Главный демократ Джим Хаймс о том, что House Intel «скептически» относится к разоблачителю UAP

Himes is flat out wrong. I remember watching the hearing and one of the first things I noticed was that on almost every question asked by the congressmen to Scott Bray & Ronald S. Moultrie, Bray & Moultrie would always refocus the question to limit the scope of their answers. The congressmen would ask questions inquiring on what «we», meaning the Pentagon or the US government know about UAP. But Bray & Moultrie would always limit their responses as to what the Airborne Object Identification Management and Synchronization Group (aka AOIMSG aka the UAP task force) knows. AOIMSG is the precursor to AARO. The ruse they were playing is the same scam that Sean Kirkpatrick and Susan Gough are running now: When asked about what the entirety of the US military knows about UAP, they say «AARO has not found any verifiable information….» or earlier «AOIMSG has no information on…». See how the scam works? By purposefully leaving AARO/AOIMSG out of the loop on secret military UAP programs, the Pentagon can truthfully claim these departments have found no credible UAP info. This creates the illusion that **THE ENTIRE** pentagon/military has no substantial UAP data.

Don’t take my word for it, here is a transcript of Jim Himes question on the recovery of organic or inorganic UAP material (as he referenced in the article), and Bray & Moultrie’s response:

Source: [https://thedebrief.org/complete-transcript-of-congresss-historic-hearing-on-unidentified-aerial-phenomena/](https://thedebrief.org/complete-transcript-of-congresss-historic-hearing-on-unidentified-aerial-phenomena/)

​

>**Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT)**-So I guess my point is that an observation either a visual observation or an electronic observation, infrared or whatever, looks radically different than it does to most people. Even instruments, instruments are on gimbals, and that sort of thing. So that creates a very unusual view to again, those of us who are used to seeing things in two dimensions largely And second question. I think, Mr. Bray, you said something that I want to unpack a little bit.
>
>A number of these UAPs, you said, we can’t explain, again, in the service of sort of reducing speculation and conspiracy theories, we can’t explain can range from a visual observation that was distant on a foggy night, we don’t know what it is to we’ve found inorganic material that we can identify right? Those are radically different worlds.
>
>So when you say we can’t explain, give the public a little bit better sense of where on that spectrum we can’t explain. Are we holding materials organic or inorganic that we don’t know about? Are we you know, picking up emanations that are something other than light or infrared that could be due seem to be communications give us a sense for what you mean when you say we can’t explain.
>
>**Scott W. Bray**-Sure when I say we can’t explain I mean, exactly as you describe there. There’s a lot of information, like the video that we showed, in which there’s simply too little data to create a reasonable explanation.
>
>There are a small handful of cases in which we have more data, that our analysis simply hasn’t been able to, to fully pull together a picture of what happened. And those are the cases where we talked about where we see some indications of flight characteristics or signature management, that are not what we had expected.
>
>When it comes to material that we have, we have no material, we have detected no emanations **within the UAP task force**, that is, that would suggest it’s anything non terrestrial in origin.
>
>So there’s, when I say unexplained I mean everything from too little too little data, to we simply the data that we have doesn’t point us towards an explanation. But we’ll go wherever the data takes us. Again, we’ve made no assumptions about what this is or isn’t. We’re committed to understanding these. And so we’ll go wherever that data takes us.

I don’t see that as a political divide, I see it as someone who hasn’t seen any proof yet. He said he was skeptical, not that he was convinced it wasn’t true.

$10,000 from Lockheed Martin might do the trick — https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/jim-himes/contributors?cid=N00029070&cycle=2022

Apologies if this is a naive question..

So based on these two officer’s titles, I assume both officers that Himes asked

-Scott bray : Deputy director naval Intelligence
-Ronald Moultrie: Under secretary of defense

Would have full TS/SCI clearance, correct?

However, does that automatically mean they would have access or have been read into every SAP out there, specifically the UAP programs ?

My knowledge level is little on this topic but from what I read, one can have TS/SCI clearance, but still need to be read in to specific programs because there are hundreds of them.

I believe part of the argument as to why a UAP program could go on secretly for 80 years is because there is “stove piping” and so many SAP that require their own clearance to gain access to?

So I am just wondering that if these officers aren’t lying, is there any chance they wouldn’t be aware of it (UAP program)?

Thanks to anyone who can clarify and apologies for my lack of knowledge with this. ☺️

To be fair, it is a valid position to assume the “establishment” is right and it is up to David Grusch to prove otherwise. And he will have his day in closed session to provide such evidence.

Rep. Himes, Ranking Member, House Intel Comm:

“I was assured by all of the various units that there was no [UAP] material… that they were hiding… so I’m skeptical.”

Himes is skeptical of Grusch’s allegations that were deemed “credible & urgent” by the IG. Is this simply Himes taking what the DoD officials say at face value? Or was the assurance he received concrete enough to discredit Grusch?

Ok — somebody post Himes’ contact info so we can all reach out to him

I am too. So far, Grusch have sounded like he’s parroting Greer, and that worries me. A lot. I suspect this nothingburger will be served cold.

So is this where the political divide starts ?

No No No. Grusch’s claims about UAPs and crashes and NHIs is not the «credible and urgent» part. The credible and urgent part is that he claimed congress was uninformed, and was getting backlash for it.

I’m from Connecticut and met the guy, Himes is in on it.

If this dude is skeptical after what he has seen, that is certainly a strike against Gruch’s claims.

[removed]

I don’t give a good goddamn, as my employee he needs to get in there and ask some questions

well we asked the beagle boys and they said they didn’t rob no money bin. don’t know how much more evidence you need than that

It actually makes me more comfortable that there are skeptics. We need to be thoughtful and thorough. And it needs to be evidenced based.

Top democrat on committee or not he’s just one rep. You can’t get one 100% agreement that grass is green, in the US House of Representatives

Oh my god, they’re gonna make this a partisan issue aren’t they? You fuckers, don’t you dare make me vote Republican. Ugh.

That’s because this isn’t a government program, so they can say it.

It’s an illegal private sector offshoot. with no oversight. I bet a lot of deeply credentialed people sincerely believe that they’re not lying, because they know the truth.

Put this guy on the watch list

LOL «I was assured»

Buddy you’re literally the ones they’re lying to. Assurances mean jack shit. Should raid Lockheed Skunk works and see what they have