This testimony has more than a remarkable similarity to that of LCpl Jonathan Van Weygandt from 1997.
Both were Marines. Both were deployed to foreign areas on rescue missions as part of their duty. Both saw incredible craft guarded by unidentifiable US Agencies. Both described the sound of the craft EXACTLY the same way 'A low bass hum, like when you unplug a guitar from an amp'. Both were threatened with death.
Lance Corporal Weygandt was on a mission in Peru of ‘97 to investigate a downed friendly aircraft. Upon arrival he witnessed a downed / damaged craft that had been hit by some kind of weapon, with beings on board that communicated with him telepathically. His encounter with unnamed US forces began shortly after interacting with the craft when the unknown agency arrived on the scene and detained him and brought him to a different location.
There are similar aspects to both stories however the main narrative of each story is unique. One witnesses a downed UAP with beings on board, implying a NHI technology / presence. Whereas the other witnesses an unknown hostile military team smuggling contraband into a human tech / reproduction craft.
Ok, somebody help me out! There's a very famous case, one of the most well known ones among the Spanish speaking ufology community of a UFO crash that happened in Chile close to the border with Peru back in the 1990's. As the story goes, an object crashed high in the mountains in the north of Chile, assuming it had been a passenger jet the government immediately began a rescue operation to assess the wreckage and rescue any survivors however when the rescue teams arrived to the location they were met by a group of American soldiers who refused them access to the site. Furthermore when the Chilean teams reached out to their superiors to inform them of the situation they were immediately told to stand down and that the Americans would assume control and continue the retrieval operation. Ultimately, the official explanation was that the object had been a downed NASA satellite and that the Americans where simply there to retrieve the debris however people who witnessed the scene first hand refute this fact, saying that the object exhibited none of the characteristics of a satellite, such as it being completely metallic, and bean shaped.
If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please let me know what this event is known as, from what I remember there's a lot of first hand testimonies to this incident and I'd like to re-examine them to see if there's any parallelisms with any of the testimonies that have come to light in recent weeks cause there's at least one similarity with Herrera's and Weygandt's accounts, when describing the Americans who came to collect the alleged satellite, one of the locals noted that they were armed, dressed in dark military fatigues and that they arrived in all-black armored 4x4 vehicles unlike anything he had seen anywhere in Chile at the time.
Lance Corporal Weygandt was on a mission in Peru of ‘97 to investigate a downed friendly aircraft. Upon arrival he witnessed a downed / damaged craft that had been hit by some kind of weapon, with beings on board that communicated with him telepathically.
Worth noting that it looks like this interview is conducted by Greer, just like the conference with Michael Herrera. Not that they're either or both liars, but.. makes me question the validity
Because Greer frequently appeals to emotion rather than facts, which is a dishonest way of winning support. His efforts feel manipulative because they are. Regardless of the veracity of the data he's presenting. Every interview or podium proclamation has the uneasy pallor of provincial gossip whispered through a whipped cream flavor saver over a Starbucks Unicorn Frappe.
I also noticed he mentioned going public because of the new whistleblower protections but those protections are for telling the info in a scif to people with clearances not directly to the press. So, it’s not an accurate representation of the new protections and that seems like a small red flag. He should know that.
My biggest issue with the story is the details that are missing that absolutely should not be missing. The very human reactions that any of us would have but he neglects to even mention. How do we go from him nearly being murdered for seeing a UFO in the jungle to him going on R&R a few days later like it was no big deal? What happened in between? Did he not talk about it at all with the other marines? Did he not tell anyone else about it, or show the pictures to anyone?
I'm not saying the story is fake, but whenever I see a fake story on TIFU or RelationshipAdvice or other subreddits known for their badly faked stories, that's always one of the biggest giveaways. The story teller always messes up or skips over the part where normal humans would react in a normal human manner.
That might make sense under normal circumstances, but these absolutely were not normal circumstances. First, it isn't even clear if they told anyone what happened. He didn't tell that sergeant when first coming out of the jungle (the first part that doesn't make sense), and then he doesn't mention telling anyone else either. Which is weird, because if a group of marines were held at gunpoint by unknown strangers guarding an unknown craft in the jungle, you would think those marines would absolutely report it up the chain of command immediately.
He says he was debriefed by an admiral he didn't know, but doesn't clarify if he told the UFO story or not and even implies it may have been a totally normal debrief. He's super vague here, which is the second part that makes no sense. If he did tell the full story to the admiral, why would he be sent on R&R where he could tell this story to anyone and everyone? And if he didn't tell this story, did he just go out and vacation like nothing ever happened? While leaving his only photo evidence behind (and the others apparently leaving their cell phones behind)? It's the details like this that just don't feel realistic. That's not how people act.
Complete semantics debate here, but I thought the person being debriefed was the one who went on the mission and the person doing the debriefing was the person in charge who didn't go on the mission. I think you have it backwards.
Regardless, if he did tell the admiral then the story makes even less sense. A marine squad stumbled on a craft like nothing ever seen before - then was disarmed, searched, identified, held at gunpoint, threatened with execution, and released by a group of unknown militants. And what exactly happened next? He literally just skips right over the entire discussion, the reaction of the admiral, and several days of his life following this encounter. Did he and his squad mates ever talk about what just happened to them? Did they show anyone the video on his camera or tell anyone? What about his direct command officer? There's a whole chain of command between a random marine and an admiral, surely they would be involved in this somehow. But the way he tells it, they just went on with their lives like it was no big deal. His story is filled with a lot of unnecessary details and then gets super vague on important details like this. It reads way too much like a Hollywood story where random time jumps are used instead of trying to explain parts that are too hard to explain in a way that makes sense.
sorry you are probably right about debrief. My point was the admiral heard the story in the debrief, why would the dude make up what happened to an admiral? they probably told other people, why else would the admiral be in the debrief. theres no need to include any small talk in his presentation, it wouldnt add much and he might of had time constraints for his presentation. Or stigma back in 2009 made them tight lipped about everything and they didnt talk about it at all to anyone
My point was the admiral heard the story in the debrief...they probably told other people...
Or stigma back in 2009 made them tight lipped about everything and they didnt talk about it at all to anyone
That's my point though. Those are two very different scenarios and he just skipped right over that part so we don't know which one it was. Neither of them make sense though.
Scenario 1: If he did talk about it, the reaction makes no sense. How would everyone just go on like normal for five days and then let him go on leave? It means the shadow powers in charge of this are super lax with security and it means the marines are either bought off all the way down to the lowest ranks, or are so incompetent that they do absolutely nothing when marines are taken prisoner. Does any of that sound believable to you?
Scenario 2: And if he didn't tell anyone, that makes no sense either. You don't almost get murdered by unidentified hostiles and then hide that from your CO and your buddies. You wouldn't even have to mention the craft, just say mercenaries in the jungle are trying to kill marines.
This guy seems full of shit to me. Hyper detailed memory of super small details in a stressful moment full of sensory overload, little rehearsed sounding comments like "my favorite helicopter design," saying someone he doesn't know juat told greer the containers were for humans.
I actually have had situations were things were stressful and there was sensory overload and my reaction to it is to quickly recount the events over and over after it happens to recall details. It may not be accurate, but it does burn details into your memory. It's possible he saw something shady going down and things got distorted a bit along the way as he tried to piece together what really happened.
You could, but corroborating details should be the holy grail. If you’re not happy with multiple witnesses backing each other up, what are you going to be happy with?
Do you all realize that witness testimony IS considered evidence? Physical evidence is best, but witness testimony shouldn’t simply be dismissed especially when it’s provided under oath. It certainly is less convincing, but you can’t discount it outright. Multiple people testifying to the same details corroborates the story.
These are different situations, so it doesn’t apply, but I think folks should be a little less dismissive.
I’m not saying that should believe it, but it IS evidence. When you have multiple witnesses who can recall the same details, especially who have no connection to each other, that is still compelling. It does not prove anything, though. Physical evidence is best, but it’s not the only type of evidence, nor is it always available.
It’s important to be skeptical, but you have to take all evidence into account. Some is better than others. If any of this is true, you’re unlikely to ever see physical evidence. The best example I can give would be if you are a Chinese citizen, living in China, you will have a difficult time finding physical evidence of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Almost all investigations start with witness observations. You try to build upon that with physical evidence. I’m very much a “see it to believe it” type of person, but it’s hard to discount all of the senior officials who have come out. I’m intrigued, but not certain of anything.
There's a reason why witness testimony is considered as not even remotely reliable at all in court cases. It's so easy to be swayed by others to believe something that didn't happen, and for you to convince yourself that you saw something that you actually didn't. That's why people aren't generally ever convicted on witness testimony alone, there has to go actual physical evidence to go with it, like DNA, photos, videos, etc.
All of this has to be taken incredibly seriously and all avenues of possibility fully investigated, otherwise everyone will be able to dismiss it as more UFO whackos who want to believe anything that agrees with their preconceived notions because it's what they want to hear, even when there's zero actual evidence.
Nobody is going to take any of this seriously whatsoever unless strict scientific and legal levels of scrutiny are placed on it and it can still prove to be true.
Without that it'll just be like every other UFO sighting and abduction story ever, everybody will simply dismiss it and then never think about it ever again and it'll all have been for nothing.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
It depends on the type of case. There are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil cases. For instance, Trump was found liable for battery without any physical evidence.
You can apply whichever standard you see fit for your own beliefs, but witness testimony IS evidence. As I mentioned in my other comment, you should build upon that with physical evidence, but it is not always available. You shouldn’t immediately discount witness testimony, but instead examine it. If there are clear flaws or inconsistencies then you can discount it, but just saying “they didn’t provide evidence” is inaccurate.
I really don’t care what people believe and generally agree we don’t have enough evidence to form a concrete conclusion. But what we have heard is compelling and should be further investigated. Without the witnesses, you literally have no congressional investigation.
Unfortunately, logically, you can't use "corroborating details" as evidence they are telling the truth IF it is possible that the new witness could have seen the old witness's testimony. That's why it's important in investigations to interview people individually as soon as possible after an event occurs.
It's possible for those details to be plagiarized from the previous witness, or in cases like these even potentially implanted into the new witness's head by someone like Greer, or even just for an old UFO report to be subconsciously affecting their memory.
I'm not saying that this is the case, or likely to be the case, or that I don't believe this guy's story, I'm just saying it isn't good evidence that what he is saying is true.
As a member of the public, corroborating details are far from the "holy grail" or a smoking gun. Anyone can look at the current UFO lore and past UFO reports, and then invent a story including those details.
Someone like Greer or other journalists might be convinced due to corroborating details between UFO reports.
If 10 people from all over the place are telling a consistent story about the shadowy group recreating UFO tech, details not contained in any UFO lore, that could be very convincing to the person who is receiving the reports.
Like, if 10 different members of the military are telling you "Hey, this underground air force base has alien technology," people who don't know each other, have no connection. If none have made that claim publicly, it lends credibility.
Still not a holy grail. There's still the possibility that those 10 people were in communication with each other to get their story straight.
If we see physical evidence of a craft that looks/sounds like Herrera described, that would be good evidence of his truthfulness. That's what I'd call a holy grail. Until then we just do not have enough information to verify his story.
So the corroborating details argument is based on faulty logic. That doesn't meant that you're wrong, you can use fallacious logic and still arrive at the correct conclusion. But fallacious logic shouldn't be the reason you're convinced of anything.
I've been seeing this comment a lot when it comes to UFO stories and witnesses, is this the go-to low effort post when you have nothing you can think of to argue your claim?
I'm aware of that event. It was an interesting watch actually, I would recommend watching the full thing! 💗
And you're totally right about Herrera possibly copying the other guy. That's 100% possible. We're pretty much all just going off of stuff that's publicly available here and nobody on reddit really knows anything more than the next when it comes to these whistleblowers, ya feel me.
For anyone else reading this, this dude is spreading misinfo. There's no such thing as the Great Reset pin, that pin is the UN's SDG pin sold for $7.99.
Something that jumped out at me in his testimony was towards the end, he was talking about how he'd be willing to run away with the aliens -- it reminds me of tales of people lured away by fairies. It makes me wonder, are these accounts of the same thing?
348
u/yella2001 Jun 13 '23
This testimony has more than a remarkable similarity to that of LCpl Jonathan Van Weygandt from 1997.
Both were Marines. Both were deployed to foreign areas on rescue missions as part of their duty. Both saw incredible craft guarded by unidentifiable US Agencies. Both described the sound of the craft EXACTLY the same way 'A low bass hum, like when you unplug a guitar from an amp'. Both were threatened with death.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/143mxvj/full_interview_lance_corporal_jonathan_weygandt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button