TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @EricRWeinstein

EricRWeinstein
Posted - November 22, 2025 at 7:02 PM
Saved - November 23, 2025 at 1:49 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve talked to David Grusch many times and found no inconsistencies; his mind for excruciating details is razor sharp. What he’s saying is beyond belief, and I believe he isn’t lying. He discusses crash retrievals and bodies with no holds barred. Could I be wrong and he’s just acting? Possible, but not likely; he’s very technical, and I’ve never seen anyone handle technical topics like him. Something remarkable is going on.

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

David Grusch has talked to me many times. I have never heard any inconsistency in any set of statements. He has an unusual mind for excruciating details and discusses them with razor sharp precision at all times. What he is saying is beyond belief. And I believe he is not lying.

@UAPWatchers - Skywatch Signal

🚨David Grusch Went on Fox News and Removed Every Excuse Anyone Had Left Davi Grusch dropped the kind of statements that should make the entire country stop in its tracks. He discusses everything from crash retrievals to bodies, no holds barred. #UAP #UFOs #Grusch #Disclosure #FoxNews #Transparency #NonHuman #Congress #UAPTaskForce #TruthMatters Source Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFIOoS7XFN4&t=161s

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 notes that the last administration was not transparent on the issue, but with the task force created, they have guided members within what they're cleared for. He asserts that they have encountered alien beings and recovered vehicles, with physical proof, and that he was partially cleared into those activities, having read intelligence reports from those programs. Speaker 1 reflects that online discourse about encounters and videos is plentiful, and asks if there is belief that the US government knows about alien beings coming to Earth. Speaker 0 responds that he doesn’t like to characterize where they came from, but they are definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. He claims to have recovered vehicles and physical proof and says he had partial access to the data and to intelligence reports. He confirms seeing with his own eyes according to his account. Speaker 2 says NASA speaks for itself and claims transparency with data, and asks whether to believe David Crush or if he is lying, and where the evidence is. Speaker 0 asserts that members of the current administration are very aware of this reality and the current president is knowledgeable on the subject. He trusts the president’s leadership and believes the president has assembled a team; he says if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3 says he has access and has had meetings with very smart people who believe there is something out there, and it makes sense there could be. He is not convinced himself. He asks if the person believes one, that he knows, and two, that he’s open to transparency on UAPs. Speaker 0 reiterates that the president is very well informed on the issue, and avoids revealing more than the president might want to reveal. He notes a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 1 asks about years of threat and testimony. Speaker 0 says he was physically threatened even before submitting his intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration, and sought legal protection because of professional and personal fear. Speaker 1 asks about recovering pilots or remains and whether that was seen with his own eyes. Speaker 0 confirms there were pictures and says yes, there were remains. Speaker 1 questions whether the origin is from another planet or outer space, and if it is interdimensional, seeking clarification. Speaker 0 explains he has talked to many veterans of the program and keeps an open mind on origin. He acknowledges an extraterrestrial hypothesis but does not usually go there because he did not see the data, and he is not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government has. He is not aware of any remains or signs of extraterrestrial beings or technology by his department. Speaker 3 says the US government knows, but asks whether other governments know. Speaker 0 says they know and have their own programs, and notes that two and a half years ago the US has been in an arms race with peer competitors like Russia and China, who have their own programs. He says he was able to view intelligence discussing adversarial programs and will leave it at that. Speaker 3 states that they’ve recovered things, and Speaker 0 confirms, noting there were bodies and physical remains. They discuss whether the motive or intent of the visitors was peaceful or not, acknowledging a mixed bag of activity and motive. They consider whether Earth’s genetic material could be a reason for visits, even jokingly proposing Jurassic Park as a tourist attraction for genetic material on Earth.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, certainly, the last administration didn't didn't help. And my my hearing, of course, was during the last administration, and they were not exactly super transparent on this issue, unfortunately. But now that the task force has been created, I've been able to, you know, guide the members within the boundaries of, what they're actually cleared for. Speaker 1: When people look at this, they look online. They say there's a lot out there. There's a lot of people talking about encounters. There's a lot of people talking about videos, and we've seen a lot of that. Mhmm. Can we just cut it down to, you believe that we have encountered alien beings, and that they've come to Earth, and that we know about it as a US government? Seems to be the case. Speaker 0: I don't like to characterize necessarily where they came from. They're definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. But it is true, believe it or not, we've recovered the vehicles, and we actually have physical proof. And I was actually partially cleared into some of those activities. It was beyond oral testimony provided to me. I actually had partial access to the data and actually read the intelligence reports resulting from those programs. Speaker 1: And with your own eyes, you Yes. Saw And so when people say this is kooky, this is out there, there's nothing to back it up Speaker 2: I don't speak for other parts of the government, but I can tell you NASA, which I speak for, is open and transparent with our data. Do you believe what mister David Crush said, or is he lying? Whatever he said, where's the evidence? Speaker 0: What do you say? Certainly, members of this current administration are very, very well aware of this reality. Certainly, the the current president is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I trust his leadership on it. And I think he's assembled an an a team cabinet, and I really believe if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader likely in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, the capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3: I have access, but and I I speak to people about it. I've had actually meetings on it. People that are very smart and very solid have said they believe there is something out there. And, you know, it makes sense that there could be. I've never been convinced even despite that. You know, I just for some reason, it's not my thing. So you think, one, he knows, and two, he's open to transparency on UAPs? Speaker 0: He certainly is very well informed on this issue. Leave it at I that. Don't want to get ahead of what the president might want to reveal personally. There's been a role to cover this up Mhmm. Speaker 1: You're saying, through administrations. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: And there have been people who have been threatened and testify? Speaker 0: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration. I actually had to go and and seek legal protection that way because I was, you know, literally in fear both professionally and in my personal life. Speaker 1: And when you mentioned in that testimony of recovering the pilots or or remains nonhuman Mhmm. That's something that you saw as far as the intelligence with your eyes? Speaker 0: Yes. And it is a very uncomfortable even for me now, as as somebody who's seen it, experienced it, even talking about it, because it's so outside a normal person's worldview to understand that there is this biological sentience that have piloted these crafts that don't necessarily look a 100% like you and I. Speaker 1: Were there pictures? Were there Speaker 0: There were. Yes. Were. Speaker 1: When I said from another planet or from outer space, you said not we don't know where they're from. Is it interdimensional? What what are we talking about? Speaker 0: I've talked to a lot of, I'll call, gray beards on the program. That is a subject of hot debate on origin. I've as a guy trained in physics formally as well in my background, I leave an open mind on what the origin is. Certainly, there is the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming from elsewhere off Earth. But I don't usually go there because I did not see that data. I and I'm not conversant in the high confidence theories that the US government had. I'm not aware of any remains that the department has, of, you know, any signs of extraterrestrial beings or activity or technology. Speaker 3: You say we, the US government knows, but there Speaker 1: are many other governments around the world. Do Speaker 0: they know? They have their own programs. And like I said, two and a half years ago, we have been in arms race with our peer competitors, you know, namely Russia and China, and they have their own programs in that in this regard. And I was actually able to view a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs, and I'll leave it at that. Speaker 3: We've recovered things you say. Speaker 0: Yeah. Bodies and physical remains. Was there a sense that the motive of whether how they got here, what they were doing, was it peaceful, not peaceful? We've seen a mixed bag of activity and motive and intent, why they're visiting. That's once again that gets into our assessments, not necessarily we can't quite understand the intent of some of the sentience and why they're visiting. Could it be because we have interesting genetic material on earth? We're Jurassic Park tourist attraction for

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

Could I be wrong and he is just a great actor? Possible, but not likely. Extremely remote. He is fairly technical. I’ve never seen anyone act about technical things like he would have to be doing here. Could he be telling the truth about lies he actually believes? More likely. But something remarkable is going on here.

EricRWeinstein
Posted - June 13, 2025 at 1:57 AM
Saved - June 13, 2025 at 2:17 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the U.S. has the right to disengage, but if Israel takes it upon itself to liberate Iran from the Mullahs, it will have significant consequences. Israel's actions are not aimed at the Iranian people but at dismantling a dangerous regime. As Israel works through the night to prevent potential threats from WMDs, I hope for the safety of both the Persian people and Israel. I pray they are making the right decisions. Godspeed to them.

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

The U.S. has every right to step away. But if Israel alone frees the Persians from the Mullahs, and rids the region/world of a malignant thermonuclear theocracy…again alone…then that will have consequences as well. Israel is *not* attacking the people of Iran. It’s trying to end a regional and global nightmare regime. At least let us wish them and the Persian people a safe night while Israel is working through the wee hours to make sure that the mullahs won’t be able to strike us here with WMD. And let us pray they know what they are doing. Godspeed.

@RonPaul - Ron Paul

President Trump needs to be firm with Israel: "If you attack Iran, you're on your own." https://t.co/HhzNuRdI4h

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the potential for war between Iran and Israel, with one noting the US embassy in Iraq evacuated nonessential personnel and military bases were told to evacuate non-military personnel. One speaker expresses disappointment that Trump, who campaigned on preventing new wars, seems to be leading the US toward conflict. One speaker claims Trump could stop the conflict by telling Israel they are on their own, withholding intelligence and support. They lament American troops being in danger for no reason. The speakers criticize Trump for acting like Biden, merely expressing disapproval without taking action. They claim Congress is completely in Israel's pocket, despite public opinion, especially among younger Republicans, being unfavorable towards Israel. One speaker cites a post from Tom Cotton about Iran seeking nuclear weapons, likening it to the lead-up to the Iraq War.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I'm gonna start us out with the with the Iran attack Iran Israel attack that many of us, myself, especially, were on the edge of our seats last night because there were so many indications that an attack was imminent. And, of course, you can you can over you you you can overemphasize different things that look like they are related, you know, that may not necessarily be related, but the word went out yesterday afternoon apparently. It certainly was picked up by Reuters and other mainstream media outlets that the US embassy in Iraq was evacuating nonessential personnel and that all military bases within range of Iran were being told to evacuate non combat or non military personnel. And that looked like they were certainly getting ready for an attack. Speaker 1: No. I'm further disappointed, you know, with that big beautiful bill. This is even more severe than that. I mean, this is the person that was elected because he started no new wars. And we were told over and over, he's the one that could prevent World War three versus, you know, Kamala and Biden and all those people. And look. Here we are in June already. Not a you know, half a year, and we're getting this big beautiful bill, which is more government deficits and spending. And we're on the eve of war again with is you know, for Israel. So it's, you know, so this is very disappointing trend that we're seeing because MAGA is becoming a distant memory because these are major promises at war being the biggest. So we're heading in the wrong direction, and that is not good at all. Speaker 0: Washington is acting as if the Trump administration is acting it. It has no leverage. All president Trump would have to do is pick up his phone and say, b b, if you do this, you are absolutely on your own. We won't give you a bit of intelligence and, by the way, not another bullet. It would be over. It would be done. But you won't do that, and I don't know why. Speaker 1: We have American troops out there for no reason. They do not belong out there. That is not America out there. They're not defending us. I don't blame the troops. They're doing what they're told. They're troops. That's what you have to do. I blame the people that stick them there, and now their lives are in danger, and and our lives would be in danger. You know, we think that we just watch wars on our cell phones. Well, with these powers, you know, we our lives could possibly be in danger because they can harm us here. And this is a very, very stupid thing to do if president Trump doesn't backpedal somehow. And like you say, tell them we are not going to back you up in this. You're on your own. Speaker 0: President Trump, from what we can see in public, is acting like president Biden, where he says, gosh. Sheesh. I wish they wouldn't do this. You know, I really wish they would stop killing all these people. I wish they would settle down, but not doing a thing, not exercising any leverage that The US has. And, Chris, the the thing and I guess we can segue, but the the thing about this is that it's easy to blame him completely, but you have a congress that is completely 100% with a couple of exceptions in the back pocket of Israel. And this despite poll after poll showing that the American public, including a majority of Republicans, particularly in the eighteen to forty age range, do not look favorably on Israel at all. There's a massive disconnect between the voting population, the general opinion of people in The United States with regard to our relationship in Israel, and those people who are literally leading us into a war and literally lying us into a war. I'm actually looking at a at a post right now on extra Tom Cotton yesterday, which was a lie as they all are. He said today, the secretary of defense confirmed that Iran's terrorist regime is actively working toward a nuclear weapon for the sake of our national security, the security of our allies and millions of civilians in the region. This cannot be allowed to happen. Yeah. We remember this before. This is exactly the garbage that they told us in the run up to the Iraq war, and they're doing it all over again.
EricRWeinstein
Posted - April 30, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Saved - April 30, 2025 at 8:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it fascinating how Erich Bloch and Peter House designed our scientific immigration system to lower U.S. scientific compensation by bringing in foreign talent. This strategy has effectively undermined our top STEM workforce for cost savings. I question the role of Francis Collins at the top of U.S. science. Is he truly a visionary or just another figure in a flawed system? His actions against dissenting voices, like my colleague Dr. Bhattacharya, reveal a troubling culture in DC science policy. Collins does not represent the integrity of science we need.

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

This is fascinating. Erich Bloch and Peter House employed economists to specifically and intentionally design our scientific immigration system to drive down U.S. scientific compensation using foreigners and “lures”. Yes, the @nsf and @theNASciences in 1986 secretly designed our U.S. stem system so that our STEM employers could save money if we drove away our own top STEM talent. Scientific backstabbing. Plain and simple. We took the world’s top scientific workforce and destroyed it to save money on science salaries and to get access to more pliant employees. Why? Because our leaders appointed idiots to save a few bucks. I’m sorry but that is what happened. So, who is this Collins guy and what is he doing at the top of the U.S. science pile? Why are we listening to him? Is he some great thinker? Is he some kind of policy genius? Is he more ethical and merit loving than the rest of us slobs and mere mortals? Ah. Yes. I remember now. Francis Collins! The one who calls for “devastating” take downs against his “fringe” MD/PhD professorial colleagues and their work. And yet, here he is again! Why won’t he slink off somewhere where he can’t do even more damage? Why is he here?? This is what DC science policy circles look like. Two faced. Francis Collins would end your career without a second thought for principaled scientific dissent. As he tried to do to my colleague @DrJBhattacharya at Stanford. He should not be speaking for science. He does not represent science. Science cannot afford Francis Collins and his culture of backstabbing officials.

@TheAtlantic - The Atlantic

The former NIH director Francis Collins tells @JeffreyGoldberg he fears the U.S. is losing a generation of scientists. “We have depended so heavily on being the place that everybody wanted to come to to do research," Collins says. "And now we’re driving those people away.” https://t.co/eVH4pxETAd

Video Transcript AI Summary
A major concern is the potential loss of a generation of young scientists. A third of PhD and MD students interested in research are considering leaving the U.S., with countries like Germany, France, the UK, and Australia actively recruiting them. This represents a reversal of the traditional brain drain, where the U.S. attracted global talent. The U.S. has historically relied on this influx of researchers, many of whom stayed and contributed to Nobel Prize-winning work and scientific leadership. Driving these individuals away poses a significant threat to the nation's most important resource.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I worry about most is the long term consequence of losing a generation of young scientists. I'm talking a lot to people who are currently in PhD programs or MD programs wanting to go into research. Fully a third of the people I talk to are actively exploring the possibility of leaving The United States, going to Europe. Germany is making quite a nice offer, so is France, is The UK. Australia thinks this is their moment to bring on a whole lot of talent. This is the brain drain reversing its direction. We have depended so heavily on being the place that everybody wanted to come to to do research, and they've many times stayed here and become part of our Nobel Prize winning amazing leadership. And, now, we're driving those people away. And, if we don't have that, that's our most important resource, what's gonna happen?
EricRWeinstein
Posted - July 1, 2024 at 3:19 PM
Saved - July 1, 2024 at 5:03 PM

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

Managed Reality Kayfabe Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN) Distributed Idea Suppression Complex GEC Section A of the Reserve Index CISA Narrative Driven Journalism Democracy Defense Coalition Journolist Etc It is not only coordinated. It is an everyday way of life for them.

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

@WarClandestine They all turned on Biden in unison immediately. Very odd …

EricRWeinstein
Posted - March 8, 2024 at 11:26 PM
Saved - March 9, 2024 at 1:34 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The recently released @DoD_AARO report on UFOs and post-Einsteinian physics raises questions about its thoroughness. It seems to have focused on popular claims while ignoring serious research and scientific questions. To gain public trust, a more comprehensive analysis involving trusted domain professionals should be conducted. The report's omissions and lack of addressing certain issues are concerning. #UFOs #DoD #AARO

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

Many of you are asking for my reaction regarding the just released @DoD_AARO report. There is much to say. I want to think carefully before saying more. I am not unsympathetic to US National Security needs in this. In February of 2023, @joerogan invited me for four hours onto the world's largest English Language program (episode #1945) to describe in detail the mystery of potential US Government involvement in UFOs and Post-Einsteinian physics during the mysterious "Golden Age of General Relativity". It has been seen and discussed by millions as expected. I was thus eager to see how thorough this report would be by combing it for search strings raised in my research. REFERENCES: "Glenn L Martin Company": 0 Bryce Cecile DeWitt: 0 Institute for Field Physics: 0 Research Institute for Advanced Study: 0 Louis Witten: 0 Roger Babson: 0 Agnew Bahson: 0 Gravity Research Foundation: 0 Gravity: 1 (pg. 32) Rennaisance Technologies: 0 UNC Chapel Hill: 0 Solomon Lefschetz: 0 Freeman Dyson: 0 Herman Bondi: 0 Negative Mass: 0 "Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem" Australian Intelligence 1971 Report: 0 Australia: 0 George Rideout: 0 Edward Teller: 0 Robert Oppenheimer: 0 David Kaiser: 0 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: 1 (pg. 18) Curtis Wright Aerospace Buffalo: 0 Pascal Jordan: 0 Mansfield Ammendment: 0 Joshua Goldberg: 0 Office of Global Access: 0 University of Texas, Austin: 0 Center for Dynamical Systems: 0 Physics: 5 (pgs. 16-17, 53) Relativity: 0 Albert Einstein: 0 George Bunker: 0 Welcome Bender: 0 George Trimble: 0 CONCLUSION: This report purports to have studied the questions raised surrounding UFO/UAP related research of the US federal Government. It, in fact, appears to have studied a carefully chosen SUBSET of the claims selected from among those which appear to have mass appeal to the so-called "UFO Community." It completely, or nearly completely, avoided reporting on all questions surrounding issues which have been raised in serious research and by PhD level researchers who have raised scientific questions in this area. This continues the pattern of using PhD level government scientists who appear to avoid the actual research questions most likely to involve sensitve Special Access Programs and Stovepiped Research which are compartmentalized by design. Whether the omissions are due to issues of avoidance, misdirection (e.g. so-called Limited Hangout strategy), ignorance or incompetance cannot be discerned from the information given. RECOMMENDATION: It is simply not possible to treat the current AARO report as historically complete or comprehensive. To gain the public trust, the successor to AARO would have to expand and redo this analysis with input from domain professionals who are trusted by the public not to have an apparent agenda or government background (e.g. Prof. David Kaiser of MIT or Dr. Nima Arkani Hamed of IAS, Prof. Brian Keating of UCSD, Avi Loeb of Harvard) Otherwise, it is relatively easy for scientists to "Follow the Silence" in government reports to see what is *not* being addressed or discussed.

@DoD_AARO - All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

Today the DoD released our Historical Record Report Volume 1. AARO’s report covers more than 70 years of the U.S. record relating to UAP, draws from interviews, archival research, and partnerships across government and industry. Read it here: spr.ly/6013XFJ1t

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

NOTE: Above reference to the work of Prof. Kaiser and to JRE #1945 are included to establish that both were in the public domain, independent, in high levels of agreement, and that there was *ample* time for AARO to investigate these claims which appear not to have any impact.

EricRWeinstein
Posted - October 16, 2023 at 9:25 PM
Saved - October 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

IDF-assisted suicide Zugzwang Munchausen by Proxy —————- Something terrible is about to happen to innocent people in Gaza. It will be horrific to watch. Make sure you fully familiarize yourself with the concepts above the line. I’m not leaving this here for you. It’s for me.

View Full Interactive Feed