5 ms·

That is blatant ignorance. More specifically, you are entirely ignoring the context here. > Other intelligence officials, both active and retired, with knowle

That is blatant ignorance. More specifically, you are entirely ignoring the context here. > Other intelligence officials, both active and retired, with knowledge of these programs through their work in various agencies, have independently provided similar, corroborating information, both on and off the record. > The whistleblower, David Charles Grusch, 36, a decorated former combat officer in Afghanistan, is a veteran of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). He served as the reconnaissance office’s representative to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force from 2019-2021. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the NGA’s co-lead for UAP analysis and its representative to the task force.

lisasays 3y ago
That's not evidence. That's hearsay. Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence. Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here. Can't believe I have to explain this on HN.
- awhitehat 3y ago
  I hate to be pedantic, b--actually, that's not true; I enjoy it plenty well. Hearsay is a TYPE of evidence, albeit not a particularly reliable type of evidence. But you are correct, it is hearsay, and in fact, its second-hand hearsay. But more to Loquebantur's point here (I think this was his point), this IS fundamentally different than similar claims that came before. You have one guy from the government making these sorts of claims (that's not the different part, this next part is), and you have 2 other decorated government officials and colleagues willing to, not only speaking highly of Grusch's integrity, but CORROBORATING HIS EXACT CLAIMS, and even going on to provide a further anecdotes. That's not what normally happens. Also, it is fundamentally different for this reason as well: All of this information and whatever Grusch learned was provided to congress, behind closed door to those with the clearance to hear it. As far as I am aware of, this level of type of information has never been provided to congress before. This not insignificant; Congress has the the power to subpoena information, compel testimony, and ultimately verify or debunk these claims and information. And ultimately, if they deem it pertinent to do so, they have the autonomy to inform the American public. Now, not to totally invalidate your other point: I do think it is important to keep in mind here that Grusch himself has not seen any direct or hard evidence of 'materials of exotic origin'. He is merely saying that several high-level individuals have confided in him what is presumably first hand experiences, which, as you know, is second-hand hearsay. So this leaves open the possibility that the individuals who were confiding in Grusch, were fooling themselves, were in some way deceived, or perhaps even wanting to fool Grusch himself.
- blazespin 3y ago
  No, it's expert testimony. I can't believe I have to explain that on HN...
  - lisasays 3y ago
    By someone with no scientific credentials whatsoever -- and who presents no evidence. I mean sure -- he's a great guy, and has served his country and all. But still.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      Why on earth would the whistleblower have to be a scientist here? That's utter nonsense. This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding "evidence" of some mystical quality, while entirely ignoring the information that is actually presented.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. In a world of agencies famously riddled with incompetence, whose people have not only have been shown to be liars, time and time again -- but guess what: Their very purpose is to lie. That's why we need something more to seek our teeth into than some whistleblower who says he's seen reports about such and such.
      - PKop 3y ago
        He could simply be lying, pushing a propaganda message of the state. Why would you without evidence believe he is being truthful whatsoever? There is geopolitical advantage to making the world think you have advanced weapons tech, or that it exists and has to be found somewhere.
        Loquebantur 3y ago
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  "Hearsay" is a derogatory term used to disparage evidence. It is entirely unscientific, as evidence is not ignored solely based on the messenger. You have to thoroughly evaluate the context, regardless of your personal preconceptions. The guy has done a seven hour interview with Ross Coulthart, that is due to come out this week. He is reported to have such photos, documents, etc. This story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude. You playing ignorant here is ridiculous.
  - nradov 3y ago
    None of that constitutes actual evidence. Let's see some artifacts.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      Evidence in real life is accumulative, not "holy grail style", like in the movies. You build a case step by step, systematically establishing a context. Here you already missed all the prior foundational work. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". That is mere posturing. You miss the slightly more important point of having been lied to your entire life by the government about fundamental topics, which is beginning to unravel here.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        Evidence in real life is accumulative, Right -- and so far there's an accumulation of precisely zero. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". I defer largely to (legitimate) experts, actually. But as of yet: there are no artifacts to evaluate.
        Loquebantur 3y ago
        Does the account nradov belong to you as well? You not knowing about the already existing evidence is no proof of its inexistence. What "legitimate experts" exactly are you referring to and where? The whistleblower here is talking, among other important things, about a secret US military program attempting to reverse engineer non-human artifacts. Your demands here are out of context and nonsensical.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  HN has effectively been taken over by a bunch of middle aged losers desperate to realize some sci fi dreams they had as children. You can also see it in both the ridiculous yet arrogantly confident predictions of AI utopias or dystopias that are basically just something they ripped out of a book or movie.
- phyalow 3y ago
  https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-garry-nolan-analyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events_Possibly_Related_to_the_%27%27Brazil_Magnesium https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...
  - kevinwang 3y ago
    Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything. The original article seems to be implying that there's like some extraordinary clear evidence of a vehicle or something, which would be much more shocking.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      The whistleblower claims, crash retrieval programs exist which are reported by very believable people in the government to have craft of non-human origin. Your depiction of the story is clearly misleading. This here is a mere step in the direction of uncovering such "material evidence" as you would like to be presented right now, as if reality ever worked that way.
      - kevinwang 3y ago
        My comment was merely a reaction to the thread above, not the original article. lisasays: this is rubbish because there's no first-hand evidence e.g. of the vehicle fragments of the Debrief article phyallow: here's first-hand evidence [link to the vice article] me: this is just weird bits of rock, which isn't obviously a vehicle fragment, and so this article isn't really as much of a proper response to lisasays' comment as it seems.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3y ago
- kevinwang 3y ago
  Also it seems like even the whistleblower does not have first-hand evidence: "Grusch also said he has not seen photos of the alleged craft himself, but has spoken extensively with other intelligence officials who have." from https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us-ufo-retrieval-program/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us...
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    Why would he have such "first hand evidence"? That makes no sense at all. Do you suppose, he could have carted one of the vehicles out the facilitie or something?
    - kevinwang 3y ago
      Sorry, I meant to say that he has not seen the evidence first-hand, which is pretty important IMO.
graderjs 3y ago
I think it's great that there's corroborating witnesses. But, you know, shows us the evidence. Show us you got something. Show us you're not all just talk. What are you afraid of? Show us.

lisasays 3y ago

That's not evidence. That's hearsay. Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence. Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here. Can't believe I have to explain this on HN.

awhitehat 3y ago
I hate to be pedantic, b--actually, that's not true; I enjoy it plenty well. Hearsay is a TYPE of evidence, albeit not a particularly reliable type of evidence. But you are correct, it is hearsay, and in fact, its second-hand hearsay. But more to Loquebantur's point here (I think this was his point), this IS fundamentally different than similar claims that came before. You have one guy from the government making these sorts of claims (that's not the different part, this next part is), and you have 2 other decorated government officials and colleagues willing to, not only speaking highly of Grusch's integrity, but CORROBORATING HIS EXACT CLAIMS, and even going on to provide a further anecdotes. That's not what normally happens. Also, it is fundamentally different for this reason as well: All of this information and whatever Grusch learned was provided to congress, behind closed door to those with the clearance to hear it. As far as I am aware of, this level of type of information has never been provided to congress before. This not insignificant; Congress has the the power to subpoena information, compel testimony, and ultimately verify or debunk these claims and information. And ultimately, if they deem it pertinent to do so, they have the autonomy to inform the American public. Now, not to totally invalidate your other point: I do think it is important to keep in mind here that Grusch himself has not seen any direct or hard evidence of 'materials of exotic origin'. He is merely saying that several high-level individuals have confided in him what is presumably first hand experiences, which, as you know, is second-hand hearsay. So this leaves open the possibility that the individuals who were confiding in Grusch, were fooling themselves, were in some way deceived, or perhaps even wanting to fool Grusch himself.
blazespin 3y ago
No, it's expert testimony. I can't believe I have to explain that on HN...
- lisasays 3y ago
  By someone with no scientific credentials whatsoever -- and who presents no evidence. I mean sure -- he's a great guy, and has served his country and all. But still.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    Why on earth would the whistleblower have to be a scientist here? That's utter nonsense. This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding "evidence" of some mystical quality, while entirely ignoring the information that is actually presented.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. In a world of agencies famously riddled with incompetence, whose people have not only have been shown to be liars, time and time again -- but guess what: Their very purpose is to lie. That's why we need something more to seek our teeth into than some whistleblower who says he's seen reports about such and such.
    - PKop 3y ago
      He could simply be lying, pushing a propaganda message of the state. Why would you without evidence believe he is being truthful whatsoever? There is geopolitical advantage to making the world think you have advanced weapons tech, or that it exists and has to be found somewhere.
      - Loquebantur 3y ago
Loquebantur 3y ago
"Hearsay" is a derogatory term used to disparage evidence. It is entirely unscientific, as evidence is not ignored solely based on the messenger. You have to thoroughly evaluate the context, regardless of your personal preconceptions. The guy has done a seven hour interview with Ross Coulthart, that is due to come out this week. He is reported to have such photos, documents, etc. This story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude. You playing ignorant here is ridiculous.
- nradov 3y ago
  None of that constitutes actual evidence. Let's see some artifacts.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    Evidence in real life is accumulative, not "holy grail style", like in the movies. You build a case step by step, systematically establishing a context. Here you already missed all the prior foundational work. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". That is mere posturing. You miss the slightly more important point of having been lied to your entire life by the government about fundamental topics, which is beginning to unravel here.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      Evidence in real life is accumulative, Right -- and so far there's an accumulation of precisely zero. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". I defer largely to (legitimate) experts, actually. But as of yet: there are no artifacts to evaluate.
      - Loquebantur 3y ago
        Does the account nradov belong to you as well? You not knowing about the already existing evidence is no proof of its inexistence. What "legitimate experts" exactly are you referring to and where? The whistleblower here is talking, among other important things, about a secret US military program attempting to reverse engineer non-human artifacts. Your demands here are out of context and nonsensical.
the_only_law 3y ago
HN has effectively been taken over by a bunch of middle aged losers desperate to realize some sci fi dreams they had as children. You can also see it in both the ridiculous yet arrogantly confident predictions of AI utopias or dystopias that are basically just something they ripped out of a book or movie.
phyalow 3y ago
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-garry-nolan-analyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events_Possibly_Related_to_the_%27%27Brazil_Magnesium https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...
- kevinwang 3y ago
  Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything. The original article seems to be implying that there's like some extraordinary clear evidence of a vehicle or something, which would be much more shocking.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    The whistleblower claims, crash retrieval programs exist which are reported by very believable people in the government to have craft of non-human origin. Your depiction of the story is clearly misleading. This here is a mere step in the direction of uncovering such "material evidence" as you would like to be presented right now, as if reality ever worked that way.
    - kevinwang 3y ago
      My comment was merely a reaction to the thread above, not the original article. lisasays: this is rubbish because there's no first-hand evidence e.g. of the vehicle fragments of the Debrief article phyallow: here's first-hand evidence [link to the vice article] me: this is just weird bits of rock, which isn't obviously a vehicle fragment, and so this article isn't really as much of a proper response to lisasays' comment as it seems.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 3y ago
kevinwang 3y ago
Also it seems like even the whistleblower does not have first-hand evidence: "Grusch also said he has not seen photos of the alleged craft himself, but has spoken extensively with other intelligence officials who have." from https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us-ufo-retrieval-program/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us...
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  Why would he have such "first hand evidence"? That makes no sense at all. Do you suppose, he could have carted one of the vehicles out the facilitie or something?
  - kevinwang 3y ago
    Sorry, I meant to say that he has not seen the evidence first-hand, which is pretty important IMO.

graderjs 3y ago

I think it's great that there's corroborating witnesses. But, you know, shows us the evidence. Show us you got something. Show us you're not all just talk. What are you afraid of? Show us.