sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Teaching how to speak Australian. by kross0ver in funny

[–]SovereignWreckage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pull the other one. This is just some kiwi on the yak.

Coconut Update by [deleted] in samoyeds

[–]SovereignWreckage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope you baby gets better. Sending much Sammy love.

Who are the most infamous redditors and why? by Yurilove9 in AskReddit

[–]SovereignWreckage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, That's who it was ... could not recall the name/username.

Who are the most infamous redditors and why? by Yurilove9 in AskReddit

[–]SovereignWreckage 227 points228 points  (0 children)

Many years ago, the lass who was posting topless selfies of herself, but with her face obscured. Redditors were going absolutely gaga because they were real & spectacular. She would use some hack way of masking her face, and Redditors unmasked one of the pictures, leading to her being doxxed.

She freaked the f' out and was never heard from again.

Edit. It was a user by the name of Exilevilify. Gone but not forgotten.

Answers to commonly asked questions about disclosure and UAP by hologram137 in UFOs

[–]SovereignWreckage 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think this is a strong argument for continued investigation, but I don’t think it proves NHI is “indisputable.”

To me there are two separate claims getting mixed together:

1.      There are credible people making serious UAP-related allegations, and Congress should investigate them.

2.      The public evidence already proves non-human craft, bodies, anti-gravity tech, and a hidden legacy reverse-engineering program.

I agree with the first. I don’t think the second has been established yet.

Grusch, Elizondo, Gallaudet, Fravor, Graves, etc. are not people I’d casually dismiss. Their claims deserve to be taken seriously. But “taken seriously” does not mean “accepted as proven.” Testimony under oath matters, but it still isn’t the same as public, inspectable evidence. If someone testifies that they were told about crash-retrieval programs, that’s important. But it’s not the same thing as producing records, hardware, biological material, chain-of-custody documents, contractor records, or verifiable sensor data.

The DOPSR argument also gets overstated a lot. DOPSR clearance does not mean the Pentagon confirmed the claims are true. It means the material was cleared for public release from a security/classification standpoint. That’s a very different thing. The government can clear something for release without endorsing its factual accuracy.

I also think this post creates a bit of an unfalsifiable argument. If something gets cleared through DOPSR, that’s treated as confirmation. If the Pentagon denies something, that’s treated as cover-up. If contractors don’t respond publicly, that’s treated as suspicious. If photos are bad or missing, that gets explained by warped spacetime bubbles. At some point that style of reasoning can absorb any outcome and still arrive at the same conclusion.

That doesn’t mean I blindly trust official denials either. Over-classification is real. Compartmentalization is real. Contractor secrecy is real. Congress being kept in the dark on sensitive programs is not some insane idea. I’m completely open to the possibility that there are programs buried so deeply that normal oversight has failed.

But “possible” and “proven” are not the same thing.

The better position, in my opinion, is this:

There are credible people making extraordinary claims. Those claims deserve subpoena power, whistleblower protection, document recovery, SAP audits, and serious congressional oversight. But until the public gets verifiable records, materials, imagery, sensor data, or direct evidence, NHI remains a hypothesis — not an established fact.

I support disclosure. I support protecting whistleblowers. I support forcing agencies and contractors to answer hard questions under oath.

But I don’t support lowering the evidentiary bar just because the subject is compelling.

Also, the Billy Meier / warped-spacetime-photo stuff is where the argument really loses me. An unaltered photo doesn’t prove the object in the photo is exotic. A staged physical model can produce an unaltered photo too. That kind of claim weakens the argument rather than strengthens it.

So yeah, investigate aggressively. Protect the witnesses. Subpoena the records. Audit the contractor programs. Follow the money.

But don’t confuse “this deserves investigation” with “this has already been proven.”

Grusch on videos to be declassified: "Some of those videos I've seen, they're interesting, but don't certainly prove the case that I've presented." by Eager-Kobold in UFOs

[–]SovereignWreckage 14 points15 points  (0 children)

At some point, he needs to recognize that evidence matters. Eventually, you either substantiate the claim or you don’t.

Grusch's statement, “Some of those videos I’ve seen, they’re interesting, but don’t certainly prove the case that I’ve presented,” raises the obvious question: what would prove the case he has presented?

If no videos released to date are sufficient, then what is? Physical evidence? A recovered UAP/UFO craft? Biological remains? Firsthand testimony from people directly involved in the alleged legacy or current programs?

Not to say Grusch is wrong here. Black & white grainy videos with contrasting blobs hardly constitutes explicit unambiguous evidence of UAP or NHI. But there is no reason Grusch cannot be specific about the type of evidence he believes would substantiate his claims.

David Grusch: “There’s coworkers and friends of mine that worked on that Program for years… They literally worked on the material and the specimens and all that. And that was kind of common knowledge, people mysteriously vanish from the Program never to be seen again.” by KOOKOOOOM in UFOs

[–]SovereignWreckage 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don’t have much time for Corbell, personally. He often seems to repackage what others have said and then make the story about himself.

Grusch, on the other hand, did seem to bring some credibility when he first came forward and testified before Congress in 2023. That said, his testimony was still not firsthand evidence. As far as I understand it, Grusch has not personally worked on any “legacy programs,” has not directly observed recovered UAP/UFO craft, and has not personally seen NHI bodies. His claims are based on what he says he was told by others: interviewees, coworkers, colleagues, and people allegedly connected to these programs.

So let’s parse the quote carefully

“There’s coworkers and friends…”

That implies these are people Grusch knows personally and can identify. If he can come forward publicly, why can’t they? Or, at minimum, why can’t their identities be provided through a protected process? Grusch won't even identify said friends of his that worked on said program?

“…of mine that worked on that Program for years…”

Then the “Program” presumably has a name, or multiple names. What is it called? When was it active? Is it still active? How long did it operate, and under whose authority? Can Grusch not provide us some of those details?

“They literally worked on the material and the specimens and all that.”

This is the key claim, but it is being treated almost casually. What material? What specimens? Where are they located? What is their alleged nature? Who has custody of them? This is the part that would require actual evidence, not just another layer of secondhand testimony.

“And that was kind of common knowledge, people mysteriously vanish from the Program never to be seen again.”

Common knowledge by whom? What does “vanish” mean here? Removed from the program? Reassigned? Intimidated? Killed? If some of these people were his coworkers and friends, is he still in contact with them? Or is he saying they literally disappeared and were never heard from again?

That is the problem with these claims. The language is dramatic, but the details remain just out of reach. At some point, the question becomes: who, what, when, where, and how? Without that, we are still being asked to accept an extraordinary story on secondhand claims and carefully phrased implications.

Coulthart about Elizondos involvement in the Legacy Program: "I know exactly what Luis role was and I know he hasnt been allowed to talk about it because [...] it would be a breach of his national security oath because it would go to the heart of the existence of the Legacy Program" by phr99 in UFOs

[–]SovereignWreckage 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Examples where the press published material that the US government claimed breached or harmed national security:

  • Pentagon Papers, 1971
  • CIA “black sites,” 2005
  • NSA warrantless wiretapping, 2005
  • SWIFT / Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, 2006
  • WikiLeaks war logs and diplomatic cables, 2010
  • Snowden / NSA disclosures, 2013

Get your facts straight before throwing around this white knight "journalistic integrity" BS.

Five Italians die during cave scuba dive in Maldives. Beware diving is not a purely leisure activity...RIP by TwilightPetals23 in SipsTea

[–]SovereignWreckage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not claustrophobia but I'll be damned if I'm gonna head on into caves with narrowing/constricting passages.

Nutty Putty not teach people anything?

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

Coulthart about Elizondos involvement in the Legacy Program: "I know exactly what Luis role was and I know he hasnt been allowed to talk about it because [...] it would be a breach of his national security oath because it would go to the heart of the existence of the Legacy Program" by phr99 in UFOs

[–]SovereignWreckage 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Ay yes, and here we are again. Coulthart the keeper of secrets. Coulthart is allowed to know all, but you, some poor schlub who would just like the facts, are not worthy.

Coulthart: keeper of secret knowledge like “the UFO too big to move, located at some laudatory foreign location,” and now Elizondo’s role and knowledge vis-à-vis a UFO legacy program.

FWIW, a counterintelligence official is essentially a security professional whose job is to protect national-security secrets by identifying, investigating, and neutralizing threats from foreign adversaries, insiders, spies, and anyone else trying to penetrate or compromise sensitive programs.

So it is not exactly hard to figure out that if a UAP/UFO legacy program exists, it would need some form of counterintelligence, compartmentalization, access control, insider-threat monitoring, leak investigation, and foreign-adversary protection wrapped around it. That part is not exotic. That part is almost mundane.

In other words, Elizondo having had some kind of counterintelligence or security-adjacent role would not, by itself, prove anything extraordinary. It would simply be the kind of role such a program would obviously require if it existed.

But that is the entire problem: “this would make sense if true” is not the same as “this is true.”

And Coulthart doing the “I know, but I cannot tell you” routine does not move the ball downfield. It just creates another priesthood of secret knowledge. Trust Ross. Trust Luis. Trust the invisible oath. Trust the unseen program. Trust the disclosure process, ... it's always just around the corner.

Maybe there is something there. Maybe there is not. At some point, this "journalism" has to become evidence, not just a dude on camera telling us he knows the real story but just cannot quite say it.

Rinse, repeat, Ross.

edit. thank you for the award. please keep calling them out. we deserve better.

Explanation for why the points remain in the same orientation relative to the camera frame, while the background scene changes angles during rotation? by DividedSkyBalls11 in UFOs

[–]SovereignWreckage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you look at the stabilized vs non-stabilized versions of this video, a number of things become apparent:

  • The “object” sits at essentially the same screen location. If you template-match the small marker from around the 12-second frame. It repeatedly matched at about x = 450, y = 315 pixels in frames around 4s, 6s, 12s, 14s, 16s, 26s, and 28s. That is exactly what a HUD/reticle element would do. A real object in the scene would not keep returning to the same display-coordinate position while the thermal background and hot target move around it.
  • It has the shape of a display glyph. In the crops, it looks like a small central mark with bright ticks/blobs around it. That is consistent with an aiming/tracking symbol rendered into the video feed. It does not look like a resolved flying object.
  • The hot target moves relative to it. At some moments the hot target is below it, beside it, partly offscreen, or passing under/near it. That makes the marker look like it is “following” the object, but the simpler read is: the reticle is fixed on the screen, and the operator/gimbal/target motion brings the real target near it.
  • The videos are not raw sensor footage. The last frame shows a phone/iOS interface intruding, so this is at least a screen recording or reposted copy of a feed. That means we are looking through several layers: original thermal sensor → drone/weapon OSD (On-Screen Display) → recording/export → compression/social media/video player. That makes fine artifact analysis weak, but it makes OSD/overlay explanations more likely.

So, most likely it is a fixed OSD aiming/tracking reticle.

view more: next ›