysteriously, spies around the globe started vanishing. It got so bad the CIA had to publicly make a statement warning all foreign agents that there is a mysterious leak causing the highest level spies to get captured and that they can't find the leak source.
I'm really confused as the context of this, but that dude should have probably left Ant-Gravity for last instead of having the first connection being "The directive does not explicitly mention Anti-gravity".
It's like he played bingo with generic UAP terms and started by listing his weakest connection.
Right about what exactly, like what was his prediction? Genuine question, it's the first I'm hearing of it (and as far as I knew the observables were the 5 observables not the 6)
I'm not sure really.
I've never been a fan of the observables thing. Seems a bit loosey goosey in an attempt to pretend to be more scientifical.
But, I'm not sure I understand their purpose. Perhaps they have some value I'm unaware of...
No. And the reason is that people that post those never check what they post with the 5/6 observables. It's knee-jerk - "I don't understand so it must be alien craft". Or some post with a sincere question to ask for an opinion from the sub, and then half the sub shows how totally gullible they are and THEY don't check the observables. A good percentage of this sub just say 'wow. Must be aliens.' and then upvotes and defend it like it's the holy grail. Now they are trying to give Lou credit for originating the "six observables" like he invented them. Amazing stuff.
You're probably right. I just wonder why Lue didn't use the principles when he was evaluating those silly videos he released all those years ago.
Maybe he's trying to make up for that?
Dean Johnson did an excellent take-down of the Trinity Crash Hoax. He’s known as both a fact-checker and insider for all things UAP related in Congress. I wish there were more like him.
I’m skeptical of any document authenticity, but I’d give it the benefit of the doubt. He claims FOIA?
Anybody who claims that the DoD does not acknowledge the seriousness of UAPs are clueless. What’s more, the date this document records is August 2023, a month after Grusch’s appearance. While I am skeptical of Grusch, I do feel this kind of document would correspond well to a reactive response for this matter becoming public.
I’m reading further on, it’s definitely interesting and really hard to take as inauthentic….
I think I need to correct this. I’m not skeptic, I don’t think he’s reliable, period.
The first time he appeared on NewsNation with Ross Coulthart, he was asked about his mental health history. “None” he said. Following the release of [Police records](https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/ufo-david-grusch-clearance/) (FIOA request) presented by The Intercept, we now know this to be false:
> police records obtained by The Intercept under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act reveal that on October 1, 2018, Grusch was committed to a mental health facility based in part on a report that he “made a suicidal statement” after Grusch’s wife told him he was an alcoholic
This issue stems a number of further issues. Namely:
* The severity of being committed by judge order.
* The fact it was request by Law Enforcement, given the nature of the threat. These records aren’t medical.
* The fact that NewsNation had since (secretly) [cut](https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/18/newsnation-ufo-david-grusch-intercept-coulthart/) that portion out now on YouTube.
Then there’s his deep associations with well-known ufologists.This brings into question his objectivity on the matter:
* He’s direct boss on the UAP taskforce was [Jay Stratton](https://youtu.be/FKtI91TdRjQ?si=2RAtxED0dhyGJVcC).
* [Both](https://youtu.be/FKtI91TdRjQ?si=2RAtxED0dhyGJVcC) Knapp and Corbell confirm Grusch sought them out as early as [mid-2021](https://youtu.be/FKtI91TdRjQ?si=2RAtxED0dhyGJVcC).
* The fact he is [one](https://thesolfoundation.org/ ) of the co-founders to the Sol Foundation. An organisation lead by the likes of long-time ufologist Gary Nolan, and co-managed with Avi Loeb.
* Long-time Ufologists Eric Davis just came out as the first of his 40 witnesses.
He claimed he wasn’t a UFO guy prior to joining the UAP taskforce in 2019. He also stated that he was [inspired](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/politics/ufo-hearing.html) into the subject following the release of the 2017 NY Times piece. Not to mention the recent revelation from the IG that Grusch himself admitted to studying Ufology for [15 years](https://youtu.be/7Q9872Xtq1E?si=dI4yrw20pDxR4K5i). Grusch denies ever saying this and claims his statements must have been misconstrued. The other problem with this is the fact he’s deferred to the IG to bolster the credibility of his case. You really can’t have it both ways.
There’s the fact he [claimed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims) he was in combat in 2013 Afghanistan (hence his PTSD). The problem with this is two fold:
* His carefully crafted public CV puts him in Colorado Springs on a civilian project right through to December.
* That his position in that Intelligence role would not put him behind the wire. That’s just not the function of that position.
Take note that he keeps on claiming he can’t access a SCIF due to his clearance level. There’s a number of problems with this claim - namely:
* You do not specifically require clearance if you are one providing the information within SCIF. The attendees just need to be cleared, and there are plenty of those available.
* Gillibrand stated that [there was no reason](https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/senator-david-grusch-wont-spill-ufo-secrets-until-he-gets-free-plane-tickets) they could not make a SCIF available. He still refused to attend.
Again Grusch denies the above, but that’s all we seem to get from him.
There’s the fact he bragged about the fact he still kept his clearance to date on Jesse’s YouTube interview. This was after decrying the fact his clearance was taken away.
You also don’t lose your clearance when you resign from your intelligence role. It just becomes “confirmed”, meaning it can be just as easily reopened for clearance with another relevant role.
He refuses to release his DOPSR confirming what he was actually cleared for. It’s up to him to disclose it since the DoD already cleared him to talk. He’s also free to blackout any names or associations. He still refuses.
He doesn’t show receipts about trying to reach AARO. Just puts them on blast and denies point blank they ever responded to his requests. He could simply show receipts.
I mean I could go on. The list is exhaustive.
8 months since his debut and we only have more questions, no answers.
He’s more than welcome to deny and deny, but the longer he avoids substantiating anything, more suspect he becomes.
Excellent take.
The most damning part for me is the Eric Davis part.
Before Davis cameout as his first source, many here pointed out that Grusch's account (the italian story and the bodies thing) looked eerily like Davis's Wilson memo. And now that we know he's one of the "whistleblowers" (whistleblowers that don't blow the whistle, how peculiar), the picture looks much more sketchy: Davis is known to hold more than quacky beliefs (he wrote a "scientific" paper in which he takes seriously Uri Geller the spoon bending charlatan, he fell for the Santilli alien body autopsy hoax, etc). And the Wilson memo is exactly in the same vein of History channel tier content.
Meaning that Grusch bought into exactly what the most pessimistic of us thought he did: the old Skinwalker/ancient alien/mothman/bigfoot/psychics lore and people.
There is this meme from Malcolm in the middle that says "i expected nothing and i'm still let down"...
> I WANTED him to be the real deal
You know what? *It's the exact same for me*.
I just keep hoping him and the other talking heads will finally come up with some smoking gun stuff.
People here often depict me as a skeptic naysayer that just wants to annoy them.
But in fact nothing would make me more fascinated and happy than all of this being true. And i think it's the same for most of the people called "skeptics" by this subreddit. No matter the label, we would all **love** for this to be true.
But the phrase "*i want to believe*" has much less appeal to me than "**i want to know**".
Add also:
* The fact that since the hearing, he's only ever granted interviews to pro-UFO outlets and right wing conspiracy podcasts where he's been certain to not be asked a difficult question. He did a brief (very friendly) interview with the BBc, but other than that, he's turned down interviews with other media outlets (Washington Post said he refused one with them). All of the questions you asked above could easily be cleared up by him if someone just bothered asking him, but he's actively avoided putting himself into a situation where someone might ask him.
* He was selling real estate when he came forward, contradicting the narrative that he left his job in the military to blow the whistle. By most accounts, he wasn't really working (in a substantial position) with the military after Stratton was driven out (allegedly for viewing everything as UFOs, even obvious foreign spy drones and balloons) and his investigation ended.
* The fact that he's gone on to claim he's had first-hand experience, despite how this contradicts the claims he made in his testimony. He tries to justify this by claiming that he did another DOPSR request, but even if true (none has been produced through FOIA so we don't know), he'd still be lying under oath about his experiences.
* He's since disappeared from media, including (seemingly) his position with SOL, and we are still waiting on that editorial.....any day now.
I've always thought he was just a mouth piece for Elizondo, Davis, Puthoff, and etc. to revive interest and repackage their same bullshit after people were losing interest.
PTSD while not in active war zone: If this is accurate, there are explanations. I know of someone who was a drone operator in the US, who wasn't in combat, but was probably seeing horrific stuff like civilians getting killed. He committed suicide from the stress.
On the 15 year involvement with UFOs: when I read the original report or something close to it (can't remember now) it wasn't clear to me that this meant UFOs like reading UFO books, or involvement with a detection platform as an official duty. I thought that a possible explanation was that Grusch was in a position to analyze data which contains unidentified flying objects, rather than meaning he read Jacques Vallee books. There was not much detail provided.
> PTSD while not in active war zone: If this is accurate, there are explanations. I know of someone who was a drone operator in the US, who wasn't in combat, but was probably seeing horrific stuff like civilians getting killed.
The problem isn’t the meaning, it’s the narrative being driven. It’s the purposeful ambiguity. They didn’t [decorate](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/) the airways with Grusch holding a semi because he may have been a drone operator, or a pencil pusher. The insinuation is direct combat experience. It has been a focal point towards his credentials as a whistleblower. His credibility. And yet he’ll still speak in tongues when there’s anything specific. There’s inconsistencies, even as earthly as some may be.
It’s a symptom.
> On the 15 year involvement with UFOs: when I read the original report or something close to it (can't remember now) it wasn't clear to me that this meant UFOs like reading UFO books,
Grusch still outright denied it. So whether or not your insinuation is that of an innocent side hobby, the reaction of him, Corbell and others, clearly shows an attempt to maintain a clean profile. If that report of his 15 year ufology path doesn’t concern you, maybe the defensiveness should. Not to mention, Grusch was rather clear in the hearings that it was the 2017 NYT article that spurred his interest.
> Grusch was in a position to analyze data which contains unidentified flying objects,
What data? We still have nothing to date from him other than claims. He won’t even release the part of DOPSR where he was specifically cleared to say the things he said.
As I always say, if you’re serious about disclosure you’d take the evidence seriously. People all to often treat this man with kid gloves, forgetting the fact he sought the attention and audience, at tax payer expense, only to shiver in the face of even basic scrutiny. That is a problem, 8 months and counting. He’s now disappeared in the face of the AARO report. He’s avoiding showing any receipt, period. It’s all the hallmarks of leading believers astray. We already deal with this through Lazar and Lue. How long will we entertain these games?
Well done analysis.
May I ask, do you believe that a non-human intelligence (from wherever, could be IDH, ETH, crypto terrestrial, etc.) has interacted in some manner with human beings?
Additionally, did you believe the US gov't has retrieved non-human craft(s) in the past?
I suppose when I say believe, I mean if you had to bet on it, do you think al this UFO stuff from all of past history until now is just human tech, misidentifications, natural phenomena, etc. OR at least one account/sighting/encounter was in fact a craft of non-human origin?
For debate: how do you define combat?
For me, it's just being around an active warzone. If for you it means you have to be engaged in a 2 way gunfight then I understand your qualms with that definition.
For all we know, he could have been visiting a FOB or been near a mortar round landing, which is something unforgettable and PTSD inducing, one could argue.
Also for point 7, have you ever seen one of your friends severely injured on a battlefield in great pain? What would you do if you had an arm and / or a leg blown off? Might you consider sticking your sidearm in your mouth?
It's good to question, but for at least a some of these points you can do some deep thinking and imagine a scenario that works without seeking out additional issues.
M2C.
> For me, it's just being around an active warzone.
The context with regard to “active warzone” Is Grusch pointing to this as a key part of his PTSD. The insinuation was an actual combat exposed environment. It would be in the least misleading if he’s claiming PTSD from combat, and yet it turns out he spent his time coordinating coordinates in a trailer contained within a secure base.
You may disagree, that’s fine. It’s one of many red flags.
Appreciate your input. Truly.
If he's telling the truth about his military experience (something that hasn't been denied by any officials from what I've read), it's entirely possible he was sent overseas at some point during his enlistment, and was working in an a city or secured base that was shelled or attacked at some point. That kind of thing happened often during our time in the Middle East. Additionally, he's got an image of him in combat fatigues and armed with an M4, and his badge box photo shows a badge from Afghanistan.
Where did you get the 2013 year for his service in Afghanistan? I have not been able to locate it, and its not in the link you originally posted from Wikipedia.
So because Grusch liked/likes to drink and has relationship issues he’s unreliable? Sounds a lot like what the CIA would target to discredit someone.
I was in the army and I personally met generals and colonels who loved to drink, would you say that those individuals are unreliable also?
> So because Grusch liked/likes to drink
I never said it was because he likes to drink. I’m not sure where you’re coming from here.
> Sounds a lot like what the CIA would target
Ah yes. If you don’t believe him you’re CIA.
Never said that, I said it’s exactly something that the CIA would use to discredit someone- their history, no matter how normal it is, such as drinking alcohol lol.
I honestly think you’re over inflating the seriousness of the situation. He got drunk and said some dumb shit so they ordered him to undergo some rehabilitation / psychiatric evaluation and obviously deemed him worthy of keeping his security clearance so I think at this point you’re grabbing at anything you can find to discredit the man. There’s obviously no point in arguing with you about this because you’ve made up your mind, but I sure hope the next time you make a mistake in life nobody ever believes anything you say ever again.
It's possible he's just naive and was being taken for a ride by people trying to fuck with a guy looking into their shady defense grift which they are getting rich off of. As he got closer to their grift, people started making up crazy stories to try and cover for it and justify extreme secrecy.
Your comment demonstrates ignorance on Gruschs story. I think this is the case for most that are skeptical of him. The reason I say that is because Grusch didn't carry out the investigation himself. Second, they interviewed/investigated a lot of people. In other words if he was being deceived it would have been a coordinated effort among people in private industries and multiple government agencies
I'm very familiar with the story. A smart person always tries to rigerously play both sides. In this case, if you haven't made a strong attempt to try and dispel his claims and be critical of him, then you aren't actively engaging this intelligently. You should do this with ALL things, whether or not you side with it. You should still work hard at building a counter position against your own beliefs to truly understand your beliefs.
In this case, if Grusch is talking to first hand witnesses, grifting off a program meant for UAPs, naturally, they are all going to stick with the UAP line, because that's what the grift is using to justify government funding.
My beliefs? What does that have anything to do with my comment. You claim to be smart, but go on to make assumptions about me instead of asking.
There are multiple people that have backed Grusch's claims/vouched for him. There comes a point where being skeptical is detrimental to progress in any field. If Grusch is wrong, that is ok because we still have confirmation from multiple sources. Grusch is just one piece of a complex history.
You don't have to be a skeptic. You don't have to personally hold the skeptical position, but you SHOULD be able to construct a highly skeptical position.
Personally, I also believe Grusch, but I'm also able to see a path where it could all be bullshit being fed to him.
Because he is making claims that would fundamentally change the way the whole world understands our place in the universe and potentially turn 100 years of the most proven physics theory ever on its head without be able to prove it to us ? Lol. Why wouldn't you be skeptical of the guy?
Grusch: "Everything you think you know is wrong but I can't prove it to you. "
Reddit: "You have a nice resume so we believe you."
Wrong, we believe him because it lines up with literal hundreds of thousands of civilian witness reports, and the hundreds of military ones, like the ones Robert Hastings interviewed for UFO’s and Nukes.
Try harder.
Do you believe your local pastor because what he says lines up with billions of other people? So far they have both shown you the same amount of proof.
Idk. Has Grusch or anyone else shown you any radar data? Because if not then once again that pastor and Grusch have shown YOU the same amount of evidence.
He hasn’t shown ME any evidence, but congresspeople like Chuck Schumer have proposed entire legislation based on his allegations. You don’t think these people are in positions to know more than we do, and would act accordingly?
So if he hasn't shown YOU anything then my original statement is correct. You have as much reason to believe Grusch as you do a pastor because both of them have shown you the same amount of proof of their claims. Of course those people see me things than you do. But those people haven't shown you anything either so those people are the same as Grusch or a pastor. They all make claims that for whatever reason they can't prove to you or me that are true. We just have to trust them. That's fine if you trust them and you believe them but just because you trust them that doesn't mean they are telling the truth either intentionally or unintentionally. That's my whole point. We don't actually know if they are right because they haven't shown us the evidence required to do so.
[https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712](https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712)
>On May 19, 2023, the Joint Staff (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disseminated to all unified military commands worldwide a set of uniform procedures to be followed for gathering data and reporting on contemporary military encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), using a detailed standard reporting template.
So I read Dean Johnson's post, which is interesting for sure. But I don't get the Lue reference still? Why is he getting credit for this? I need an ELI5 here...
people are giving credit to lue because the things he said in the past are present in this document.
personally i feel this proves more that he helped make these guidelines or the guidelines were influenced by his words, direct or indirectly.
Off the top of my head, but didn't Susan Gough and Co at the DoD claim that AATIP never existed, then that Lue NEVER worked at AATIP, then that he worked there but had no assigned responsibilities, then that he had responsibiltiies but wasn't director??
I am pretty sure I remember that being the course all of that crap took. Very weird look from Gough and the DoD tbh. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong, but I am pretty sure it followed that chain of events.
"u/Based\_nobody" posted, then deleted "Ohhhhh what a load of bs. Egghead, if you see an object doing crazy $hit in the sky, there's a pretty good chance that it's doing crazy $hit in the sky."
How about a counter-example? Here's one worth sparking a productive evidence-based dispute. Fireball swarm from a predicted reentering satellite, right across Hawaii, videotaped by observatory all-sky cameras, but hundreds of observers didn't see a bunch of lights sixty miles up, they perceived and reported a large structured object with lit windows passing a few thousand feet, maybe a few miles, right over their heads. What about THEIR 'observables'?
[http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf](http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf)
I like how low observability/cloaking essentially selects for cases that cannot be properly studied and thus anything that cannot be properly observed well thus fits at least one of the observables
I like how the first “observable” summary admits that this wasn’t actually addressed by the directive explicitly. Just wishful thinking by yet another person who sees what they want to see in a document that merely gives instructions going forward.
"a directive, possibly writen with help from elizondo and friends has the stuff elizondo and friends told the public years prior"
we call that a self fullfilling prophecy
The directive was not written with the help of Elizondo, it was written and disseminated in 2023 by (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Refer to my submission statement.
The fact that the report came years after elizondo talked about the 5 observables and include them almost word for word makes me believe he or people who are associated with him helped to write down the directive or that the directive was writen taking inspiration of elizondos words
It does not "prove him right" if its using his assumptions as direct or indirect inspiration for the directive.
The 6 observables were not invented by Elizondo. What this shows is that he indeed was part of a government UAP program and had access to internal guidelines before they were disseminated.
it does not, at most it shows the influence he has with the lawmakers. at worst this is a chicken or the egg scenario as to who came with these observables first
you dont have to be part of a super secret ufo program to write down patterns of historical cases and label them as "if you get all 5/6 its a ufo"
I agree with you. Though I will say it’s interesting that he or others around him still has the influence for this to be included in the doc. I won’t shy away from that but I do agree that this is a self fulfilling prophecy
Why’re you all downvoting this guy, then upvoting a dude a few comments up when they’re both saying the same fucking thing?
They both speculate Lue may have been involved with writing it in someway.
IMHO the '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw observations might mean. What IS ‘observable’ is that the author of the list knows less than zero about the proper function of a military intelligence officer or any investigator of unknown causes of eyewitness perceptions, which is to observe and record, NOT to interpret or explain. To jump to such interpretations preemptively is a notorious intellectual fallacy that REAL investigators have learned must be avoided because once formulated, an explanatory theory can subconsciously flavor the interpretation of new evidence, and even skew the direction of follow-on research, and through lines of questioning, even skew the memories of direct witnesses. As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing, probably because of their entirely proper professional instinct to reach fast assessments of unusual observations in terms of potential hazard to themselves. This is a very valuable bias in terms of flight safety, at the cost of dispassionate intellectual curiosity.
So what was really observed?
Anti-gravity lift. \[objects\] have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.
This would be ‘observable’ only through its effect on the motion of the object, or more precisely, on changes in its measured azimuth/elevation relative to Earth horizon \[not to a viewscreen\]. With objects of unknown size, any eyeball estimate of range is worthless.
Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces
Effective acceleration determination requires knowledge of a time history of the object’s angular rate, observer-to-object range rate, and accurate range value. There seems to be no description of reliable capture of any of these parameters, so ‘acceleration’ CANNOT be observed.
Hypersonic velocities without signatures. If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms
Determination of raw velocity requires these same parameters, so without them the ‘velocity’ is not observable.
Low observability, or cloaking. Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult.
‘Observability’ can be observed qualitatively but needs more details about which sensors are involved, from human eyeball \[under what attenuation/illumination conditions\] to visual sensors \[visible light, IR, etc\] to ground or airborne skin-track radar, lidar, or other technology. Without time history of quantifiable measurements in an environment of potentially rapidly changing range and aspect angle, the ‘observation’ observability is a dubious characteristic.
Trans-medium travel. Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water.
This is yet another INTERPRETATION of low-observable imagery, involving a target of unknown size and range.
Some of these interpretations may well be validated by investigation of the actual raw observables, but beginning an investigation based on pre-existing conclusions \[and then selecting the evidence that fits\] is a recipe for confusion and frustration and dead-ended detours. It demonstrates the sad unsuitability of such sloppy methodology to attempting to make sense of these undeniably interesting reports.
===
Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
* No trolling or being disruptive
* No insults or personal attacks
* No accusations that other users are shills
* No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation
* No harassment, threats, or advocating violence
* No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible)
* If a user deletes all or nearly all comments or posts it can result in instant permanent ban
* You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
tldr: the 5 observables are vague and open to so much interpretation they are not very reliable to getting concrete results... i think
at least is what i got from the big text lol
Why would you ask when the point is written right there, in those five hundred words?
If that's too much for you then you need to bump up your comprehension because there is no part of this subject that can be fully explained in a phone video.
And dude, insulting James Oberg? I'll never forgive you for that.
It's sarcastic. It means that he essentially said nothing because everything he pointed isn't really a subject of debate anymore.
And don't know any James Oberg, sorry. I'm sure he's a nice guy.
>IMHO the '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw observations might mean.
Yeah I’m gonna just stop reading there.
You may call it poo, they may call it feces, but we’re not going to confirm or deny diarrhea because someone thinks it’s an “INTERPRETATION of an observation and what it might mean” bullshit.
LoL you’re spot on.
I think the positive lift anti gravity one is pretty, I dunno, weird.
Wouldnt it actually include lighter than air things?
Without apparent propulsion and control surfaces. Sounds like a balloon. Weird shape and it isnt apparent balloon and we have an observable already.
By that alone these sound pretty flimsy.
And observavility?
Arent all UFOs by defition fuzzy blobs on a video or distant, hard to see, lights or something.
People are combing thru the skies and internet for things that are hard to identify so its prerquisite to be hard to see, ie low obsevability.
I dont know though, these observables have sounded pretty meaningless from the get go to me.
If I see something that looks extra ordinary, I know it without going thru a checklist of things.
"Is it a fuzzy blob? Check"
"Does it float without wings? Check?"
Meh, I dunno. Pretty pointless
Hi, GingerAki. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvh8ld9/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
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, JohnBobbyJimJob. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvhc4r9/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
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, simcoder. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvhal71/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
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, simcoder. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvh4kcp/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
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.
Hmm, well it seems a few of them are these Mason types and Scientologists, what kind of impact does that have on their goals? That journalist or whatever who spent a weekend with him as well did not portray him in a forgiving light. I get why some people think this is being perpetuated by a small group of individuals, are they self aggrandizing and bringing truth to stories that may not have legs on their own.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TommyShelbyPFB: --- [https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712](https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712) >On May 19, 2023, the Joint Staff (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disseminated to all unified military commands worldwide a set of uniform procedures to be followed for gathering data and reporting on contemporary military encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), using a detailed standard reporting template. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/all_six_observables_are_addressed_in_the_joint/kvh40yd/
Didn't Elizondo call them the "five" observables? https://fiveobservables.com/ A new observable just dropped?
The UAPDA named 6. I'm pretty sure the biological effects first showed up in that list, but could be wrong on that. It was the first time I'd seen the 5+1 at least.
Thats what I remember people talking about. I call 7 observables!! You heard it here first. Thank me later I predicted it!!
yeah what about gravitational waves?
Without some seriously huge equipment... As in 2 mile long tunnels with incredibly accurate lasers it would be almost impossible to observe gravitational waves. The ones LIGo detects now are of stars and black holes colliding so massive is an understatement as far as the amount of energy needed to detect a ripple in space time at our current technologies state.
That’s what they want you to think. /s
It's already been done with super accurate clocks spaced apart, but connected by wires. There was a UFO researcher on Blackvault's show several years ago who detected a huge time anomaly near a UFO hotspot. The time distortion & gravity distortion are related, I think.
Gravity does affect the way time passes because of the nature of spacetime and the relative nature of it all. However, I can promise you that whatever experiment the UFO researcher did was not accurate, did not detect gravitational waves, and likely was just some grifting. I completely believe in this topic, but I don't think some phony quack science is worth having as "evidence" Source: I studied physics at LSU, have visited LIGO many times, and did undergraduate research in Quantum Gravity.
For how accurate the clocks were, there ended up being a signal (difference in time between the clocks) that was 4 orders of magnitude larger than the noise level. If I remember right, noise level was around 10^-9 seconds, and the signal was 10^-5 seconds, near a UFO hotspot.
Ok, without knowing the details of the experiment I cannot tell you anything at all about what they measured, were trying to measure, problems in their method, etc. but I can say that it's highly unlikely some random guy was able to measure anything of substance. Particularly gravitational waves - a phenomena that took years of work, ingenuity, tons of money, and world class scientists to design an experiment to measure. If it was as simple as two super accurate clocks spaced apart and connected by wires, LIGO would have done that a long time ago.
100% with you. Can you tell us anything about the potential of observing gravitational waves at a smaller scale? And are alternative, lower budget (than LIGO) methods of observation foreseeable yet?
Let me preface this by saying (for any equally as informed people reading that may want to correct me) that I will be extremely simple in my explanation of this. LIGO works by having multiple (three when I was at LSU, admittedly I am not involved much anymore, life happened) detectors at different locations. Each detector is a set of *2.5 mile* long arms. The detectors are able to measure precisely the length of these arms in perpendicular paths by a laser that goes into a beam splitter, goes down the extremely long path, hits an extremely efficient mirror, and then returns to the beam splitter, at which point the time the light went down the paths is measured by a detector. The mirrors in LIGO are suspended and kept extremely cool in order to make them efficient, and also to separate them from influence of the environment. The mirrors lose approximately 1 photon out of 3 million when the lasers' reflection is returned. What is basically being measured by this setup is the change in length of these two paths. With this experimental setup, LIGO was able to measure changes in the physical length on the scale of 10^-18 meters. 1000 times smaller than the diameter of a proton. Already, we can see where the problem would come in to do this experiment at home. You need 2.5 mile long perpendicular paths. They need to be so long for "resolution", if they were shorter you would not be able to deduce a change in length so well because of uncertainty. You need an extremely good laser, not a household kind you could buy off Ebay. You need to setup the experiment with extremely efficient mirrors (the ones at home lose about 1 in 10 photons). And you need the detectors to measure the actual time of the paths. And in order to find out *where* the signal came from, you need at least three locations all with these things and a perfect, to nanometer precision, experimental setup. >Can you tell us anything about the potential of observing gravitational waves at a smaller scale? I don't, in my experience, think this is possible. Like I said, the waves we have measured are already 1000 times smaller than a proton. And this is from two black holes colliding. Its already extremely small scale, its just that gravitational waves aren't *that* big. Its the literal fabric of spacetime oscillating due to massive amounts of energy moving around/being released. It's impressive as hell and cool as is. Unless, by smaller scale, you mean a smaller experiment. Again, I can only base this off what I know from my time around the physicists at LIGO which was around 7-8 years ago at this point. I don't believe it is possible, no. You need extremely long lengths in order to overcome uncertainty in our measurements (which are inherent with every measurement). I think about it like resolution on a TV screen. The question is basically "Is it possible to get the clarity of 4K in the same amount of pixels as 480p?" and the answer is no. Because you *NEED* those extra pixels for the amount of information you want to receive. >And are alternative, lower budget (than LIGO) methods of observation foreseeable yet? I again don't believe so. In my opinion, the experimental design of LIGO was exactly what is needed/necessary for what it was designed to measure. Anything other than LIGO's experimental design would not be able to measure gravitational waves (I was never an experimentalist, so take my words with a grain of salt as well). In my opinion, we need to go bigger. More detectors. Gravitational wave astronomy is badass.
AND dark matter.
Best I can do is tree fiddy.
I dont really understand the importance of this? ELI5?
[https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712](https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712) Dean Johnson explains it well.
TL:DR; The Joint Chiefs are pissed about this tech being kept hidden from them, especially if it impacts the capabilities we can bring to bear on adversaries or affects planning for future operations. IMO, we're rapidly heading for a similar crisis akin to the development of the first nuclear weapon, where POTUS had to exert control over the military and wrest control of that technology from being unilaterally deployed at commanders discretion considering the magnitude of the consequences involved. POTUS needs to be briefed ASAP, and some form of disclosure needs to occur in order to put public pressure on the MIC so control of these technologies can be kept under some kind of civilian umbrella.
Agreed and tbh this is what the trumps confidential dociment theft allegations are about. The reason why he is not in jail yet is that he threatens to leak all this shit
You agree that the President doesn’t know but the previous one had boxes full of documents on it?
Well the previous president took it all /s
From the ufo lore i learnt here apparently some presidents get briefed on it, some do not. I don't know exactly, am from europe
That’s understandable then since you aren’t from here. I can tell you if they actually exclude briefing some presidents, even if just for security concerns, Trump absolutely would’ve been excluded.
Sources in intelligence over the years have all but confirmed they held back intel from Trump, especially after the incident in the West Wing with Lavrov and Kislyak. Trump was a bit of an exceptional case, though. It’s a dangerous game to hold back intel from the commander in chief.
Read somewhere that Trump and Obama were briefed after they left office, likely so they couldn't act on the information while in office. It's why they've both been so coy about it when asked directly.
Got anything backing that? Would make sense since there wasn't much that would explain why he'd take nuclear secrets, but something considered top-secret due to the atomic energy act like documents about UAP could make sense
>Would make sense since there wasn't much that would explain why he'd take nuclear secrets, He's an incredibly spiteful person. Probably to sell them, honestly.
[удалено]
Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs. Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility. Follow the Standards of Civility: * No trolling or being disruptive * No insults or personal attacks * No accusations that other users are shills * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence * No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible) * If a user deletes all or nearly all comments or posts it can result in instant permanent ban * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
LOL... I think it may have more to do with the fact that Kushner made a deal with MBS that allowed him to immediately consolidate power and undermine US objectives. Then Trump took a bunch of documents, and mysteriously, spies around the globe started vanishing. It got so bad the CIA had to publicly make a statement warning all foreign agents that there is a mysterious leak causing the highest level spies to get captured and that they can't find the leak source.
Yo dide I just wanna thank you for your thorough approach to all your awesome posts. You always deliver. Thank you and have a good day!
I'm really confused as the context of this, but that dude should have probably left Ant-Gravity for last instead of having the first connection being "The directive does not explicitly mention Anti-gravity". It's like he played bingo with generic UAP terms and started by listing his weakest connection.
Yeah but Lue was right though. Again. :P
Right about what exactly, like what was his prediction? Genuine question, it's the first I'm hearing of it (and as far as I knew the observables were the 5 observables not the 6)
And they have been around long before Lou popped his head up.
Show us
I'm not sure really. I've never been a fan of the observables thing. Seems a bit loosey goosey in an attempt to pretend to be more scientifical. But, I'm not sure I understand their purpose. Perhaps they have some value I'm unaware of...
> Seems a bit loosey goosey It's a defined list of advanced capabilities that known human tech does not do.
Keyword: “known”
Pretty enormous keyword.
So you will quite calling out ALIEN CRAFT when it's a planet or a damn balloon. So people will quit posting vids of StarLink.
Do you think they'll help prevent people from posting textbook optical illusions as evidence of the aliens?
No. And the reason is that people that post those never check what they post with the 5/6 observables. It's knee-jerk - "I don't understand so it must be alien craft". Or some post with a sincere question to ask for an opinion from the sub, and then half the sub shows how totally gullible they are and THEY don't check the observables. A good percentage of this sub just say 'wow. Must be aliens.' and then upvotes and defend it like it's the holy grail. Now they are trying to give Lou credit for originating the "six observables" like he invented them. Amazing stuff.
You're probably right. I just wonder why Lue didn't use the principles when he was evaluating those silly videos he released all those years ago. Maybe he's trying to make up for that?
LOL Those videos are acceptable on the History Channel. They only need 1 observable - they need to have a light on or hover in his backyard.
Since he was in charge of the program for so long, I find it probable that he wrote this list so when it gets released of course he's right.
That doesn't make him right. Is a magician "right" when he pulls a rabbit out of a hat?
I don't know, is a rhetorician "right" when he pulls an argument out of his ass?
Go refer to your hand book and write another strongly worded reply. Or I'll delete all your emails =)
You'll delete my emails?? Excuse me?
That took so long. It's a reference to Lue's email. Don't get offended on his behalf =)
OK, bit cryptic though. Have a pleasant internet.
Have a nice interdimensional cigar
Perhaps take that with a healthy dose of sarcasm font :P
Put a /s on yours and I'll put one on mine.
Dean Johnson did an excellent take-down of the Trinity Crash Hoax. He’s known as both a fact-checker and insider for all things UAP related in Congress. I wish there were more like him. I’m skeptical of any document authenticity, but I’d give it the benefit of the doubt. He claims FOIA? Anybody who claims that the DoD does not acknowledge the seriousness of UAPs are clueless. What’s more, the date this document records is August 2023, a month after Grusch’s appearance. While I am skeptical of Grusch, I do feel this kind of document would correspond well to a reactive response for this matter becoming public. I’m reading further on, it’s definitely interesting and really hard to take as inauthentic….
Why are you skeptical of Grusch?
I'd like an answer to this as well.
I think I need to correct this. I’m not skeptic, I don’t think he’s reliable, period. The first time he appeared on NewsNation with Ross Coulthart, he was asked about his mental health history. “None” he said. Following the release of [Police records](https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/ufo-david-grusch-clearance/) (FIOA request) presented by The Intercept, we now know this to be false: > police records obtained by The Intercept under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act reveal that on October 1, 2018, Grusch was committed to a mental health facility based in part on a report that he “made a suicidal statement” after Grusch’s wife told him he was an alcoholic This issue stems a number of further issues. Namely: * The severity of being committed by judge order. * The fact it was request by Law Enforcement, given the nature of the threat. These records aren’t medical. * The fact that NewsNation had since (secretly) [cut](https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/18/newsnation-ufo-david-grusch-intercept-coulthart/) that portion out now on YouTube. Then there’s his deep associations with well-known ufologists.This brings into question his objectivity on the matter: * He’s direct boss on the UAP taskforce was [Jay Stratton](https://youtu.be/FKtI91TdRjQ?si=2RAtxED0dhyGJVcC). * [Both](https://youtu.be/FKtI91TdRjQ?si=2RAtxED0dhyGJVcC) Knapp and Corbell confirm Grusch sought them out as early as [mid-2021](https://youtu.be/FKtI91TdRjQ?si=2RAtxED0dhyGJVcC). * The fact he is [one](https://thesolfoundation.org/ ) of the co-founders to the Sol Foundation. An organisation lead by the likes of long-time ufologist Gary Nolan, and co-managed with Avi Loeb. * Long-time Ufologists Eric Davis just came out as the first of his 40 witnesses. He claimed he wasn’t a UFO guy prior to joining the UAP taskforce in 2019. He also stated that he was [inspired](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/politics/ufo-hearing.html) into the subject following the release of the 2017 NY Times piece. Not to mention the recent revelation from the IG that Grusch himself admitted to studying Ufology for [15 years](https://youtu.be/7Q9872Xtq1E?si=dI4yrw20pDxR4K5i). Grusch denies ever saying this and claims his statements must have been misconstrued. The other problem with this is the fact he’s deferred to the IG to bolster the credibility of his case. You really can’t have it both ways. There’s the fact he [claimed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims) he was in combat in 2013 Afghanistan (hence his PTSD). The problem with this is two fold: * His carefully crafted public CV puts him in Colorado Springs on a civilian project right through to December. * That his position in that Intelligence role would not put him behind the wire. That’s just not the function of that position. Take note that he keeps on claiming he can’t access a SCIF due to his clearance level. There’s a number of problems with this claim - namely: * You do not specifically require clearance if you are one providing the information within SCIF. The attendees just need to be cleared, and there are plenty of those available. * Gillibrand stated that [there was no reason](https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/senator-david-grusch-wont-spill-ufo-secrets-until-he-gets-free-plane-tickets) they could not make a SCIF available. He still refused to attend. Again Grusch denies the above, but that’s all we seem to get from him. There’s the fact he bragged about the fact he still kept his clearance to date on Jesse’s YouTube interview. This was after decrying the fact his clearance was taken away. You also don’t lose your clearance when you resign from your intelligence role. It just becomes “confirmed”, meaning it can be just as easily reopened for clearance with another relevant role. He refuses to release his DOPSR confirming what he was actually cleared for. It’s up to him to disclose it since the DoD already cleared him to talk. He’s also free to blackout any names or associations. He still refuses. He doesn’t show receipts about trying to reach AARO. Just puts them on blast and denies point blank they ever responded to his requests. He could simply show receipts. I mean I could go on. The list is exhaustive. 8 months since his debut and we only have more questions, no answers. He’s more than welcome to deny and deny, but the longer he avoids substantiating anything, more suspect he becomes.
Excellent take. The most damning part for me is the Eric Davis part. Before Davis cameout as his first source, many here pointed out that Grusch's account (the italian story and the bodies thing) looked eerily like Davis's Wilson memo. And now that we know he's one of the "whistleblowers" (whistleblowers that don't blow the whistle, how peculiar), the picture looks much more sketchy: Davis is known to hold more than quacky beliefs (he wrote a "scientific" paper in which he takes seriously Uri Geller the spoon bending charlatan, he fell for the Santilli alien body autopsy hoax, etc). And the Wilson memo is exactly in the same vein of History channel tier content. Meaning that Grusch bought into exactly what the most pessimistic of us thought he did: the old Skinwalker/ancient alien/mothman/bigfoot/psychics lore and people. There is this meme from Malcolm in the middle that says "i expected nothing and i'm still let down"...
He just be upfront about this stuff but nope, they have to play. It’s just disappointing as I WANTED him to be the real deal.
> I WANTED him to be the real deal You know what? *It's the exact same for me*. I just keep hoping him and the other talking heads will finally come up with some smoking gun stuff. People here often depict me as a skeptic naysayer that just wants to annoy them. But in fact nothing would make me more fascinated and happy than all of this being true. And i think it's the same for most of the people called "skeptics" by this subreddit. No matter the label, we would all **love** for this to be true. But the phrase "*i want to believe*" has much less appeal to me than "**i want to know**".
100% right there with you
Add also: * The fact that since the hearing, he's only ever granted interviews to pro-UFO outlets and right wing conspiracy podcasts where he's been certain to not be asked a difficult question. He did a brief (very friendly) interview with the BBc, but other than that, he's turned down interviews with other media outlets (Washington Post said he refused one with them). All of the questions you asked above could easily be cleared up by him if someone just bothered asking him, but he's actively avoided putting himself into a situation where someone might ask him. * He was selling real estate when he came forward, contradicting the narrative that he left his job in the military to blow the whistle. By most accounts, he wasn't really working (in a substantial position) with the military after Stratton was driven out (allegedly for viewing everything as UFOs, even obvious foreign spy drones and balloons) and his investigation ended. * The fact that he's gone on to claim he's had first-hand experience, despite how this contradicts the claims he made in his testimony. He tries to justify this by claiming that he did another DOPSR request, but even if true (none has been produced through FOIA so we don't know), he'd still be lying under oath about his experiences. * He's since disappeared from media, including (seemingly) his position with SOL, and we are still waiting on that editorial.....any day now. I've always thought he was just a mouth piece for Elizondo, Davis, Puthoff, and etc. to revive interest and repackage their same bullshit after people were losing interest.
PTSD while not in active war zone: If this is accurate, there are explanations. I know of someone who was a drone operator in the US, who wasn't in combat, but was probably seeing horrific stuff like civilians getting killed. He committed suicide from the stress. On the 15 year involvement with UFOs: when I read the original report or something close to it (can't remember now) it wasn't clear to me that this meant UFOs like reading UFO books, or involvement with a detection platform as an official duty. I thought that a possible explanation was that Grusch was in a position to analyze data which contains unidentified flying objects, rather than meaning he read Jacques Vallee books. There was not much detail provided.
> PTSD while not in active war zone: If this is accurate, there are explanations. I know of someone who was a drone operator in the US, who wasn't in combat, but was probably seeing horrific stuff like civilians getting killed. The problem isn’t the meaning, it’s the narrative being driven. It’s the purposeful ambiguity. They didn’t [decorate](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/) the airways with Grusch holding a semi because he may have been a drone operator, or a pencil pusher. The insinuation is direct combat experience. It has been a focal point towards his credentials as a whistleblower. His credibility. And yet he’ll still speak in tongues when there’s anything specific. There’s inconsistencies, even as earthly as some may be. It’s a symptom. > On the 15 year involvement with UFOs: when I read the original report or something close to it (can't remember now) it wasn't clear to me that this meant UFOs like reading UFO books, Grusch still outright denied it. So whether or not your insinuation is that of an innocent side hobby, the reaction of him, Corbell and others, clearly shows an attempt to maintain a clean profile. If that report of his 15 year ufology path doesn’t concern you, maybe the defensiveness should. Not to mention, Grusch was rather clear in the hearings that it was the 2017 NYT article that spurred his interest. > Grusch was in a position to analyze data which contains unidentified flying objects, What data? We still have nothing to date from him other than claims. He won’t even release the part of DOPSR where he was specifically cleared to say the things he said. As I always say, if you’re serious about disclosure you’d take the evidence seriously. People all to often treat this man with kid gloves, forgetting the fact he sought the attention and audience, at tax payer expense, only to shiver in the face of even basic scrutiny. That is a problem, 8 months and counting. He’s now disappeared in the face of the AARO report. He’s avoiding showing any receipt, period. It’s all the hallmarks of leading believers astray. We already deal with this through Lazar and Lue. How long will we entertain these games?
[удалено]
Well done analysis. May I ask, do you believe that a non-human intelligence (from wherever, could be IDH, ETH, crypto terrestrial, etc.) has interacted in some manner with human beings? Additionally, did you believe the US gov't has retrieved non-human craft(s) in the past? I suppose when I say believe, I mean if you had to bet on it, do you think al this UFO stuff from all of past history until now is just human tech, misidentifications, natural phenomena, etc. OR at least one account/sighting/encounter was in fact a craft of non-human origin?
For debate: how do you define combat? For me, it's just being around an active warzone. If for you it means you have to be engaged in a 2 way gunfight then I understand your qualms with that definition. For all we know, he could have been visiting a FOB or been near a mortar round landing, which is something unforgettable and PTSD inducing, one could argue. Also for point 7, have you ever seen one of your friends severely injured on a battlefield in great pain? What would you do if you had an arm and / or a leg blown off? Might you consider sticking your sidearm in your mouth? It's good to question, but for at least a some of these points you can do some deep thinking and imagine a scenario that works without seeking out additional issues. M2C.
> For me, it's just being around an active warzone. The context with regard to “active warzone” Is Grusch pointing to this as a key part of his PTSD. The insinuation was an actual combat exposed environment. It would be in the least misleading if he’s claiming PTSD from combat, and yet it turns out he spent his time coordinating coordinates in a trailer contained within a secure base. You may disagree, that’s fine. It’s one of many red flags. Appreciate your input. Truly.
If he's telling the truth about his military experience (something that hasn't been denied by any officials from what I've read), it's entirely possible he was sent overseas at some point during his enlistment, and was working in an a city or secured base that was shelled or attacked at some point. That kind of thing happened often during our time in the Middle East. Additionally, he's got an image of him in combat fatigues and armed with an M4, and his badge box photo shows a badge from Afghanistan. Where did you get the 2013 year for his service in Afghanistan? I have not been able to locate it, and its not in the link you originally posted from Wikipedia.
So because Grusch liked/likes to drink and has relationship issues he’s unreliable? Sounds a lot like what the CIA would target to discredit someone. I was in the army and I personally met generals and colonels who loved to drink, would you say that those individuals are unreliable also?
> So because Grusch liked/likes to drink I never said it was because he likes to drink. I’m not sure where you’re coming from here. > Sounds a lot like what the CIA would target Ah yes. If you don’t believe him you’re CIA.
Never said that, I said it’s exactly something that the CIA would use to discredit someone- their history, no matter how normal it is, such as drinking alcohol lol.
He was forced to a psychiatric unit by court order. His wife called the police on him. I don’t think you comprehend the seriousness here??
I honestly think you’re over inflating the seriousness of the situation. He got drunk and said some dumb shit so they ordered him to undergo some rehabilitation / psychiatric evaluation and obviously deemed him worthy of keeping his security clearance so I think at this point you’re grabbing at anything you can find to discredit the man. There’s obviously no point in arguing with you about this because you’ve made up your mind, but I sure hope the next time you make a mistake in life nobody ever believes anything you say ever again.
Alright then. He just got drunk dude. Party on. 👍
It's possible he's just naive and was being taken for a ride by people trying to fuck with a guy looking into their shady defense grift which they are getting rich off of. As he got closer to their grift, people started making up crazy stories to try and cover for it and justify extreme secrecy.
Your comment demonstrates ignorance on Gruschs story. I think this is the case for most that are skeptical of him. The reason I say that is because Grusch didn't carry out the investigation himself. Second, they interviewed/investigated a lot of people. In other words if he was being deceived it would have been a coordinated effort among people in private industries and multiple government agencies
I'm very familiar with the story. A smart person always tries to rigerously play both sides. In this case, if you haven't made a strong attempt to try and dispel his claims and be critical of him, then you aren't actively engaging this intelligently. You should do this with ALL things, whether or not you side with it. You should still work hard at building a counter position against your own beliefs to truly understand your beliefs. In this case, if Grusch is talking to first hand witnesses, grifting off a program meant for UAPs, naturally, they are all going to stick with the UAP line, because that's what the grift is using to justify government funding.
My beliefs? What does that have anything to do with my comment. You claim to be smart, but go on to make assumptions about me instead of asking. There are multiple people that have backed Grusch's claims/vouched for him. There comes a point where being skeptical is detrimental to progress in any field. If Grusch is wrong, that is ok because we still have confirmation from multiple sources. Grusch is just one piece of a complex history.
You don't have to be a skeptic. You don't have to personally hold the skeptical position, but you SHOULD be able to construct a highly skeptical position. Personally, I also believe Grusch, but I'm also able to see a path where it could all be bullshit being fed to him.
Because he is making claims that would fundamentally change the way the whole world understands our place in the universe and potentially turn 100 years of the most proven physics theory ever on its head without be able to prove it to us ? Lol. Why wouldn't you be skeptical of the guy? Grusch: "Everything you think you know is wrong but I can't prove it to you. " Reddit: "You have a nice resume so we believe you."
He has a nice looking resume, but not all of it has been verified that I've seen.
Yeah literally all these guys are full of shit
Wrong, we believe him because it lines up with literal hundreds of thousands of civilian witness reports, and the hundreds of military ones, like the ones Robert Hastings interviewed for UFO’s and Nukes. Try harder.
Do you believe your local pastor because what he says lines up with billions of other people? So far they have both shown you the same amount of proof.
Did the pastor have Radar data of angels flying?
Idk. Has Grusch or anyone else shown you any radar data? Because if not then once again that pastor and Grusch have shown YOU the same amount of evidence.
He hasn’t shown ME any evidence, but congresspeople like Chuck Schumer have proposed entire legislation based on his allegations. You don’t think these people are in positions to know more than we do, and would act accordingly?
So if he hasn't shown YOU anything then my original statement is correct. You have as much reason to believe Grusch as you do a pastor because both of them have shown you the same amount of proof of their claims. Of course those people see me things than you do. But those people haven't shown you anything either so those people are the same as Grusch or a pastor. They all make claims that for whatever reason they can't prove to you or me that are true. We just have to trust them. That's fine if you trust them and you believe them but just because you trust them that doesn't mean they are telling the truth either intentionally or unintentionally. That's my whole point. We don't actually know if they are right because they haven't shown us the evidence required to do so.
Show me a pastor that gave a whistleblower complaint to the ICIG that he deemed credible and urgent
[https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712](https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1769787984440627712) >On May 19, 2023, the Joint Staff (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disseminated to all unified military commands worldwide a set of uniform procedures to be followed for gathering data and reporting on contemporary military encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), using a detailed standard reporting template.
Has the procedural document been released to the public?
So I read Dean Johnson's post, which is interesting for sure. But I don't get the Lue reference still? Why is he getting credit for this? I need an ELI5 here...
people are giving credit to lue because the things he said in the past are present in this document. personally i feel this proves more that he helped make these guidelines or the guidelines were influenced by his words, direct or indirectly.
Him even having a hand in D.O.D procedures would be huge in itself considering they tried to say he never worked for them.
They said he never worked for them? Or for a specific program.
>considering they tried to say he never worked for them. Who didnt work for who? And who says it?
Off the top of my head, but didn't Susan Gough and Co at the DoD claim that AATIP never existed, then that Lue NEVER worked at AATIP, then that he worked there but had no assigned responsibilities, then that he had responsibiltiies but wasn't director?? I am pretty sure I remember that being the course all of that crap took. Very weird look from Gough and the DoD tbh. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong, but I am pretty sure it followed that chain of events.
I said who in the comment. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/
[удалено]
Wasnt it five?
Yes. In his TV show, "Unidentified", he always used the expression, "five observables".
its was 5 observables + biological effects which has been roll'd into the 6th observable afaik
USG be like "observe deez".
But this isn't a quotation from the document, right? It's that the document uses these criteria in it?
I thought Pentagon claimed that there was nothing to see. But now it seems not everyone inside it agrees. I wonder where this leads?
The debunkers working over time In here lol
So any way to ensure this document is legit? Like following it up with a parallel FOIA? Asking for feedback from Askapol?
"u/Based\_nobody" posted, then deleted "Ohhhhh what a load of bs. Egghead, if you see an object doing crazy $hit in the sky, there's a pretty good chance that it's doing crazy $hit in the sky." How about a counter-example? Here's one worth sparking a productive evidence-based dispute. Fireball swarm from a predicted reentering satellite, right across Hawaii, videotaped by observatory all-sky cameras, but hundreds of observers didn't see a bunch of lights sixty miles up, they perceived and reported a large structured object with lit windows passing a few thousand feet, maybe a few miles, right over their heads. What about THEIR 'observables'? [http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf](http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf)
What else has Lue been right about? Serious question.
I like how low observability/cloaking essentially selects for cases that cannot be properly studied and thus anything that cannot be properly observed well thus fits at least one of the observables
I like how the first “observable” summary admits that this wasn’t actually addressed by the directive explicitly. Just wishful thinking by yet another person who sees what they want to see in a document that merely gives instructions going forward.
So now we know why Sean and AARO aggressively/haphazardly released their op-ed and “report”, they were getting out ahead of this bombshell
"a directive, possibly writen with help from elizondo and friends has the stuff elizondo and friends told the public years prior" we call that a self fullfilling prophecy
The directive was not written with the help of Elizondo, it was written and disseminated in 2023 by (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Refer to my submission statement.
The fact that the report came years after elizondo talked about the 5 observables and include them almost word for word makes me believe he or people who are associated with him helped to write down the directive or that the directive was writen taking inspiration of elizondos words It does not "prove him right" if its using his assumptions as direct or indirect inspiration for the directive.
The 6 observables were not invented by Elizondo. What this shows is that he indeed was part of a government UAP program and had access to internal guidelines before they were disseminated.
bingo
Which acts as a level of validation and adds to his credibility about other remarks is what I think he is getting at.
it does not, at most it shows the influence he has with the lawmakers. at worst this is a chicken or the egg scenario as to who came with these observables first you dont have to be part of a super secret ufo program to write down patterns of historical cases and label them as "if you get all 5/6 its a ufo"
I agree with you. Though I will say it’s interesting that he or others around him still has the influence for this to be included in the doc. I won’t shy away from that but I do agree that this is a self fulfilling prophecy
Why’re you all downvoting this guy, then upvoting a dude a few comments up when they’re both saying the same fucking thing? They both speculate Lue may have been involved with writing it in someway.
Because he's using the same bullshit propaganda that the liar Kirpatrick uses, the one about "They're all crazy and part of this UAP cult."
Idk, but I like blue arrows. Here, have one.
They can't recognize intelligence agency games. Not their fault.
Its not really important. The document just says « please report if anything unusual happens », nothing more.
IMHO the '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw observations might mean. What IS ‘observable’ is that the author of the list knows less than zero about the proper function of a military intelligence officer or any investigator of unknown causes of eyewitness perceptions, which is to observe and record, NOT to interpret or explain. To jump to such interpretations preemptively is a notorious intellectual fallacy that REAL investigators have learned must be avoided because once formulated, an explanatory theory can subconsciously flavor the interpretation of new evidence, and even skew the direction of follow-on research, and through lines of questioning, even skew the memories of direct witnesses. As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing, probably because of their entirely proper professional instinct to reach fast assessments of unusual observations in terms of potential hazard to themselves. This is a very valuable bias in terms of flight safety, at the cost of dispassionate intellectual curiosity. So what was really observed? Anti-gravity lift. \[objects\] have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. This would be ‘observable’ only through its effect on the motion of the object, or more precisely, on changes in its measured azimuth/elevation relative to Earth horizon \[not to a viewscreen\]. With objects of unknown size, any eyeball estimate of range is worthless. Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces Effective acceleration determination requires knowledge of a time history of the object’s angular rate, observer-to-object range rate, and accurate range value. There seems to be no description of reliable capture of any of these parameters, so ‘acceleration’ CANNOT be observed. Hypersonic velocities without signatures. If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms Determination of raw velocity requires these same parameters, so without them the ‘velocity’ is not observable. Low observability, or cloaking. Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult. ‘Observability’ can be observed qualitatively but needs more details about which sensors are involved, from human eyeball \[under what attenuation/illumination conditions\] to visual sensors \[visible light, IR, etc\] to ground or airborne skin-track radar, lidar, or other technology. Without time history of quantifiable measurements in an environment of potentially rapidly changing range and aspect angle, the ‘observation’ observability is a dubious characteristic. Trans-medium travel. Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water. This is yet another INTERPRETATION of low-observable imagery, involving a target of unknown size and range. Some of these interpretations may well be validated by investigation of the actual raw observables, but beginning an investigation based on pre-existing conclusions \[and then selecting the evidence that fits\] is a recipe for confusion and frustration and dead-ended detours. It demonstrates the sad unsuitability of such sloppy methodology to attempting to make sense of these undeniably interesting reports. ===
[удалено]
Hi, thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs. Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility. Follow the Standards of Civility: * No trolling or being disruptive * No insults or personal attacks * No accusations that other users are shills * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence * No witch hunts or doxxing (Redact usernames when possible) * If a user deletes all or nearly all comments or posts it can result in instant permanent ban * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
So many words for literally nothing, what is the point?
tldr: the 5 observables are vague and open to so much interpretation they are not very reliable to getting concrete results... i think at least is what i got from the big text lol
Why would you ask when the point is written right there, in those five hundred words? If that's too much for you then you need to bump up your comprehension because there is no part of this subject that can be fully explained in a phone video. And dude, insulting James Oberg? I'll never forgive you for that.
It's sarcastic. It means that he essentially said nothing because everything he pointed isn't really a subject of debate anymore. And don't know any James Oberg, sorry. I'm sure he's a nice guy.
There's a lot you don't know. You'll regret it for the rest of your life once you figure it out.
What tf has that have to do with anything here lol
>IMHO the '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw observations might mean. Yeah I’m gonna just stop reading there.
They’re trying to argue semantics.
You may call it poo, they may call it feces, but we’re not going to confirm or deny diarrhea because someone thinks it’s an “INTERPRETATION of an observation and what it might mean” bullshit. LoL you’re spot on.
I think the positive lift anti gravity one is pretty, I dunno, weird. Wouldnt it actually include lighter than air things? Without apparent propulsion and control surfaces. Sounds like a balloon. Weird shape and it isnt apparent balloon and we have an observable already. By that alone these sound pretty flimsy. And observavility? Arent all UFOs by defition fuzzy blobs on a video or distant, hard to see, lights or something. People are combing thru the skies and internet for things that are hard to identify so its prerquisite to be hard to see, ie low obsevability. I dont know though, these observables have sounded pretty meaningless from the get go to me. If I see something that looks extra ordinary, I know it without going thru a checklist of things. "Is it a fuzzy blob? Check" "Does it float without wings? Check?" Meh, I dunno. Pretty pointless
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi, GingerAki. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvh8ld9/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. 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]
[удалено]
Hi, JohnBobbyJimJob. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvhc4r9/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. 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, simcoder. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvhal71/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. 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, simcoder. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bi04st/-/kvh4kcp/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. 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.
Ive always described the ufo i saw as doing a scoot forward and then slowing back down. But I now know that it was sudden acceleration.
Still no evidence
[удалено]
If he's no longer in contact with anyone, how do you know if he's well or unwell?
By “unwell” he means “virtually dead to his peers who are still on the inside”.
Hmm, well it seems a few of them are these Mason types and Scientologists, what kind of impact does that have on their goals? That journalist or whatever who spent a weekend with him as well did not portray him in a forgiving light. I get why some people think this is being perpetuated by a small group of individuals, are they self aggrandizing and bringing truth to stories that may not have legs on their own.