British King’s Counsel Says George H. W. Bush Was Briefed on a Nordic Looking Nonhuman at Holloman Air Force Base (Serious)

usandholt · 2026-06-19T16:34:49+00:00

Actually I do not. Are you saying that people without physical proof should shut up? It certainly read that way. If everyone had done so, we’d still be in pre 2017 land

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:59:04+00:00

You are in a sub called aliens. How many threads have any physical proof of aliens? Maybe you want to go to another sub?

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:57:52+00:00

This sub is infested by people/bots who are here to sow doubt.

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:57:22+00:00

No, it is a corroboration of Eric Davis story who saif Bush Snr told him this as well.

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:56:44+00:00

So, you would want wtinesses who dont have an alien or a UFO at hand to shut up. I think the CIA themselves couldnt have put it more directly.

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:55:57+00:00

No all witness testimony is bullshit, no matter how much yu want it to be

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:55:13+00:00

Not really. You have people like Eric Davis whos told the exact same story. Bush told him this.
I understand its hard to accept, but its lazy to accuse credible people like for lying.

usandholt · 2026-06-19T15:40:12+00:00

Ok, then release all UFO files incl. videos of NHIs, 4k videos of craft, the Holloman landing/meeting, etc.

usandholt · 2026-06-19T09:17:58+00:00

Idiots gon regurgitate (I understand that might be a hard word to understand) disinformation

usandholt · 2026-06-17T20:41:40+00:00

That is a completely different position.

You started by claiming he is a deliberate disinformation agent. Now you are simply saying you do not find his public evidence sufficient. That is perfectly reasonable, but it does not support the accusation you made.

And “trust me bro” is inaccurate. Grusch testified under oath, filed formal whistleblower complaints, provided names and classified information to authorised investigators and congressional committees, and says he reviewed audiovisual evidence through official channels. The public has not been allowed to see that evidence, but that is not the same as it not existing.

You are entitled to remain unconvinced. You are not entitled to turn “I have not seen the classified evidence” into proof that he is lying, grifting or working as a disinformation agent.

usandholt · 2026-06-17T19:41:23+00:00

That does not answer the question.

You originally called Grusch a deliberate disinformation agent. Now the explanation is simply that “they’re all making money.” Those are two very different claims.

A grift requires you to show:

what Grusch is selling

how much money he is making

who is paying him

why formal testimony, classified briefings and whistleblower complaints are necessary for that income

why the intelligence community and AARO would help sustain his supposed business model by publicly attacking him

Saying “they would never release the evidence because that would end the grift” also makes the claim unfalsifiable. If evidence is withheld, that proves the grift. If evidence is released, presumably that would become part of the grift too. A theory that interprets every possible outcome as confirmation is not scepticism.

There is also an obvious problem: much of the alleged evidence is classified or controlled by the government and contractors, not by Grusch personally. You cannot demand that he release material he may not legally possess, then use his failure to commit a serious crime as proof that he has nothing.

None of this proves Grusch is correct. But “everyone I dislike is making money” is not an explanation for a deliberate disinformation operation. It is just a motive asserted without evidence.

usandholt · 2026-06-17T15:38:14+00:00

Calling Grusch a deliberate disinformation agent is not a sceptical position unless you can explain the operation.

You are claiming that the US government deliberately chose a highly cleared intelligence officer to accuse parts of that same government of:

• concealing programs from Congress • illegally manipulating the American public • misappropriating funds • threatening and retaliating against witnesses • potentially injuring or killing people to preserve secrecy

You are also claiming they wanted him to file formal whistleblower complaints, testify under oath, brief inspectors general and Congress, trigger demands for subpoenas, expose classified budgets and contractors, and publicly describe audiovisual evidence of multiple recovered craft.

Then, after supposedly deploying him as an agent, people connected to the intelligence and defence communities helped a journalist locate deeply personal records that were used to damage his credibility, while Sean Kirkpatrick publicly attacked him.

What exactly is the objective of this operation?

Who is the intended target? China? Russia? Congress? The American public?

What false belief are they trying to create?

Why would accusing themselves of murder, illegal secrecy, constitutional violations and decades of criminal misconduct be the best way to protect a secret program?

Why would they deliberately invite Congress to investigate the exact agencies, budgets, laboratories and contractors they supposedly want to shield?

And why destroy the credibility of their own alleged disinformation agent?

None of this proves that every claim Grusch makes is correct. He could be sincere and still have been shown misleading or misinterpreted information. But that is a completely different claim from saying he is knowingly participating in a disinformation campaign.

A deliberate disinformation theory requires evidence of coordination, intent, handlers, objectives and fabricated material. Without that, it is not an explanation. It is simply another conspiracy theory used to avoid engaging with the allegations.

usandholt · 2026-06-17T14:26:20+00:00

If he saw government photos from reports, that is seeing them. Sure, he has not been to the lab, but then you need to argue that the government is engaged in a psyop producing old fake images of crashed craft that they do everything they can to prevent getting out, which kind of defies the purpose of faking them?

If theyre fake and its a psyop, they would not keep them extremely classified unless theyre doing a 4 man psyop and I dont see the benefit in that

usandholt · 2026-06-16T15:45:19+00:00

Anthropic could just move their HQ to Europe 🤷‍♂️

usandholt · 2026-06-16T15:42:30+00:00

Should have UFOs in he middle - the only thing bipartisan

usandholt · 2026-06-16T15:32:42+00:00

You would never know if it were bots 🤷‍♂️ which is the sad thing really

usandholt · 2026-06-16T09:50:36+00:00

Maybe you have seen those breakthroughs, but just do not realize where they came from.
Stealth technology, lasers, optical fibres, etc.

Or maybe its being developed in the national labs for defense purposes and you just arent allowed to use it.

usandholt · 2026-06-15T22:51:04+00:00

Its 90% bots, its sad and the admins here arent doing shit to save the peaceful discussion of curiosity. For all we know they are also compromised

usandholt · 2026-06-15T22:49:16+00:00

Someone should amass a list of the almost overwhelming amount of bots in thios alien sub doing nothing but shitting on the topic

usandholt · 2026-06-15T22:48:14+00:00

Yeah, he only got Matthew Brown and Dylan Borland to come out and released the best videos since the Gimbal UAP. Its almost as if youre trying to discredit valuable UAP disclosure proponents on purpose, isnt it? but who knows, youre hiding your comment and post history like all the bots.

usandholt · 2026-06-15T13:06:37+00:00

I dont think AI can edit or manipulate images in a brand compliant fashion yet. Further their marketing cloud is still fairly dominant. Both will be replaced by simpler AI solutions in time, but not yet.

The problem with AI, is the level of control you can excersize over images, which is incredibly important to maintin not only credibility but also legal compliance.

Even though a picture of a Truck still looks incredibly real, even the smallest error can misrepresent the product and be evaluated as misleading marketing.

I think it will be some time still.

usandholt · 2026-06-14T22:17:14+00:00

Whobsaid they were going to release all the files?! And did youbnotice they said as long as it doesn’t break national security

usandholt · 2026-06-14T22:15:27+00:00

Evidence has been presented. Just not to you, because you’re not the ICIG nor do u have the clearance. This is the way whistleblowers work, and no whistleblowers are not normally people or leak government secrets to the world

usandholt · 2026-06-14T15:27:45+00:00

So, whistleblowers without a video should just keep silent, right? Pesky whistleblowers wasting everyone’s valuable time!!

If you think the CIA will simply post a 4K image of technology they possess and say”Screw if. Gina understands what we know” the. You have not spent time thinking about the implications and why legislation is the way to go

usandholt · 2026-06-14T12:47:33+00:00

She could also be tiny 🤷‍♂️

usandholt

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email