Mendel
Senior Member.
How do you know that Grusch filed a classified ICIG complaint?
The unclassified complaint has this:
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/post-291994
House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023
- Thread starter MonkeeSage
- Start date
The unclassified complaint has this:
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/post-291994
PublicStranger
Active Member
Not too well versed on US laws but let's say Grusch named one of the 40 people he interviewed (with their permission), is he breaking any law here?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Not during the hearings, with the caveat that I had to get up and give my daughter keys to my car so missed maybe 5 minutes.
D
Deleted member 19405
Guest
Can we please get real here about how human psychology works? This man (and self-proclaimed whistleblower) has the power to blow the whistle on a world-changing story (a story which if true, is the biggest news in the history of mankind) and he is worried about a "threat of life imprisonment"?
Look, I've been saying this for weeks now: If there was any truth to this "70-year government coverup" of aliens, it'd have been "snowden'd" out to the world like 69 years ago already.
From what I could hear and understand, everytime he was asked to be more specific, he just said he could not speak in open, but would do it in closed sessions.
So, no.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
There is one factor in all these hearings that simply does not make sense....and I'm amazed that nobody at the hearings picked up on this....
If Grusch is insisting that certain SAP programs were or are illegal...then so too are any security clearances for them. You cannot legally enforce an illegal project. Why, then, would Grusch be concerned about security considerations for these projects ? If he knows projects are illegal then why is Grusch citing precisely the illegal security classifications that he says exist....as the reasons for not openly stating where the crashed UFOs are, and other such material. He cannot in one breath say the SAP projects are illegal...and in the next breath bring up the equally illegal security classification as the reason for not divulging pertinent information.
If Grusch is insisting that certain SAP programs were or are illegal...then so too are any security clearances for them. You cannot legally enforce an illegal project. Why, then, would Grusch be concerned about security considerations for these projects ? If he knows projects are illegal then why is Grusch citing precisely the illegal security classifications that he says exist....as the reasons for not openly stating where the crashed UFOs are, and other such material. He cannot in one breath say the SAP projects are illegal...and in the next breath bring up the equally illegal security classification as the reason for not divulging pertinent information.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxEBk7FhUU
Tim Burchett spoke with John Michael Godier about the hearing. One statement that stuck out to me was Burchett's claim that the hearing itself was almost cancelled and had many roadblocks thrown up. By what mechanism could that happen and who was attempting the obstruction? Surely that's not classified info.
He also claims that he was on a trip to an air force base to be shown a craft, pictures and talk to a pilot. But then they got there and it was all brass and spooks and they got stonewalled. And then they negotiated and got to talk to some pilots that drew some alien craft for them. I have no idea what to make of such a silly story.
PublicStranger
Active Member
Bingo. There has to be a measure of uncertainty in the things he is being told from other people, otherwise if he was fully 100% convinced on what he is being told, he would have no problem in exposing an illegal programme, there would be no actual illegality.
This doesn't actually just apply to him, anybody who has ever worked for said black programme should be able to whistle blow on them without fear of legal reprisals.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
But then the malevolent beings would beat him up.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
The 'Holman rule' was mentioned by another representative as being likely to be brought up if there was obfuscation. From the way the air force base incident was described in terms of ' we let them know how power flows....' I think it likely that that's what the 'negotiation' consisted of. The Holman rule is basically a piece of legislation that allows the House Of Representatives to cut off funding.
Alien Chess Fiend
Member
He likely meant to imply that, but his wording seems consistent with him interviewing 40 people and a couple of them telling him some tall tales.
The $22 million as discussed in your thread on The Origins of AAWSAP would surely count as misdirection of funds and I wouldn't be surprised if he had specific knowledge of that.
LambMaster
New Member
I lukred this site to be informed about COVID disinfo but I had to sign up to discuss this UFO stuff.
I appreciate the level of analysis I've seen on this topic here but there really doesn't seem to be anything compelling in the public sphere. And any attempts to debunk are refuted with "there's more classified info that corroborates it". How can any progress be made in such an environment?
I am keeping an open mind on this as I feel it's best to never become too jaded or cynical even with outlandish claims. My hope is that the people who are in the possession of the supposedly better data on the subject have done everything in their power to rule out everything before arriving at aliens. And they keep insisting that UFO are craft. What about some kind of sophisticated projection tech? Would it not fit with instantaneous acceleration and jittery motion? Does that really come after aliens on the list of possibilities? Even something that unlikely is still easier to investigate and falsify than aliens.
Once you land on the alien node in the flowchart there are an endless number of viable possibilities. It's the ultimate unknown, unknown. Many "axiomatic" assumptions are no longer on stable ground. You could explain away the gimbal video with, "Maybe they're manipulating what we see so as to confound us". This could be asserted to support the gimbal video interpretation of it rotating in sync with the gimbal. Or, "They can read our minds, that's how they knew our CAP point". The level of unknown unknowns allow any alien conspiracy to have followers. Aliens are not and may never be falsifiable. I just hope that whoever arrived at aliens has some bulletproof evidence far more than what would be needed to put someone behind bars.
I appreciate the level of analysis I've seen on this topic here but there really doesn't seem to be anything compelling in the public sphere. And any attempts to debunk are refuted with "there's more classified info that corroborates it". How can any progress be made in such an environment?
I am keeping an open mind on this as I feel it's best to never become too jaded or cynical even with outlandish claims. My hope is that the people who are in the possession of the supposedly better data on the subject have done everything in their power to rule out everything before arriving at aliens. And they keep insisting that UFO are craft. What about some kind of sophisticated projection tech? Would it not fit with instantaneous acceleration and jittery motion? Does that really come after aliens on the list of possibilities? Even something that unlikely is still easier to investigate and falsify than aliens.
Once you land on the alien node in the flowchart there are an endless number of viable possibilities. It's the ultimate unknown, unknown. Many "axiomatic" assumptions are no longer on stable ground. You could explain away the gimbal video with, "Maybe they're manipulating what we see so as to confound us". This could be asserted to support the gimbal video interpretation of it rotating in sync with the gimbal. Or, "They can read our minds, that's how they knew our CAP point". The level of unknown unknowns allow any alien conspiracy to have followers. Aliens are not and may never be falsifiable. I just hope that whoever arrived at aliens has some bulletproof evidence far more than what would be needed to put someone behind bars.
tintintintin
Member
I though I heard Grusch himself reference it during today's hearing. I will look for a source when the video has been transcribed. There's direct proof in the Compass Rose statement that ICIG determined information was withheld, but whether it was from written classified complaint or oral statement I'm not sure.
Don't know about the psychology, but I could imagine patriotism be brought into question were he to break the law, as well as giving the alleged culprits an argument do discredit his statements from that.
I believe that technically the illegality is that Congress is not read in. Even for waived Special Access Programs (SAPs) and Controlled Access Programs (CAPs) the Gang of Eight should be informed (POTUS can extraordinarily suspend this, so that'd be a question for the White House). So it's not illegal security classifications, but deliberate deviation from procedures that should give the legislative branch oversight.
He claims he was wrongfully denied access to those SAPs and CAPs, that is, he did have clearance and need-to-know status. It makes sense with the clearances, because he was in charge of the Presidential Daily Brief previously.
Given the nature of SAPs and CAPs he can brief House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Gang of Eigth without breaking the law I think, but not even House Oversight Committee who handled today's hearing would be allowed to hear it. So these aren't black programmes I think.
Last edited:
tintintintin
Member
Improved it, that was very dense before
LilWabbit
Senior Member
That is, "he thought he had clearances as a UAPTF investigator". The first part of your sentence does not logically imply the latter without making further assumptions on Grusch's subjective claim of having the clearance and need-to-know to these SAPs being objectively the case. A somewhat uncritical belief in his claims due to his former DoD position and overall demeanour is the crux of the issue here.
There's a lot of simplistic Hollywood-inspired myth and misconception being bandied about when the public and even the politicians discuss the way security clearances work.
Speaking from my own government and defence experience, in modern militaries and government agencies an official's security clearance level concerns the maximum security clearance level to classified information s(he) has been granted (1) on a need-to-know basis and (2) with regard to a type of classified information necessary for the discharge of their specific assigned duties. In other words, you may boast the highest security clearance level available whilst remaining legally forbidden to access even lower level classified information which is unrelated to your mission / assigned tasks. You can also be deemed untrustworthy and a potential leaker which may become apparent from your belief system (say, an unwavering belief in secret alien recovery programs coupled with a resolute mission of uncovering all such government secrets).
For me to repeatedly state the above shouldn't be regarded as outrageous, disrespectful nor radical in any way, but rather as a rather predictable way a professional military apparatus works.
Suppose Grusch, as a UAP investigator within a DoD fringe entity (UAPTF) established by congressional pressure (initially campaigned by Reid at the request of Robert Bigelow), is asking questions about a classified program that concerns the recovery and analysis of advanced Chinese balloon technology but which he doesn't know is concerned with said Chinese technology due to the program being classified. He interviews a fellow UFO believer who has had marginal contact with aspects of said compartmentalized program, say, as a driver of officers to and from the recovery/analysis site whilst having no access to the high clearance core premises of the program nor being apprized of its exact nature. This interviewed fellow believer is convinced the Chinese balloon program is in fact an alien craft recovery program. The relevant DoD commanding officers working with said program would not only have every legal right to refuse Grusch access to this program, but to complain to their chain of command about a person within the DoD sniffing around programs he should not be concerned with.
In order to protect this driver from further repercussions, Grusch may withhold naming names indefinitely.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
At the hearing Grusch stated in response to a question by congresswoman Nancy Mace (R) about the government having made contact with ETs that it is "something he cannot discuss in a public setting". Ms. Mace then asked: "If you believe we have crashed crafts do we have the bodies of the pilots of this craft"? Grusch responded with "biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah".
I'm confused as to how Grusch cannot discuss contacts with ETs in a public setting whilst he can comfortably declare alien bodies or possibly body parts have been recovered from alien crafts (which is of course an old UFO trope). If the purpose of the DoD classification was to withhold all information and evidence on aliens from the public, then it's highly inconsistent to classify alien contacts but not their bodies. There are many more similar inconsistencies in Grusch's statements.
My personal takeaway from all what we've heard and seen from Grusch whilst mindful of the bigger picture of the whole UFO flap and how the DoD operates under its legal mandate is this:
Grusch became a true believer at latest somewhere around 2017 through Lou. His demeanour at the hearing was that of a true believer sincerely convinced about the veracity of the claims he's heard from others, combined with an overall put-together and professional composure befitting of a (former) DoD officer.
But none of the above constitutes scientifically viable evidence for aliens. To state this is not indicative of a negative 'debunker' attitude, condescension, snark or mere armchair internet warrior opinions being thrown about. It's merely a statement of a basic scientific standard distinguishing reliable evidence from unreliable.
In his statements and responses to media interviews and congressional questioning, there's every indication of Grusch's partiality to ufological narratives (instead of objectivity demanded by scientific standards) and heavy reliance on anecdotes (instead of hard, repeatably reviewable objective evidence demanded by scientific standards). These two factors alone should awaken reasonable doubt in a reasonable and impartial observer of this whole charade, and have nothing to do with being skeptical for the heck of it.
I'm confused as to how Grusch cannot discuss contacts with ETs in a public setting whilst he can comfortably declare alien bodies or possibly body parts have been recovered from alien crafts (which is of course an old UFO trope). If the purpose of the DoD classification was to withhold all information and evidence on aliens from the public, then it's highly inconsistent to classify alien contacts but not their bodies. There are many more similar inconsistencies in Grusch's statements.
My personal takeaway from all what we've heard and seen from Grusch whilst mindful of the bigger picture of the whole UFO flap and how the DoD operates under its legal mandate is this:
Grusch became a true believer at latest somewhere around 2017 through Lou. His demeanour at the hearing was that of a true believer sincerely convinced about the veracity of the claims he's heard from others, combined with an overall put-together and professional composure befitting of a (former) DoD officer.
But none of the above constitutes scientifically viable evidence for aliens. To state this is not indicative of a negative 'debunker' attitude, condescension, snark or mere armchair internet warrior opinions being thrown about. It's merely a statement of a basic scientific standard distinguishing reliable evidence from unreliable.
In his statements and responses to media interviews and congressional questioning, there's every indication of Grusch's partiality to ufological narratives (instead of objectivity demanded by scientific standards) and heavy reliance on anecdotes (instead of hard, repeatably reviewable objective evidence demanded by scientific standards). These two factors alone should awaken reasonable doubt in a reasonable and impartial observer of this whole charade, and have nothing to do with being skeptical for the heck of it.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
The reason they're "illegal" is that Congress was supposed to be informed of anything UAP-related. The projects might be legal otherwise, and if Grusch is mistaken about their UAP character, they're 100% legal.
Probably this:
The classified complaint is Grusch's DoD IG complaint, it seems.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Looks like we're on track so far...
What about the bit where Grusch (I think) brings up holography as, what was my impression, a buzzword. I can't remember how he worded it. Was it just personal speculation? Or speculation on the part of the supposed programs studying the craft? As a claim he made, is there any scientific hypothesis about FTL travel or teleportation being possible, were the world indeed a hologram?
Candy-O
Member
What were people hoping would happen? Grusch did not illegally copy or steal documents he came across in his job, and so therefore cannot offer much in the way of proof beyond naming names, which he said he already did/will do in SCIF meetings that we are not privy to. He (or was it Graves?) stated that he spent 11 hours in closed meetings already naming names of people and programs.
And If he truly believes that people have been killed over this subject as he implied, then of course he is going to be cagey and guarded in what he says publicly. I'm willing to bet that he is worried about being hung out to dry if this all goes South, so he is trying to cover his behind as best he can with legal council advising him what he should, and should not, say. Just saying "I have nothing to fear because I have the truth on my side so I will blurt out everything I know in public" would be idiotic.
I'd say both sides are at a standstill unless more and more whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward and the efforts gain momentum. And that's what Fravor and Graves seemed to be pressing for.
Actually getting ahold of physical evidence like bits of a craft from one of these programs is very unlikely. Sure it would a great scene in a movie if Grusch suddenly stood up and slams a piece of debris on the table at the hearings and goes "Here it is folks!" But that's just never going to happen, especially given the nature of his particular job, and the military security around supposed materials. If the people in possession of such things do not want to hand evidence over, nothing is going to force them.
At this point, no matter WHO comes forth and states that X is real and he has seen Y and been personally involved in Z, the response would be "But that's not proof" or "It's a psi-ops" or "he's just mentally ill" "he just wants attention" etc.
So I agree that these hearings, in and of themselves, are not "the smoking gun" or whatever true believers hoped would happen, but its not realistic to expect Grusch to be able to deliver that smoking gun either. Nothing short of physical evidence turned over to the scientific community at large would ever be accepted by skeptics. If mass "disclosure" is ever going to happen, I think it would have to be from some event that does not involved the government, such as a huge sighting event or landing that is witnessed and recorded by hundreds of people up close in detail.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
This subject probably deserves its own topic.
Article: A quarter of a century ago a conjecture shook the world of theoretical physics. It had the aura of revelation. “At first, we had a magical statement ... almost out of nowhere,” says Mark Van Raamsdonk, a theoretical physicist at the University of British Columbia. The idea, put forth by Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., suggested something profound: that our universe could be a hologram. Much like a 3-D hologram emerges from the information encoded on a 2-D surface, our universe's 4-D spacetime could be a holographic projection of a lower-dimensional reality.
Specifically, Maldacena showed that a five-dimensional theory of a type of imaginary spacetime called anti–de Sitter space (AdS) that included gravity could describe the same system as a lower-dimensional quantum field theory of particles and fields in the absence of gravity, referred to as a conformal field theory (CFT). In other words, he found two different theories that could describe the same physical system, showing that the theories were, in a sense, equivalent—even though they included different numbers of dimensions, and one factored in gravity where the other didn't. Maldacena then surmised that this AdS/CFT duality would hold for other pairs of theories in which one had a single extra dimension, possibly even those describing 4-D spacetime akin to ours.
The conjecture was both intriguing and shocking. How could a theory that included gravity be the same as a theory that had no place for gravity? How could they describe the same universe? But the duality has largely held up. In essence, it argues that we can understand what happens inside a volume of spacetime that has gravity by studying the quantum-mechanical behavior of particles and fields at that volume's surface, using a theory with one less dimension, one in which gravity plays no role. “Sometimes some things are easier to understand in one description than the other, and knowing that you're really talking about the same physics is very powerful,” says Netta Engelhardt, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The world is the world, no matter how you describe it. Changing the description doesn't suddenly make impossible things possible.
Edit: possible reference debunked:
Article: It’s about as speculative as it can get. First, it assumes that the holographic principle — which states that all physical properties within a volume of space can be encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary of that space — is, in fact, a property of the yet-undiscovered quantum theory of gravity. Second, instead of using the AdS/CFT correspondence, which is the established mathematical equivalence between a 5D anti-de Sitter space and the 4D conformal field theory that defines the boundary of that space, they use the suggestive correspondence between the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and a two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space.
That’s a mouthful, but what that means is that they model gravity in “our Universe” as having one time dimension, one spatial dimension, and a negative cosmological constant, and then take what might be a mathematically equivalent description (the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model) and simulated that instead. Some of the properties they observed were analogous with some of the behaviors a traversable wormhole is expected to exhibit, but this provides no insights into how a traversable wormhole in our actual Universe, governed by General Relativity (in three spatial and one time dimension with a positive cosmological constant), would behave.
Last edited:
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Or just that "he's a true believer which is especially apparent from the fact that he himself admits having had no direct access to the hard evidence he's been told about".
This is a reasonable statement and reasonably casts doubt on the whole charade as a big nothingburger.
Mendel
Senior Member.
This:
It didn't.
"He has seen Y" is worthless if it's far away. We want it to be up close, and we want a record (e.g. photographs) to go with it. We'd also want a good explanation (and ideally a record) of why it's not there any more. The problem is that a lot of "seen Y" testimony in the past turned out to actually not be Y.
Note also that there is no "seen Y" claim currently with regard to government-held UFOs or aliens.
"He has been personally involved in Z" needs corroboration. Alien abductions are typically lonely affairs that lack evidence. If Z is a government program, we'd want corroboration: documents, for example. But again, there is no such claim currently.
If the claims lack corroborating evidence, yes, "that's not proof" would probably be our reaction. It's justified by precedent.
Last edited:
Candy-O
Member
How would you propose Grusch expose said programs, aside from naming them in a SCIF meeting (which he did)? What specific piece of information do you think passes muster, and how do you know he did not deliver it in a SCIF? For all we know he was VERY specific in the details he handed over. Or maybe was was just babbling.. impossible to know at this point.
Did you want him to present stolen documents? Those would be worthless. You would just disregard them as not actual proof, forged, unverifiable, etc. Rightly so I might add, and my point is that NOTHING he said in a public hearing, at face value, will ever be good enough to settle the issue. I would love to know what he said in the SCIFs, but the public will probably never know.
Looking at it from his point of view, he has seen official documents and talked to many people that you and I have not, so he is convinced to HIS level of satisfaction about the veracity of the claims. It's not about pleasing Mendel or Candy-0 from Metabunk. Congress is his target audience, not us.
And either Congress will investigate his claims or they won't. He's either lying, honest, but misguided, or foolish, or partially or fully correct. But we don't have enough information to pass judgment or "debunk" his claims because he not provided any detailed evidence to debunk in the first place. All the details that might be examined are being withheld.
Last edited:
Paladinhgwt
New Member
Joe Rogan? He is not getting the claims data from the videos.
There is nothing 'reasonable' about that statement, but it serves to dampen ones cognitive dissonance, like many posts I read here.
The logic in your statement is:
Grush himself admits having had no direct access to the hard evidence he's been told about -> he is a 'true believer'
But Grush did see documents, photographs, and has spoken to first hand witnesses. He has done 4 years of research. And subsequently labeling him as a 'true believer' only serves to push him away to 'the other side', which only serves to dampen any cognitive dissonance caused by his statements.
The facts are as they are, there's been a hearing, senators are growing impatient with the stonewalling by bureaucrats, UAPs have been labeled a threat to national security in said hearing, and metallic orbs, some of which appearing to make implausible movements, are seen 'all over the world'. We have the Nimitz case with radar tracking and visual sightings on a beautiful clear sunny day with a later ATFLIR recording of a tictac shaped object. So there is every reason to investigate more instead of throwing everyone involved in a corner labeled 'true believers' to keep ones worldview from falling apart.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Yup. That's the logic. And all your following (see below) appeal to Grusch's authority as a dedicated investigator who has spoken to lots of (possibly already believing) witnesses that have strengthened his (possibly already existing) beliefs only reinforce my point. A conviction based largely on anecdotes provided by others (admitted by Grusch) is reasonably characterizable as 'belief' or even as somewhat gullible belief.
That you perhaps share a similar foundation for your ufologist beliefs explains the anger in your response. But doesn't really refute the point made which was made without any intention to disrespect anyone.
P.S. Not even broaching your "beautiful clear sunny day" qualifier to misrepresent ATFLIR and Nimitz evidence as convincing.
derwoodii
Senior Member.
*Explained* is term used when fits the topic or need best.
https://www.metabunk.org/search/576750/?q=Explained&c[title_only]=1&o=relevance
Explained: video of pilot showing off "chemtrail plane" (prank video)
PublicStranger
Active Member
I majored in Computer Science and I read up on physics related topics while at university purely out of interest.
As far as I know It's purely skeptical and sits on the fringes of string theory. It's kind of like the conspiracy theory of physicists, the universe is so complex, explanations like this seem to make all calculations much simpler, so some roll with it. It also seems to be a solution to certain gravity problems like the black hole information paradox but on the other hand seems to contradict a lot of competing hypothesis along the way. However there is yet to be any conclusive proof that we live in a 2d information reality that is being projected onto a 3d surface and it's mainly speculation, albeit an interesting one.
As far as holographic principle making space travel easier, I don't know where he gets this idea from, he tries to explain it but then goes off on a tangent.
Nemon
Active Member
This makes no sense at all. What does one have to do with the other?
In official investigation reports there is no disqualification of believers. And here, where the decisive results of analyses have come about, this is also to be considered completely independent of who labels whom as believer. Nobody's world view depends on this. And certainly the people you are addressing here do not have to be asked to do more research.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yep. "It's not proof."
And Grusch has not "seen Y" or "been involved in Z" where aliens are concerned, all he testifies to is indirect knowledge.
That's not what happened with the Navy videos leaked to the NYT.
That's not what happened with the wikileaks cables, Assange's leak, or the Panama papers.
Because they were not forged, and they have been verified, they're considered proof.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
it's only stonewalling if there's a "there" there.
and keeping classified information secret isn't stonewalling, either
Last edited:
Candy-O
Member
OK lets grant that someone comes forward who back up his claims.
If base commander so-and-so came forth and said "Yup, it's all true I can corroborate and I have personally seen what Grusch claims is true" Then where would we be? Would that be "proof?" When asked specifics, he says, like Grusch "I will tell you everything in a SCIF, but not in a public forum"
Then what?
Candy-O
Member
Good point, and where is Assange now? Handing over a wad of stolen US documents is unwise.
from reading comments here it seems that the required bar to be met is
a) scientific data (photographs, measurements, physical evidence)
b) peer reviewed by the scientific community
c) corroborated by first hand witnesses/whistleblowers within government as to their origin
it therefore seems the only way to resolve this issue is to support the "disclosure" effort and get said data/evidence released. otherwise everyone will still be here 20 years from now arguing over a game of 'he said / she said'.
is that the consensus opinion?
a) scientific data (photographs, measurements, physical evidence)
b) peer reviewed by the scientific community
c) corroborated by first hand witnesses/whistleblowers within government as to their origin
it therefore seems the only way to resolve this issue is to support the "disclosure" effort and get said data/evidence released. otherwise everyone will still be here 20 years from now arguing over a game of 'he said / she said'.
is that the consensus opinion?
NoParty
Senior Member.
There's a good chance that what counts as "hard evidence" for you, looks inherently dubious to many of us.
Like "chemtrails," Bigfoot, Nessie and so many other things, we've waited decades to see the promised
"hard evidence" that somehow just never arrives. I don't judge Grush...but I also see little reason
to find his extraordinary claims convincing...given the all-too-familar total lack of real evidence...
Nemon
Active Member
...and also given the background of his story - more than symbolically present in the meeting with George Knapp sitting right behind Grusch and backing him up... etc.
Candy-O
Member
We will never know what details and names he handed over in the SCIF meetings. Again, we are not the target audience, Congress is. Grusch doesn't need to convince Metabunk, he needs convince Congress to dig deeper, and to give legitimacy and moral and/or tactical support to other possible whistleblowers.
That's the problem with the whole national security risks and clearance issue. It's used to deny information, to obfuscate facts when needed, and covers an enormous range of topics and facts. "In the interest of public safety, public health, or national security" could be stretched to include or justify almost everything. Policies and NDAs exists for valid reasons, but it's a bit pointless to get too worked up over hearings where 90% of the questions fall under "well I'll tell you later in private"
Similar threads
