Congressional hearing on UAP; Tucker Carlson with David Grusch; The reason for the clash; They defies law of physics we know; Can you defend yourselves if attacked; Incomprehension is threat
(apology to all those who received the email delivery of the beginning part of this post as the initial dispatch: The content was inadequate for the unfunctional YouTube link and a mishap on the name Mr. Grusch as to have appeared wrongly as Brusch).
The congressional hearing of UAP witnesses’ testimony, held on 7/26/2023, was my overdue watch on YouTube. My initial interest arose just yesterday when I tuned myself in Tucker Carlson on X for his interview with David Grusch, now a well known whistleblower of the subject matter. I’m certain that all other people are far ahead of me regarding all the knowledge of the hearing along with Grusch. So, why I want to repeat what has been known widely to public is a vain question the answer of which would be obvious as to be I don’t want to do such a willing redundancy. Therefore the deployment of mine in this post will not be informative but to express my reactions and further thoughts.
But, first, the video record as referential:
The 2-hour-long of the portion of the testimony I watched consists of various questions given by congress men and congress women, both Republicans and Democrats, who are good natured, very serious and very concerned about the subject, and impressively articulate in their speech. I would like to draw your attention to Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Missouri) from my interest in particular. Please mark at/around 1:44 of the video above at which Brush answers to Rep. Burlison’s question, that was actually repeated during the Carlson interview ep. 51 on X (12/14/23). The question thus is commonly born to anyone who tries to find a logic in the clash of aliens’ air crafts on the earth. The point of wonder is why such a high technology which allows those beings to travel so far to our planet cannot make their air crafts land on in safety.
I was intrigued very much by Grusch responding to the congressman that the question came from a line of thoughts according to which the clash is understood as that in our physical world such as car clash or airplane clash. (This is not an exact quote of Grusch’s words but my paraphrase).
Then, what kind of clash would it be? Grusch mentions astro physics and inter-dimensions. All through the hearing too, that the object having witnessed defies law of physics we know is stated at multiple times.
So, here comes a lexical divergence, I see. An object can be properly called as such because it fits into our physical world and its rules of physics. If not, the subject matter should be called a phenomenon beyond our mutually agreeable comprehension of objects. Therefore, it is an unidentified phenomenon in the air. Thus, it is named Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP). This is a work of a lexical genius.
For many of us, UFO is a homebound worthy name as familiar. A saucer or not, it flies like an airplane or rocket. Elon’s space crafts are also launched into conventional air currently, but not yet into cross-over dimensions. What are those inter or inner dimensionalities mean? A crucial part in the congressional hearing was the secrecy around the discoveries of non-human beings and their air crafts. Oh, boy, David Grusch holds certain classified information which he cannot disclose to public and one is the exact location of seized space craft by the government. Naturally, the congress is not easy for that in my guess, because, well, the congress is a pivotal part of the government. Then, transparency is discussed and if so much of opacity, what is the reason for comes to everyone’s mind. One wonders who hides what for what exactly and what has been going on. Those points are more found in Tucker Carlson’s interview ep. 51 on X, only with nuanced answers in speculations [for the sake of the discussion].
The nondisclosure would be for the reason that the disclosure will challenge national security or that the secrecy will benefit some entities. Far advanced technology of non-human beings from the outer space may not be wanted to be a shared knowledge with all the countries with no discrimination on the Earth. In either case, a wise governmental body responsible for the global safety against the unknown from the space may decide to wait for the best time to come for the transparency. Or, those agencies in charge of the matter have been simply very and very confused with what they found so far and do not know what to do.
Lawmakers, in their private conversations, may dwell on thoughts of a dimensional travel of non-human beings, but not so much in a congressional hearing. Sharp questions in brevity are made from Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tennessee). Mark please at/around 2:02:10 in the video of the hearing above. Ogles raises the matter to be most concerned about with no detour nor anything else but askes on it straight. Whether [Earth beings’] air crafts can defend themselves when attacked by those Tik Tok (nicknamed as such for its shape resembling the candy Tik Tok) possessing such a high technology. Whether Tik Tok can be regarded as a threat. Those are most relevant questions among Ogles asked, I found, and The hypothesis is enough to regard the unidentified as potentially, possibly or very likely dangerous.
This part of Ogles is the second most intriguing hearing portion for me after Eric Burlison for his questions’ no matter what kind of precision in concreteness, which leads our thoughts at the same time to the most abstract situation which might be brought by a prototypical alien movie. Here is the arrival. We want to know their purpose to be here. The government has to determine whether those visitors are tourists or invaders. Even a scientific research for them may harm human beings. All the authorities, all the people are not dumb at all to understand all possibilities and beyond, but no measure can be taken if our speculations and logics are out of the basis for our actions, because it is impossible for us to move unless we give up all practically immediate actions in our part. An alternative is to stay and remain in suspension or a prolonged suspension, which would though produce alarming feelings for imminent danger which could be fatal.
To finish this post, I extend the topic to that of AI or super AGI. A talk of talks is such that AI will become soon so superior by the [data] capacity and speed of its intelligence, human beings will not catch up with its level. Suppose that AI has no hostility nor affection toward human beings; still and yet the gap regarding mutual comprehensibility will remain. Non-human beings from outer space or from outer dimensionality may not have a room shareable with the Earth beings concerning intelligence. Whatever those non-human beings may be, we want to describe them as whatever in an indispensable necessity. Let’s call them the unidentified or unidentifiable, threat or dangerous, until lawmakers find their way to regulate the phenomenon with their terms to ease us.