Underwater UAPs, and the controversy continues with a new authoritative figure

The UAP/UFO controversy and claims of cover-ups from high in the administration refuse to go away. And a new highly qualified, ranked, and authoritative figure has entered into the fray and has identified another dimension to it - the threat of alien underwater vehicles and the history of their observation. A new article in Liberation Times goes well into this, at https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/ret...vementnbsp :

In an interview with Liberation Times, retired Rear Admiral and former Acting Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tim Gallaudet, underscored the potential threat of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) to submariners. He also called for greater involvement and action from the White House’s National Security Council in directing the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community to provide greater transparency on the topic.

Gallaudet wants to look in the oceans for UAP and evidence of higher non-human intelligence because he knows the area really well. He has even authored a recent white paper addressing the undersea aspect of UAP for the Sol Foundation, at https://thesolfoundation.org/wp-content/...Vol1N1.pdf . 

An example of a truly apparently intelligently controlled anomalous underwater object observed under the sea: 

"One retired submariner was referred by Gallaudet to the DoD’s UAP office, known as the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).

In the 1980s, while serving aboard a U.S. submarine in the North Atlantic, the retired submariner witnessed a perplexing scenario: sonar suggested the presence of a Russian torpedo closing in on the vessel, but it soon became apparent that the object had no clear explanation.

Gallaudet told Liberation Times:

“The submariner was in the North Atlantic during a very significant storm, when you had 40-foot waves. The waves mix the water up and create a lot of noise, making it really hard for submarines to find each other.
“He did not expect to see any submarine contacts because of the high sea state. But the submarine encountered an object that started closing in on it rapidly.
“It was so fast that the signature had every indication that it was a Russian torpedo. The crew had trained for this scenario. But it didn't make any sense for Russian submarines to be in that area and to be able to detect their submarine because of the high noise and sea state.”
Demonstrating the seriousness of the situation, Gallaudet explained how the submarine’s crew were forced to take emergency action:
“They were surprised and ended up taking evasive manoeuvres. They dove deep near the crush depth of the submarine.”
But strangely, the object slowed down as it approached the submarine, to the astonishment of the crew.
Gallaudet explained:
“The object slowed down as it approached and then went around the submarine to the stern and began slowly trailing it.
“It trailed the submarine for a time and then rapidly moved out of the area.”
As a highly distinguished naval veteran who has extensive knowledge and experience of undersea phenomena and military systems, Gallaudet has struggled to find an explanation for the encounter:
“It had no explanation”, Gallaudet asserted.
“Our technology couldn't do that. The Russians didn't have this in the 1980s, nor do they now -  so it cannot be explained.”

Gallaudet comments that the way the DOD has treated such threats has led to great frustration among numerous active and retired military and intelligence officials. Gallaudet told Liberation Times that there are people he trusts who have had access to UFO/UAP retrieval programs (which do in fact exist or at least have existed), and they know and he knows that there are different types of non-human intelligence visiting us whose intentions we do not know.

It should be noted that Gallaudet believes that AARO's recent attempt to dismiss allegations of advanced non-human intelligence visiting Earth can be traced to the top - the National Security Council and its boss in the White House. “This President right now is not looking good in the polls, and I wouldn't think that he'd want to disclose to the public all of a sudden in this election year that, “hey, we don't know what's in our airspace or water space and we can't control it - have a good day America.”

"Gallaudet is also hopeful that the Senate can resurrect key provisions included within the original UAPDA, such as an Independent Review Board dedicated to the disclosure of UAP information and materials:

“I think we have to re-attack the Schumer Amendment and really get the provisions that were stripped out back into the next one that passed into law. That was really everything we needed to get the information out gradually."

https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallac...ity-250336

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact.

https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallac...ity-250336

Not sure this applies here...though I am rather skeptical given this seems to be another [case] of a person who claims to have heard from other people.

Though even as the link notes there are cases of legitimate authority, and in the case of witnessing something anomalous in a submarine someone serving in the military might be considered legitimate to a degree. It is definitely different than some random drunkard claiming to see lights in the sky or unverified claims prior to any serious recording technology that cannot be corroborated now.

Where things get the most tricky with UFOs/UAPs, I think, is explaining why aliens seem to largely hide themselves from mass human viewing (though there are a few cases with many witnesses). At least for me this is the thing I can't help but wonder when it comes to these entities.

https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336

"A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."

Of course. But neither is it worthless in determining the truth of or what are the facts of a matter. It all depends on the credibility of the testimony-giver. You can't just throw out credible testimony based on the bare fact that it is testimony.

Consider the value of testimonial evidence as it has become in courts of law. In this venue evidence can take the form of testimony, or of course documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects. The significance of testimonial evidence is that it is considered valid support for any case when used ethically and effectively. This means testimony can bear directly on what are considered facts.

Do you have any specific evidence that this person is not an underwater submarine technology expert, is not credible, or is unethical or even lying in his presentation, in particular regarding the detailed account of the submarine encounter with something unexplainable as human technology? Or in all the detailed enumerations of many other underwater UAP encounters that he included in his research paper?

So, what makes a testimony valuable? Honesty. Sincerity. Truthfulness. Do you have any concrete evidence that his testimony re. underwater UAPs lacks these qualities, and if so what is it? You need to specifically discredit this testimony by presenting actual evidence that contradicts his testimony or reveals a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in the statements.

So, what makes a testimony valuable? Honesty. Sincerity. Truthfulness. Do you have any concrete evidence that his testimony re. underwater UAPs lacks these qualities, and if so what is it? You need to specifically discredit this testimony by presenting actual evidence that contradicts his testimony or reveals a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in the statements.

I would say the challenge lies in:

1.) There are interviewees/testimonies/etc that we can see or at least read for ourselves.

2.) The claim that what was sighted were physical vehicles. Because this leads to questions of why the vehicles don't appear in public places to the degree they seemingly appear in secretive areas.

I don't think these are insurmountable, and I do agree that *something* unconventional is happening with UFO/UAP/"Alien" encounters given their volume, but the conjecture that he has a slam dunk on underwater UAPs but the POTUS is motivated to not disclose due to bad polls sounds like the convenient argument of a grifter...