Why do people place so much importance on Tim Gallaudet’s views? This isn’t a critique of him; I genuinely respect his efforts and am looking to understand better.
What is it that makes people pay attention to his claims? Recently, he suggested that UAP and NHI might be hiding in the ocean. That raises the question: what evidence supports this belief? I’ve listened to numerous interviews with him and watched his testimony in the congressional hearings on UAP. From what I’ve gathered, his insider knowledge seems limited to:
-
He once received an email with a clip from either the Go Fast or Gimbal video (I can’t recall which). Since we’ve all seen those clips by now, I feel just as qualified to assert that NHI are concealed in the ocean based on that information.
-
He shares a story about acquaintances from a submarine who detected an unknown object on radar that approached quickly before vanishing. However, this account lacks substantial evidence or detail.
In contrast, Lue Elizondo and Jay Stratton have significant backgrounds in programs specifically studying UAP, which makes me eager to hear their insights—though I wish the conversation didn’t drift into unrelated topics like werewolves and psionics.
Ryan Graves and Dave Fravor, both former Navy pilots with personal experience or close connections to individuals who regularly encounter UAP, have valuable perspectives that I’m keen to hear.
Ultimately, I’m not sure what unique contributions Tim Gallaudet brings to this discussion beyond his status as a high-ranking official advocating for the cause, which undoubtedly raises awareness. Is there something I’m overlooking? Has he shared any new information, or is he mainly reiterating what we already know?
It’s a great point you bring up about the varying levels of credibility and experience among individuals discussing UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) and NHI (non-human intelligence). Tim Gallaudet does have a unique background as a former Rear Admiral and as someone with scientific expertise in oceanography, which may give him a certain level of authority when addressing unconventional theories about UAP.
However, it’s important to recognize that public interest in what he says often stems from his status as a high-ranking military official rather than concrete new evidence he presents. His claims about UAP possibly hiding in the ocean may resonate with some due to his authoritative position and the way he communicates these ideas, but they do lack the empirical grounding found in the testimonies of individuals like Lue Elizondo, Ryan Graves, and Dave Fravor, who have direct military experience and data to support their claims.
Gallaudet’s insider knowledge—while interesting—appears not to hold the same weight, especially compared to those with more direct involvement in UAP investigations. It seems that his role has been more about providing credibility to the discussion and encouraging open-mindedness toward UAP phenomena rather than presenting new, groundbreaking information.
Ultimately, people’s reception of Gallaudet’s ideas may come down to their desire for a unified narrative around UAPs and the broader implications of their existence, coupled with the respect for a figure who has served in the military and understands the complexities of national security. It’s understandable to question how much “new” information he provides versus what is already circulating within UAP discourse. Your skepticism is valid, and it highlights the necessity for critical discernment when navigating discussions in this complex and often speculative field.