House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

...I'm referring to how the secrecy, and behavior of various entities in the US goverment about UFO's has been the systematic failure that has caused the UFO hysteria of today.
Hi tobigtofool, thanks for posting the content of the "C.I.A. Admits Government Lied About U.F.O. Sightings" article- it's appreciated.
It doesn't provide any evidence that the US government (or anyone else) deliberately tried to make people believe that UFOs were alien craft, though.

Rather than acknowledgeing the existence of the top-secret flights or saying nothing about them publicly, the Air Force decided to put out false cover stories, the C.I.A. study says. For instance, unusual observations that were actually spy flights were attributed to atmospheric phenomena like ice crystals and temperature inversions.
Content from External Source
Nothing about alien craft.

''This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project.''
Content from External Source
It's claimed the USAF made "misleading and deceptive statements" if they thought a UFO report was actually a sighting of a secret American aircraft. And examples are given- ice crystals, temperature inversions.
There's nothing in the article that says the USAF (or anyone else) tried to cover up any defense activity by implying that "inconvenient" sightings were actually of alien craft (and it's hard to see how that would "allay public fears"!)

Like some other posters here, I think it's very unlikely that over half of US UFO reports were due to reconnaissance aircraft, but that's by-the-by.
 
Earlier you wrote:

"The us military should not be secretly testing weapons of war, we may disagree on that, but there is nothing you can say to change my mind and nothing I can say to change yours. Which is why both opinions are valid."

That's the view I was referring to as fringe. I'll give to the benefit of acknowledging that what you wrote is ambiguous and could mean one of the following:

1) The military should not be testing weapons of war at all.

2) All weapons of war should be tested publicly and without any secrecy.

Earlier you complained about the fact that the Chinese are reverse engineering US made weapons and that this is a bad thing, so I think it's fair for me to assume that since #2 would only lead to more stealing of technology by the Chinese since obviously it would all now be open, then the view you're advocating for is #1, is that correct?

Send me a DM, I'm sure if you met me at a coffeeshop you'd be like, "yeah I agree"

Yes, we should strive towards a society where we dont test weapons' of war.

We could do it, I dont believe that humanity and killing war are synonymous.

Back 1000 years ago we used to throw people in iron madens, and people of the time were like, "thats the way it be"

Things change, we march towards progress slowly.

Yes I believe that if we make nukes the Russians want them, yes I believe that if we make 1500 nukes, the russians make 2000, yes I believe that in the mean time China is like, "we need nukes too" and so is every other country.

We could inspire, or force people to agree.

I chose inspire.

Like some other posters here, I think it's very unlikely that over half of US UFO reports were due to reconnaissance aircraft, but that's by-the-by.

The CIA report says that, do you think that they are misleading us or something, and the sightings were what?
 
Last edited:
Noted.

Your opinion is that spycraft and secret weapons programs are dumb.

The US government disagrees. But you don't tolerate that. So what does "free to disagree" mean, then?

It means stay on topic and dont get stuck on arguing with me about how my opinion on morality is right or wrong when I accept whatever yours is.
 
I do.

Lies by the government have real motivations behind them. Criticism of the lies is often attached to these real, well-known motivations. The lies are plausible.

Conspiracy theorists want to believe. They don't care about actual motivations or even consistency. Their narratives work whether the government lies or not, because they don't really connect to reality, but rather play on people's fears.

If we had a totally honest government, we'd still have the same amount of conspirational thinking. (The destruction of the World Trade Center or the moon landing are good examples.)

I generally agree with most of what you say here but disagree with the claim that "we'd have the same amount of conspiratorial thinking". I'm not sure it's the kind of claim that can be proved, but it seems fairly obvious that the more that a government lies, or withholds the truth (again, MK Ultra, infiltration of social justice movements like MLK's, bugging his hotels in order to find or plant dirt on him in order to publicly discredit him, the Watergate scandal, etc) and these lies and activities are made public, such information serves to give more ammunition to those who already buy into conspiracies, as well as make it easier for folks who aren't necessarily conspiracy minded to fall into the conspiratorial black hole because of the number of historically verified examples of lying that are now available to be used to convince them.
Send me a DM, I'm sure if you met me at a coffeeshop you'd be like, "yeah I agree"

Yes, we should strive towards a society where we dont test weapons' of war.

We could do it, I dont believe that humanity and killing war are synonymous.

Back 1000 years ago we used to throw people in iron madens, and people of the time were like, "thats the way it be"

Things change, we march towards progress slowly.

Yes I believe that if we make nukes the Russians want them, yes I believe that if we make 1500 nukes, the russians make 2000, yes I believe that in the mean time China is like, "we need nukes too" and so is every other country.

We could inspire, or force people to agree.

I chose inspire.

NO the cold war was NOT a good thing. (IN MY OPINOIN!)
I mean I agree with you in a "that'd be a nice world to live in" kind of way but the Chinese and Russians don't just steal from the US, they have and do develop their own military technologies based on their own scientific understanding and advancements for the purposes of advancing their own domestic and international agendas. The US no longer developing military weapons isn't going to just stop the march of technological advancement by our adversaries. They'll just continue to do what they're doing, only now they'd be unopposed.

And I'm sorry, but this kind of pacifist bullshit only works until you suddenly find yourself with fascists at the door.

Anyway. To tie this all back to the house hearings: The members of the house committee themselves do not have the clearances required to be briefed on the kinds of things Grusch is alleging. Per the original Debrief article, such a briefing has already happened at the senate last year, with Grusch providing hours upon hours of testimony. The fact that no credible information has yet surfaced about the existence of these alleged recovery programs (according to congressmembers themselves) says to me that whatever info Grusch gave them didn't lead to much.

I'm not sure what anyone can realistically expect from this hearing.
 
Anyway. To tie this all back to the house hearings: The members of the house committee themselves do not have the clearances required to be briefed on the kinds of things Grusch is alleging. Per the original Debrief article, such a briefing has already happened at the senate last year, with Grusch providing hours upon hours of testimony. The fact that no credible information has yet surfaced about the existence of these alleged recovery programs (according to congressmembers themselves) says to me that whatever info Grusch gave them didn't lead to much.

I'm not sure what anyone can realistically expect from this hearing.

If these hearings are anything like any of the ones before it, they probubly wont.

one thing they have on their side is the massive hate that anyone gets for SUPPORTING deeper investigations into this.

Why do an investigation, if just saying you want more of it on metabunk gets you 5 pages of direct critiques about your opinion on morality?

your optimism is sweet.

It is! And it's not unrealistic, I'm sure 350 years ago most people would say you never would be free to vote for a new king.
 
If these hearings are anything like any of the ones before it, they probubly wont.

one thing they have on their side is the massive hate that anyone gets for SUPPORTING deeper investigations into this.

Why do an investigation, if just saying you want more of it on metabunk gets you 5 pages of direct critiques about your opinion on morality?

I'm fairly new to metabunk so I'm not sure if moral debates are fair game here, but as someone with an MA in philosophy I can assure you that arguing about morality and a person's moral stance are absolutely fair game and is the norm in every philosophy department in the world. Moral claims have truth values just like empirical and mathematical claims do, so saying something like "that's just my moral opinion" doesn't immunize your view from criticism. You yourself have been making moral claims about the wrongness of the government lying to the population and how the alleged consequences of that lying are a bad thing that we should all acknowledge as a bad thing. So even though this isn't a philosophy forum that doesn't mean criticisms of ethical claims are off limits.
 
i'm glad you obviously have no experience with what "hate" actually is. let alone "massive hate". Disdain is not hate.

I am not the topic, nor is my lack of moral understanding of what "hate" actually is, ironic you chose a moral lesson as a response.

par, for the course of being pro disclosure online!

Why do an investigation, if just saying you want more of it on metabunk gets you 5 pages of direct critiques about your opinion on morality?
 
Last edited:
one thing they have on their side is the massive hate that anyone gets for SUPPORTING deeper investigations into this.
you read the CIA report, you know that decades of deeper investigations showed there are no UFOs, yet a section of the public keeps believing in them. No new investigation will change that. There's nothing it can achieve.

the call for investigations plays to fear and doubt, it is populist in nature, and makes your country worse.

you seem to not be opposed to misleading when the ufo believers do it.
heck, you did it yourself in this thread, were called out on it, and showed no remorse.
hmmm.
 
you read the CIA report, you know that decades of deeper investigations showed there are no UFOs, yet a section of the public keeps believing in them. No new investigation will change that. There's nothing it can achieve.

I disagree, because I didnt belive in aliens, but I am here on these boards because of the news I just saw, literaly Grusch, I came here to find deeper investigations into what actually is going on, becuase it seems insane to me that someone can be in military intelligence, and yet hold the beliefes that Grusch does.

In 2017, I was also like, "wait what??? aliens are real!??" then mick west goes and gives me the answers I need to know, of course they are not.

Yet here I am, again, why?

Because of the secrets. I do believe they are keeping secrets, and I want to know what the f is going on.

Is it aliens? I literally dont care.

What I believe it is: I believe the pentagon is TOO BIG, not efficient, wasteful, it seems like people in intelligence positions are a little more willing to believe in interdimensional beings, than I feel comfortable.
 
The CIA report says that, do you think that they are misleading us or something, and the sightings were what?
I suspect the CIA report is wrong (but I can't prove it!). Intelligence agencies make mistakes.

As others have posted, reported sightings of UFOs are down to loads of things- misidentified "normal" astronomical or meteorological phenomena; misidentified satellites, aircraft, balloons, pyrotechnics (and increasingly UAVs); deliberate hoaxes; in some cases -particularly those with a high "strangeness" factor- sleep disorder-type states; faulty recall, etc. etc.
Some people seem "prone" to seeing UFOs, and there's a high overlap with people who e.g. report seeing ghosts or experiencing (or believing in) other "paranormal" phenomena.

UFO reports come from all across the world, and the US didn't have that many U2s, SR71s or TR1s; I'd guess they mainly flew where and when they were needed (which would include training etc).
 
I disagree, because I didnt belive in aliens, but I am here on these boards because of the news I just saw, literaly Grusch, I came here to find deeper investigations into what actually is going on, becuase it seems insane to me that someone can be in military intelligence, and yet hold the beliefes that Grusch does.

In 2017, I was also like, "wait what??? aliens are real!??" then mick west goes and gives me the answers I need to know, of course they are not.

Yet here I am, again, why?

Because of the secrets. I do believe they are keeping secrets, and I want to know what the f is going on.

Is it aliens? I literally dont care.

What I believe it is: I believe the pentagon is TOO BIG, not efficient, wasteful, it seems like people in intelligence positions are a little more willing to believe in interdimensional beings, than I feel comfortable.
I have a relative who works in a fairly high up position in the US Secret Service. I recently asked him what his thoughts about the Grusch allegations were and at the time he hadn't heard of him so couldn't comment on my question specifically. When I told him what some of Grusch's claims were, he proceeded to tell me that he didn't find such claims to be that crazy or implausible. He then started talking about the US Space Force, and how he found it odd that all of the sudden the government would seem to be in a rush to get a Space Force up and running. He wondered why we even need one, let alone be in a rush to develop one, since the United States already has control and dominance over satellites and as far as he can tell there's no country that can currently challenge the US or threaten our satellites and dominance in space. Because there is no credible threat (in his mind) he deduces that the creation of the space force is very likely due to an outside threat "they" know about, a threat that has spooked them enough to make the creation of the space force a top priority. He believes if it's not an outside threat of some sort (ie aliens) there is no rationale for creating this new branch of the armed services.

He also shared things he's heard about in certain classes he's had to take from guest lecturers and professors. Claims such as the technology that you and I possess is always roughly at least ten years behind what the government actually possesses. Claims like researchers (I forget for who, may have been Lockheed Martin) have found a way to store data and information in (I forget exactly what amount) cubes of water. Terabytes and terabytes of information that can be stored in liquids. Claims about if we think ChatGpt is incredible, imagine what "they" have behind the scenes that the public doesn't know about.

Let me repeat that this is a family member in a high level position in the US Secret Service. Nothing he told me is classified (obviously) but rather claims he's heard made by professors and industry representatives for (edited, previously said Skunkworks but I very likely misremembered and it was just a normal Lockheed Martin person, I doubt anyone who works in Skunkworks goes around advertising it) in a class full of other people with security clearances like himself. When I pointed out to him that technology doesn't work in a vaccum, and that technological advancements can always be traced sequentially over the years he simply said "maybe that's what they want you to believe."

How much of what he relayed to me he personally believes, I don't know. But it was extremely obvious that he at least seriously entertains some of these claims far more than I do. Again, this is a person in a high ranking role in the secret service, and yet we have clear as day evidence that his rank, security clearances, and over two decades in the service have not made him any less likely to fall for conspiratorial theorizing and prone to believing extremely fantastical stories about things like the space force despite very obvious boring alternative explanations being available.

People in every part of government are just like you and I. They have the same biases we have, and are as prone to leaps of logic and fantastical thinking as anyone else. *Anyone* can fall victim to believing strange and ridiculous things and it's dangerous to think we're ever immune to falling victim to these kinds of thinking traps. It's dangerous to think just because someone works in the intelligence community that they're somehow immune. Hell, I've come close to falling for these things many times despite how vigilant I constantly strive to be.

It's not a huge surprise that people in high levels of the government believe all sorts of weird shit. It's not necessarily something to be alarmed about either.
 
Last edited:
I have a relative who works in a fairly high up position in the US Secret Service. I recently asked him what his thoughts about the Grusch allegations were and at the time he hadn't heard of him so couldn't comment on my question specifically. When I told him what some of Grusch's claims were, he proceeded to tell me that he didn't find such claims to be that crazy or implausible. He then started talking about the US Space Force, and how he found it odd that all of the sudden the government would seem to be in a rush to get a Space Force up and running. He wondered why we even need one, let alone be in a rush to develop one, since the United States already has control and dominance over satellites and as far as he can tell there's no country that can currently challenge the US or threaten our satellites and dominance in space. Because there is no credible threat (in his mind) he deduces that the creation of the space force is very likely due to an outside threat "they" know about, a threat that has spooked them enough to make the creation of the space force a top priority. He believes if it's not an outside threat of some sort (ie aliens) there is no rationale for creating this new branch of the armed services.

He also shared things he's heard about in certain classes he's had to take from guest lecturers and professors. Claims such as the technology that you and I possess is always roughly at least ten years behind what the government actually possesses. Claims like researchers (I forget for who, may have been Lockheed and Martin) have found a way to store data and information in (I forget exactly what amount) cubes of water. Terabytes and terabytes of information that can be stored in liquids. Claims about if we think ChatGpt is incredible, imagine what "they" have behind the scenes that the public doesn't know about.

Let me repeat that this is a family member in a high level position in the US Secret Service. Nothing he told me is classified (obviously) but rather claims he's heard made by professors and industry representatives for Skunkworks in a class full of other people with security clearances like himself. When I pointed out to him that technology doesn't work in a vaccum, and that technological advancements can always be traced sequentially over the years he simply said "maybe that's what they want you to believe."

How much of what he relayed to me he personally believes, I don't know. But it was extremely obvious that he at least seriously entertains some of these claims far more than I do. Again, this is a person in a high ranking role in the secret service, and yet we have clear as day evidence that his rank, security clearances, and over two decades in the service have not made him any less likely to fall for conspiratorial theorizing and prone to believing extremely fantastical stories about things like the space force despite very obvious boring alternative explanations being available.

People in every part of government are just like you and I. They have the same biases we have, and are as prone to leaps of logic and fantastical thinking as anyone else. *Anyone* can fall victim to believing strange and ridiculous things and it's dangerous to think we're ever immune to falling victim to these kinds of thinking traps. It's dangerous to think just because someone works in the intelligence community that they're somehow immune. Hell, I've come close to falling for these things many times despite how vigilant I constantly strive to be.

It's not a huge surprise that people in high levels of the government believe all sorts of weird shit. It's not necessarily something to be alarmed about either.

Everything you say here makes me way more scared than the threat of aliens might ever make me feel.

To me this story is like telling me that a doctor that is about to do spinal surgery on me, thinks that maybe the my nerve damage is caused by Body Thetans...

Like, this 110% makes me believe we need a civilian run oversight committee installed into every level of the pentagon.

(I'm not saying make it all true, but civilian managed, total clearance abiding but given top levels of it, oversight committee).

It's not a huge surprise that people in high levels of the government believe all sorts of weird shit. It's not necessarily something to be alarmed about either.

All told, there have been at least 22 alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered.

Ignorance with power, is much more of a threat than aliens will ever be, mark my words!
 
Last edited:
you could run for congress or get a job at the Pentagon and work your way up. Then you can come back here in 20 years and tell us what you found out :)

With the folks we have up there today, I have literlaly thought that wouldn't be a bad idea. :p

how are you gonna pick these civilians?

I trust the FCC I trust the FDA I trust the EPA I trust OSHA .. the list goes on and on of civilian comities that I think have shown we can trust them.

Although the FDA Im starting to lose faith in... I cant even read the ingredients labels anymore in the USA. And in fricken Europe they're like, "flour, corn starch, sugar, brown sugar"

So maybe none can be trusted! :p

EDIT: I am just curious what you are thumbs downing in this post? OSHA? Or food in europe?
 
Last edited:
That'll be a lot of quarrelsome civilians. A huge bureaucracy.
And possibly a massive hit to security.

The entire goverment is made up of civilian oversight comities. And god bless them, OSHA rocks!

(btw you asked why I disagreed with you for the other post, if you dont believe the CIA report then we have no ground to stand on to have a conversation since I do.)

Also there is so many reasons to believe at least half the sightings in the 1950s were from u2 testing, or other military testing. And totally rational arguments as to why they were kept secret. So, tbh I don't really even understand why we're trying to create a narrative that the ufo sightings from that decade are not what the report says it is, let alone why we dont believe the report.
 
Last edited:
if you dont believe the CIA report then we have no ground to stand on to have a conversation
Er, I said I thought that whoever wrote that CIA report was mistaken to claim that over half of UFO reports are due to USAF recce aircraft. As did other posters before me. I hope that doesn't rule out us conversing.
 
I do believe they are keeping secrets, and I want to know what the f is going on
I believe that any government has the RIGHT to keep secrets, and more than that they have the RESPONSIBILITY to keep secrets. I have never considered my own personal curiosity to be more important than that, and I am somewhat shocked at your attitude about that. For someone who talks about morality it seems immoral to me to place one's own interests over that of he country.
 
Er, I said I thought that whoever wrote that CIA report was mistaken to claim that over half of UFO reports are due to USAF recce aircraft. As did other posters before me. I hope that doesn't rule out us conversing.

No not at all, but, I cant really debate it when I do believe that that information is true, and the only way I can say that is because I do trust the report, and what it says is not abstract enough to me to feel disingenuous.

I also very much believe that most of the sightings came from military testing, be they cameras on balloons, rockets, or U2, or even some kind of big flat flying disk-coptor crazy idea. :)

Hypothetical: the first UFO sighting

It was, "skipping on the air like a flat stone on the water".

.. now what if that was just a giant piece of junk discoptor, that was like giving the pilots whiplash so it was its first and last test flight :p

Totally reasonable to believe that idk.. A lot more reasonable than say, swamp gas, ice crystals, or a space ship IMO!

I believe that any government has the RIGHT to keep secrets, and more than that they have the RESPONSIBILITY to keep secrets.

Yeah, I get it, but that's just not for me.

I have never considered my own personal curiosity to be more important than that, and I am somewhat shocked at your attitude about that. For someone who talks about morality it seems immoral to me to place one's own interests over that of he country.

Again, take my moral stances away from the table, they are not on the menu. I am not judging you.
 
Last edited:
If we didnt have the knowledge we had to prove the trade center can collapse as a result of 747s then all of us would be debating it right now instead of UFOs
Minor correction-- weren't they 767s?

Nobody that doesn't deeply believe in creationism or flat earth, debates those subjects, becauise they know its a huge waste of time.
Of course we do, otherwise who would the believers be debating with?

If we had 100% of alien sightings scientifically reviewed on the level of the WTC or dinosaurs, then we wouldn't be debating this either
There are more than one thread about WTC and debating conspiracy theories about it. I've also spent a fair amount of time debating dinosaurs, reality thereof, on other sites.

Tying all that back to the topic, I am not sure hearings organized by UFO conspiracy theorists in Congress, where the Usual Gang testify and promote their nonsense, are going to lead to greater transparency, or a reduction in belief in UFO conspiracies.


Edited to complete post after hitting the "post" button too soon.
 
Last edited:
Minor correction-- weren't they 767s?


Of course we do, otherwise who would the believers be debating with?


There are more than one thread about WTC and debating conspiracy theories.

1. sorry should have just said jetfuel DOES melt steel beams then.
2. creationism is a 8+thousand year old religion, so yes there are going to be holdouts.

But the debate is not the same, or flat earth.

You cant go to a party and say "who here believes in flat earth or that the goverment is lying abou them" and see any portion of the room raise their hand unless you are in very specific circles.

3. it's not the same, normal people believe inUFOs normal people dont believe the WTC was blown up by bush, sorry.

It just isnt the same, its disingenuous to say that the creationists, or the flat earthers, and the bush blew up the world trade centers, are on the same level as UFO, and Area 51 belief in the USA

The history channel, does it do shows on flat earth? Do they do shows on how bush blew up the WTC? I dont think so. (maybe flat earth?)

We're not talking about whistleblowers from the Smithsonian that says man walked with dinosaurs.

The senate isn't trying to determine if god is real (although with these interdimensional beings maybe they are by proxy)

But I do think those circles, will recruit from people who start with the gateway conspiracy of UFOs and goverment secrets.
 
Last edited:
It just isnt the same, its disingenuous to say that the creationists, or the flat earthers, and the bush blew up the world trade centers, are on the same level as UFO, and Area 51 belief in the USA
it varies by year, but roughly:

(i know you said 'bush blew up', but to me that's equivalent to more like 'we have crashed ships and/or alien bodies' )

Article:
Here's the breakdown:

The government is concealing what they know about …

The 9/11 attacks: 54.3 percent agree or strongly agree
The JFK assassination: 49.6 percent
Alien encounters: 42.6 percent
[..]
The moon landing: 24.2 percent


1690084353238.png
 
Last edited:
it varies by year, but roughly:

(i know you said 'bush blew up', but to me that's equivalent to more like 'we have crashed ships and/or alien bodies' )

Article:
Here's the breakdown:

The government is concealing what they know about …

The 9/11 attacks: 54.3 percent agree or strongly agree
The JFK assassination: 49.6 percent
Alien encounters: 42.6 percent
[..]
The moon landing: 24.2 percent

Notice how low the moon landing is compared to the others.

Why? It's not a secret. IMO

There is beyond enough evidence to counter argue that claim.

The others, not so much!

(although 54 % of Americans and that 9/11, that sounds a little bit inaccurate to me)

What are we saying, that 54% of Americans, think bush blew up the world trade center? or what?

Does this statistic actually say I can ask Americans if bush blew up the world trade center, or that jetfuel doesn't melt steal beams, that more than half would say that is true?
 
What are we saying, that 54% of Americans, think bush blew up the world trade center? or what?

or what.

There is beyond enough evidence to counter argue that claim.

The others, not so much!
i see no difference in the Moon Landing, or Aliens. Neither has presented any convincing, or even half-convincing, evidence thus far. It's all just a bunch of guys thinking they see 'weird stuff' and making claims without anything backing up their claims.

and beliefs change over time ex in 2013:
Article:
21 percent think that the US government is covering up evidence of alien existence


2016 tells us
Article:
The government is concealing what they know about …
Alien encounters: 42.6 percent


I'm guessing the Moon Landing belief numbers have fluctuated over time too. Humans tend to like "phases".



I really don't care about UFOS or if you trust Grusch, (i prefer cryptids) but i am a bit curious WHY you would trust him. He's given us nothing that's any different then what other people have said over the years. All of which has come to naught.

But unlike others, i dont mind the hearings. I think it's funny. We'll spend a few days watching Grusch and others not really say anything and evade questions, and all it will accomplish is frustrating all the people who care about this topic -both believers and skeptics.
 
I really don't care about UFOS or if you trust Grusch, (i prefer cryptids) but i am a bit curious WHY you would trust him. He's given us nothing that's any different then what other people have said over the years. All of which has come to naught.

His rank, his clearance, that's why I became interested in this topic.

I trust him like a doctor or a scientist.

It's not that I trust him.. It's that I believed in the institution.

His claims, and his lack of evidence, really makes me question that belief.

At this point, I am more concerned with him successfully getting the rank he has, and about how he describes others behavior at the agency.

Are there more agents like him? People that hear someone say some random thing about alien bodies, and the goes off and just believes it?

It's concerning to me that we have folks like him in the pentagon. I think having faith in our intelligence community to hire the half of the USA that does not believe their own goverment is outright lying to us about the moonlanding, 9/11 or assissinating the president, is not too much to ask.

But unlike others, i dont mind the hearings. I think it's funny. We'll spend a few days watching Grusch and others not really say anything and evade questions, and all it will accomplish is frustrating all the people who care about this topic -both believers and skeptics.

Yeah, I really hope with his level of confidence he has he's got some smoking gun that they want to surprise us with when everyone is watching, rather than to just boost News Nations ratings with it.

When this broke, I did think there is a very high probability that it was all blown out of proportion specifically by News Nation.

They broke this story, and also broke their, awesome fresh alternative news station the same time.

I have a very stinking sensation that the reason they broke it is, because nobody else wanted to because it's all hearsay.

And the only reason it's getting the action it's getting, is because the News Nation marketing team was right: That was ONE HELL OF A WAY to virally market Chris Cuomo's new home.

I would believe that conspiracy, more than I would believe a goverment or alien one.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, over at Reddit/ufos they are going completely insane over all this. I don't post there anymore, to maintain my sanity.
Luckily this MB forum is much more down to Earth.
 
Anyway. To tie this all back to the house hearings: The members of the house committee themselves do not have the clearances required to be briefed on the kinds of things Grusch is alleging. Per the original Debrief article, such a briefing has already happened at the senate last year, with Grusch providing hours upon hours of testimony. The fact that no credible information has yet surfaced about the existence of these alleged recovery programs (according to congressmembers themselves) says to me that whatever info Grusch gave them didn't lead to much.

I'm not sure what anyone can realistically expect from this hearing.
A point of clarification, unless the individual elected to Congress held a security clearance at the time of his/her election to office, members of Congress do not have security clearances. They are deemed trustworthy as a function of being elected, and can be shown classified information without a clearance as a function of their need to know. Congressional staffers do require clearances, however.
 
@Duke that reinforces @AR318307's point that Grusch's evidence of the alleged secret ops was, generously said, not compelling. What's going on, I think, is basically him complaining about getting spanked by the IC because he was a loudmouth, because the whistleblower law says he can't be spanked for it, but the IC needs to do the spanking to keep things working, otherwise anyone can be a loudmouth and there would effectively be no IC to speak of. That conflict should be closer to the public's center of attention, rather than speculation about Grusch's testimonies. I am not aware of major opinion leaders raising that issue.
 
@Duke that reinforces @AR318307's point that Grusch's evidence of the alleged secret ops was, generously said, not compelling. What's going on, I think, is basically him complaining about getting spanked by the IC because he was a loudmouth, because the whistleblower law says he can't be spanked for it, but the IC needs to do the spanking to keep things working, otherwise anyone can be a loudmouth and there would effectively be no IC to speak of. That conflict should be closer to the public's center of attention, rather than speculation about Grusch's testimonies. I am not aware of major opinion leaders raising that issue.
"IC" means "Intelligence Communuty". What actually happened was this:
This is the full sequence, based on the complaint:

1. Grusch finds UAP-related information that the UAPTF didn't look at, thinks it was withheld illegally.
2. Grusch blows the whistle to the DoD IG (July 2021).
3. Grusch experiences problems getting some security clearances outside his own unit renewed, and surmises this is retaliation for step 2.
4. Grusch complains to the IC IG (this document) about step 3, and demands to speak to Congress about 1. (May 2022)
5. Grusch quits his job (April 2023) and goes public (June 2023).
See #2 in that thread for the full complaint.

It seems that the ICIG dismissed the complaint, but the decision has not been published by Grusch, so we don't know for certain.

I'm not sure there is any issue. Avril Haines created an order that gives people recourse who think their clearance has been unfairly impacted. Grusch has not claimed that he has an issue with ICIG, so presumably the system worked as intended.
 
A point of clarification, unless the individual elected to Congress held a security clearance at the time of his/her election to office, members of Congress do not have security clearances. They are deemed trustworthy as a function of being elected, and can be shown classified information without a clearance as a function of their need to know. Congressional staffers do require clearances, however.
Hm. Per this article:

Eglin Air Force Base supported a visit from Representatives Gaetz, Burchett, and Luna on Feb 21. Air Force officials provided a classified briefing on intelligence collection threats to Eglin Air Force Base during their visit. The Congressmembers halted the briefing and requested instead a briefing focused on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Base officials responded to present additional available classified information on UAPs to all three members but were only able to discuss a certain portion of the information with Representative Gaetz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Representatives Burchett and Luna, not being members of a congressional defense committee, did not possess the access required to join the portion of the discussion reserved for Representative Gaetz.”

Does "the access required" here essentially just mean "need to know"?
 
Hm. Per this article:

Eglin Air Force Base supported a visit from Representatives Gaetz, Burchett, and Luna on Feb 21. Air Force officials provided a classified briefing on intelligence collection threats to Eglin Air Force Base during their visit. The Congressmembers halted the briefing and requested instead a briefing focused on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Base officials responded to present additional available classified information on UAPs to all three members but were only able to discuss a certain portion of the information with Representative Gaetz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Representatives Burchett and Luna, not being members of a congressional defense committee, did not possess the access required to join the portion of the discussion reserved for Representative Gaetz.”

Does "the access required" here essentially just mean "need to know"?
That's how I would interpret it.
 
NASA also responded to Burchett's claim.

NASA was not requested to participate in the United States House Committee’s hearing on UAP. David Spergel, president of the Simons Foundation and chair of NASA’s UAP Independent Study, was invited but declined to attend, since the work of the independent study team is not due to be completed until later in the coming weeks. The report will contain a series of recommendations for NASA to better evaluate and categorize the nature of UAPs. You can learn more here: https://go.nasa.gov/3K7Tlkn
Content from External Source

Source: https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1682499768361054208
 
Does "the access required" here essentially just mean "need to know"?
It means "right to know".

To have the right to see that classified material, you apparently either need to have an appropriate security clearance, or be a member of the Armed Services Committee. The committee exercises congressional oversight over the military, and thus the military can't shut its members out of anything they're doing.

The right to know is given to people who need to know, but it's not automatic.
 
Back
Top