It's interesting that David Grusch expects the government to make a formal statement regarding UAP in 2024, and that year could be potentially wild in a good way.
I'm curious as to what type of statement he expects to be made.
I thought it was pretty odd that they didn't account for wind speed. Personally, I'm not sure how we (NASA included) can make a definite conclusion, as we don't have access to all of the sensor data. AARO apparently does have access to the sensor data and has determined this case is still unresolved.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty ironic that they declared that they wanted to be completely transparent with the public and that they had nothing to hide. They then refused to name the UAP Director. Glad they changed their mind.
I'm not familiar with what earthquake lights look like, however, these look more like orbs of light rather than the images that pop up in google when searching "earthquake light".
The evidence Mr. Grusch provided included photographic evidence, documents relating to the programs, names and locations of the programs, as well as the identities of those running them. He also provided a list of names of individuals currently and previously working in these programs.
The only thing that has been publicly confirmed is the formal whistleblower complaint that was sent to the Inspector General. It's worth noting that the Inspector General conducted their own investigation into the claims Mr. Grusch made. All of the "classified evidence" and witnesses with firsthand knowledge were provided to the Inspector General, along with whistleblowers whose identities are even unknown to David Grusch, but who corroborated his claims. At the end of the investigation, the Inspector General deemed Mr. Grusch's claims as both "credible and urgent".
I hope I was able to answer your question. Your English is very good for a non native speaker!
He is not there to provide a synopsis of the NewsNation interview, but rather to answer the specific questions posed by Congress. He stated multiple times during the hearing that what he is allowed to publicly say is all available in the NewsNation interview.
If you are to believe what has been stated by David Grusch and others, The United States is not the only country. I recommend the UAP Guide on the sidebar as a pretty good baseline to get up to speed, if you are curious. I linked you to the section called "Global phenomena".
I hope I was able to answer your question.
Or easy considering the evidence he is providing them in a closed door session or SCIF.
Considering the consequences of getting caught lying under oath to Congress, I personally believe it lends credibility to the person's testimony. However, I understand that others may not feel the same way.
He provided the evidence to the Inspector General.
Yes. There was some mixed reporting leading up to the hearing on if it would be under oath or not. All 3 witnesses stood up and swore an oath before the hearing began.
Great to see more main stream coverage. The more people who see this and speak to their elected representatives, the better for disclosure.