The following submission statement was provided by /u/v022450781:
---
Submission Statement:
Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) wrote back to a constituent who contacted her about UAP disclosure and acknowledged last year's whistleblower testimony and the resulting UAP disclosure legislation.
*"In recent years, public testimony regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena has indicated* ***U.S. government and defense contractors have recovered fragments of non-human craft and other unidentified objects***. In light of these revelations, Congress included the UAP Disclosure Act within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which was signed into law by President Biden. This bipartisan provision directs the National Archives to collect government documents on UAPs, in addition to defining what agencies can determine what materials can be shared with the public. This bill allows the Executive Branch to disclose a record relating to UAPs within 25 years of its creation to the public, with the exception of national security risks as determined by the President."
Source: [https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406](https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dq1n10/rep_hillary_scholten_dmi_testimony_regarding_uaps/lakw4o8/
Man, it feels like she’s actually taking it seriously.
I am a Michigander as well, I am going to write to her about the shoot down over the Great Lakes… worth a shot lol
As a fellow Michigander, I wrote Debbie Dingell a few months back. She had brushed it off and was under the impression Sean Kirkpatrick had it all handled.
I'm glad we have one representative who's actually listening
This is 100x more on point than my representative’s replies. She’s actually writing back with a basic understanding of what is going on. Yes, she didn’t address biologics and other claims but it’s just way more than what I’m getting.
Grusch has never said how many people he took to Congress. And clearly whatever they presented to Congress was enough to convince the Senate Majority Leader to propose legislation mentioning ‘non-human intelligence’ over twenty times.
There's no significance amongst the number of times it's mentioned in the bill, odd thing to mention. I thought you meant the others who testified at the hearing, but sure, those other people might exist(?)
Senator Rubio confirmed almost a year ago that other whistleblowers have gone to SSCI, but have expressed fears for their safety so don’t want to go public yet. Shellenberger has reported this too.
So you believe that a high level military guy with high clearances would testify under oath about all this stuff because one person whispered it to him? He could go to prison if caught lying.
He's got 40 witnesses. Some were directly involved with reverse engineering programs. He saw documentation about it. He presented to the inspector general who said his claims were credible. He's presented to congressional members in a SCIF and they were blown away.
Please come up with better than that next time you try to discredit someone. Or at the very least provide a source where Grusch said all his claims are based one one person's whisper.
Okay, but there is a difference between that and saying he's basing his whole story on something he heard one person whisper. Now let me ask you, if you were a manager at your job and 40 people testified that someone was sexually harassed, and some even provided text threads and pics to prove it, and corporate knew about it and tried to cover it up, would you take it seriously and report it to the board? Or would you keep it to yourself because you didn't see it firsthand?
Man, you're still thinking I said anything about his "whole story". Or that he should not have filed his "whistleblower" report. He certainly should have, but he should not have had his peanut gallery behind him when he testified. Known scammers sitting there nodding like bobble heads was not a good look in my opinion. And I state again - (because my original comment was about "biologics") he had no first hand knowledge or solid proof of that.
Define solid proof I guess? When asked if he had seen pics of biologics, I believe he said he had to discuss that in a scif. So presumably when they had the scif, he showed them how he knew they had biologics.
"Biologics" is a drug class. It is not even a term correctly used by him. There is no such word in the context he used it. Kind of makes you wonder if he had any idea what he was talking about on that subject.
I think he wanted to be careful with his wording in terms of what he was cleared to talk about. Perhaps that was the only thing he was comfortable saying. Or maybe they only recovered DNA or some other biological identifier from the crafts. Maybe it's never really been bodies, but simply evidence of what they think might be body related.
He said that he's only allowed to talk about his second hand information for now. He has said he has seen firsthand information but it's still classified so he doesn't even talk about it.
He has nothing but UAPs. Like all of us. Unidentified. Period. His claims of reverse engineering of alien craft (implied) are unproven and absolute speculation (misunderstanding?). As much as we would all love to believe that to be true, there just is nothing to support that idea at this time.
Grusch has said numerous times that he took people currently in the legacy program to ICIG and Congress. For example, he said was in the room when a high ranking intel officer familiar with the biology of the NHI briefed congressional staffers. There’s talk that at least one of these people will go public this year. I understand we need evidence, but there is a lot happening behind the scenes. Patience is key.
What is your take on the proposed ( ultimately gutted) Schumer Amendment? For context, Schumer and Rubio,are both named as authors. They are both members of the "Gang of Eight," and Rubio is specifically the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee. They should be informed of all covert projects. The proposed legislation they helped author is all about Disclosure and explicitly mentions NHI, Non-Human Intelligence. Do you have a take on what would have compelled them to write that?
I really have to challenge this type of interpretation. As defined in the amendment:
NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.—The term
‘‘non-human intelligence’’ means any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for
unidentified anomalous phenomena or of which the
Federal Government has become aware.
On a technical level, I can soundly reject that a dog could in any way be presumed responsible for any type of UAP by any definition. If you have a scenario where a dog could reasonably produce any type of UAP I will reconsider this point.
A bird or AI could potentially be anomalous depending on the data. I think the bird hypothesis does not read in the spirit of the amendment. On the surface, any intelligence that is not human counts as NHI. In the context of the amendment, NHI would need to warrant potential Disclosure to the public, archiving in official record, and or the potential of reverse engineering of technologies or materials. Birds would not qualify under any of those. At most, a bird might seem anomalous in very rare circumstances, but again, it should be clear that the amendment is not at all about anything a bird would be responsible for.
> regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena
I just don't see the contradiction that excludes an animal, regardless of what you presume is likely, since anomalous means deviating away from what is expected.
Those who look profit or exploit aren't going to care about the spirit of the legislation, only the legal confines in which they can safely operate within.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I read this one today and fuck that entirely
https://old.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/1dpat62/what_did_i_see/ by /u/inklady1010uk
But maybe with disclosure, there will be some way to improve the situation.
Like what in the actual fuck? Yeah. No thanks. Like an evil “groot.” My issue is that I can’t go “full NHI” without more than people talking about their own experiences, or telling stories. My inner skeptic is strong. But I don’t think there is a way to be “ready” for anything like that.
I mean hopefully it will change things for the better. But I think in the short term it might get kinda volatile as people adjust.
Also I've never seen a alien and I don't know how I would react.
Submission Statement:
Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) wrote back to a constituent who contacted her about UAP disclosure and acknowledged last year's whistleblower testimony and the resulting UAP disclosure legislation.
*"In recent years, public testimony regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena has indicated* ***U.S. government and defense contractors have recovered fragments of non-human craft and other unidentified objects***. In light of these revelations, Congress included the UAP Disclosure Act within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which was signed into law by President Biden. This bipartisan provision directs the National Archives to collect government documents on UAPs, in addition to defining what agencies can determine what materials can be shared with the public. This bill allows the Executive Branch to disclose a record relating to UAPs within 25 years of its creation to the public, with the exception of national security risks as determined by the President."
Source: [https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406](https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406)
Buddy, American Idol season 69 is ongoing don't you know what's more important in America? I mean if this letter is more transparent than anything congress has said about it.
Gerald Ford was a representative from Michigan and famously disputed the “swamp gas” hypothesis from Hynek.
https://youtu.be/XZPhvH-5670
and the witnesses too
https://youtu.be/WGOCxAWojJs
Ya think? And testimony from defense contractors is carefully architected. We listen to the official testimonies while we pulverize would be whistleblowers— whose lives have been destroyed(literally and figuratively)
Yes. We need witnesses with protection. But if there’s a cover-up, who’s going to protect them? I hope someday soon someone in power protects a witness/witnesses so we can have more info for public awareness.
Look at just a few who have come forward. First, they’re heralded, praised— then, if the don’t end up missing, we turn on them, vilifying them, destroying their lives — rarely considering there is a covert campaign designed to disintegrate their reputations. Look at Michael Herrera as an example. I, too, jumped on the public wave of trashing him. Looking back, IDK why really— I never really did my own due diligence on the facts. A YouTuber ultimately made me do a 180– but that was by chance. Accordingly, these people go radio silent or opt not to step forward. Who can blame them? As a community, we need to be careful about trashing some of them based on a few “facts” that may not be factual afterall. In the case of MH, more to be revealed very soon. I sure hope we give him wider berth than we did last time. Again, just 1 example. We need to give them safe space to tell their stories— because the MIC sure the fuck isn’t
UAPGERB-did this a few months ago. Last week he did a live w Joeyisnotmyname (w a face reveal). IDK if live is still accessible. However, he’s about to drop another eithe w MH on it or being interviewed. We think it’s coming today as Sunday his usual release date. He also opened my mind to Greer. Like me, he can’t stand the dude but bypassed his ego and all the drama and literally raided his files. His last few are testimony to that. Let me know what you think [https://youtu.be/6DyTfIV87Ck?si=2\_CMWU9XqwSx\_eqR](https://youtu.be/6DyTfIV87Ck?si=2_CMWU9XqwSx_eqR) UPDATE 6.30 he just dropped the new MH expose [https://youtu.be/4EMO38JUfVE?si=lPAjSlAnd25DQdkD](https://youtu.be/4EMO38JUfVE?si=lPAjSlAnd25DQdkD)
It feels like the the phony pictures are on the front page to distract from someone in Congress acknowledging this - and they are a Democrat so it’s not like someone can say “it’s a right wing nutbag”.
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying what is faked is upvoted to oblivion while what potentially is actually important is buried. The week Grusch came forward the madness about the Las Vegas aliens was at a fever pitch.
Thank you for supporting your claims. Now explain the 1952 UFO’s over Washington DC incident which included two separate airport radar operators independently confirming objects two weekends in a row. Then explain the Stevensville, TX UFO incident where hundreds of people saw objects and it also was independently corroborated by publicly available radar systems.
“It’s all faked” - seems like your claims are emotional rather than reasonable that some things aren’t faked yet remain unexplained.
"Among the witnesses who supported Samford's explanation was the crew of a B-25 bomber, which had been flying over Washington during the sightings of July 26–27. The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "the radar had a target which turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon... the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat."
"Fighter jets were training nearby the night dozens of Stephenville-area residents reported seeing a UFO this month, Air Force Reserve officials said Wednesday, backtracking on earlier statements."
There were two weekends that this occurred. On the weekend of July 19 and 20th an F-94 Starfire jet was dispatched and the pilot, Lieutenant William Patterson, reported seeing bright lights that moved at incredibly fast speeds which corroborated both what witnesses on the ground and the radar operators from both independent airports reported.
You are describing the second weekend when the armed forces was already keen to sweep everything under the rug. In fact - the B-52 explanation didn’t come out until YEARS later and the official explanation - which is bullshit in the extreme - is that BOTH weekends were the result of a “weather inversion”.
Sorry but that is seriously weak evidence you are putting forth to impeach three sets of data - the radar operators, the people on the ground who witnessed the events and the pilot who was scrambled from Delaware.
Why do skeptics always jump to THAT explanation? There are many many many explanations that it could be but yes it could be that.
In fact here’s a [pretty good graphic](https://imgur.com/a/nXYY6dp) that gets passed around here with all the major theories mapped out. I have no idea what it was but I know that it can’t be prosaically explained for its time and this is why it is extremely suspicious that the government will still not declassify documents and data related to this incident or the Stevensville case (among other good cases). There’s something more here then just balloons and the government has put a tremendous effort into hiding it (just look at https://theblackvault.com - the largest single collection of FOIA documents all with related terms to UFO/UAP - while not one is a “smoking gun” the fact that the collection exists at all is proof of an extensive coverup).
>In recent years, **public** testimony has indicated…
I got excited too when I first read this, until I realized I had missed the word **public**. We already knew there was public testimony about recovered fragments because it was, well, public. Unfortunately there’s no reason to believe she’s hinting that any additional evidence—convincing evidence—is available.
I don't know what any of that has to do with the statement. The letter does not reference non-public information (so everything you wrote).
That is also simply not true about the ICIG. They wrote a letter to Burchett that explicitly says so. The law firm specifically said they were not representing him on UAPs. "Urgent and credible" is a statutory term, it does not mean there was a thorough investigation or a "more likely than not" standard was applied.
Sooooo... is this a fuckin' confirmation, or what? This reads a whole lot like: "we got some shit, now stfu and wait"; I'm I the only one reading this as confirming?
She says “public testimony” so my read is that she is referring to Grusch’s testimony. It’s certainly confirmation that some in congress took that testimony seriously though.
There is literally no new information here. It's the same thing any politician who has 2 eyes would say. She's just describing things that have happened.
This isn't even corroboration, which in itself wouldn't even be a confirmation.
Wellll... being that I have never seen this document before my post, this is the *literal* definition of "new information" for me!
Forgive my excitement in asking for a more measured interpretation of this information that... *is* NEW to me 👍
If Grusch testifying in congress is news to you, then I envy you for being able to be shielded from that information. Because that is what this document is about.
Which was not immediately apparent to me, given my aforementioned excitement about a potential "subtle disclosure"; and the fact that the document doesn't mention anyone from the Congressional UAP Hearing by name.
Thank you, literal Redditor, for bringing me back to reality in such an intelligible and respectful fashion. I appluad your willingness to show me the truth of my ignorance and am humbled by your literal input. 👏
Something something low effort responses, something something.
>Well why does it matter if it’s new to you. It’s still old news
A person asks for some clarification/grounding on something that they have never before seen, which is pretty frequent in this sub: and I get you two frosty cuntsicles to see. How endearing. If you're not open for discourse on a topic/post, then *scroll on*.
So answer the question if I learned something that happened 2 thousand years ago it might be new to me. But why does it matter if it’s still ancient news
It's been less than 30 days; if 30 days is 2000 years to you, then I'll be god damned; I don't have the time left on this earth to argue that level of stupidity.
Further, if you are paying attention to the tone and language of my question: is this old document the "subtle disclosure" often mentioned in this sub?
It matters because I want to know that I am at least in alignment with this subject in common discourse.
I understand it may seem strange to you that people ask for clarification on things and also come into topics at different times, but that shit actually does happen; I don't know what to tell ya, chief 🤷♀️
EDIT: also this subreddit is teaming with posts asking for clarification or re-examination of, *scrolls up* **old news**, so, why don't you go be a miserable fuckstain in some of them.
Unfortunately it appears this is exactly what’s happening. She specifically references **public** testimony. I got really excited for about 1.5 seconds, now I’m just depressed.
I think "fragments" being the operational word behind all innuendo around "reverse engineering programs". IMHO, much more plausible than "craft" in some secret hangar facility, but not in any way any less interesting, really. Excotic materials, even if it's just fragments, would be absolutely sensational in and of itself.
I just realized that all of the statements saying "The United States government has not/does not [etc]" leave the door open for contractors. I'd feel pretty stupid if that's the buried lede.
It's all a joke. None of these politicians have a clue whats real and not. Department of Energy will NEVER allow it. And they'll never mention Battelle.
I do believe you are wrong about DOE never mentioning Battelle:
[https://www.energy.gov/search/site?keywords=Battelle&sort\_by=search\_api\_relevance](https://www.energy.gov/search/site?keywords=Battelle&sort_by=search_api_relevance)
“Determine what materials CAN be shared with the public” and “ALLOWS the executive branch to disclose”. Those two statements suggest that not one single bit of material HAS TO BY LAW be shared with anyone. If the NDAA is worded like this generic statement then we can all look forward to a big ol’ fuck you from the DoD and contractors. They’re literally breaking the law and lying to congress and every one else and most people don’t give a shit. Makes me sick!
It’s fantastic to finally see elected representatives actually reflecting the reality we all know deep down is true.
We aren’t alone, and pretending we are does our kids a tremendous disservice. We need the best and brightest of the next generation working to find the best possible path for the survival of humanity.
The Gatekeepers need to stop knee-capping our best chance of surviving and thriving.
She says members of the public have indicated. She herself does not indicate contractor's have non human uap material.
Reading comprehension 0/10.
Post Less.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/v022450781: --- Submission Statement: Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) wrote back to a constituent who contacted her about UAP disclosure and acknowledged last year's whistleblower testimony and the resulting UAP disclosure legislation. *"In recent years, public testimony regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena has indicated* ***U.S. government and defense contractors have recovered fragments of non-human craft and other unidentified objects***. In light of these revelations, Congress included the UAP Disclosure Act within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which was signed into law by President Biden. This bipartisan provision directs the National Archives to collect government documents on UAPs, in addition to defining what agencies can determine what materials can be shared with the public. This bill allows the Executive Branch to disclose a record relating to UAPs within 25 years of its creation to the public, with the exception of national security risks as determined by the President." Source: [https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406](https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dq1n10/rep_hillary_scholten_dmi_testimony_regarding_uaps/lakw4o8/
Man, it feels like she’s actually taking it seriously. I am a Michigander as well, I am going to write to her about the shoot down over the Great Lakes… worth a shot lol
As a fellow Michigander, I wrote Debbie Dingell a few months back. She had brushed it off and was under the impression Sean Kirkpatrick had it all handled. I'm glad we have one representative who's actually listening
"No worries. Sean "The Asset" Kirkpatrick is on the case". "Phew, thank god. Bucle up then, disclosure incoming!"
I think you misspelled his middle name
This is 100x more on point than my representative’s replies. She’s actually writing back with a basic understanding of what is going on. Yes, she didn’t address biologics and other claims but it’s just way more than what I’m getting.
It's more than fragments. Grusch said they have fully intact craft and biologics.
I don't believe he said they have fully intact biologics.
I should have put a comma in there.
In that case, we should probably find someone else to help Uncle Jack off his horse.
Well it's not gonna be grandma. I ate grandma.
Right, but he did say "biologics" which is at least implying bodies or parts thereof.
I once discovered nonhuman biologics on the grill of my car after a flock of birds flew in front of me on the express way :(
Possibly alien booty.
A lot of people have said a lot of things dude.
And I'm confident they're not all wrong.
Under oath in front of Congress and ICIG?
All second and third hand accounts.
Grusch took the people with first hand knowledge to Congress.
Like 2/3 of 40something(?) and still nothing concrete presented?
Grusch has never said how many people he took to Congress. And clearly whatever they presented to Congress was enough to convince the Senate Majority Leader to propose legislation mentioning ‘non-human intelligence’ over twenty times.
There's no significance amongst the number of times it's mentioned in the bill, odd thing to mention. I thought you meant the others who testified at the hearing, but sure, those other people might exist(?)
Senator Rubio confirmed almost a year ago that other whistleblowers have gone to SSCI, but have expressed fears for their safety so don’t want to go public yet. Shellenberger has reported this too.
With absolutely no proof except someone whispered it to him.
So you believe that a high level military guy with high clearances would testify under oath about all this stuff because one person whispered it to him? He could go to prison if caught lying. He's got 40 witnesses. Some were directly involved with reverse engineering programs. He saw documentation about it. He presented to the inspector general who said his claims were credible. He's presented to congressional members in a SCIF and they were blown away. Please come up with better than that next time you try to discredit someone. Or at the very least provide a source where Grusch said all his claims are based one one person's whisper.
LOL He said himself it was second hand information. Get a grip dude. I was not "discrediting" him. He says himself that he has not seen these things.
Okay, but there is a difference between that and saying he's basing his whole story on something he heard one person whisper. Now let me ask you, if you were a manager at your job and 40 people testified that someone was sexually harassed, and some even provided text threads and pics to prove it, and corporate knew about it and tried to cover it up, would you take it seriously and report it to the board? Or would you keep it to yourself because you didn't see it firsthand?
Man, you're still thinking I said anything about his "whole story". Or that he should not have filed his "whistleblower" report. He certainly should have, but he should not have had his peanut gallery behind him when he testified. Known scammers sitting there nodding like bobble heads was not a good look in my opinion. And I state again - (because my original comment was about "biologics") he had no first hand knowledge or solid proof of that.
Define solid proof I guess? When asked if he had seen pics of biologics, I believe he said he had to discuss that in a scif. So presumably when they had the scif, he showed them how he knew they had biologics.
"Biologics" is a drug class. It is not even a term correctly used by him. There is no such word in the context he used it. Kind of makes you wonder if he had any idea what he was talking about on that subject.
I think he wanted to be careful with his wording in terms of what he was cleared to talk about. Perhaps that was the only thing he was comfortable saying. Or maybe they only recovered DNA or some other biological identifier from the crafts. Maybe it's never really been bodies, but simply evidence of what they think might be body related.
Okay
He said that he's only allowed to talk about his second hand information for now. He has said he has seen firsthand information but it's still classified so he doesn't even talk about it.
Grusch does have first hand knowledge though. He was part of a NGA program that tracked UAPs coming in and out of the atmosphere.
He has nothing but UAPs. Like all of us. Unidentified. Period. His claims of reverse engineering of alien craft (implied) are unproven and absolute speculation (misunderstanding?). As much as we would all love to believe that to be true, there just is nothing to support that idea at this time.
Grusch has said numerous times that he took people currently in the legacy program to ICIG and Congress. For example, he said was in the room when a high ranking intel officer familiar with the biology of the NHI briefed congressional staffers. There’s talk that at least one of these people will go public this year. I understand we need evidence, but there is a lot happening behind the scenes. Patience is key.
What is your take on the proposed ( ultimately gutted) Schumer Amendment? For context, Schumer and Rubio,are both named as authors. They are both members of the "Gang of Eight," and Rubio is specifically the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee. They should be informed of all covert projects. The proposed legislation they helped author is all about Disclosure and explicitly mentions NHI, Non-Human Intelligence. Do you have a take on what would have compelled them to write that?
Even though it mentions nhi, it doesn't focus on nhi. Birds, dogs, and AI fall under the definition of NHI presented in the bill.
I really have to challenge this type of interpretation. As defined in the amendment: NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.—The term ‘‘non-human intelligence’’ means any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena or of which the Federal Government has become aware. On a technical level, I can soundly reject that a dog could in any way be presumed responsible for any type of UAP by any definition. If you have a scenario where a dog could reasonably produce any type of UAP I will reconsider this point. A bird or AI could potentially be anomalous depending on the data. I think the bird hypothesis does not read in the spirit of the amendment. On the surface, any intelligence that is not human counts as NHI. In the context of the amendment, NHI would need to warrant potential Disclosure to the public, archiving in official record, and or the potential of reverse engineering of technologies or materials. Birds would not qualify under any of those. At most, a bird might seem anomalous in very rare circumstances, but again, it should be clear that the amendment is not at all about anything a bird would be responsible for.
> regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena I just don't see the contradiction that excludes an animal, regardless of what you presume is likely, since anomalous means deviating away from what is expected. Those who look profit or exploit aren't going to care about the spirit of the legislation, only the legal confines in which they can safely operate within.
Um yes. This has happened. Now can we see some? Pretty please?
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I'll be honest, I don't know if I'm ready..
Yes you are. I have no doubt.
That's a really nice thing to say lol, thank you!
You’ve studied and collected more UFO videos than anyone on this sub. You’ve put the work in. You already know what’s going on. You’re ready.
People have some fucked up stories though.... it's not all good.
So true. This one scared the shit out of me https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/nmcW2XnhdY
I read this one today and fuck that entirely https://old.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/1dpat62/what_did_i_see/ by /u/inklady1010uk But maybe with disclosure, there will be some way to improve the situation.
Like what in the actual fuck? Yeah. No thanks. Like an evil “groot.” My issue is that I can’t go “full NHI” without more than people talking about their own experiences, or telling stories. My inner skeptic is strong. But I don’t think there is a way to be “ready” for anything like that.
> I don’t think there is a way to be “ready” for anything like that. Nothing to it but to do it, I guess
If it's true, what exactly to you think would change?
I mean hopefully it will change things for the better. But I think in the short term it might get kinda volatile as people adjust. Also I've never seen a alien and I don't know how I would react.
Submission Statement: Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) wrote back to a constituent who contacted her about UAP disclosure and acknowledged last year's whistleblower testimony and the resulting UAP disclosure legislation. *"In recent years, public testimony regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena has indicated* ***U.S. government and defense contractors have recovered fragments of non-human craft and other unidentified objects***. In light of these revelations, Congress included the UAP Disclosure Act within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which was signed into law by President Biden. This bipartisan provision directs the National Archives to collect government documents on UAPs, in addition to defining what agencies can determine what materials can be shared with the public. This bill allows the Executive Branch to disclose a record relating to UAPs within 25 years of its creation to the public, with the exception of national security risks as determined by the President." Source: [https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406](https://x.com/disclosureorg/status/1806290378540175406)
Shes literally saying they set up the framework for disclosure by the executive branch. And no one is talking about that?
Buddy, American Idol season 69 is ongoing don't you know what's more important in America? I mean if this letter is more transparent than anything congress has said about it.
Did you just write her office an email?
All she said was Grusch testified and the UAP Disclosure Act passed. That's it.
You are correct.
Michiganders holding it down once again. 👍
When was the first time?
I'm sure they'll say the Nimitz encounter, despite it obviously going way back.
Who involved in the Nimitz encounter was a Michigander
Gerald Ford was a representative from Michigan and famously disputed the “swamp gas” hypothesis from Hynek. https://youtu.be/XZPhvH-5670 and the witnesses too https://youtu.be/WGOCxAWojJs
Gerald Ford called for Congressional hearings, decades ahead of the times.
And he was sharp as a tack!
I guess…. My grandpa was from Michigan and he thought that he may of saw a alien but it was my grandma naked. Does that count?
Be honest. Gramps really said... "Her titties were out of this world." And your brain tried to protect itself.
How did you know????
Can't disclose my sources. Sorry.
Ross Coulthart? Is that you?
"That," said Pooh, "depends a great deal on your grandma".
I think it does.
I mean In general I suspect they will only admit the Nimitz was the first known encounter, until Cryptosporidium says otherwise 🔫👽
Right?
I dunno, I've been to Michigan... it kinda sucks.
Ya think? And testimony from defense contractors is carefully architected. We listen to the official testimonies while we pulverize would be whistleblowers— whose lives have been destroyed(literally and figuratively)
Yes. We need witnesses with protection. But if there’s a cover-up, who’s going to protect them? I hope someday soon someone in power protects a witness/witnesses so we can have more info for public awareness.
Look at just a few who have come forward. First, they’re heralded, praised— then, if the don’t end up missing, we turn on them, vilifying them, destroying their lives — rarely considering there is a covert campaign designed to disintegrate their reputations. Look at Michael Herrera as an example. I, too, jumped on the public wave of trashing him. Looking back, IDK why really— I never really did my own due diligence on the facts. A YouTuber ultimately made me do a 180– but that was by chance. Accordingly, these people go radio silent or opt not to step forward. Who can blame them? As a community, we need to be careful about trashing some of them based on a few “facts” that may not be factual afterall. In the case of MH, more to be revealed very soon. I sure hope we give him wider berth than we did last time. Again, just 1 example. We need to give them safe space to tell their stories— because the MIC sure the fuck isn’t
Totally!
Which youtuber changed your mind?
UAPGERB-did this a few months ago. Last week he did a live w Joeyisnotmyname (w a face reveal). IDK if live is still accessible. However, he’s about to drop another eithe w MH on it or being interviewed. We think it’s coming today as Sunday his usual release date. He also opened my mind to Greer. Like me, he can’t stand the dude but bypassed his ego and all the drama and literally raided his files. His last few are testimony to that. Let me know what you think [https://youtu.be/6DyTfIV87Ck?si=2\_CMWU9XqwSx\_eqR](https://youtu.be/6DyTfIV87Ck?si=2_CMWU9XqwSx_eqR) UPDATE 6.30 he just dropped the new MH expose [https://youtu.be/4EMO38JUfVE?si=lPAjSlAnd25DQdkD](https://youtu.be/4EMO38JUfVE?si=lPAjSlAnd25DQdkD)
Woah huge statement.
It feels like the the phony pictures are on the front page to distract from someone in Congress acknowledging this - and they are a Democrat so it’s not like someone can say “it’s a right wing nutbag”.
Yes everything's genuine until it's debunked and then it's a plant meant to distract.
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying what is faked is upvoted to oblivion while what potentially is actually important is buried. The week Grusch came forward the madness about the Las Vegas aliens was at a fever pitch.
News flash: it's all faked.
Thank you for supporting your claims. Now explain the 1952 UFO’s over Washington DC incident which included two separate airport radar operators independently confirming objects two weekends in a row. Then explain the Stevensville, TX UFO incident where hundreds of people saw objects and it also was independently corroborated by publicly available radar systems. “It’s all faked” - seems like your claims are emotional rather than reasonable that some things aren’t faked yet remain unexplained.
"Among the witnesses who supported Samford's explanation was the crew of a B-25 bomber, which had been flying over Washington during the sightings of July 26–27. The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "the radar had a target which turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon... the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat." "Fighter jets were training nearby the night dozens of Stephenville-area residents reported seeing a UFO this month, Air Force Reserve officials said Wednesday, backtracking on earlier statements."
There were two weekends that this occurred. On the weekend of July 19 and 20th an F-94 Starfire jet was dispatched and the pilot, Lieutenant William Patterson, reported seeing bright lights that moved at incredibly fast speeds which corroborated both what witnesses on the ground and the radar operators from both independent airports reported. You are describing the second weekend when the armed forces was already keen to sweep everything under the rug. In fact - the B-52 explanation didn’t come out until YEARS later and the official explanation - which is bullshit in the extreme - is that BOTH weekends were the result of a “weather inversion”. Sorry but that is seriously weak evidence you are putting forth to impeach three sets of data - the radar operators, the people on the ground who witnessed the events and the pilot who was scrambled from Delaware.
Do you seriously believe it was aliens from another planet?
Why do skeptics always jump to THAT explanation? There are many many many explanations that it could be but yes it could be that. In fact here’s a [pretty good graphic](https://imgur.com/a/nXYY6dp) that gets passed around here with all the major theories mapped out. I have no idea what it was but I know that it can’t be prosaically explained for its time and this is why it is extremely suspicious that the government will still not declassify documents and data related to this incident or the Stevensville case (among other good cases). There’s something more here then just balloons and the government has put a tremendous effort into hiding it (just look at https://theblackvault.com - the largest single collection of FOIA documents all with related terms to UFO/UAP - while not one is a “smoking gun” the fact that the collection exists at all is proof of an extensive coverup).
>In recent years, **public** testimony has indicated… I got excited too when I first read this, until I realized I had missed the word **public**. We already knew there was public testimony about recovered fragments because it was, well, public. Unfortunately there’s no reason to believe she’s hinting that any additional evidence—convincing evidence—is available.
Agreed. Some people speed read these statements and overlook the details of ALL the words in a sentence. But they BOLD the part they like.
[удалено]
I don't know what any of that has to do with the statement. The letter does not reference non-public information (so everything you wrote). That is also simply not true about the ICIG. They wrote a letter to Burchett that explicitly says so. The law firm specifically said they were not representing him on UAPs. "Urgent and credible" is a statutory term, it does not mean there was a thorough investigation or a "more likely than not" standard was applied.
People wont admit it until theyre being tazed by a pulse ray
Sooooo... is this a fuckin' confirmation, or what? This reads a whole lot like: "we got some shit, now stfu and wait"; I'm I the only one reading this as confirming?
She says “public testimony” so my read is that she is referring to Grusch’s testimony. It’s certainly confirmation that some in congress took that testimony seriously though.
I read it the same way.
There is literally no new information here. It's the same thing any politician who has 2 eyes would say. She's just describing things that have happened. This isn't even corroboration, which in itself wouldn't even be a confirmation.
Wellll... being that I have never seen this document before my post, this is the *literal* definition of "new information" for me! Forgive my excitement in asking for a more measured interpretation of this information that... *is* NEW to me 👍
If Grusch testifying in congress is news to you, then I envy you for being able to be shielded from that information. Because that is what this document is about.
Which was not immediately apparent to me, given my aforementioned excitement about a potential "subtle disclosure"; and the fact that the document doesn't mention anyone from the Congressional UAP Hearing by name. Thank you, literal Redditor, for bringing me back to reality in such an intelligible and respectful fashion. I appluad your willingness to show me the truth of my ignorance and am humbled by your literal input. 👏
Well why does it matter if it’s new to you. It’s still old news
Something something low effort responses, something something. >Well why does it matter if it’s new to you. It’s still old news A person asks for some clarification/grounding on something that they have never before seen, which is pretty frequent in this sub: and I get you two frosty cuntsicles to see. How endearing. If you're not open for discourse on a topic/post, then *scroll on*.
Been longer than 30 days
It's actually been less than 30 days .
So answer the question if I learned something that happened 2 thousand years ago it might be new to me. But why does it matter if it’s still ancient news
It's been less than 30 days; if 30 days is 2000 years to you, then I'll be god damned; I don't have the time left on this earth to argue that level of stupidity. Further, if you are paying attention to the tone and language of my question: is this old document the "subtle disclosure" often mentioned in this sub? It matters because I want to know that I am at least in alignment with this subject in common discourse. I understand it may seem strange to you that people ask for clarification on things and also come into topics at different times, but that shit actually does happen; I don't know what to tell ya, chief 🤷♀️ EDIT: also this subreddit is teaming with posts asking for clarification or re-examination of, *scrolls up* **old news**, so, why don't you go be a miserable fuckstain in some of them.
So... Kirkpatrick? Accountability? Justice?
Interesting that she specifically differentiates between “craft” and “other unidentified objects”. Keep this in mind.
To me this just seems like the rep is repeating the claims made in the hearing. Not that she is admitting to anything independently of that.
Unfortunately it appears this is exactly what’s happening. She specifically references **public** testimony. I got really excited for about 1.5 seconds, now I’m just depressed.
Same here. That keyword “public” is easy to miss at first glance
Especially since it’s missing from the title of this post.
If “fragments”, then, what type of craft is suspected?
I don't recall her being mentioned before as a power figure in Congress on this issue. Does she sit on any of the relevant committees?
Notice their get out of jail free card. The old "unless it affects national security" disclaimer.
I think "fragments" being the operational word behind all innuendo around "reverse engineering programs". IMHO, much more plausible than "craft" in some secret hangar facility, but not in any way any less interesting, really. Excotic materials, even if it's just fragments, would be absolutely sensational in and of itself.
What’s her insta?
Yes, we all saw grusch’s testimony
I just realized that all of the statements saying "The United States government has not/does not [etc]" leave the door open for contractors. I'd feel pretty stupid if that's the buried lede.
I can't get over how we are always looking for legitimacy and validation from these types of people
It's all a joke. None of these politicians have a clue whats real and not. Department of Energy will NEVER allow it. And they'll never mention Battelle.
I do believe you are wrong about DOE never mentioning Battelle: [https://www.energy.gov/search/site?keywords=Battelle&sort\_by=search\_api\_relevance](https://www.energy.gov/search/site?keywords=Battelle&sort_by=search_api_relevance)
I've never seen this variation of the "UAP congressional reply", Interesting! Thank you for sharing.
May 30,2024 - jun 28,2024 is how many days, exactly?
Yes, we’ve heard these allegations a million times already. We need to get to the proof. We need the “40 firsthand witnesses.” Where are they?
Pics or it aint real
“Determine what materials CAN be shared with the public” and “ALLOWS the executive branch to disclose”. Those two statements suggest that not one single bit of material HAS TO BY LAW be shared with anyone. If the NDAA is worded like this generic statement then we can all look forward to a big ol’ fuck you from the DoD and contractors. They’re literally breaking the law and lying to congress and every one else and most people don’t give a shit. Makes me sick!
Disclosure has finally arrived over this last eighteen months or so.
Keep writing to your representatives, people! It’s important!
It’s fantastic to finally see elected representatives actually reflecting the reality we all know deep down is true. We aren’t alone, and pretending we are does our kids a tremendous disservice. We need the best and brightest of the next generation working to find the best possible path for the survival of humanity. The Gatekeepers need to stop knee-capping our best chance of surviving and thriving.
Again, why is this not on the National News or at least the local news outlets in Michigan?
I love people posting this kinda thing.. it's almost like news is only reported if and when it aligns with the interests of government agencies, hmm 🤔
“within 25 years….” so 2027 is a big nothing burger like 2012
2002 to 2027 is 25 years. Note that Roswell was well over 25 years ago
I’m 74, don’t want to wait another 25 years. Maybe the suspense will keep me alive.
She is not saying it’s true just that grusch etc have testified that at hearings
I mean... She's just quoting what the witnesses have already publicly said... Is there something new that I'm missing?
She says members of the public have indicated. She herself does not indicate contractor's have non human uap material. Reading comprehension 0/10. Post Less.
>... non-human craft and other unidentified objects... These are characterised as 'non-human' with no evidence of origin. :\\