Avi Loeb Wants Full Immunity for UAP Whistleblowers, and on That Point He Is Right

Avi Loeb is calling for UAP whistleblowers to get full immunity, and on that point I think he is right. The question of whether whistleblowers will actually get protection if they come forward has been a major, major thing in this topic, and Loeb has now weighed in directly.

There is one part of how he framed it that seemed almost backhanded to me, though I don't know, maybe it's just bad bedside manner, and further down I get into why the witnesses tied to the White Sands situation are, to me, the more intriguing part of this whole conversation.

Whistleblower protection has been a major, major thing for UAP testimony

The big question has been whether the whistleblowers would get the NDAs dealt with, and whether that would really do anything. These people needed to be protected from the get-go. That is not only about safety and the right to speak out, which is what whistleblowers should have in the first place. It is also about their pensions and everything else connected to their employment, so they are not threatened when they know something is wrong and they say this has been held from people.

I always bring up Lue Elizondo as an example when I talk about this. His position has been that he will testify, but he has to be protected. Eric Davis said the same thing. Other people have said the same thing. But they are just not protected. When Elizondo was asked whether he was going to testify at the 2024 hearing, he said no. He asked why he would do that. In his words, "I would lose everything that I have," and there was no protection, so it just would not make sense.

Avi Loeb says he hopes the whistleblowers get full immunity

Avi Loeb, who has been promoted to a bigger spot in the government on what he is doing with the UAP topic, has now talked about this. He said he is most curious about the testimonies given by people like David Grusch and other former US government employees who claimed there is material from crash sites of objects that were not manufactured by humans. In principle, he said, it is possible to see those materials, and that would settle the issue. If the government already has materials from crash sites of non-human technologies, he argued, there is no need to do more experiments.

"But before I see that, you know, I don't know whether to trust these stories. It's all about the evidence," he said. He called those materials a shortcut to the answer and said he is very intrigued by the testimonies.

"I hope that the whistleblowers will get the full immunity," Loeb said. He added that they already have their non-disclosure agreements being waived by the deputy to the director of national intelligence, and that hopefully they will get all the legal assurances they need to guide us, perhaps even giving a guided tour of the places where materials or even spacecraft are being housed, if they are out there.

Why Loeb's comments felt almost backhanded to me

I honestly don't know what to make of all of it. There was an interview recently, I think with Avi Loeb and Hal Puthoff, where it seemed like they were maneuvering around certain things, or that there was more of a narrative behind it. I am not sure.

Loeb has always been a science guy. That is what he is: a scientist. We had him on for a conversation not too long ago, maybe a year ago or so, and he does not speculate. That is not what he does. He talks about evidence, and that is what he is saying here too.

But when he said it, I don't want to call it backhanded, because he is not wrong. Still, it seemed a little like he was saying, well, we will see if these stories are even true, and that came across to me as if he was kind of disregarding the things these witnesses have said. Maybe it is just a bad bedside manner. I don't know.

Protect the witnesses and get to the bottom of it

If you dive into the actuality of what he is saying about these whistleblowers, he is right, no matter what you think his intent might be. I think everybody is on the same page with that. If all of these people are saying these things, and they will not testify because they are not protected, then protect them. Then we can find out what this is and get to the bottom of it. That, to me, makes the most sense, and I think that is what everyone else is saying as well. They need to be protected.

There have been tons of people who have said they are not going to come forward. Remember when this really started to pop with Grusch around 2023? Not when it first broke ever, but when it took off. There was talk of something like 40 witnesses coming out, all these witnesses coming forward. And there has been nothing, because they are saying they cannot do anything without being threatened.

What is the next step after the NDA waivers?

This is an interesting situation, because the way they presented the NDA news was that everyone is going to be protected and everybody can start testifying. So what is the next step past that? At what point does someone say it is time to really take these people in and hold a hearing with all of them?

I guess the whole conversation Loeb is really getting at involves the White Sands situation, and that is the more intriguing thing to me. What about the witnesses there? What did they get? What are they shooting down? And if Loeb is at that level now, shouldn't he be there? There is more to this than meets the eye, at least in my opinion.

Shouldn't the White House be the one protecting whistleblowers?

I can't imagine that anyone following this topic does not feel that whistleblower protection is crucial. But there have been so many sidesteps around it that I don't know if it is ever going to happen.

If you have heard all the rumors, whether from The Age of Disclosure, from Steven Greer or from Marco Rubio, the president is looked upon as something like a hired gun when it comes to the deep state people who have these things and have had them for years and years. That is one aspect, with craft and everything else. But when it comes to protecting whistleblowers, isn't the White House the one that should step up and say it is time to make sure these people are protected? I don't know.

Do you think Avi Loeb was dismissing the whistleblowers' stories, or simply holding out for the evidence like the scientist he has always been?