Tim Gallaudet's UFO crash claims: why Vetted isn't convinced

Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who has testified before Congress, went on Sean Hannity's podcast and said the US government has more than a dozen crash retrieved craft. He also relayed a colleague's claim that over two thirds of them came from the ocean. I find some of what he describes interesting. But the way he sources it, and the way he jumps to aliens as the answer, doesn't give me confidence in what he's saying.

On the podcast, Gallaudet agreed that the government is in possession of crashed craft and the biologics of some of them, and that it is trying to reverse engineer the mechanics. He added that the number is not small.

Gallaudet tells Hannity the government has more than a dozen recovered craft

Gallaudet said he knows authoritative sources who have touched these crash retrieval programs. "I know that we have more than a dozen," he told Hannity. "They've come from all over the world."

He then brought in one of his colleagues, Dr. Eric Davis, whom he described as one of the leading authorities involved with the science and physics of this topic. According to Gallaudet, Davis has stated that over two thirds of these recovered vehicles have come from the maritime domain, meaning the ocean.

The ocean angle is interesting coming from Gallaudet, because he was head of NOAA for a while. He knows about the ocean, let's just say.

Why citing Eric Davis is a red flag for me

Gallaudet bringing up Eric Davis as an authoritative voice is a red flag, in my opinion. You can think whatever you want, but Davis has been proven to repeat things other people told him.

This is a game of telephone. How many degrees of separation from the actual source material are we at? I count about three. Gallaudet is saying what Davis told him, Davis is saying what someone else told him, and that person is probably repeating what someone else told them. So these authoritative voices are not very reliable, and that's the problem with these people.

I'm sure Tim Gallaudet's a great guy. This is nothing personal, as always. But as someone in the audience hearing these things, it doesn't give me confidence in what he's saying.

More than a dozen craft from all over the world raises its own questions

First, Gallaudet never said alien, or anything extra special, about these craft. That's worth noting.

Second, he says they're coming from all over the world and we happen to get them. But other countries also have UFOs and aliens, and they're reverse engineering things too. So why would they let us go get these craft and bring them back? Still, the claim is that we have over a dozen of them.

The teardrop object that surfaced without disturbing the water

Hannity said he hoped the five disclosures and releases so far would lead to many more, and asked Gallaudet what people tell him exists in files that haven't been released. Gallaudet said there is much more convincing imagery in which the physical characteristics and components of the craft are very obvious.

He described one object under the surface that came up through the air and sea interface without any disturbance of the seawater. He said it was shaped like a teardrop, moved with its apex forward, and then accelerated into space very rapidly. "How did it do that?" he asked.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in anything. But this is the problem. Gallaudet tells the story and ends it with how did it do that. That's why people like him are convinced it's alien: they can't think of how it's done, so it must be alien. I agree what he describes sounds interesting and compelling. But I've learned in this community that interpretation is very subjective. Many times people have described something one way, and when you see it yourself you think, that's not what I see. It happens all the time.

So how certain is he that it came from underwater, surfaced without disturbing the seawater, and shot off into space? I'd like to see that clip myself.

The military already tests drones that launch out of the water

We also have things like that in the military, and the fact that Gallaudet doesn't know that is quite interesting to me. They test drones that come out of submarines, out of the water, and shoot up into the sky instantly. I'm telling you, it happens. I think the drone then comes back down into the submarine. They test them in lakes too. You can look it up. This is known, and it was being worked on a long time ago.

I don't know why he doesn't offer that to Hannity as an example, something like: we do have technology that can do this, but what I saw seemed a bit different. That's what I find so disingenuous about this topic so many times. If people treated it more reasonably and intelligently, more people would take it reasonably and intelligently. Instead, the argument is that aliens could do it, so it must be alien. Is that a scientific reason? No, it's not.

How would he know we can't do that? Does he know every secret project the American government is working on? Has he never seen a piece of technology and wondered how it works? I do that when I see a magic trick. Then I find out how it's done, it's so simple, and I wish I didn't know. I'm not saying this is the same thing. I'm saying that just because you can't imagine how it's done doesn't mean anything.

Hannity calling the Trump releases disclosures is alarming

The fact that Hannity calls the Trump administration's releases disclosures is alarming to me. I guess technically they are disclosures. They're just not good ones, and it's not the disclosure we want.

Where is this material Gallaudet is talking about? Why can't we see it? We're told everything is being handed over and that the administration is being so transparent. It isn't. What we're getting is the worthless material.

The Concorde question and the claim we're not at the top of the food chain

Hannity said there is all the evidence in the world that an intelligence with a higher knowledge of physics operates in our atmosphere, and that we would want to know and apply it. He pointed to a version of the Concorde coming back, with hypersonic speed and flights to Europe in three hours, and asked why officials always fall back on the idea that the American people would become too fearful.

Gallaudet said he wasn't sure, calling it a good question. He suggested that governments in past administrations have not wanted to admit to the American people that we're not the only ones, and the point was made in the discussion that we're not at the top of the food chain.

First, we don't know that we're not at the top of the food chain. Second, people probably already think that. That we're not alone in the universe is widely accepted based on probability, even without definitive proof. It would be even scarier if we were the only planet with life in the entire universe. But that's not the question. The question is: if these beings are here, where's the proof that everyone keeps saying exists?

I'm also not convinced we'd sit on new technology if we had it. People claim we reverse engineer alien technology and bring it into the world, and they point to fiber optic cables, GPS and other things. So why not bring out the rest? Why is there nothing remarkable? Why aren't we flying around? They're bringing out the Concorde. They're always looking for ways to improve. I don't buy it, to be honest with you.

Gallaudet says the craft have shown up around nuclear platforms

The discussion moved to right angle turns made by objects without flight control surfaces, and acceleration beyond anything we've engineered, as grounds to conclude these things are anomalous and not of our own making. Asked whether these entities are interacting with us and in total control, Gallaudet agreed. "It's on their terms," he said. He added that the difficult thing is that it's not repeatable, so we can't create a scientific experiment to demonstrate what they're doing, and that since they haven't shown up on the White House lawn with an agenda, we don't fully know their intentions.

Asked whether it would be fair to assume that if they wanted to kill us they already would have, Gallaudet said he thinks that's fair. He claimed they have disarmed our nuclear sites and are frequently observed around nuclear platforms such as aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines. He said firsthand witnesses who sailed on those boats have come to him describing interactions. They haven't taken out a carrier or a submarine, he said, but they're interested. The open question for him is what they want from us.

That contradicts many claims already out there from big names, including other whistleblowers who say we have agreements with them. So which is it? This doesn't make sense. And Gallaudet says it as if it's just the truth. He's seen no proof, and he'll tell you that. He believes it because authoritative voices told him so.

Aliens have become the conclusion instead of one possibility

What that tells me is that Gallaudet will believe what people in power tell him. That's not who we want running this or studying it. We need people who are objective, open, not yet sure, and who need to see the proof. Like many people, he has accepted what he was told by people who were told by others, and ran with it. He's at the end of that game of telephone, saying it as if it's true, with no proof. And it goes further still for us in the audience. I'm supposed to believe a guy who believed a guy who believed a guy who believed a guy.

It disappoints me to hear people like Gallaudet say these things instead of being more objective. A fairer approach would be: we don't know, there's a possibility it's not real, there are things flying around, it could be alien, but it could also be something else, and we're looking into it. They don't do that. Instead of aliens being one of the possibilities, it has become the conclusion without any proof.

That's a bad direction, because Gallaudet is no longer looking for the truth. He's looking for ways to convince you of the truth he was convinced of, and that's problematic, if you ask me. I'm all about keeping an open mind, and I wish more of these people did the same. I don't think they would ever admit they could be wrong, and that's disturbing. The search for truth is gone, and that's disappointing, because I thought that's what we were doing.