Ryan Graves
speaker
335 appearances
2 recordings
1 series
first heard Dec 2024
last heard Dec 2024
Ryan Graves’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
That's actually a picture from the pilot in the cockpit.
Yeah. I have the one from the lady, too.
Yeah. That's why, you know, with these cases in New Jersey, what's most compelling for me are these, like, they're not the images themselves, but it's these elected officials, you know, law enforcement officers and others that are, like, very flabbergasted at what they saw, right? They're not just like, well, yeah, there's something, but, I mean, they're pissed off.
They're very confident what they were seeing was not normal. They're having a hard time putting words to it and having a proper photo, but... As you can tell now, I think it's not easy to just put your iPhone up in the sky and grab a photo of something that's far away, right? They're not designed for that.
There's so much AI on phones that interact with your photo before you even see it. It's hard to even tell what you're looking at.
Well, let me tell you, I think, what needs to happen here to be able to better understand the situation. And I think this applies for New Jersey, but it also applies for the much broader kind of UAP conversation as well. So, you know, I told you about discovery. I told you about disclosure.
You know, I think we can only motivate the government so much by just knocking on the door and asking for information. There needs to be a public, unclassified scientific investigation into this from the perspective of trying to attack it as a scientific anomaly, right? Instead of trying to attack it from a request from the government to release new information.
So, I mean, I think this should be a national priority, frankly. We need to have very senior people within the White House that care about this topic, that are leading the charge, perhaps at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, somewhere at that level that can lead this conversation and start to employ different organizations in a public, unclassified manner.
such as Department of Energy, such as the FBI and other reporting sources, so that we can be able to gather this information, investigate it, and then form theories about how we can detect it, whether that be through NEXRAD data in the United States, whether that be through weather satellites, other large data sets that we can use to detect these disturbances.
and work with the Department of Energy to be able to put forward scientific ideas and then utilize their compute resources to be able to process and churn through all this data and see what pops out on the other side. And I think that we can bring in organizations such as the National Science Foundation or National Science Council. We can bring in National Science Foundation, excuse me.
We can bring in offices such as the Office of Strategic Capital and start to actually support the public interest in this conversation by having people that now can access these large data sets and these large compute to be able to run experiments, to bring forward new data sets and technologies, and have this be like a true national effort at a high level.
I don't think that the current structure of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office within the Pentagon serving as a whole of government – point, is going to be effective, especially considering that they are technically charged with investigating potential crimes of the Pentagon itself, right? Conflict of interest there. So this needs to be raised to a much higher level.
And we have the resources in the United States to truly study this. And I think by doing that, we could then potentially confirm what is being discovered through this unclassified method with classified censors, but leave it so that it's repeatable And unclassified so that the scientific and academic community can see the results of that and work off of it.
There could be another way to approach it. So one thing, especially at the last hearings we've heard, is that there needs to be stronger whistleblower protection laws, right? Maybe you've heard that. I've updated my thinking on that. I've done a lot of research on whistleblower protection laws in the United States. And it's actually quite interesting.
You know, we've had whistleblowers from the executive branch whistleblow to the legislative branch in the past. We had the church committee. We've had thousands of people that have come forward and shared classified information with Congress outside the bounds of the executive order that allows for the creation of classified information. None of them have been ever prosecuted.
Now, they may have faced ramifications such as a loss of security clearance. They may have lost their job. Those are real risks. I don't want to downplay them. But the way the system is currently set up, there's an executive order that allows for the creation of classified information. You have the National Security Act that was created in Congress and signed by the president.
And these are the two laws that essentially allow for the creation of that type of information. So when a whistleblower goes to Congress and shares that information, the Congress people are just as susceptible and vulnerable perhaps to having classified information that they're not privy to. So they're in legal jeopardy in a sense.
For there to be prosecutions in Congress or from the whistleblowers themselves, the Supreme Court would have to step in and adjudicate that ruling between that executive order and and the National Security Act. And that's never happened. They don't want to step in on that legislation.
And they've had, you know, I don't know how many years, but decades and opportunities to do so, but they choose not to. So we're in this kind of stalemate where by action, by inaction, whistleblowers have this unspoken protection, if you will, to come in and share that information, lest the Supreme Court step in and change their precedent for the
So there's no reason that any of these potentially susceptible whistleblowers that do fear legal ramifications for those activities couldn't come into Congress, set up a very quiet meeting, share what they have with these Congress people, and allow them to then run with that information clearly away from any personal identification from that whistleblower. That's the world we live in now.
Showing 201–220 of 335 · page 11 of 17
← Previous
Next →