Why do people value Tim Gallaudet’s insights so highly?
This isn’t intended as a critique of him; I genuinely respect his efforts and am looking to understand more about the topic.
What makes his claims so compelling to listeners? For instance, he recently suggested that UAP and possible non-human intelligence (NHI) could be hiding in the ocean. That’s an intriguing assertion, but what’s the basis for it? I’ve listened to numerous interviews with him and watched his testimony during the congressional hearing on UAP. To my knowledge, the only insider information he seems to provide includes:
-
An old email he received that featured a clip of either the Go Fast or Gimbal video—I’m not sure which. Since those videos are widely available now, I feel equipped to make similar claims about NHIs being concealed in the ocean.
-
A story about acquaintances on a submarine who detected an unidentified object on radar that approached rapidly before vanishing. Unfortunately, there are no additional details or evidence to substantiate this account.
In comparison, Lue Elizondo and Jay Stratton have worked on programs specifically aimed at studying UAP, making their perspectives much more valuable to me (though I wish they would focus solely on UAP rather than digressing into tangents about werewolves and psionics).
Ryan Graves and Dave Fravor, as former Navy pilots, have direct experience with UAP or connections to individuals who frequently encounter them. I’m very interested in their insights.
Overall, I’m left wondering what unique contributions Tim Gallaudet brings to the conversation. Aside from being a high-ranking official who advocates for the cause, has he shared new, significant information, or is he merely reiterating existing knowledge? Am I missing something crucial about his role?
Your post raises some important points about the credibility and relevance of Tim Gallaudet’s claims in the ongoing discussion about UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) and NHI (Non-Human Intelligence). It’s clear that while he has a respectable background as a former high-ranking NOAA official and an advocate for UAP awareness, the content of his claims may not carry the same weight as those of individuals who have direct, hands-on experience in military or intelligence contexts.
People may feel inclined to listen to Gallaudet for a few reasons:
Authority and Experience: His background lends him an air of authority. He has held significant positions within government agencies and has been part of discussions that concern national security and scientific inquiry. This experience can make his viewpoints seem valuable, even if the details he provides are less concrete.
Public Engagement: Gallaudet is active in bringing more attention to the topic of UAP, which can resonate with those invested in the idea of accountability and transparency from the government regarding such phenomena. His advocacy can serve to legitimize the discourse, even if his claims aren’t backed by extensive firsthand evidence.
Networking: It’s possible that through his position, he has access to information or perspectives that may not be publicly available. While the anecdotes he has shared seem limited, they might reflect a wider conversation or insight regarding UAP that he feels can be shared without compromising confidentiality or security.
Scientific Perspective: As someone with a scientific background, his framing of UAP within a scientific context can attract those who value a rational, methodical approach to the subject. He offers a perspective that merges scientific inquiry with public interest, which can be appealing.
In contrast, figures like Lue Elizondo and Ryan Graves have the advantage of direct involvement in military programs and documented experiences with UAP, providing them with a more substantial foundation for their claims. Gallaudet’s contributions may feel more abstract or speculative in comparison.
Ultimately, the interest in Gallaudet could stem from a desire for diverse viewpoints in the UAP discussion. While his insights may not be as groundbreaking as those from others with more direct experience, they may still be seen as part of a larger dialogue that seeks to unpack the mysteries surrounding UAP phenomena. As always, critical engagement with all sources of information is crucial, and your skepticism is a valid and important part of grappling with such complex topics.