I bet we get nothing substantive, nothing meaningful, just the same old blurry image of a balloon or something so obscure it's meaningless..
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
I bet we get nothing substantive, nothing meaningful, just the same old blurry image of a balloon or something so obscure it's meaningless..
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,386
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
There are 1000s of cases of cases of people having high end lawyers to represent them even if they're talking BS.
It's the side of the law where a high end lawyer could defend a serial rapist/murderer but they'll still have normal work after it.
This is of course true, this is the job of a lawyer, but his background qualifications are surely worth noting. This particular lawyer is uniquely qualified to know the validity of the evidence being put forward better than most.
Last edited:
So now we're saying that because lawyers are involved, that somehow adds credence and truth to the matter, just because lawyers (who are almost certainly being paid) have gotten involved.
You can understand surely, why I'm sceptical about all of this..?
You can understand surely, why I'm sceptical about all of this..?
Yet this fantastic sensor jamming, blocking thing (cormorant) was shown on film light up with weapons locked and seemingly oblivious to the threat of the jet.
As I said, IF and it’s such a massive IF, anything was spoofing sensors it wasn’t anything describe in these hearings.
I'm saying the background of his lawyer is complimentary to the area that his claims cover. It is a great choice and if you were faking it this lawyer would likely know better than anyone.
If he lied under oath, submitted fake evidence to the Inspector General and lied about his harassment, the Pentagon will clear it up and charge him.
In the meantime, I understand 2 more whistle-blowers are going through legal preparation at the moment to follow in Grusch's footsteps. If they are also lying, I'm sure they will be found out too.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
Without additional confirmation from elsewhere, how would that ever happen?
The lawyer will do as he's instructed by the client.
The name, credentials, reputation, shoe size or whatever, of the lawyer don't really matter, what matters is evidence.
In my opinion, they're being very clever and a bunch of them have likely made a lot of money out of this whole thing.
They've given a little bit away, enough to get the media and everyone else into a frenzy, but not too much that it can be disproven - it's still all sufficiently vague and obscure, on that basis - nobody can really prove they're lying.
The best I can do, with some of them is link a gigantic whopping conflict of interest - but that's not proving that they're liars, just that there's likely an ulterior motive (cash)
That said, I don't think I really need to prove that they're lying to say the whole thing is a load of baloney, as that's a good guess and perfectly reasonable given the circumstances and information provided so far (nothing substantive).
You speak to the superiors he reported to while at the UAPTF who tasked him with the 4-year study. You ask the 40 named witnesses if he has embellished their accounts. You speak to the other whistleblowers coming forward to corroborate the information. You investigate the named programs he listed and from December, you can use the NDAA bill to check locations and facilities he named as working on these programs.
There is a lot you can do to investigate the wealth of information he handed over.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
Are the Pentagon going to do that? Isn't that just more eyewitness testimony? Under oath or just a normal not legally binding statement?
He's claimed people were harassed and harmed, he has made an official complaint as such. The inspector General said these claims were credible and urgent. The programs themselves are claimed to be operating without congressional oversight and so illegal. They can't just ignore all this.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
Cool so it's all in hand. Look forward to the findings.
Across both events a minimum 7 Fighter jets possibly more including the Commanding Officer. If we go with the minimum 7 jets that’s 14 people from the air. (2 people per jet) Then from the navy ships in the first event we had Senior Chief Kavin Day, Patrick Hugues Petty Officer (Technician), Petty Officer Gary Voorhis, Senior Chief Kavin Day and Aex Dietrich. There are more who gave interviews/testimony in the past but wanted to stay anomalous. For the fight pilots we only know the names of some of them. Congress did not reveal the names of any of the pilot they spoke to at Eglen base. But they did confirm they directly interviewed the pilot.
For the 2nd event we had the field trip to Eglen Air Force Base where U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz and the others asked a House Oversight subcommittee to subpoena radar data and images. He went along with people like Burchett and Luna. So that’s 20+ people if we count the anomalous people who did interviews but stayed anomalous.
All the links have been posted multiple times in this thread both to the testimony from the named people, links to the full Congress briefing and links to one of the two direct sections that talked about jamming, radar data and photos. Which it looks like you ignored and Jigger just laughed at.
Both direct text quotes of what was said and links have been provided multiple times. Its not my fault you keep ignoring them so you can pretend it’s still a bird.
It wasn’t oblivious to the jet it responded to the jet according to everyone involved. It instantly responded to weapons lock which is something only a craft can do. It responded to movement. That’s how we know its not a Bird (Cormorant)
If it’s a Comorant why is everyone directly involved in both events calling it a craft? Why did the people like Matt Gaetz who reviewed the radar and photos after the events call it a craft?
Ok, all you've done is just provide a load of spam, my question was specific for a reason,
Where is the evidence that these people:
Senior Chief Kavin Day, Patrick Hugues Petty Officer (Technician), Petty Officer Gary Voorhis, Senior Chief Kavin Day and Aex Dietrich.
Saw this craft ECM jamming the fighter jet, when did they say it and what exactly did they say?
If you are really interested look up this data sheet which condenses a lot down to one sheet. https://i.redd.it/mxyof0tlkwfb1.jpg
It confirms Grusch gave photos, official documentation, classified testimony from over 40 individuals. locations, list of private companies. Grush is backed up by an Army Colonel, Deputy Assistant security of defence foo Intelligence, Generational officer of intelligence and a load more people. Those are some heavy hitting names who are backing him up. Don't you think that matters? If its all a fake story why would all this major people be getting involved?
Did you look ay any of the links I gave you yesterday? No comment about about you from military data that says
“likely not a sensor artifact or focal plane anomaly”
“Similarity to previous report “tic tac” shape”
"did not match the visual signature of a normal aircraft”
You said you wanted hard data which I provided and you seem to have just ignored it.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
Well hard data is lacking, I think you mean claims under oath.
It doesn't matter what I believe. What do you hope will happen next?
This is what I cannot get my head around when people completely denounce Grusch. I understand people being sceptical of the claims, but you have to meet it half way, do you honestly think this would have got this far, that two bills would be written into law to facilitate declassification of the evidence, if it were just hearsay?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
And they gave an address where a UFO is buried right? maybe misread a headline..
It’s pretty clear the bird in the video isn’t blocking anything, because birds don’t possess those technologies, and nothing reported was large enough to generate the power levels required.
So IF, something was blocking sensors all these people missed it. TBH the claims of sensor spoofing is just a distraction to this investigation it’s really insignificant to the overall statements and claims being made. I’d focus on the outrageous claimed Mach 70+ plus performance of these craft as that is the real magic and what would be important to discover evidence of. Mach 7 at sea level in a flying tic tac shaped craft would be amazing enough. 60 miles in seconds? WOW, Mach 140! now we are into super alien tech/hand of god dreamland territory.
Look at the people sat behind him in the hearing, bunch of complete charlatans. You can't have people like George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell in the room and take it seriously,
I think they've cooked the whole thing up, as an elaborate way to make some money and because politicians and government officials are all completely stupid, some of them have been conned hook-line and sinker, some of them probably don't know. I imagine some of them are making a bit of cash out of it too, and I also suspect that this will come out later down the line as a massive hoax.