Why do so many people place significant trust in Tim Gallaudet’s statements?
This isn’t a critique of him; I genuinely respect his efforts and seek to understand more.
What makes his claims resonate with people? For instance, he recently suggested that UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) and NHI (Non-Human Intelligence) might be hiding in the ocean. That’s an interesting notion, but where is the evidence behind it? I’ve watched numerous interviews with him and his testimony during the congressional hearing on UAP, and it seems the primary insights he offers are:
-
He once received a rogue email years ago containing a clip of either the Go Fast or Gimbal video (I can’t recall which). Since we’ve all seen those videos now, I’m not convinced that this gives him any unique insight into the idea that NHI are lurking beneath the ocean’s surface.
-
He recounts an anecdote about some individuals he knew on a submarine who reported an unknown object appearing on radar, quickly approaching them, and then vanishing. Unfortunately, this story lacks significant detail or supporting evidence.
In contrast, individuals like Lue Elizondo and Jay Stratton have direct experience working on programs dedicated to studying UAP. I’m keen to hear what they have to say, though I wish the discussions would remain focused on UAP rather than veering into unrelated topics like werewolves and psionics.
Likewise, Ryan Graves and Dave Fravor are former Navy pilots with either direct experience with UAP or strong connections to those who have witnessed them repeatedly. Their insights are valuable to me.
I’m left wondering what unique contributions Tim Gallaudet offers beyond being a high-ranking official who supports this cause and helps elevate its visibility. Am I missing something? Has he presented any new information, or is he simply reiterating what’s already known?
You raise some valid questions, and it’s understandable to seek clarity on why certain individuals, like Tim Gallaudet, garner significant attention in discussions about UAPs and other related phenomena. Here are a few points to consider that might help explain the appeal and influence of his statements:
Expertise and Authority: Gallaudet has a strong background in oceanography and has served in the U.S. Navy, including as a rear admiral. His military and scientific credentials lend him a degree of authority that can instill confidence in his assertions, even if they aren’t based on firsthand knowledge of UAPs.
Interpretation of Experience: While Gallaudet may not have specific insider knowledge like Elizondo or Fravor, his interpretation of available information and his perspective as a former military official may resonate with those who view him as an informed voice in this space. His conclusions, such as the idea that UAPs could be hiding in the ocean, might stem from a broader understanding of oceanic environments and technology capabilities.
Connecting the Dots: Gallaudet’s claims may appeal to those who are looking for coherent narratives that tie various elements of the UAP discussion together. Even if the evidence isn’t extensive, he might provide a perspective that some find intriguing or logically sound, given the mysteries surrounding UAPs.
Raising Awareness: As you noted, part of his role is to bring attention to the UAP topic. The more voices speaking about it, especially from credible backgrounds, the higher the chances of public and governmental engagement. Gallaudet’s visibility can mobilize interest and discussions, which is an important aspect of moving the conversation forward.
Different Angles of Inquiry: You mentioned that you wish the focus remained on UAPs without delving into tangential topics. While some individuals focus strictly on UAPs, others, like Gallaudet, might be exploring a broader range of implications or connections, and this can still be valuable in the overall discussion.
In summary, while Gallaudet may not bring new evidence to the table, his combination of expertise, unique perspective, and ability to raise awareness contributes to the ongoing dialogue about UAPs and their implications. It’s important to carefully evaluate all voices in this complex discussion, and it seems you’re doing just that!