My bar is much lower. If the government comes out and says definitively that they had or currently have in their possession crashed UAP and/or off-world biological specimens, that's all I need. I don't expect videos of alien autopsies or anything like that. For me, that puts to bed any uncertainty of the existence of UAPs. It absolutely raises a giant list of questions, but at least the question of disclosure is answered.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Teddy Perkins said:

---

My bar is much lower. If the government comes out and says definitively that they had or currently have in their possession crashed UAP and/or off-world biological specimens, that's all I need. I don't expect videos of alien autopsies or anything like that. For me, that puts to bed any uncertainty of the existence of UAPs. It absolutely raises a giant list of questions, but at least the question of disclosure is answered.

---

So just 100% take the government's word for it.

Beautiful.

---

Not exactly. There's been mountains of circumstantial evidence, couple that with the government's official statements, and that's all I need.

Teddy Perkins said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Teddy Perkins said:

---

My bar is much lower. If the government comes out and says definitively that they had or currently have in their possession crashed UAP and/or off-world biological specimens, that's all I need. I don't expect videos of alien autopsies or anything like that. For me, that puts to bed any uncertainty of the existence of UAPs. It absolutely raises a giant list of questions, but at least the question of disclosure is answered.

---

So just 100% take the government's word for it.

Beautiful.

---

Not exactly. There's been mountains of circumstantial evidence, couple that with the government's official statements, and that's all I need.

---

With all due respect as I don't know you, you need some more discernment in your life.

Another flag

Quote:

---

The term 2 ''controlling authority'' means any Federal, State, or 3 local government department, office, agency, com4 mittee, commission, commercial company, academic 5 institution, or private sector entity in physical pos6 session of technologies of unknown origin or biologi7 cal evidence of non-human intelligence.

---

We want your stuff if it's any good!

redline248 said:

---

Still playing catch up this morning, but I caution you to slow your rolls. Right here at the beginning:

Quote:

---

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

---

This all about moving money around to fatten up more departments.

---

Interesting wording indeed.

Bold prediction: UFOs are the new global cooling global warmingclimate disasterclimate breakdown climate change.

We'll get nothing of consequence; "continuing investigations, unknown origins...."
just government doublespeak

The only people that could force any kind of meaningful disclosure will be bought or compromised.

Agristotle said:

---

We'll get nothing of consequence; "continuing investigations, unknown origins...."
just government doublespeak

The only people that could force any kind of meaningful disclosure will be bought or compromised.

---

Forget curious skeptics like me, the inevitable crash between the "They're too committed to not fully disclose now" vs the "They'll never let the real truth out" two camps of believers is going to be interesting to watch.

Beast of Burden said:

---

redline248 said:

---

Still playing catch up this morning, but I caution you to slow your rolls. Right here at the beginning:

Quote:

---

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

---

This all about moving money around to fatten up more departments.

---

Interesting wording indeed.

Bold prediction: UFOs are the new global cooling global warmingclimate disasterclimate breakdown climate change.

---

This seems like fairly normal verbiage and budgetary practice to me. All sorts of tangentially related appropriations routinely get attached to bigger funding bills. I wouldn't read anything pro or con into this phrasing.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Teddy Perkins said:

---

My bar is much lower. If the government comes out and says definitively that they had or currently have in their possession crashed UAP and/or off-world biological specimens, that's all I need. I don't expect videos of alien autopsies or anything like that. For me, that puts to bed any uncertainty of the existence of UAPs. It absolutely raises a giant list of questions, but at least the question of disclosure is answered.

---

So just 100% take the government's word for it.

Beautiful.

---

Don't listen to what the government says. Watch what it does. For example, if big aerospace companies like Lockheed resort to suing the government over the eminent domain grab in this bill, that's pretty telling.

redline248 said:

---

Still playing catch up this morning, but I caution you to slow your rolls. Right here at the beginning:

Quote:

---

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

---

This all about moving money around to fatten up more departments.

---

I've tried my best to caveat as many posts of mine as I can in this thread with phrasing along the lines of "...assuming this real, of course..." or "... if, and that's a big if, this is real..." so it's always suspect to me how sure of themselves the skeptics are in this thread with definitive statements like yours above.

Also, one would think there are a thousand better traditional ways to "move money around" than "aliens."

I don't know, it's just odd to me how much some of you are choosing to ignore all the other facets of this, the bigger picture, etc. Again, all things considered, the amount of people who would have to be in on the grift rivals if not exceeds the complexity/absurdity of any potential coverup. You're just switching out one conspiracy theory for another.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Teddy Perkins said:

---

My bar is much lower. If the government comes out and says definitively that they had or currently have in their possession crashed UAP and/or off-world biological specimens, that's all I need. I don't expect videos of alien autopsies or anything like that. For me, that puts to bed any uncertainty of the existence of UAPs. It absolutely raises a giant list of questions, but at least the question of disclosure is answered.

---

So just 100% take the government's word for it.

Beautiful.

---

For me, I would add "government comes out and says definitively that they had or currently have in their possession crashed UAP and/or off-world biological specimens" + some kind of unmistakable, high-quality, closeup video of either a craft defying the known laws of physics or video of alien bodies themselves = disclosure.

To me, an admission + video/photographic proof goes hand-in-hand. If the government comes out and straight up admits that they have this stuff, I don't see why they then couldn't provide video/photographic proof as well.

As for "taking the government's word for it," you know damn well it won't stop with a single announcement. The floodgates will then open, leaks and followups will come gushing out, scientists will get their hands on this stuff, journalists will do all kinds of follow up confirmation, etc. In no world will there be just an announcement and that's it.

All that said, as I mentioned earlier, it's more than likely that the government will simply end up confirming what we already know. I would be surprised if something ultra-convincing doesn't leak first, and then it's the government who has to follow up and be like, "Ok, yeah, this is real."

Do you think the government actually is interested in making life better for its citizens or for themselves?

Of course it is.

Is it also corrupt as hell? No doubt.

It is and can be both.

Either way, can we please not turn this into some partisan political discussion?

"Grusch is prepared to name the individuals who have been murdered to protect the UFO secret IF asked at the hearing." #ufotwitter

Whoa, that would be absolutely bonkers if he drops names 😲 https://t.co/5w5JFP3ELu

— Jon 👽 🛸 (@skinnyb0b) July 17, 2023

Garry Nolan says he knows David Grusch will be at the July 26th UAP hearing.

Dr. Nolan also reveals that we will be seeing more of David Grusch after the hearing. Sounds like we're getting more interviews with Mr. Grusch.

Full Interview: https://t.co/K1bnuyJgR9#ufotwitter… pic.twitter.com/wzFkf68PEv

— Mike Colangelo (@MikeColangelo) July 17, 2023

This. Hands down, the most scared I've ever been in a movie theater...

The abduction setpiece is a top 5 horror scene and the scariest aliens will ever be in a movie. https://t.co/oqXpNSKOQQ

— Brian Duffield (@BrianDuffield) July 17, 2023

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Why wait? Why not name them now?

---

Because it won't be on national television, on the record, under oath?

Okay…
Why not both?

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Okay…
Why not both?

---

Who says he hasn't already provided the names to the Senate Intelligence Committee or whoever else?

Just because *we* haven't heard them yet doesn't mean he hasn't already revealed them.

TCTTS said:

---

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Okay…
Why not both?

---

Who says he hasn't already provided the names to the Senate Intelligence Committee or whoever else?

Just because *we* haven't heard them yet doesn't mean he hasn't already revealed them.

---

So he may have disclosed the names behind closed doors to government officials? That's your argument?

Dude, you really need a better perspective…

Friendly reminder of the people putting their careers and livelihoods on the line to support DG.

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Okay…
Why not both?

---

Who says he hasn't already provided the names to the Senate Intelligence Committee or whoever else?

Just because *we* haven't heard them yet doesn't mean he hasn't already revealed them.

---

So he may have disclosed the names behind closed doors to government officials? That's your argument?

Dude, you really need a better perspective…

---

Huh? A) I'm just throwing it out there, not saying I believe it, but B) what is so outlandish about that idea?

Redstone said:

---

Friendly reminder of the people putting their careers and livelihoods on the line to support DG.

---

Really? Are they really?

When I see som people lose their livelihood and career over this, then maybe I'll believe just some of what you're saying, until then, all these people are just shills and patsies…

My characterization is correct. Review the laws Congress has passed and will pass. It's in the thread.

Can you give me one example of someone who has lost their livelihood or career?

Or are you saying that they're simply risking those things?

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Really? Are they really?

When I see som people lose their livelihood and career over this, then maybe I'll believe just some of what you're saying, until then, all these people are just shills and patsies…

---

Not only are unprecedented laws being written based on the testimony (and evidence if not proof) provided by Grusch and those supporting Grusch's claims, but, again, the Intelligence Community Inspector General has officially labeled their claims "urgent and credible."

I totally get having a healthy sense of skepticism, but to definitively claim that all of these people "are just shills and patsies," instead of simply taking a wait-and-see approach, is so insanely weird to me. It all just reeks of one last death rattle; of people who, deep down, are scared to see our world change. When, given the ridiculous amount of circumstantial evidence here, a rational person simply doesn't start lashing out in this manner.

You're looney toons, babe!

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Can you give me one example of someone who has lost their livelihood or career?

Or are you saying that they're simply risking those things?

---

We're saying they're simply risking those things. We've said as much over and over and over again.

It is a fact that Grusch goes to prison if he's lying.

TCTTS said:

---

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Can you give me one example of someone who has lost their livelihood or career?

Or are you saying that they're simply risking those things?

---

We're saying they're simply risking those things. We've said as much over and over and over again.

It is a fact that Grusch goes to prison if he's lying.

---

Sorta like all those other government officials that have been caught straight up lying to congress while under oath? I'm talking about in just the last few years.

You're comically delusional…