Question: The NYT reporter two days ago wrote that "[t]he measure offers the possibility of pushing back against the conspiracy theories that surround discussions of U.F.O.s," suggesting that this goal was a partial motivation for Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and other backers. Do the members of this group believe that is the actual motivation--essentially to debunk groundless conspiracy theories? Or does the pressure come from the other side--to provide more fresh fodder for the conspiracy theorists? Or perhaps it is a mixture of both for different politicians? I find it strange that in an environment of widespread political gridlock this issue has the support to actually move in Congress, but clearly it might. So where does the pressure come from? I welcome any enlightenment. Thank you.
Senate Measure to Release UFO Records
- Thread starter Mike F
- Start date
Mendel
Senior Member.
@Mike F, you really need to include more information on metabunk thread starter post. Share the information you want to discuss!
The reason this is happening is probably that they can collect the bipartisan UFO fringe support for this important defense funding bill, including Senator Reid's erstwhile friends.
(excerpted)Article: WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - The Senate in the coming days is expected to consider a bipartisan measure that would compel the U.S. government to publicly release records relating to possible UFO sightings after decades of stonewalling.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, has teamed up with Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican, in leading an effort to force the disclosure of information relating to what the government officially calls "unidentified anomalous phenomena," or UAPs.
They plan to offer the measure as an amendment to sweeping legislation moving through Congress that would authorize U.S. defense funding for the fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1.
The amendment would require the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration to collect UAP records from all relevant government offices under "a presumption of immediate disclosure," and a review board would have to provide a rationale for keeping documents classified.
Under the measure, records must be publicly disclosed in full no later than 25 years after they were created unless the U.S. president certifies that continued postponement is necessary because of a direct harm to national security.
It also establishes that the federal government would have "eminent domain" over any recovered technologies of unknown origin and any biological evidence of "non-human intelligence" that may be controlled by private individuals or entities.
Schumer is taking up a cause first advanced by the late Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who served as Senate majority leader from 2007 until 2015.
The reason this is happening is probably that they can collect the bipartisan UFO fringe support for this important defense funding bill, including Senator Reid's erstwhile friends.
Peter Delaney
New Member
We don't have any strong evidence about the senators' motivations if you're skeptical of their stated motives. However, if you take them at their word, you can read Schumer et al.'s draft amendment here to glean some insight: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf
In it, he writes:
That's a weird and surprising claim. Is he talking about David Grusch and the other supposed whistleblowers that no one has seen yet? (Those guys have their own metabunk subforum now.) It left me wondering what evidence and testimony he is referring to. For my money, these senators think there's some kind of space alien conspiracy for realsies. They make pretty specific claims about what provisions are being violated and how, which is unusually specific and potentially verifiable down the line.
Now, senators are people so they can be fooled by flim-flam just like any of us, so that doesn't mean there is any conspiracy. But I kind of doubt they'd waste this much time writing this thing if they didn't think there might be something there to find.
That said, Schumer also notes in the press release here that it's based on the Kennedy assassination records bill, which suggests he's hedging his bets. If nothing appears, he can say, "See? I told you, no aliens, and we put another conspiracy to bed."
Note that Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Rubio (R-FL) are also authors on the bill (source: the link above).
In it, he writes:
That's a weird and surprising claim. Is he talking about David Grusch and the other supposed whistleblowers that no one has seen yet? (Those guys have their own metabunk subforum now.) It left me wondering what evidence and testimony he is referring to. For my money, these senators think there's some kind of space alien conspiracy for realsies. They make pretty specific claims about what provisions are being violated and how, which is unusually specific and potentially verifiable down the line.
Now, senators are people so they can be fooled by flim-flam just like any of us, so that doesn't mean there is any conspiracy. But I kind of doubt they'd waste this much time writing this thing if they didn't think there might be something there to find.
That said, Schumer also notes in the press release here that it's based on the Kennedy assassination records bill, which suggests he's hedging his bets. If nothing appears, he can say, "See? I told you, no aliens, and we put another conspiracy to bed."
Note that Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Rubio (R-FL) are also authors on the bill (source: the link above).
DavidB66
Senior Member.
In a democracy all politicians are subject to pressure from special interest groups. They will be tempted to give in to that pressure provided:
a) it doesn't cost anything
b) it doesn't go against any strong interests or beliefs of their own, and
c) it won't be unpopular with their voters.
Perhaps we should add
d) it won't make them appear like fools.
There is also the possibility that the politician will actually share the 'special interest' in question. UFOs are apparently an appealing subject to many people, and politicians are not necessarily immune to the appeal. In most legislatures, not just in the USA, there are a handful of people with a keen interest in UFOs. In the UK in the 1990s the most active was Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (1915-2004), a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who was appointed to the (unelected) House of Lords in 1979. Because of his former senior role in the military, and presumed access to highly classified information, UFO fans tended to assume that he had 'inside information' to support his views on the subject. If so, he was scrupulous in not publicly revealing it, an example which might be more widely followed.
a) it doesn't cost anything
b) it doesn't go against any strong interests or beliefs of their own, and
c) it won't be unpopular with their voters.
Perhaps we should add
d) it won't make them appear like fools.
There is also the possibility that the politician will actually share the 'special interest' in question. UFOs are apparently an appealing subject to many people, and politicians are not necessarily immune to the appeal. In most legislatures, not just in the USA, there are a handful of people with a keen interest in UFOs. In the UK in the 1990s the most active was Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (1915-2004), a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who was appointed to the (unelected) House of Lords in 1979. Because of his former senior role in the military, and presumed access to highly classified information, UFO fans tended to assume that he had 'inside information' to support his views on the subject. If so, he was scrupulous in not publicly revealing it, an example which might be more widely followed.
Amathia
Senior Member
Gillibrand and Rubio have been pretty outspoken lately that they've been briefed and/or have seen classified material that suggests UAP being of an ET or extradimensional origin. Of course none of us here or anyone in the public for that matter have ever seen any such evidence so obviously our skepticism should always be active and we should constantly be suspicious of any such claims, but I'm at least open to the possibility that they're passing this bill because they've seen what they claim they've seen. I don't see a reason to rule out that possibility merely on the basis that we ourselves haven't seen the footage they claim to have. I'm gonna be skeptical until the day I see real empirical evidence for such claims, but I'm not going to simply assume these senators are lying to me about this topic on the basis of me personally not having seen that evidence yet. Is there a good reason we should all rule this out from the get-go?
Can you quote exactly what they said?
Amathia
Senior Member
Yes, I apologize. Here is one interview with Rep. Tim Burchett (I erroneously said Gillibrand in my previous post, I meant Burchett):
Source: https://youtu.be/1o2oVd1gnUA
"I have seen evidence of craft that do not exist on this planet" (time stamp 5:12).
The quote is weird because he starts saying "I have seen" then says "as Matt Gates said it best, he has seen evidence of craft that do not exist on this planet, basically, so yes, absolutely, 100%"
I think I made an error with regards to Rubio. It was based on this interview but he doesn't claim that he's seen any evidence himself, he's just discussing he's heard from these individuals and their testimony:
Source: https://youtu.be/m4hmaflNoKU
So I have to amend my initial comment about Rubio. I'm not sure that he's actually said he's seen evidence of such craft or videos, but rather he's heard testimony from Grusch and others who he deems very credible.
Looping back to the original point of my comment, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that Rubio is sponsoring this bill because of the testimony he's listened to and has found it persuasive enough to warrant this kind of legal measure.
With regards to Burchett, the same explanation is perfectly reasonable. Based on what he has seen and listened to, the motivation for sponsoring such legislation can easily be attributed to his belief in the testimony of the whistleblowers and whatever footage it is that he has seen.
Last edited:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Curious turn of phrase.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Lots of people would say that they have seen such evidence -- they have seen videos on YouTube, or seen a strange light in the sky. They are not lying, though they seem to have a lower standard of evidence than some of us. It is certainly possible that a Senator or Representative or other government official has seen the leaked Navy videos we've all seen, or a classified video of a similar nature, and has concluded they have seen evidence that suggests UAPs are aliens/interdimensionals/spirits/etc.
I do not point that out to speculate as to whether that is in fact the case, that that is the sort of evidence that they have in fact seen, but to point out that -- just like everybody else -- while capable of lying or exagerating, they can also be honestly mistaken, they can be overly impressed by evidence that would not stand up to careful scrutiny, they can be prone to belief in such things (certainly it seems that Burchett is.) They need not be lying to have reached, or been lead to, an incorrect conclusion.
Amathia
Senior Member
Mick, I know we discourage purely speculative threads here, but I hope speculative conversation about our "big picture" theories regarding this subject can be allowed since it seems to me that there aren't many quick, simple, straightforward ones that explain it all neatly.
Absolutely agree on this, and it's a point I'll never tire of repeating to UFOlogists who seem to think the only two options are lying or telling the truth.
But just note that the context of what you're replying to was the question of what may be motivating senators to pass a bill like this. Some of the responses take the extremely cynical view that they're just doing it to gain support among the folks who believe this stuff and other such self-serving reasons, or just straight up lying.
Even though they're politicians, I assume people are generally honest and tend not to have nefarious reasons for their behaviors as a norm unless I have good reason to believe otherwise. Based on what's been happening both in the House and now the Senate, along with the whistleblowers coming forward, it seems to me like the best explanation for this type of bill is that they've either seen some compelling (to them) piece of evidence behind closed doors, or have heard (to them) compelling testimony both publicly and behind closed doors. That's literally what Rubio is saying about his own motivation, and that seems like a perfectly normal, boring, and good enough explanation for his involvement in this piece of legislation as any.
This explanation doesn't assume anything about the quality of said testimony or evidence they've been privy to, since obviously none of us know what it is they've seen or heard. All that matters is that at the very least *they* found such briefings compelling enough to warrant something like this.
What I'm curious about that I don't see discussed too frequently is just what it is that we think is going on behind the scenes here. I take it as a given that what little evidence has been released to the public when it comes to UAPs leaves a lot to be desired. So far I haven't seen any reason to believe any of these claims are true, and until we have something more than just stories, I think the only reasonable thing to do is remain agnostic but skeptical and open minded.
What I'm *not* sure about is just what the hell is going on. There isn't even remotely enough evidence to believe the UAP phenomenon is something extraordinary. But then that leaves the question of what *does* explain this many people coming forward, making these kinds of claims to people like Rubio, behind closed doors.
Presumably they're not just telling him about weird things they've seen in the skies and couldn't identify. They're testifying to the existence of craft and bodies and top secret programs that exist and are in the possession of the US govt or private corporations.
I'm not asking "is any of this true?" (although obviously I do ask that), but rather "If this *isn't* true, and those folks *do* have these kinds of clearances and careers in the defense and intelligence sectors, *why* are they making these claims?" If it's all true then obviously they're making the claims because it's true and needs to come out.
But if none of this is true, are they lying? If so, are they each individually lying for personal reasons unique to each person, or are they lying collectively as a massive psyop aimed at even congressmen themselves and the American populace? And if so, what purpose would this psyop possibly serve?
If they're not lying, then are they merely telling the congressmen things that they simply *believe* are true but haven't actually seen or experienced themselves? This might explain some claims. I have no doubt Grusch's claims about the Vatican and the Italian UFO are just things he's read in UFO folklore circles and not something he personally has any knowledge of in the course of his work. But there are people making more specific and serious claims than this (we have possession of bodies, we have intact craft) that they're alleging are factual and that they have *knowledge* of. They're not just claiming they believe this shit because they watched a Jeremy Corbell YouTube video and believed it. These are people who I think we may safely assume know the difference between testifying to things you personally have knowledge of vs things you simply believe but don't claim to *know* with certainty.
Where are those claims coming from? From that many high ranking folks?
I'm not a huge fan of Eric Weinstein (and his conversation with Mick in the Theories of Everything Podcast was disappointing because he ignored literally everything Mick said), but there is at least one thing I agree with him on: there isn't a single boring branch on this decision tree.
Just to clarify, I don't need to be reminded of the lack of evidence or the fallibility of human testimony, human judgment, etc. I know all this and I'm firmly in the skeptical camp when it comes to UAPs. But what I *do* want to know is just what kind of explanation fits everything we're observing happening in the senate and the house, and the larger community at large. What big picture explanations do you guys have that fits all these data points in a way that makes sense of it all?
Absolutely agree on this, and it's a point I'll never tire of repeating to UFOlogists who seem to think the only two options are lying or telling the truth.
But just note that the context of what you're replying to was the question of what may be motivating senators to pass a bill like this. Some of the responses take the extremely cynical view that they're just doing it to gain support among the folks who believe this stuff and other such self-serving reasons, or just straight up lying.
Even though they're politicians, I assume people are generally honest and tend not to have nefarious reasons for their behaviors as a norm unless I have good reason to believe otherwise. Based on what's been happening both in the House and now the Senate, along with the whistleblowers coming forward, it seems to me like the best explanation for this type of bill is that they've either seen some compelling (to them) piece of evidence behind closed doors, or have heard (to them) compelling testimony both publicly and behind closed doors. That's literally what Rubio is saying about his own motivation, and that seems like a perfectly normal, boring, and good enough explanation for his involvement in this piece of legislation as any.
This explanation doesn't assume anything about the quality of said testimony or evidence they've been privy to, since obviously none of us know what it is they've seen or heard. All that matters is that at the very least *they* found such briefings compelling enough to warrant something like this.
What I'm curious about that I don't see discussed too frequently is just what it is that we think is going on behind the scenes here. I take it as a given that what little evidence has been released to the public when it comes to UAPs leaves a lot to be desired. So far I haven't seen any reason to believe any of these claims are true, and until we have something more than just stories, I think the only reasonable thing to do is remain agnostic but skeptical and open minded.
What I'm *not* sure about is just what the hell is going on. There isn't even remotely enough evidence to believe the UAP phenomenon is something extraordinary. But then that leaves the question of what *does* explain this many people coming forward, making these kinds of claims to people like Rubio, behind closed doors.
Presumably they're not just telling him about weird things they've seen in the skies and couldn't identify. They're testifying to the existence of craft and bodies and top secret programs that exist and are in the possession of the US govt or private corporations.
I'm not asking "is any of this true?" (although obviously I do ask that), but rather "If this *isn't* true, and those folks *do* have these kinds of clearances and careers in the defense and intelligence sectors, *why* are they making these claims?" If it's all true then obviously they're making the claims because it's true and needs to come out.
But if none of this is true, are they lying? If so, are they each individually lying for personal reasons unique to each person, or are they lying collectively as a massive psyop aimed at even congressmen themselves and the American populace? And if so, what purpose would this psyop possibly serve?
If they're not lying, then are they merely telling the congressmen things that they simply *believe* are true but haven't actually seen or experienced themselves? This might explain some claims. I have no doubt Grusch's claims about the Vatican and the Italian UFO are just things he's read in UFO folklore circles and not something he personally has any knowledge of in the course of his work. But there are people making more specific and serious claims than this (we have possession of bodies, we have intact craft) that they're alleging are factual and that they have *knowledge* of. They're not just claiming they believe this shit because they watched a Jeremy Corbell YouTube video and believed it. These are people who I think we may safely assume know the difference between testifying to things you personally have knowledge of vs things you simply believe but don't claim to *know* with certainty.
Where are those claims coming from? From that many high ranking folks?
I'm not a huge fan of Eric Weinstein (and his conversation with Mick in the Theories of Everything Podcast was disappointing because he ignored literally everything Mick said), but there is at least one thing I agree with him on: there isn't a single boring branch on this decision tree.
Just to clarify, I don't need to be reminded of the lack of evidence or the fallibility of human testimony, human judgment, etc. I know all this and I'm firmly in the skeptical camp when it comes to UAPs. But what I *do* want to know is just what kind of explanation fits everything we're observing happening in the senate and the house, and the larger community at large. What big picture explanations do you guys have that fits all these data points in a way that makes sense of it all?
Ann K
Senior Member.
The political antagonism between the parties being at fever pitch right now, (what'll we call them for the sake of this topic; perhaps just believers and skeptics?) it could be that the skeptics do not want conspiracy theorists among the believers to muddy the waters by asking "What're they hiding?", and so think it better to go along with a public inquiry. I don't have high hopes of the effectiveness of that, because I think the question will be trotted out anyway if the believers don't get exactly the answers they're looking for, which are the affirmative answers that a very vocal portion of their constituents demand. Go to YouTube and look at the uncritical comments on the Burchett interview for an example.
Similar threads
