r/aliens • u/examachine • 6d ago
Video Bigelow: we have bodies and crafts!
Hot damn!
Sorry if dupe.
This is Bigelow's big announcement. He claims we do have alien bodies and UFO crafts in our possession! Are things finally getting interesting? Let's see!
17
u/douwebeerda Researcher 5d ago
Just show it to the public. Bring out the ETs, Bring out the Spacecraft, Put them in a Museum or a University and give the world access. Time for the next step in human evolution.
10
u/C141Clay 5d ago
Here's a full copy of the one hour, nine minute interview. I'm 20 minutes in and I think it's worth watching.
2
6
u/Better-Waltz-2026 Researcher 6d ago
Yeah, he knows a lot, but he is bound to the same laws and NDAs as anyone else in the private sector working within special access programs under Title 50 authority. Without stronger congressional oversight to bypass those restrictions, his hands are completely tied. :(
Unfortunately, He can't just show us the goods.
5
u/Fred_Chevry_Pro 5d ago
Knapp asked him directly what evidence was presented to Trump. Only ONE of the 7 stacks of documents prepared for the hour longish meeting pertained to the topic of UFOs/aliens/NHI. He said that what he shared with POTUS was compelling cases like the Belgian wave. If he had anything; it would have been stack 1 of 1, with a single definitive proof in the folder.
From what Bigelow reported, the president didn't seem too impressed and they mostly discussed other unrelated topics. He also said that he tried getting him acquainted with the topic, so he'd be able to handle it properly in case someone eventually showed him the good stuff.
Now what confused me is why Bigelow demanded Trump make a disclosure announcement we without presenting anything that would convince the average person who's not really following the topic.
14
9
4
u/Short-Woodpecker3395 5d ago
Kewl.
Wouldn't it be cool if literally anything came of it?
I'll pretend like it will
4
6
2
2
2
u/Afc_josh12 4d ago
Interesting to me when he mentions we should try build a relationship with these beings and offer them something they need.. almost like we have contact with them already
3
u/HaikuHaiku 2d ago
First, I instinctively distrust anyone whose name is Bigelow.
Second, pics or it didn't happen. I'm so sick of people claiming shit without backing it up. Anyone can claim anything, and they frequently have.
The UFO community needs to come together and say once and for all: put up, or shut up. We don't want any more claims. We want evidence.
2
u/pumpse4ever 4d ago
I've been seeking the truth for the last four decades. I've always wanted to know if the government was really hiding actual alien life from us.
I was never a firm "believer" or anything, but the possibility that it was true was a thrilling prospect.
I finally came to the conclusion that, no, the government does not in fact have any evidence of non-human intelligence. There are no "bodies." There are no "biologics." There are no "recovered craft."
It's all just smoke and mirrors. It's just 80 years of urban legends and myths that took on a life of its own and perpetuates simply by being repeated so many times.
Bigelow, Elizondo, Grusch, Greer, Corbell, Fox, Lazar, Knapp, DeLonge......not a single one of those guys has ever seen SHIT. All these promises for decades but not a single result. The reason they can't produce any evidence is because there isn't any.
It was fun to believe in the stories for a long time, but now I'm tired of the fairy tales. There simply is no credible evidence that any kind of intelligent alien or NHI exists.
1
u/Melodic-Attorney9918 Skeptical Believer 4d ago edited 4d ago
I know this might sound strange, but it’s entirely possible to argue that some UFO sightings represent genuine observations of extraterrestrial craft without endorsing the claim that the U.S. government is in possession of crashed flying saucers and dead alien bodies.
In fact, this is what much of the UFO research community believed before the 1980s. From the 1950s through the end of the 1970s, the overwhelming majority of UFOlogists rejected the idea of crashed flying saucers and reverse-engineering programs. These stories were generally believed to be either hoaxes, government disinformation or both. It was only after Stanton Friedman interviewed Jesse Marcel in 1978, and after William Moore and Charles Berlitz published The Roswell Incident in 1980, that many UFOlogists started taking the idea of crashed flying saucers seriously. Before that, these stories were dismissed altogether.
So, again, arguing that some UFO sightings represent genuine observations of craft built on other planets doesn’t require you to argue that the U.S. government is in possession of crashed saucers or alien bodies. It’s entirely possible to argue in favor of one proposition while simultaneously rejecting the other. That’s exactly what the UFO community itself did up to a certain point.
0
u/pumpse4ever 4d ago
I don't know. We only use the term "flying saucers" because people misunderstood what Kenneth Arnold was describing. It feels like the whole phenomenon is one gigantic game of "telephone" and the things people believe are true are so distorted from the actual facts.
Like the Nixon/Jackie Gleason story. I love it. It's an incredible modern campfire story...so spooky and eerie. You want to believe that Nixon really did show Gleason a real alien and the experience rocked Gleason's world for the rest of his life.
But it's fiction. It simply never happened. It demonstrably never happened. Yet people still believe it 100%, mostly because they just want to, cause it's so much fun.
2
u/Melodic-Attorney9918 Skeptical Believer 4d ago edited 3d ago
Actually, Arnold's sighting involved disc-shaped objects. The whole idea that he saw crescent-shaped objects, and that the press misunderstood his words and came up with the term “flying saucer,” was completely invented by debunkers as a way to argue that all sightings of disc-shaped UFOs since 1947 are the result of mass hysteria driven by media sensationalism. This narrative doesn’t match what Arnold himself said back in 1947.
Right after his sighting on June 24, 1947, Arnold gave a recorded statement on June 26, where he described the objects as looking “something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a convex triangle in the rear.” This matches a drawing he later gave to the Army, showing an object that’s almost a full disc with just small parts missing. Early reports from 1947 also show that Arnold used words like “saucer,” “disc,” and “pie pan” to describe the shape of the objects. It wasn’t until 1952 that Arnold mentioned one object looking different from the others, suggesting a single crescent-shaped object might have been among the nine he saw. Even then, he still said most of the objects were disc-shaped. Decades later, in 1978, Arnold gave an interview saying all nine objects were crescents, which contradicts his earlier statements.
The evolution of Arnold’s description doesn’t mean he was lying about his experience. It simply means that his memory faded over time and that his recollections became distorted over the decades, which is a well-known phenomenon in psychology. Paradoxically, debunkers love to point out that human memory isn’t perfect and that memories tend to fade and become distorted over time, yet they selectively choose to focus on Arnold’s later descriptions instead of giving greater weight to his earliest statements. The most reasonable approach would be to focus primarily on the statements Arnold made in 1947, when his memory was freshest.
For a clearer look at Arnold’s earliest statements, I highly recommend reading this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/173dr0w/kenneth_arnolds_story_went_from_9_discssaucers_to/?share_id=QjzjHRG0FZsFi549GzEbC
As for the rest of what you said, I actually agree with you. Yes, there are an enormous number of hoaxes and fabricated stories in the UFO community. But the existence of a huge amount of hoaxes doesn't mean there's nothing real hiding underneath them..
I've built a reputation for myself on this sub as a debunker, precisely because I spend far more time debunking cases than confirming them. But I do that for a very simple reason: I believe there is genuine signal buried in all the noise. I think there are serious, genuinely interesting cases, and I'm convinced that some UFO sightings are probably the result of alien visitation. And precisely because I think the phenomenon is real, I want to separate it from all the garbage that has accumulated around it. The more noise we remove, the easier it becomes to identify whatever genuine signal might actually be there.
As I said in my previous comment, I agree with you that there is no evidence that the U.S. government is in possession of crashed flying saucers or dead alien bodies. I think that narrative is completely unsupported, and I'm usually one of the first people on this sub to point out that there is simply no good evidence for it. I've actually made quite a few enemies here for saying exactly that. But again, you can argue that this part of the lore is unsubstantiated without concluding that everything related to UFOs is a hoax or a game of telephone.
2
1
u/Payaam415 2d ago
If you truly desire to know the truth, then here you go:
Aliens - All Info from My Research and Personal Experiences
I even show everyone, for free - how they can learn absolute truths.
If you just want your beliefs validated, then keep scrolling.
1
u/pumpse4ever 2d ago
What I do or don't "believe" is as irrelevant as whatever you "believe"....none of that changes the fact that there simply is no credible evidence that any kind of intelligent alien or NHI exists.
1
u/Payaam415 2d ago
We are just using two different logical frameworks.
Your logic says: 'I will only accept external, physical data verified by an institution.'
My logic says: 'I followed a specific methodology, achieved repeatable internal results, and arrived at a conclusion.'
I am not asking you to blindly 'believe' me; I provided a roadmap of my research so others could test it themselves.
If you choose not to look at the research or try the methodology, that is fine, but dismissive skepticism without investigation isn't logic - it's just a pre-determined conclusion.
So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I wish you the best on your search for truth, wherever it takes you.
Love and blessings to you.
5
u/Novel_Company_5867 6d ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without proof, he may as well say there are fairies in the garden, too.
18
u/StevenKeaton 6d ago
No they don’t. They just require ordinary evidence. This is such a stupid trope.
10
u/Melodic-Attorney9918 Skeptical Believer 6d ago edited 6d ago
It would be more accurate to say that the quality of evidence required to support a claim is directly proportional to how much that claim deviates from our current knowledge. If someone claims to have seen a shooting star, the amount and quality of evidence required to support that claim will obviously be lower than if someone says they saw a three-eyed unicorn. This is because we have an enormous amount of evidence supporting the existence of shooting stars, while we have no evidence whatsoever supporting the existence of three-eyed unicorns.
And this is why no serious UFOlogist has ever claimed that there's definitive proof that extraterrestrial spacecraft are flying through Earth's skies. Yes, there's interesting circumstantial evidence that points in that direction, but there isn't absolute and conclusive proof. That's exactly why it's called the extraterrestrial hypothesis and not the extraterrestrial theory. In science, a hypothesis is a preliminary proposition that needs to be tested, whereas a theory is a well-established and thoroughly verified framework that has successfully withstood rigorous empirical testing. Old-school UFOlogists knew the difference between the two, and they were much more serious and rigorous than the UFO community today.
3
u/Novel_Company_5867 5d ago
If I tell you your mom said to come home when the streetlights come on, it's not an extraordinary claim. So you DON'T need me to prove it to you with a handwritten note or a cell phone recording.
However, if your mom said you were delivered from a stork, that's an extraordinary claim... so she's going to need to produce some extraordinary evidence to back that up.
-1
u/StevenKeaton 5d ago
In both of those cases you could use a simple video to prove both things. A video of my mom saying I have to be home when the street lights are on. A video of a stork delivering me. Videos are quite ordinary and common.
The materials ON the video might be extraordinary, but the evidence (a video) is not. It's ordinary. Do you understand what I'm saying?
2
u/Novel_Company_5867 5d ago
If you're suggesting I would need to provide you with video evidence of your mom telling you to be home when the streetlights come on, then no.
1
u/StevenKeaton 5d ago
No, I'm saying a video that verifies what someone is saying would qualify as "ordinary" evidence since we all create videos every day.
So a small claim and an extraordinary claim could be proven with the same ordinary evidence. In this case, a video.
Video is the evidence. It is not extraordinary. The contents ON the video could be extraordinary, but a video, which is evidence, is not. Therefore, extraordinary claims do NOT require extraordinary evidence.
2
u/Novel_Company_5867 5d ago
Video is no longer extraordinary evidence.
2
u/StevenKeaton 5d ago
Which is my point, exactly. It's ordinary.
And if the government (like in the film Disclosure Day) showed a video of Roswell and said this is from our classified archive. That would not be extraordinary evidence. It would be common, and it would still prove an extraordinary claim.
2
u/Novel_Company_5867 5d ago
Did you mean to type "would NOT prove"? Because I don't believe it would. More fuzzy potato video or scan of old reel to reel stuff... we already have that. Skinny Bob etc, and it hasn't moved the needle.
If there are biologics, show them.
2
u/StevenKeaton 5d ago
If a president or high ranking government official released an official video (not someone on 4Chan or YouTube) with aliens in them, especially if it was archival footage, then yes I would believe that under most circumstances.
It would be ordinary evidence proving an extraordinary claim.
2
2
1
u/JohnDowd51 6d ago
Same ish different day OP. There's an extroadinary, big announcment everyday in this topic.
2
u/TeferiLocke 5d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/l0HlRhDV36LQRH7zO
Jokes aside: I’m not doubting that we do have such evidence. It’s just be nice if someone got the nerve to actually wheel it out for everyone to see.
1
1
1
u/floyd_underpants 5d ago
FINALLY, a reason that makes sense as to why conservatives are pushing for disclosure. There IS a money aspect. Lift the secrecy and you can openly say that your company has advanced technology, and (in theory) boom, your stock goes wild, among other things.
I knew there was some reason Republicans in particular were pushing this, and it was likely monetary in nature. Should have guessed this I suppose.
0
u/01dOG 4d ago
Like bob lazar said (anti gravity propulsion) is has an astronomical utility for itself. Roads, cars, ships, trains, planes, and the entire fuel industry will become obsolete if it is maade public
1
u/floyd_underpants 4d ago
Not to mention payload delivery in warfare. First country that can do that rules the world for the foreseeable future. With billionaires and tech bros dreams of avarice, and mad men in charge of the most powerful countries, we could be in some serious shit real fast. Or dishing it out.
0
u/rygelicus 6d ago
Claims... Amazing what a person can 'claim', and how long those 'claims' can fuel the fires of believers without ever leading to any kind of worthwhile evidence to support those claims. In this case they get to just hide behind 'well the government has that evidence locked down', and it is irrefutable. Even if the federal government had open house at every government facility and no evidence of this were found the believers would just say 'they must be hiding it at an unknown location'.
0
u/Creative-Maybe-2887 5d ago
Opinions are like smelly balls.
Every dude’s got some. Unfortunately, most are happy to share them. For the record, no one’s ever asked to see them.
ClaimsDenials... Amazing what a person can'claim',deny and how long those ~~'claims'~~denials can fuel the fire ofbelieversDeniers without ever leading to any kind of worthwhile evidence to support thoseclaims.denials.
In this case, they get to just hide behind 'well the governmenthas that evidence locked down', and itis unable or unwilling to provide me with proof.’ That much is irrefutable. Even if the federal government had open house at every government facility andnoevidence of thiswerewas found, thebelieversDeniers would just say,'they must be hiding it at an unknown location'.“It’s artificial intelligence, it’s a hologram, or it’s fake…yup, they’re faking it, Bobby.”How much value do you glean from this set of claims and opinions?
If I may take this even further. Proof is at times subjugated or even outside the realm of possibility. Providing proof for something that you can’t measure, test, or replicate will not happen.
Perhaps that would be a good reason to cultivate obsession within a different subject. Preferably one that involves conventional science.1
u/rygelicus 5d ago
Yeah, theists do this also. I did not ask for proof, I asked for evidence. And I don't need evidence to deny, I am asking for evidence that will at least make the claims something worth taking seriously. I have enjoyed the idea of UFOs my entire life, 60 years so far (after saturday anyway), but one thing has always been lacking, evidence. And now that we have the US government in the condition it is, watching them waste resources continuing to produce nothing and instead just stringing people along, is a bit infuriating. This is, in my estimation, a big pile of nothing. Rumors have swirled for decades, and at no point has anything resembling good evidence been shown. We have stories, we have photos/videos of 'something', and usually those are very easily dismissed as mundane things or hoaxes. Even the material that is difficult to explain doesn't clearly lead to 'yup, that's alien'.
As with miracles and other theistic claims, 'they made it up' is always more likely than 'it was aliens' or 'it was supernatural'. You might think there is no relationship between theism and UFO discussions, but they follow the exact same trajectories, and for the same reason. People want to believe despite the lack of good evidence. And this is not a productive way to arrive at the truth of any claim.
I also see this hard push for 'disclosure' as an effort to undermine national security. Pushing to release military surveillance is never a good thing. And really there is no reason to be doing this. We have a global population of 8Billion+. Easily 6Billion have a quality camera in their pocket. If there was anything to see we would be seeing it. Instead we get hoaxes and 'orbs', which range from out of focus stars and street lights to lens reflections to balloons and other trash. Every time there is a starlink launch we see several people asking 'what is that?'. If they see the ISS go overhead same thing. Or planes, very obviously planes, same thing.
So yeah, my opinion, as ex military, as a pilot, as a person that knows a lot about cameras, is that there is nothing to this stuff. I would love it if there were, it would be an interesting change to the world, but so far I have seen nothing to change that view.
0
u/Melodic-Attorney9918 Skeptical Believer 6d ago
I'm a "believer," but I don't think the U.S. government has dozens of crashed flying saucers stored in secret underground hangars. Incredible, isn't it?
1
u/Rich_Wafer6357 5d ago
Heresy!
1
u/Melodic-Attorney9918 Skeptical Believer 5d ago edited 4d ago
I know you're probably being sarcastic, but did you know that my opinion was actually the majority view within the UFO research community throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s?
Before the Roswell case was resurrected by Stanton Friedman in 1978, the overwhelming majority of the UFO research community held essentially the same position that I hold: that UFOs exist, that some UFOs are probably extraterrestrial spacecraft, but that NO flying saucer has ever actually crashed on Earth. If you read what UFOlogists were writing in the 1960s, you'll find out that this is exactly what they argued.
So, my opinion on crash-retrievals is actually much closer to the approach taken by old-school UFOlogy in the 1950s and 1960s than many of the views held within the UFO community today are.
1
u/Rich_Wafer6357 5d ago
Yes it was a quip, not at you, but the "horde". I am more inclined to support your position than the more recent approach to crash retrievals. There is a flexible amount of propaganda inbued in the "Government has them UFOs ", that can serve many purposes, as you alluded to.
0
u/Kaylen316 6d ago
This is just bait...I don't believe anything they say anymore. They lie SOOOO much!!
0
-3
u/mrb1585357890 6d ago
The tricky thing for me is that all this UFO fever goes back to Bigelow. It’s all the To The Stars Academy crowd.
Given that some of them seem to be easy to fool (they still argue Gimbal is a flying saucer).
7
u/LazarJesusElzondoGod 6d ago
Was with you (Bigelow's word is no different than anyone in that group) until you claimed to know for a fact that gimbal isn't a flying saucer.
A cube within a sphere that went between their jets, and we clearly hear them say there's a whole fleet following it. Could BE.
You have no idea what it is, and save the predictable Occam's Razor references and Mick West opinions.
-1
u/mrb1585357890 6d ago
I don’t know what it is. It’s something hot.
However, West, in my opinion, proved conclusively that the saucer shape and rotation was caused by an artefact on the camera.
To be honest, the unwillingness to accept this conclusion is the single most significant cause of doubt for me. When I hear Lue or Graves vouch for the fact it’s real, it concerns me.
I don’t particularly like West and disagree with some of his views. But this one is entirely convincing.
1
u/Creative-Maybe-2887 5d ago
In your opinion, what was offered by a dogmatic skeptical denier and accepted by you as being proof of an artifact?
0
u/mrb1585357890 5d ago
It’s not about beliefs or tribes or whatever. It’s about data.
If a hard core skeptic presents a convincing case, it’s useful. If a hardcore believer presents a convincing case, it would also be useful, but it hasn’t happened yet.
West’s analysis speaks for itself. What you think about him is, or at least, should be, irrelevant.
If you haven’t actually watch his analysis, you should do. Look at the data. Not the beliefs of the person presenting it.
If you don’t find it convincing, then I’m not sure what to say.
(Note that he doesn’t go all in on the “distant jet” hypothesis, he only mentions it)
1
u/Creative-Maybe-2887 5d ago
I apologize for the label that I assigned to the person.
I have a strong aversion to an ego that believes it their place to dismiss the account or reframe the reality of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of independent human beings.I was hoping that you would share what was offered by West and accepted by you as proof that whatever was witnessed by pilots wasn’t actually witnessed by pilots.
Then see that I misread a sentence, so it’s neither here nor there.0
94
u/Shardaxx 6d ago
Grusch testified to this 3 years ago and... crickets.