This is a market about David Grusch's claims about an alleged secret government program. Per Wikipedia:
Grusch claims that the U.S. federal government maintains a highly secretive UFO retrieval program and possesses multiple spacecraft of non-human origin as well as corpses of deceased pilots. Grusch also claims there is "substantive evidence that white-collar crime" took place to conceal UFO programs and that he had interviewed officials who said that people had been killed to conceal the programs.
This is an independent multiple choice market, options can resolve yes or no by themselves. An option resolves yes if I am reasonably confident that it is more than 50% likely to be true, before January 1st 2025.
In legal terms, think of this as a civil case rather than a criminal one. I only need to think that a preponderance of the evidence supports a claim, rather than being sure it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
I will not trade in this market after betting options down to reasonable base rates. If my judgement is contested I will delegate judgement to another unbiased moderator or a group of moderators.
I may edit these exact resolution rules to better align with the spirit of the question, and am open to suggestions. I may also make minor edits to the options to make it more clear what claim they are describing and what would and would not count. I am also happy to hear suggestions of more claims to add.
For my own bias, I am very skeptical of claims about non-human intelligence but an open to the possibility and intrigued by the mystery of UAPs. I am entirely open to the possibility of mundane government fraud, but very skeptical of anyone having been killed to cover up mundane fraud.
My hope is that a market that separates the specific claims made by Grusch and which only requires something to seem more likely than not will encourage people to break down what parts of his testimony are likely to be true and what parts are likely to be false.
Related questions
https://twitter.com/blackvaultcom/status/1783598982658437629?s=46
@Joshua , you can see here that records were indeed destroyed, so you can decide whether this resolution is now YES.
I think that there's more than enough evidence that a preponderance of the evidence suggests that these E-Mails were intentionally deleted. Any reasonable person would clearly have denied an illegal act (not retaining the records per Federal law) when given multiple times to do so.
The context is that the man whose E-Mails were deleted led a program in the government related to UAPs, and around the time the FOIA request was made, he stated that the government was reverse engineering a craft of unknown origin and had gained access to its interior.
I think that the "bodies" question is worded incorrectly, but it's too late to change it now. It would have been better to state that the government "possessed" bodies at one time.
@Joshua , could you make a question on whether agencies and contractors have destroyed records and evidence in 2023 as the UAP Disclosure Act went through Congress? I would definitely bet on that one.
In fact, I expect that the "bodies" would have been destroyed along with everything except anything useful for creating weapons technology.
@SteveSokolowski Sure, let me look into the records thing to figure out the right wording. Also, I'm just going to edit the answers about possession to include past possession and I think no one will object.
@SteveSokolowski Proposed wording:
The 2024 NDAA orders the creation of a UAP Records Collection of all government/contractor records related to UAPs/NHI. In 2023, many such highly secret records were destroyed so they would not have to be turned over in 2024 per the NDAA.
@SteveSokolowski Added, and always happy to minorly tweak these within the spirit of the question. Seems like there was a lot of back and forth around the UAP disclosure act specifics for example, like it was originally something a bit stricter about disclosure and then a final weaker version got included in the NDAA? Regardless, looks like it has lots of record collection deadlines in 2024 so hopefully we know more about all this by the end of the year.
@Joshua Well, it isn't a "weaker" version - it's an ineffective version. The original 64-page version, which took years to write, established a presidential commission and appointed a nine-person panel of scientists to evaluate the evidence and determine what, if anything, requires secrecy for national security. Otherwise, by default it all would have been released (not coincidentally, I'm sure) a few weeks before Election Day. Over the 300 days in 2024, the commission would have had subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify and eminent domain would have forced defense contractors to turn the craft over to them to review.
Additionally, the panel would have been given $22m to hire scientists, engineers, writers, and directors who would generate easy-to-read summaries for the public, to make it clear in simple language what is true and what is not. The leakers say the subject has multiple layers, from the white-collar crime angle, to the nature of the aliens, to the new view of human history, and the CIA's research on consciousness. The bill would have had them produce documentaries a layperson can understand, because there probably were millions of pages of documents of highly technical information with scientific terms.
All of that was removed from the bill by the representative of the district where it has always been rumored that Lockheed Martin has stored the NHI craft and used its technology to develop weapons. Lockheed additionally is one of Turner's biggest donors, and there are images of him visiting Lockheed facilities.
The new version, which does not presume disclosure, simply instructs agencies to turn over documents to an "archivist" if the data is not required to be kept secret for "national security." It allows the agencies to destroy most of the records, turn over some token stuff that's not important, and just state that everything else is too sensitive for release due to national security reasons.
The original version permanently revoked all authority for determining the classification of NHI secrets from anyone except the President, and prohibited the President from being able to delegate that authority in the future. Disclosure was the default in that bill, and the President was required to provide a detailed reason if he vetoed a specific document's release.
The new version is written so that a technicality in the existing law actually prevents the President from using executive action to legally disclose the information. That's because the Department of Energy can classify some things as "nuclear secrets," and a law from the early 20th century prevents the President from overruling that one specific type of classification. The leaked documents and witness testimony show that the NHI craft emit some type of radiation, so even if it isn't dangerous, the radiation was used as the excuse to call UFOs "nuclear secrets." Therefore, the President can't disclose the information without the original Act's repeal of that provision, and the "archivist" also cannot do so for the same reason if the data is classified into this category (which most of it undoubtedly is.)
@SteveSokolowski What evidence have you seen to support the idea that the US both possessed AND subsequently destroyed alien corpses? Why would they possibly be motivated to do that?
@benshindel When I suggest that data will be destroyed, I'm not suggesting there is evidence of that yet. I'm simply saying it's what criminals do.
Whatever they have, it would give them plausible deniability if they could destroy all of it and allow the NHI presence to be "rediscovered" by AI in a few years. Remember, Grusch is alleging that violence and massive fraud took place.
When Genesis's fraudulent balance sheets came to light, salesperson Griffin Tiedy actually sent me Telegrams to try to "get his story straight" and then deleted all his messages (which I promptly sent to the FBI). And that was when only $4m was stolen. I think it would be foolish to think people wouldn't destroy evidence for $1 trillion in missing assets.
There should be ways to infer if data was destroyed, though. For example, there are statements that the government has made throughout the years that reference specific classified documents, the Roswell incident being one particular case. If those never come to light, then we know that some data "disappeared."
@SteveSokolowski Roswell incident has been thoroughly debunked. If you're using that to infer anything, you're doing inference wrong
@benshindel It doesn't matter if the incident was "debunked" or not. What matters is that it is known that documents exist referencing the incident. The documents could theoretically be about the weather (if the weather needed to be classified.)
If those documents never appear, then we can infer they were destroyed.
@SteveSokolowski that's a false dichotomy between documents being found or destroyed. I would imagine that the vast majority of documents created in history do not fall into those two categories
As opposed to the other options, this one is rather likely under a "UAPs of non-alien origin" hypothesis. UAP might be aircraft of rival powers, or simply interesting physical phenomena. The military would be interested in retrieving and understanding how they work regardless of their origin. I mean, what would even be the object of a highly secretive UAP program if not to retrieve and analyze their technology?
@CalebW You mean like creating advanced stealth drones, and then the stealth drones are reported as UAPs by people who don't know what they are? I guess I'd count that, if the program is indeed run by a shadow government and using amounts of money that hasn't been accounted for.
@Joshua how large is large? $2 trillion/half of pentagon assets are accounted for - would a few percent count as large? https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html
@CalebW I'll look into that and try to think of how to be more specific, but my first arbitrary though is that a "large portion" is at least a third of the missing spending. And the claim is that this has been happening for decades, not just recently.
[accidental comment]