Fair enough.
So the language that is in the actual "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Disclosure Act" has A LOT of language that points to actual "credible testimony and evidence" in their bill.. it states multiple
It goes into very in-depth detail and wording on specific things such as:
1)Eminent domain over craft found, which basically points to Congress saying "We want all control over crafts, not private aerospace companies"
2) a timeline of when these disclosures need to be presented, bypassing past hurdles due to language used in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
3) Appointing someone who "has had no previous or current involve ment with any legacy program or controlling authority relating to the collection, exploitation, or reverse engineering of technologies of unknown origin or the examination of biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." (Which is just language that makes it sound like THERE ARE legacy programs involved with UAPs)
4) All Federal Government records concerning unidentified anomalous phenomena should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure and all records should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history of the Federal Government’s knowledge and involvement surrounding unidentified anomalous phenomena.
This type of language within the bill sounds VERY specific and taken very seriously. They don't draft a bill this specific with language this precise without evidence
Do you not hold these sorts of things as giving these stories more weight? Because obviously elected officials and those who have been given access to the evidence presented by Grusch and others are taking this VERY seriously in a bipartisan manner
Again, I think the evidence heavily, heavily weighs towards there being a top-secret craft recovery program to pick up and evaluate crashed or confiscated ships that must be kept secret (spy planes and drones, top secret foreign technology, maybe even our own tech if it crashes in the wrong place), and that due to secrecy and compartmentalization, some conspiracy-minded people who had relatively low levels of knowledge about the program began to believe they were working on alien technology.
Also, we are likely including people like Eric Davis, who might have been simply given a piece of metal claimed to be from a UFO, and merely from looking at the alloys and isotope ratios couldn't match it to normally manufactured material and started saying things like:
Davis said that in some cases he had failed to determine the source of recovered materials, leading him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”
Which other scientists would say is a ridiculous conclusion to base on that little evidence. But I bet most of the "whistleblowers" leaking to Grusch are going off of little more than this, and Grusch just got so confident because there were too many people with borderline claims like that, too many secondhand stories, and he's too gullible.
Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program, said he gave a classified briefing.
www.nationalreview.com
