2023-11-18 - Sol Foundation 2023 Symposium Closing Remarks

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated transcript and does include errors. Please check the original if necessary. 

Source Link

Transcript:

David Grusch (00:31):

I assume that's a yes. Okay, so I'm going to have a few minutes of remarks and then there'll be certainly time for question and answer after my couple minutes. I know I'm between you and I assume a wonderful dinner, so I understand that I'm the last guy between you and that, so I'll try to keep it brief and then open it up for questions. So ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining me today here at the first Annual Soul Foundation Conference. I'm hoping that you took a lot away from these last two days, and we're here to discuss a matter, great significance, government transparency regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAP. The VE of secrecy surrounding the subject has captured our collective curiosity far too long and it's time for profound change. In a world where information is power, the transparency of our government and its allies holds the key to unlocking these truths that lie beyond our current public understanding. Imagine a future where we no longer need to speculate about our place in the cosmos, where the shadows of uncertainty are dispelled by the light of disclosure. The impact of revealing information on UP crash, retrievals, and associate activities would be nothing short of revolutionary, and I assume all of us can agree to that point. First and foremost, embracing transparency on UAP matters is an affirmation to our commitment to truth and openness. It's a declaration that we as a society are ready to confront the unknown and unravel the mysteries that have perplexed us for decades.

(02:34):

This willingness to confront the enigma not only builds trust between the governments and its citizens, but also sets a precedent for a new era of accountability.

(02:48):

The release of information on non-human intelligences has the potential to unite humanity in a shared quest for understanding. Regardless of the ontological shock, no longer bound by the limitations of national borders, we would embark on a collective journey of discovery, transcending political distances or differences, and fostering a sense of global unity. The realization that we are not alone in this vast universe could serve as a powerful catalyst or international cooperation reminding us of our shared destiny as inhabitants and stewards of the earth. Moreover, imagine the technological advancements that could stem from broad study. The integration of this kind of technology into our scientific knowledge could propel us to the future with unprecedented innovation, shaping industries, improving our quality of life. It's not just about knowing. It's about the potential to revolutionize our understanding of physics, biology, and chemistry, and other foundational sciences.

(04:09):

Releasing this information in a controlled planned manner, such as Carl Nell has discussed during the conference, as with the Schumer Amendment, has profound implications on our philosophical and spiritual perspectives. The acknowledgement of other worldly intelligences challenges our very concept of existence, encouraging us to reconsider our place in the grand tapestry of the universe. It's an important and profound introspection and a catalyst for a new era of spiritual awakening. In conclusion, this movement ignited in December, 2017 with Leslie and Rouse's famous article. The New York Times is not merely a matter of government transparency. It's a paradigm shift that holds the power to reshape our world. By embracing the unknown, we open ourselves to a future where truth, unity, and technological advancements and a deeper understanding of our existence converge. Let us advocate for transparency, not for ourselves, but for the generations to come as we embark on a journey toward a more enlightened and interconnected world. Thank you. Who dares to ask

Speaker 2 (05:59):

The first question? Okay, well let's line up. I was wondering if you could comment on how far you think the United States or indeed other countries have got with the reverse engineering program and how we got apply these machines. Are they pliable?

David Grusch (06:31):

I'm getting a little bit of double feedback. Do I need to mute my mic to hear it clearly?

Speaker 2 (06:41):

Do it again. Should I ask the question again?

David Grusch (06:48):

I need to mute my mic. Let me know. I was just getting a reverb.

Speaker 2 (06:53):

Let me know if you heard. Should I ask it again?

David Grusch (06:56):

Oh, that sounds better. Okay.

Speaker 2 (06:58):

Okay. I was wondering, David, if you could comment on how far the United States has got or the other countries in the reverse engineering program and why we managed to fight new machines and are they,

David Grusch (07:14):

Yeah, a lot of that I can't answer publicly. A lot of it has been integrated in have conventional class by footprint at this point.

Speaker 2 (07:34):

Thank

Speaker 3 (07:35):

You, David, for everything you've done. I'm curious to know why you did what you did in coming forward and putting yourself up about the para and becoming a target. It's incredibly brave and inspiring.

David Grusch (07:50):

Yeah, I mean, I did a lot of introspection and reflection to make the decision to come forward. Part of my looking into this subject and reporting my findings in the Inspector general, I looked back at my, I served 14 years in the Air Force. I looked at through my core values in the Air Force, espouses integrity curve service before self and all we do, and that may sound to many, but I really believe in that. That's why I signed up Curve when I was the president of college 15 years ago. I didn't want to decide living those core values. I did not want to look back 30 years from now when I'm an older man and a life of regret. And I did not want to

(08:38):

Feel that, oh, I could have done something when I was dealing the government and I should have said something. When this topic became normalized and the momentum was such that Congress was interested in it and I saw what was happening behind the scenes, the preparatory movement for Chuck Schumer to propose this legislation, I was aware of it many months before it was going to get released. I'll just say that. And I realized if I wanted to make a move that I would be probably proud of making 30 years from now, it was probably the right time. It was a combination of external factors that was happening with the subject and supportive public populist, which I was paying attention to when I was still in government. And it kind of just allowed me to self-actualize in a way that I felt that it was selfless service truth.

Speaker 2 (09:32):

Thank you.

(09:41):

Hi, Dave. Thanks for joining us and thank you more generally for your active service for coming forward on this issue. This weekend has really broadened my perspective, I would say, in terms of what I think might be going on, and some of that is diversity of, you think about it from a nuts and bolts perspective of vehicular types or behaviors, orbs versus tic-tacs versus discs, but also that there seems to be some pretty fundamentally diverse nature of maybe behaviors or interactions. So can you, I don't know, fill us in to the extent that you can, and I know you're limited in what you can say, but to what extent do you see that in your experience, the people you talk to? Is that a fundamental aspect of this, that there's lots of things going on, whether we think of them as different species or different types of NHI? Can you comment on that?

David Grusch (10:40):

Yeah, certainly this phenomenon is not a singular type or et cetera. I mean, many of the people I talked to that were actively working on the program did use the term extraterrestrial when briefing myself and my colleagues on their activities. That's the parlance they use within the program. But certainly I'm skeptical of that being the only origin and that's why happy that non-human intelligence has been used in the Schumer amendment because how do you determine origin? Do you believe the origin because your worldview says anything that doesn't look homosapien must come from elsewhere. So I'm familiar with obviously the work Jacque Vallee and others have done, and I think certainly many scholars will probably back me up on this where I think there's this non-oral phenomenon. Who knows what that is? Just like as Jacque fil has mentioned in passport magonia, it could be interdimensional multidimensional because the phenomenon shows itself in forms over the years from antiquity, which is sitting on chess, which maybe was the progenitor of the modern abduction phenomenon potentially. So I don't think the US government has a handle on all the different types of origins of phenomenon. That is the vibe I got. We certainly, the term extra terrestial has been used behind closed doors with me, but I just am a little skeptical that that is the total answer, the genesis.

Speaker 4 (12:28):

Good evening. First off, thank you for your service in the United States Air Force and thank you for everything you've done to get us to this point. My question is in the context of hopefully the passage of the Schumer Amendment have a more open conversation in government and public policy about UAP technology, have you or the foundation given any thought to endorsing or advocating for like a UP weapons test ban treaty or weaponization ban treaty to prevent the use of effectively next generation WMDs in the military station of the technology?

David Grusch (13:02):

No, that's actually a very interesting idea that I think is worth exploring. I mean, certainly in terms of space policy, there's the outer space treat entity stuff, and then some of the other associated degrees and seventies and stuff that talk about how we claim selector bodies to our own, which actually freeze says you're not supposed to us, is not supposed to clean either the moon for itself as a sovereign territory and it's a maritime law log sea that kind of applies to space. So besides that, in some of the conventional analogs in terms of test three, stark one and two of thing, that's actually a very interesting idea to explore. And I'll actually take note of that. Put that on my to-do list. That's actually something

Speaker 5 (13:56):

Thank you for being here today. I'm so sorry that you've been threatened for standing up in this topic and I was wondering what should we be doing as UFO researchers to protect ourselves and our families?

David Grusch (14:09):

We certainly following the law, so that's why I'm very careful when I say anything specific I want to say, I do run it through publications to review. Anybody who's had a top secret clearance has been officer has to go through the thing. And I've always advocated for in a legal manner, somebody's in the audience or has knowledge about these programs, seek established procedures through the Inspector General, through obviously the arrow office as well as relates to UAP. Yeah, in terms of specific protections, private citizens, I mean besides understanding how to properly conduct research in a legal and ethical manner. I guess that's something can think of off the top of my head. Yeah,

Speaker 4 (15:09):

My question's pretty brief. It's two parts. Why do you think this is happening now and what do you think are the best next steps for the community to do?

David Grusch (15:21):

Yeah, I mean, why it's happening now? I think it's just the culmination of the energy that people who fell in my footsteps call it that kind of thing, and the energy that was created in 2017 and some of the effective congressional engagements know how this is a potential natural security threat interest to or the public. And there's been a good public engagements with the different media, whether YouTube, history channel, whatnot. I think that's created that kind of interest in destigmatization and next steps. I mean, certainly we don't want to rely on the government for everything, but the fewer amendment and also some of the provisions in the Intel Authorization Act that allows the intel committees to fence off funds for special access programs that are not being reported to Congress is a step in the right direction. But this is quite frankly why we have the full foundation and certainly other 5 0 1 threes like Ryan Graves foundation as well, is we need to basically create a parallel track of research and independent discovery that aren't necessarily dependent on the US government to provide us all the answers.

(16:46):

Because ultimately it's up to the chief executive to disclose regardless of what the disclosure panel may come up with in terms of a controlled disclosure plan, but we should put all our eggs in that basket. So reading, think tanks, foundations, things from for-profit venture cap type organizations that look at material or things like the Gallier project to do internal collection, internal ing, do fingerprint phenomenon in many different ways as possible, optically, radar, et cetera, and broadly and openly discuss it through conferences like this and peer review publication, I think is the right way. There's a parallel track. It's not to hold that eggs in one basket with the government giving us all the answers.

Speaker 4 (17:41):

Hey David, it is such an honor to be here with everybody here today and to speak with you. This is a historic meeting. I'm just so stoked. But I have a question for you. So five years from now, just picture yourself, daily life, the legacy that you've already built in the last year, and what you ideally would like to see in your own life, just moving ahead five years, a whole world, but personal to you as well. I'm just curious where you'd like to see yourself.

David Grusch (18:10):

Yeah. Thirdly, I would love to go back to my private life. That would be great. It's not something that I ever thought I'd be doing in my life. I was on a very good trajectory in my televis career. So I've made it abrupt dip to the right to become a public figure, which I take that burden seriously and I want to effectively communicate. But personally, I would love, so the panel obviously is going to go to at least 2030. I would love to work on that as a staff member, not necessarily as a panelist. I think there needs to be luminaries that are the best scholars in the US be on that panel. But certainly if the current or succeeding administrations would like to bring me on to support the panel in any way. I mean, I'll go get coffee just to sit in a room to listen to the discussions out of professional intellectual curiosity. So I would like to serve once more, go back to governments, what that looks like. I'm open to suggestions, but certainly if there's any way I can support the panel, even if it's through full foundation and maybe not going back to government service, I think it's just so important to help inform and guide those members, whoever gets put on that panel and cross our fingers. The amendment gets passed within the National Authorization Act there in a month. But I would just love to start it that way. That'd be great.

(19:43):

I can think of no better end to the conference than the things that Dave has already said, so I won't philosophize any further than that. So really, on behalf of what, Peter, do you want to say anything or?

Speaker 6 (19:57):

No, just thank you for being here. And Dave, thanks for showing up and giving us the last.