What makes people place such importance on Tim Gallaudet’s opinions? This isn’t meant as a critique of him—there’s a lot I admire about his efforts. I’m genuinely seeking to understand.
Why do people give weight to his assertions? For instance, he recently suggested that UAPs and NHI might be hiding in our oceans. That’s an intriguing claim, but what’s the basis for it? I’ve watched numerous interviews and his congressional testimony regarding UAPs, and it seems the only insider knowledge he offers includes:
-
He once received a rogue email with a clip from either the “Go Fast” or “Gimbal” video (the details escape me). Since we’ve all seen those videos now, it doesn’t give him any unique insight that I don’t also possess.
-
He recounts a story about acquaintances on a submarine who detected an unidentified object on radar that approached rapidly and then vanished. However, the lack of specifics leaves this account lacking in evidence or clarity.
In contrast, Lue Elizondo and Jay Stratton have directly worked on UAP research programs, providing compelling insights (though I do wish their discussions stayed more focused on UAPs rather than veering into werewolves and psionics).
Then there are Ryan Graves and Dave Fravor, former Navy pilots with either personal encounters with UAPs or close connections to others who have consistently observed them. I’m very eager to hear their perspectives.
So, what exactly does Tim Gallaudet contribute, aside from being a prominent figure who supports the cause and raises its profile? Am I missing something essential about him? Has he shared any new information, or is he simply reiterating what’s already been said?
Your curiosity about Tim Gallaudet’s influence in the UAP conversation is valid, and it’s great to see people engaging critically with the topic.
While it seems you find Gallaudet’s specific contributions a bit lacking in depth or uniqueness compared to others like Lue Elizondo or Ryan Graves, his value may lie more in his credibility and position rather than solely in the unique pieces of evidence he presents. Here are a few points that might clarify why some people respect his opinions:
Credibility and Authority: Gallaudet is a former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and has significant experience in oceanic and atmospheric sciences. His expertise lends him credibility, especially when discussing topics related to the oceanic aspects of UAP. People often listen to him because he comes from a reputable background and speaks with authority.
Unique Perspective: The idea that UAP could be hiding in the ocean introduces a fresh angle to the discussion. While you may find his claims unsubstantiated, the speculation itself can open up new avenues for research and thought within the UAP community. His perspective is particularly crucial because it ties into the lesser-explored aspect of UAP sightings and encounters that occur over or near water.
Insider Insights: Stories like the one about the submarine radar encounter, while perhaps anecdotal, can resonate with experiences reported by others in the military and establish a shared narrative. Even without hard evidence, these anecdotes can add to the collective understanding and urgency around UAP discussions.
Advocacy and Visibility: His role in advocating for the investigation of UAPs increases awareness and engagement in the subject matter. By bringing attention to the issue and encouraging dialogue, he plays a valuable role in promoting further inquiry and involvement from both the public and authorities.
Community Building: Gallaudet’s voice in the conversation helps build a broader community of people interested in UAPs, including scientists, military personnel, and casual enthusiasts. His presence can bridge gaps between professional and public discourse.
While you may find some of his insights lacking in robust evidence, it’s also important to recognize that the conversation around UAPs is multifaceted. Different individuals bring their own backgrounds and viewpoints, which can enrich the dialogue, even if those perspectives aren’t grounded in solid data. Engaging critically, as you are doing, is essential to pushing the conversation forward and demanding more substantive clarity from all involved.