ENTAUS

E very podcast, tweet, article … every everything UFO or UAP has, of course, been agog with the Grusch bomb since that fateful day last month. One is left wondering: Will this be one of those “do you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot” moments? (The reference is particularly unsettling, of course, since the recent Schumer legislation, in an act of perhaps unwilful entwinement of real-life intrigue with the sensationalist fluff of conspiracist fantasy-mongering, bases itself on that surrounding efforts to declassify and release documents related to the Kennedy Assassination.) The fallout is left hanging around like a White Noise -style miasma following – in this case – the hapless among us who wish to move on to the more fundamental question of evidence . It is not just a fundamental question, without an examination of which we make no progress in the empirical, factual study of UAP qua object of science (a fraught question, to be sure, and one worthy of careful epistemic di

[The following arose as a long tangent during the course of writing up my thoughts on this year’s SCU “ Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena ” conference. For the sake of the sanity of my three readers, I thought I would segregate these thoughts in an entirely separate  post. My review of this year ’ s AAPC is in preparation and should be released in the next week or so.] I t’s not clear what the real epistemic effect will be of the “ SCIF ” offering which Grusch, several times, made to the congresspeople presiding over last week’s bombshell hearing , or directing questions to him. (You can read the transcript of the hearing for yourself to see how many SCIF offers he made, and to whom he made them. Is anyone going to keep tabs on whether those congresspeople given the invitation actually follow through?) Let’s suppose for fun that congressperson X steps into the SCIF with Grush, and Grusch spills the beans: names, locations, … you name it: here’s the beef . What happens? Well, insofar as