Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Any life capable of reaching us would have such unimaginable technology we cannot possibly comprehend what they would or would not be capable of. I agree with you that the idea they would be talking with the US government is the one that is stupid and is clearly why its false, the US government is only of consequence to us mere earthlings.
Last edited:
Thats the point though - doesnt matter how slim - there are so many galaxies, so many billions of stars and so many trillions of planets - it is very strange for us to think we are the only ones.
Travelling at the speed of light it would take over 2000 years just to reach the nearest galaxy - and then that assumes we could just slow to a stop immediately once there. Mind boggling figures for anything - which suggests "slim chances" are anything but when you have those sorts of numbers.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
but you also have the Fermi Paradox which means the chances of another intelligent life existing at the same time period as us is none (or slim).
Its more mind boggling then 2000 years. Travelling at the speed of light would take approximately 2.5million years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
...I'm surprised Luis Elizondo isn't calling into this hearing remotely from a scam call centre in Pakistan:
"aliens exist, we have bodies'
"what do they look like?"
"can't say, LOL"
What a total joke.
So you haven't actually watched the whole thing then, just picked a very specific and guided soundbite short clip, the same rhetoric PB which is being mirrored across the IF, completely out of the wider context and ignoring the main purpose of the hearing.
Who are you trying to discredit here?
There are a number of responses across the whole hearing which could have been used to legitimately DDC but you picked the aforementioned.
Last edited:
When Elizondo is talking about how the government have recovered “bodies”, “biology” and stuff, what sort of bodies and biology is he talking about?
What is he referring to here?
Soldato
This is the latest UAP doing the rounds in some of the newspapers. If genuine, it features a missile striking a number of UAPs around/near to a military base in Afghanistan:
Last edited:
Since you need a breakdown of what happened. A highly ranked intelligence officer with top level security clearance who spent I think it was 10 years at AATIP has submitted records and evidence.
These records and evidence involve classified military documentation he had access to from his time at AATIP about unknown biological matter recovered from a crash UAP site that was sent to two defence contractors for analysis.
EDIT: As you know this thing started because the government denied it had a UAP task force. Then an investigative journalist found evidence and proved there was a classified UAP task force that analysed, tracked and did crash recoveries for UAPs. This turned out to be a real department that was well funded with its high-ranking intelligence officers. Then the whistle-blowers inside this UAP task submitted evidence of illegal SAP programs being run without Congress oversite which is a serious matter and involves large sums of money being diverted to illegal Special Access Program projects. Nothing what so ever to do with 1 person selling books to make money. Even if 1 person is selling books it doesn't disprove or discredit the core events to do with the UAP task force and illegal SAPS which is the part that matters.
Last edited:
No I want an answer to the question I actually asked. The same question @Scrutinize also failed to address:
When these people are referring to non human bodies, technologies and ‘biologics’ what are they referencing?
Animals? Plants?
He didn't say it was alien biologics. He said it was unknown biologics recovered from a crash site. None human bodies and none human biologic could be something as simple as a test monkey strapped into a chair of a prototype craft that crashed. Or it could even be a human and they covered up the death as it was a death in an illegal run SAP testing out out a prototype skunkwork craft. My bets are on animal biologics although its a crash site so who knows perhaps plants got mixed in as well.
Ok, so it could be a monkey, driving around in a flying saucer, effortlessly intercepting US navy jets, inspecting US nuclear assets, essentially 'monkeying around' until it crashes?
Or you know it could be a prototype skunk work style craft testing out an experimental engine with a monkey strapped into the chair with sensors on to test out the impact of rapid acceleration on a live body like they have history of doing back then. Or it could be even more simple the experimental craft crashed and killed a wild animal at the crash site which caused the wild animal biologics to get mixed in.
You do realise don't you that he is talking about a crash site in an Airforce prototype testing range where they have a long history of testing out experimental classified craft? I rather think that is more likely then one of your many crazy theory's.
Its well documented they used live animals in the testing ranges for experimental craft back then. Luis is talking about a crash at one of those testing ranges during the timeframe live animals was used for testing. So it seems plausible to me its just an experimental craft that failed and crashed in a airforce testing range. A crash that either had a test subject on board or the the crash killed a wild animal. There is no need for one of your many fantasy theory's.
Where in the video does Luis Elizondo say that it was live animals being used to test the flying-saucers, and that it was live animals that crashed at a test range?
Caporegime
This thread makes for brilliant Chewsday morning reading.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
This is not where the push to ammendments around the legislative bill started which had been a key driver to disclosure around the Programmes. This is also not the prime reason, so it is evident you aren't aware.
I am only interested in the factual evidence as presented when taken in proper context and in alignmenment following the US congressional due process.
Others on here like @Pottsey and @RxR are happy to provide some broader thoughts, as they have done
Last edited:
Don't obfuscate it - keep it simple.
3 Mins, 30 seconds.
Ross Coulthart: When you say crash retrieval program, what do you mean?
David Grusch: These are retrieving, non-human origin technical vehicles, call it spacecraft if you will, non-human exotic origin vehicles, which have either landed or crashed.
Ross Coulthart: We have spacecraft, from another species?
David Grusch: We do.
Ross Coulthart: How many?
David Grusch: Quite a number
Ross Coulthart: You're kidding!
David Grusch: No.
What do you think David Grusch (the main whistleblower and main person who kicked off all of this) is referring to? what is he describing to Ross?
