Grusch here confirms that claim as accurate. That means Kirkpatrick's statement is a direct rebuttal to Grusch's claims, based on at least some of the same sources, and claiming to have necessary access to investigate the claims regarding crash retrieval programs and NHI. This is from Kirkpatrick's recent interview with ABC news. The video they released only includes excerpts, so some of the transcript below is supplemented from the accompanying article where further quotes from the interview were provided. I have used curly braces to indicate content from the article.
Grusch served as the National Reconnaissance Office's representative to the AARO and its predecessor the UAPTF. Could relationships have soured because he's a true believer whilst Kirkpatrick seems to have adopted a more impartial stance to the investigations, as one should? Something similar seems to have happened with Elizondo earlier.
For the ufologists reading this: Let's assume for a moment that (1) Kirkpatrick is no less sincere a guy than Grusch, and (2) actually committed to upholding impartiality as the head of UAP investigations. Let's also assume that, like Kirkpatrick says, (3) he seeks hard evidence, and is less interested in hearsay, and that (4) he doesn't want to snoop around classified programs because he trusts there's a good national security reason for their classification, and AARO wasn't established to compromise the secrecy of any classified program. Wouldn't it then be obvious he'd try to instruct Grusch to also focus on finding and analyzing physical records, avoid digging into classified programs, and avoid mingling with and interviewing true believers within and without the DoD whilst working at AARO. If only to maintain an air of objectivity.
If the above is true or plausible, then isn't it also true or plausible that Grusch wouldn't like Kirkpatrick's instruction, and would begin to suspect Kirkpatrick to be one of 'them' intent upon cover-up?
However, if we are to doubt Kirkpatrick's sincerity whilst maintain Grusch's, do we have any rational or evidentiary grounds for such an unfair assumption?
P.S. My apologies for today's tsunami of posts. Had some free moments.
But is it really all that bizarre in a world where notorious celebrity businessmen and politically inexperienced actors can be elected presidents of the most powerful nation of the world?
I think I know who you mean by the first description, but not sure about the second! If you are thinking of Ronald Reagan, by the time of his election to the Presidency he had been a career politician for about 20 years, including 8 years as Governor of California. He arguably had more prior political experience than several other Presidents, such as Jimmy Carter (4 years as Governor of Georgia) or George W. Bush (5 years as Governor of Texas). Dwight Eisenhower strictly had none at all.
The problem I have is.....what is the reason in (2) ? It would appear that in the 40s and 50s the US government was quite happy for people to mistake advanced human craft as UFOs. But these days the public are quite capable of having UFO mania on their own and don't really need psyops to persuade them. What conceivable purpose is served by such a psyop ?
And if we are being mis-directed, then what are we being misdirected away from that has gone on for 80 years or more ? If the government had developed highly advanced UFO-like tech in some Manhattan Project style endeavour, that in itself would be a major revelation. Why would the government engage in a crazy UFOs and aliens misdirection for anything less ?
One then has to add in the fact that UFOs are not just an American phenomenon. Do the three letter US agencies really have the power ( as some 'fake alien invasion' fanatics seem to believe ) to misdirect every country on the planet ? It is not only in America that one can find UFO 'whistleblowers' stating that the phenomenon is 'real'.
I really wish there was some explanation that makes sense of all the different threads. There isn't. It may simply be the most prosaic explanation of all....that there are worldwide a lot of extremely gullible people ( even in top military posts ) who 'want to believe'. But even that does not explain everything.
Grusch served as the National Reconnaissance Office's representative to the AARO and its predecessor the UAPTF. Could relationships have soured because he's a true believer whilst Kirkpatrick seems to have adopted a more impartial stance to the investigations, as one should? Something similar seems to have happened with Elizondo earlier.
For the ufologists reading this: Let's assume for a moment that (1) Kirkpatrick is no less sincere a guy than Grusch, and (2) actually committed to upholding impartiality as the head of UAP investigations. Let's also assume that, like Kirkpatrick says, (3) he seeks hard evidence, and is less interested in hearsay, and that (4) he doesn't want to snoop around classified programs because he trusts there's a good national security reason for their classification, and AARO wasn't established to compromise the secrecy of any classified program. Wouldn't it then be obvious he'd try to instruct Grusch to also focus on finding and analyzing physical records, avoid digging into classified programs, and avoid mingling with and interviewing true believers within and without the DoD whilst working at AARO. If only to maintain an air of objectivity.
My understanding is that Grusch's entire job was to find evidence of precisely the sort of misdirection of funds towards secret UFO projects that he claims to have uncovered. It comes as no surprise to me that a witchfinder general finds witches !
My point is a response to the statement from @AR318307 "Presumably anyone qualified enough to have access to a program like this and be given a biological sample of some sort to look at can fairly quickly tell if what they have in front of them is of human origin or not, no?", to which the answer is no. Body "parts", or possibly just blobs of mangled tissue, might take a trained forensic professional to identify the species, and, as I've said, the manager might only know what the technical people SAID it was, and the chain of information (or misinformation) lengthens again. And of course something as commonplace as, say, the remains of a seagull that had been sucked into a jet engine could accurately be described as "non human".
DNA analysis should be able to tell if a sample has alien provenance or not. No alien species anywhere in the visible universe is likely to be identical genetically to a human being.*
Admittedly a true alien lifeform might not use DNA as such: there may be some other form of data-carrying molecule involved, or even some different method of transmitting information from one alien generation to another. But any astrobiologist worth the name should be able to detect the lack of DNA in a sample.
*One interesting possibility is that a population of extraterrestrial humans exists elsewhere in the universe, have been abducted thousands of years ago to live in an alien civilisation. Or they may have gone voluntarily - indeed, they may have been given the choice of living on a relatively primitive planet or in an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation elsewhere. So we can't guarantee that any sample found in a hypothetical crashed UFO would necessarily be alien in origin - it might belong to humans who left Earth an arbitrarily long time ago.
*One interesting possibility is that a population of extraterrestrial humans exists elsewhere in the universe, have been abducted thousands of years ago to live in an alien civilisation. Or they may have gone voluntarily - indeed, they may have been given the choice of living on a relatively primitive planet or in an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation elsewhere. So we can't guarantee that any sample found in a hypothetical crashed UFO would necessarily be alien in origin - it might belong to humans who left Earth an arbitrarily long time ago.
DNA analysis should be able to tell if a sample has alien provenance or not. No alien species anywhere in the visible universe is likely to be identical genetically to a human being.*
Admittedly a true alien lifeform might not use DNA as such: there may be some other form of data-carrying molecule involved, or even some different method of transmitting information from one alien generation to another. But any astrobiologist worth the name should be able to detect the lack of DNA in a sample.
*One interesting possibility is that a population of extraterrestrial humans exists elsewhere in the universe, have been abducted thousands of years ago to live in an alien civilisation. Or they may have gone voluntarily - indeed, they may have been given the choice of living on a relatively primitive planet or in an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation elsewhere. So we can't guarantee that any sample found in a hypothetical crashed UFO would necessarily be alien in origin - it might belong to humans who left Earth an arbitrarily long time ago.
I really wish there was some explanation that makes sense of all the different threads. There isn't. It may simply be the most prosaic explanation of all....that there are worldwide a lot of extremely gullible people ( even in top military posts ) who 'want to believe'. But even that does not explain everything.
How about this: The resurgent UFO flap, including the very existence of publicly funded UFO investigation entities, is primarily just another example of the inherent vulnerability of democratic governments to the influence of able political lobby groups consisting of relatively few leading individuals, supported by a large number of ideologically fundamentalist sympathizers both inside and outside the government, drawing variously on entertainment-based sci-fi folklore, lack of purpose, lack of belonging, need for attention, and sustained by the impressionability of the generality of people. As a belief system, UFO ideology consists of many semi-canonized faith-based tenets that precede evidence, looks for whatever evidentiary support it can get, and thrives in the low information zone in the absence of scientifically compelling evidence.
It's an essentially sociological and politological dilemma. Where the UFO "college" has lacked scientific competence and credibility, they have excelled at organized public outreach, fundraising and politics. Is there any significant aspect of the flap that the above summary doesn't somehow satisfactorily cover, and why?
My understanding is that Grusch's entire job was to find evidence of precisely the sort of misdirection of funds towards secret UFO projects that he claims to have uncovered. It comes as no surprise to me that a witchfinder general finds witches !
Do you have a source for that? I don't recall hearing/reading Grusch claim his brief included looking for financial irregularities or fraudulent use of allocated funds. Seems like a task better suited to an FM functional like a forensic accountant or auditor, as opposed to a senior technical/analyst type.
This does raise the question as to whether we've ever seen a copy of Grusch's position description (PD)? Every DoD civilian has a PD to define the individual's job responsibilities, and ultimately the basis on which one's performance is evaluated. PDs are somewhat generic and are (or at least were) public domain documents. It would also be interesting to see his performance evaluations, although these are not public domain documents and would have to be released by Grusch himself.
My point is a response to the statement from @AR318307 "Presumably anyone qualified enough to have access to a program like this and be given a biological sample of some sort to look at can fairly quickly tell if what they have in front of them is of human origin or not, no?", to which the answer is no. Body "parts", or possibly just blobs of mangled tissue, might take a trained forensic professional to identify the species, and, as I've said, the manager might only know what the technical people SAID it was, and the chain of information (or misinformation) lengthens again. And of course something as commonplace as, say, the remains of a seagull that had been sucked into a jet engine could accurately be described as "non human".
Sounds like the best skeptical hypothesis boils down to a real life Intelligence Community version of the tired ol' "Idiot Ball" TV trope with a little bit of Poor Communication Skills sprinkled on top:
A moment when a normally competent character suddenly becomes incompetent — knowingly or otherwise — which fuels an episode, a plot line, or any number of smaller threads.
Coined by Hank Azaria on Herman's Head: Azaria would ask the writing staff, "Who's carrying the idiot ball this week?" This is generally not a compliment. Frequently, the person carrying the idiot ball is acting Out of Character, misunderstanding something that could be cleared up by asking a single reasonable question or not performing a simple action that would solve everything. It's almost as if the character holding the ball is being willfully stupid or obtuse (or impulsive) far beyond what has been established as "natural" for them. Frequently, it's only because the story (and by extension, the writers) need them to act this way, or else the chosen plot/conflict for the episode won't happen.
Unsurprisingly, this provokes a "What an Idiot!" response from the audience.
Personally, seeing all of this take place especially with all of the usual suspects involved, i.e. George Knapp, Corbell and others as well as David Grusch's connection to them, this all seems like a big joke. No evidence put forth and the usual responses of "I cannot talk about this" is a bunch of garbage. The "whistleblowers" want transparency and disclosure when they wont even disclose what they know and how they know it. The UFO grifters have highjacked the government officials to actually take this seriously. The grifters will just use this as a talking point in all of their videos, podcasts, radio shows and books to sell to all the gullible people out there. Someone needs to expose these people in these hearings for who they really are. Instead they are just spouting the same old stories and conspiracies that have been going on for decades. This is my opinion Mick and I'm sure a lot of others in this forum feel the same.
Do you have a source for that? I don't recall hearing/reading Grusch claim his brief included looking for financial irregularities or fraudulent use of allocated funds
By definition any illegal SAP project is misappropriating funds. Sure, nowhere is his specific job title 'looking for misappropriation of funds'...but his task most definitely was to seek out and find all UAP related projects and especially those not reported to Congress. I mean, his entire complaint, when raised, was that he was being prevented from doing that. Grusch clearly states in the hearings that he did uncover misappropriation of funds. Actually I would add the proviso that he never specifically states the misappropriation was related to UAP....but as UAPs were his job one can surely make such inference.
Sounds like the best skeptical hypothesis boils down to a real life Intelligence Community version of the tired ol' "Idiot Ball" TV trope with a little bit of Poor Communication Skills sprinkled on top:
If that's what it sounds like, then I suggest you haven't read very carefully. Your tenor has changed. Perhaps you were turned off by certain more poignant remarks that made you feel your intelligence was being insulted which, I can assure you, is not. As far as I'm concerned, you continue to contribute with penetrating thought and articulation which is warmly welcome and needed in MB. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the 'so-called' skeptics who, by the way, constantly disagree amongst themselves.
But back to the point.
There's no such thing as a centralized "intelligence community" within DoD. Reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence (ISR) are a decentralized military sub-discipline that cuts across DoD’s core functions in almost every branch and at every level. Developing these functions to quicker and better identify potential airborne threats (amongst others) is a core area of constant improvement, and billions of dollars are yearly appropriated to maintain and improve these functions. These core military functions do not rely on a separate modestly funded and unclassified fringe "UAP" entity in the Pentagon or anywhere else, established under congressional pressure which was generated by a ufologist lobby group. That some now-notable ufologists were former DoD intelligence officers and UAP investigators under said entity, relying on all manner of anonymous testimonies and LIZ records from within the DoD, tells more about DoD intelligence function's quality control than the quality of the generality of its intelligence officers.
People can believe in anything as long as they don't let it undermine their trustworthiness with classified material or the quality of their work as impartial investigators. Grusch and Elizondo did. And maybe many others we don't know about.
Because personally I feel it's important to note how we can admire, study and agree with experts who have a different philosophical 'belief system'. And also to dispel any misreading of my post as to implying Nima is speaking about something god-like in his search for fundamental properties from which every other property emerges. We happened to just recently have a similar debate on another thread at MB discussing God-belief so I wanted to avoid misunderstandings.
Grusch is a bit different from the others. He is the one who sparked the excitement about reverse engineering, recovery of crashed vehicles, etc. But he didn't claim first-hand knowledge, so what can he say at the hearing? Will he name his sources? I guess he will plead confidentiality on the sources, and 'national security' on anything else.
He offered anecdotes as his primary evidence. Elizondo leaked LIZ videos. Because Grusch's anecdotes directly imply a deep-state conspiracy against whistleblowers and the general public, as well as mind-boggling facts about decades of USG's contacts with aliens, it's far more scoopworthy and politically usable. Despite being essentially 'UFO greatest hits' to borrow from @NorCal Dave.
Luna: To your knowledge are there safety measures in place with foreign governments or other superpowers to avoid an escalatory situation in the event that a UAP malevolent event occurs?
Grusch: Uh yeah you're referring to an actual public treaty in the UN register, uh, it's funny you mentioned that, yeah the agreement on measures to reduce the risk of outbreak of a nuclear war signed in 1971, uh, an unclassified treaty publicly available and if you cite the George Washington University National Security archives you will find uh, the Declassified in 2013 specific provisions in the specific, uh, Red Line flash message traffic with the specific codes pursuant to article 3 and uh, also situation two which is in the previously classified NSA archive, what I would recommend, and I tried to get access but uh, I got a wall of silence at the White House, uh, was the specific incidents when those, um, message traffic was used, I think uh, some scholarship on that would open the door to a further investigation uh, using those publicly available information.
Luna: To your knowledge are there safety measures in place with foreign governments or other superpowers to avoid an escalatory situation in the event that a UAP malevolent event occurs?
Grusch: Uh yeah you're referring to an actual public treaty in the UN register, uh, it's funny you mentioned that, yeah the agreement on measures to reduce the risk of outbreak of a nuclear war signed in 1971, uh, an unclassified treaty publicly available and if you cite the George Washington University National Security archives you will find uh, the Declassified in 2013 specific provisions in the specific, uh, Red Line flash message traffic with the specific codes pursuant to article 3 and uh, also situation two which is in the previously classified NSA archive, what I would recommend, and I tried to get access but uh, I got a wall of silence at the White House, uh, was the specific incidents when those, um, message traffic was used, I think uh, some scholarship on that would open the door to a further investigation uh, using those publicly available information.
His choice of words and demeanor in stating the bolded bit seemed frustrated. Almost as if he immediately suspects there must be some foul play rather than a perfectly regular denial of access due to lack of clearance and need to know. As if a UAP investigator should automatically have access to even the White House.
For me these types of responses demonstrate how belief has started to affect judgment.
If that's what it sounds like, then I suggest you haven't read very carefully. Your tenor has changed. Perhaps you were turned off by certain more poignant remarks that made you feel your intelligence was being insulted which, I can assure you, is not. As far as I'm concerned, you continue to contribute with penetrating thought and articulation which is warmly welcome and needed in MB. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the 'so-called' skeptics who, by the way, constantly disagree amongst themselves.
But back to the point.
There's no such thing as a centralized "intelligence community" within DoD. Reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence (ISR) are a decentralized military sub-discipline that cuts across DoD’s core functions in almost every branch and at every level. Developing these functions to quicker and better identify potential airborne threats (amongst others) is a core area of constant improvement, and billions of dollars are yearly appropriated to maintain and improve these functions. These core military functions do not rely on a separate modestly funded and unclassified fringe "UAP" entity in the Pentagon or anywhere else, established under congressional pressure which was generated by a ufologist lobby group. That some now-notable ufologists were former DoD intelligence officers and UAP investigators under said entity, relying on all manner of anonymous testimonies and LIZ records from within the DoD, tells more about DoD intelligence function's quality control than the quality of the generality of its intelligence officers.
People can believe in anything as long as they don't let it undermine their trustworthiness with classified material or the quality of their work as impartial investigators. Grusch and Elizondo did. And maybe many others we don't know about.
My tenor has changed not out of a feeling that my intelligence has been insulted, which it hasn't, it has more to do with a frustration about the way we choose to talk about some of the people being discussed, particularly Grusch, but other folks in the UFO circle with terms like "true believers". That term just isn't particularly helpful. People come to believe in things like God and UFOS for all sorts of different reasons. I personally don't have the kind of evidence I'd need in order to believe that aliens are real, they're visiting the Earth, and the government knows about it. There's no rationally compelling reason for me to accept that given the little amount of publicly available evidence for such claims. But that's the state of the evidence that I have available for that topic.
I have no idea what kind of evidence Grusch has seen, or Elizondo. The fact that I'm not epistemically justified in believing their claims doesn't mean they aren't considering the very real possibility that they have had access to far more documentation, videos, and photos than I ever have or likely ever will. So to call them "true believers" is to assign a label to them whose function is to put them into the same category we tend to put religious fundamentalists in, a group of folks who are generally considered to be people who believe despite having no evidence for their beliefs. But religious believers don't have special access to any evidence for God that isn't available to me as well. I know what the evidence for God is because my area of specialization when I did my graduate program in philosophy was Philosophy of Religion. I find the evidence unpersuasive, so I'm more confident about making claims about religious fundamentalists' beliefs being epistemically unwarranted because I have access to exactly the same kind of information they do.
The same cannot be said for folks like Grusch. For instance, I assume a person who'd fall into the category of "true believer" would be Christopher Mellon. And yet, as recently as 2016, Christopher Mellon publicly was still saying things like this:
I highly doubt DoD or any other government agency is concealing UFO information. I participated in a comprehensive review of DoD's black programs and spent over a decade conducting oversight of the national foreign intelligence program, an almost totally separate world of secrets. I visited Area 51 and other military, intelligence and research facilities. During all those years, I never detected the faintest hint of government interest or involvement in UFOs. ... While a few new, previously overlooked documents might turn up (the bureaucracy is never perfect), I do not believe they would resolve the UFO issue or provide significant new insights. I can think of one lengthy UFO report that is classified only due to concerns over sources and methods. In fact, it identified a convincing conventional explanation for the pilot sightings in this particular case. There are lots of classified documents related to activities at Area 51, where high security is needed. But this is all legitimate stuff the American people would support. They have nothing to do with UFOs, to the best of my knowledge
What changed? I have no idea. Is he a "true believer"? I find it difficult to believe that after saying things like the above, someone like Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff sat down with him and told him stories that were persuasive enough for him to completely change his tune. That's a just-so story that explains very little and illuminates nothing. If these people are true believers, why are they true believers? On the basis of what do they ground their beliefs about this subject? Assuming that their belief is based on pre-existing convictions and pre-existing adherence to UFO folklore that predates their official work is as much of a speculative assumption as is the assumption that they believe because they've been exposed to information in their line of work by individuals they have good reason to trust that was compelling enough to ground their belief in what they're saying.
Skeptics can and do disagree about all sorts of things amongst themselves, that's something that's been clear to me in the 15 years or so that I've been engaged with the skeptic community. What is irritating though is when admittedly speculative skeptical hypotheses are asserted with a tone of certainty that is unwarranted. It's a kind of underlying arrogant debunker attitude that has been pointed out for decades and attributed to people like Randi, Brian Dunning, and countless other non-famous skeptics that hang out in these types of places. We have an "assume good-faith" rule in this site, but don't seem to have much of a problem denying that assumption of good-faith to people like Grusch, someone who's only ever made two public appearances and whom we know absolutely nothing about.
Here's a perfect example:
People can believe in anything as long as they don't let it undermine their trustworthiness with classified material or the quality of their work as impartial investigators. Grusch and Elizondo did.
This assumes Grusch's pre-existing beliefs undermined his trustworthiness with classified material and/or the quality of his work as an impartial investigator. You are not justified in assuming that with how little information we have available. For all we know it is because of his work and investigations that he came to these beliefs in the first place. We just assume, without argument, that there's nothing really going on behind the scenes, so any beliefs Grusch has must have existed before his job or due to some incompetence in his ability as an investigator. But it is just as possible that in the course of his investigations he found evidence that led him to form these beliefs in the first place. And now he's branded a "true-believer" for holding these beliefs. We make so many wild speculations and inferences on the basis of very little evidence every bit as much as Ufologists do, and it's extremely frustrating that we have a massive blind-spot when we do it.
By definition any illegal SAP project is misappropriating funds. Sure, nowhere is his specific job title 'looking for misappropriation of funds'...but his task most definitely was to seek out and find all UAP related projects and especially those not reported to Congress. I mean, his entire complaint, when raised, was that he was being prevented from doing that. Grusch clearly states in the hearings that he did uncover misappropriation of funds. Actually I would add the proviso that he never specifically states the misappropriation was related to UAP....but as UAPs were his job one can surely make such inference.
From Grusch's opening statement at this week's hearing, no mention of "especially those not reported to Congress" or misuse of appropriated funds. Is there a source where he says that was part of his official tasking? Not discounting he apparently believed he found evidence of both, and further believed he was honor bound to report same.
I think the most likely scenario is, Grusch was read into and defensively briefed on the programs he's claiming to have uncovered as a function of his tasking to "identify" SAPs and CAPs. He then asked to see more information and was denied. This supposition is supported in large part by this statement from Tuesday's hearing.(Bold by me.)
Due to my extensive executive level intelligence support duties, I was cleared to literally all relevant compartments and in a position of extreme trust both in my military and civilian capacities. I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, to which I was denied access to those additional read ons when I requested it.
What most do not realize is there are different levels on access within classified programs. What this means is two people with the same TS/SCI clearance can be accessed to the same black program, but have significant differences in what they can know/see. The level at which they are accessed is function of what each needs to know to do his/her job.
In this case, he was in briefed only to the level to comply with his tasking....to identify these programs. He was denied access to detailed program aspects because that was beyond his need to know based on his assignment.
I couldn't unravel his main point at cursory listening/reading. However, now that you cited his bit, the part in bold caught my eye:
His choice of words and demeanor in stating the bolded bit seemed frustrated. Almost as if he immediately suspects there must be some foul play rather than a perfectly regular denial of access due to lack of clearance and need to know. As if a UAP investigator should automatically have access to even the White House.
For me these types of responses demonstrate how belief has started to affect judgment.
In 2019, the UAPTF director tasked me to identify all Special Access Programs & Controlled
Access Programs (SAPs/CAPs) we needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission.
At the time, due to my extensive executive-level intelligence support duties, I was cleared to
literally all relevant compartments and in a position of extreme trust in both my military and
civilian capacities.
I was informed, in the course of my official duties, of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and
reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-on’s.
Okay, so you work for a department that has newly been created by Congress. Congress has defined that department's mandated mission. The director of your department gives you a task, to "identify all special access programs and controlled access programs needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission". Grusch then identifies some of those programs per the request of his director and because that is what the task force has been mandated to do by Congress. He is then routinely denied access to these programs, despite his having the right clearance, but deemed to not have a "need to know", or sometimes not even outright denied but simply not even responded to.
That frustration would be both personal and professional, wouldn't it? We have here a case of someone doing what he has been assigned to do, in his role working for an agency that was created to do this very kind of thing by Congress, and other areas of the federal government are placing obstacles and denying him the ability to do what he has been told to do by both his boss *and* congress.
Frustration makes perfect sense here, belief notwithstanding.
This assumes Grusch's pre-existing beliefs undermined his trustworthiness with classified material and/or the quality of his work as an impartial investigator. You are not justified in assuming that with how little information we have available.
Without even a need to address the ample evidence that's been gathered and analyzed at Metabunk regarding historical 'UAP investigation entities' and their various recruits invariably linking back to a known group of UFO believers (SWR), I am more than justified, by the rule of contraposition, to assume that belief preceding evidence creating bias and shared by a group of believers is the likelier of the two logical hypotheses where the alternative without any evidentiary priors is the claim of 'alien visitations'.
The burden of proof is really on the claimant of any epistemological equivalence between these two alternatives.
The notion 'true belief' has not been invoked at least by yours truly as a derogatory term but rather as a label to a well-known phenomenon with a vast amount of priors. And I will continue to employ a perfectly descriptive term of a real thing.
I assume this means Grusch didn't work for AARO. If so, that is an accurate statement relative to how the DoD sees things. "Work for" usually means the organization where his performance appraisal ("punches his ticket" in military speak) is controlled. He was assigned to represent his "home office" as a representative, but he actually worked for and reported to that home office.
I assume this means Grusch didn't work for AARO. If so, that is an accurate statement relative to how the DoD sees things. "Work for" usually means the organization where his performance appraisal ("punches his ticket" in military speak) is controlled. He was assigned to represent his "home office" as a representative, but he actually worked for and reported to that home office.
In 2019, the UAPTF director tasked me to identify all Special Access Programs & Controlled
Access Programs (SAPs/CAPs) we needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission.
At the time, due to my extensive executive-level intelligence support duties, I was cleared to
literally all relevant compartments and in a position of extreme trust in both my military and
civilian capacities.
I was informed, in the course of my official duties, of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and
reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-on’s.
Okay, so you work for a department that has newly been created by Congress. Congress has defined that department's mandated mission. The director of your department gives you a task, to "identify all special access programs and controlled access programs needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission". Grusch then identifies some of those programs per the request of his director and because that is what the task force has been mandated to do by Congress. He is then routinely denied access to these programs, despite his having the right clearance, but deemed to not have a "need to know", or sometimes not even outright denied but simply not even responded to.
That frustration would be both personal and professional, wouldn't it? We have here a case of someone doing what he has been assigned to do, in his role working for an agency that was created to do this very kind of thing by Congress, and other areas of the federal government are placing obstacles and denying him the ability to do what he has been told to do by both his boss *and* congress.
Frustration makes perfect sense here, belief notwithstanding.
If you knew the system any better as a government insider would (even most outsiders), to expect automatic access to the White House simply because one is a congressionally mandated UAP investigator in the Pentagon, is truly naive. Even the top FBI investigators don't. To me only blind belief can explain such a beclouding of judgment by a seasoned official, and the resulting frustration.
Without even a need to address the ample evidence that's been gathered and analyzed at Metabunk regarding historical 'UAP investigation entities' and their various recruits invariably linking back to a known group of UFO believers (SWR), I am more than justified, by the rule of contraposition, to assume that belief preceding evidence creating bias and shared by a group of believers is the likelier of the two logical hypotheses where the alternative without any evidentiary priors is the claim of 'alien visitations'.
I can think of a few examples of this kind of thing having happened in the past: salem witch trials, red scare, satanic panic, WMDs in Iraq, Havana syndrome. An underlying belief system influencing the interpretations of very real yet mundane evidence, combined with some true believers and grifters throwing their hat into the ring -- eventually you get a self reinforcing feedback loop of rumor backed up by seemingly official statements from authority figures who are just as caught up in the social phenomenon as everyone else.
Also, to be clear, none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO, contrary to statements made in testimony and in the media.
What changed? I have no idea. Is he a "true believer"? I find it difficult to believe that after saying things like the above, someone like Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff sat down with him and told him stories that were persuasive enough for him to completely change his tune. That's a just-so story that explains very little and illuminates nothing. If these people are true believers, why are they true believers? On the basis of what do they ground their beliefs about this subject? Assuming that their belief is based on pre-existing convictions and pre-existing adherence to UFO folklore that predates their official work is as much of a speculative assumption as is the assumption that they believe because they've been exposed to information in their line of work by individuals they have good reason to trust that was compelling enough to ground their belief in what they're saying.
Skeptics can and do disagree about all sorts of things amongst themselves, that's something that's been clear to me in the 15 years or so that I've been engaged with the skeptic community. What is irritating though is when admittedly speculative skeptical hypotheses are asserted with a tone of certainty that is unwarranted. It's a kind of underlying arrogant debunker attitude that has been pointed out for decades and attributed to people like Randi, Brian Dunning, and countless other non-famous skeptics that hang out in these types of places. We have an "assume good-faith" rule in this site, but don't seem to have much of a problem denying that assumption of good-faith to people like Grusch, someone who's only ever made two public appearances and whom we know absolutely nothing about.
To some extent I agree, but a good deal of skepticism is simply Occam's razor rather than equally blinkered 'true disbeliever' status. One is looking for the most likely explanation, as the fact is that when it comes to UFOs none of us are 100% certain.
So one has to ask, if there are no aliens or bodies, how does any government official get to end up firmly convinced there are ? Someone has to be either lying, misrepresenting, or misconstruing somewhere along the line. And I cannot see how this process can be upheld for any length of time without said 'true believers' being involved at some stage in the process....whether Grusch is himself one or has been persuaded by those who are.
I think most of us are simply trying to work out what the blazes is going on, based off so many contradictory claims and assertions....not to mention so little definitive evidence that anything at all UFO related is actually going on.
I am struck by how, whenever there is a news channel report on UFOs and they interview Marco Rubio or Corbell or indeed anyone else, the background is always a dozen or so UFO videos all of which have been resoundingly debunked right here on this forum. That is my guiding star in the matter.
If you knew the system any better as a government insider would (even most outsiders), to expect automatic access to the White House simply because one is a congressionally mandated UAP investigator in the Pentagon, is truly naive. Even the top FBI investigators don't. To me only blind belief can explain such a beclouding of judgment by a seasoned official, and the resulting frustration.
This is a perfect example of a specific kind of narrative being conjured out of thin air. Grusch made one comment, "I got a wall of silence at the white house."
These words, coupled with your observation of his demeanor when saying those words leads you to infer a feeling of frustration. And then a suggestion that from said denial he immediately suspects foul play rather than a perfectly regular denial of access. And from there the inference that belief is affecting his judgment.
After that, there's an now an attribution to him that he must somehow believe he should be given access automatically due to who he's working for, a belief that shows his naiveté. And then his naiveté, clouding of judgment, and seeming frustration, are attributed to the only explanation you can think of: blind belief.
I just want to bring attention to what just happened: A fairly neutral phrase such as "wall of silence" coupled with an observation of his demeanor (which, when I looked at it seemed as neutral as neutral can be) were invoked as pieces of evidence of blind belief and naiveté.
For all we know he got nothing by silence back from the White House and thought nothing of it beyond it being a routine denial. His choice of words and behavior are perfectly consistent with this.
This is the kind of subtle and sometimes not so subtle attribution of beliefs, motives, and emotions to people like Grusch based on not much evidence but our own projections onto him that I'm talking about.
Just notice how quickly and naturally it happens for even someone we know almost nothing about.
This is a perfect example of a specific kind of narrative being conjured out of thin air. Grusch made one comment, "I got a wall of silence at the white house."
These words, coupled with your observation of his demeanor when saying those words leads you to infer a feeling of frustration.
Which you initially seemed to agree with but quickly attributed to different reasons. All the power to you for doing so.
I said it "caught my eye" and why. I didn't claim that the reasons I offered for why that sentence and the accompanying seeming frustration demonstrated naivete and conspiracy belief-induced suspicion constitute a scientific proof. But, again, the alternative that you presented does strike me as the far more naive explanation.
Grusch then identifies some of those programs per the request of his director and because that is what the task force has been mandated to do by Congress. He is then routinely denied access to these programs, despite his having the right clearance, but deemed to not have a "need to know", or sometimes not even outright denied but simply not even responded to.
That kind of assumes that these programs ever existed in the first place. I'm certainly prepared to believe that Grusch is entirely honest and sincere in his beliefs concerning these retrieval programs, but it seems entirely possible that the information he has about them is faulty.
Even if his ultimate source of data is not Puthoff, Davies, Taylor, Santilli, Lazar or any of the usual suspects, he has named names in camera, and hopefully most or all of those informants will be contacted and asked to give their version of events. Unfortunately I doubt we will get to know all the details in the near future, but maybe some historian will be able to get to the bottom of it once the documents are finally declassified.
Which you initially seemed to agree with but quickly attributed to different reasons. All the power to you for doing so.
I said it "caught my eye" and why. I didn't claim that the reasons I offered for why that sentence and the accompanying seeming frustration demonstrated naivete and conspiracy belief-induced suspicion constitute a scientific proof. But, again, the alternative that you presented does strike me as the far more naive explanation.
I know you weren't presenting it as scientific proof of anything. I'm bringing attention to it as a psychological disposition we can all fall prey to without even noticing it's happening so we can maybe become more aware of it in ourselves when it does happen.
If I were to start interpreting the behavior of a person in the least charitable light possible on a consistent basis it'd be helpful for someone to point it out to me as well.
Ok, that could be an easy kill for Grusch. Most DoD meetings, especially interagency meetings, have sign in sheets. The sheets are dated and labeled, with each attendee required to put down their name, their home organization/who they represent, and their contact information. In the old days, they were xeroxed and given to each attendee, and were also usually included in meeting minutes, also provided to each attendee. All he has to do is present an attendance sheet/minutes of an AARO meeting he attended.
Sign in sheets are great CYA evidence to prove attendance at meetings. I once faced down a one star who claimed his organization wasn't responsible for an assigned action item from an interagency working group I co-chaired because they were not part of the team and they had no attendee. He was not happy when I pulled out the meeting minutes and not only showed him one of his folks attended, but had initialed the assigned action item. Believe it or not, I got chastised (only mildly) for embarrassing the GO after he called and complained to my colonel that I'd humiliated him in front of the entire working group.
What changed? I have no idea. Is he a "true believer"? I find it difficult to believe that after saying things like the above, someone like Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff sat down with him and told him stories that were persuasive enough for him to completely change his tune.
You and @LilWabbit mentioned religious beliefs. You may not have examined the threads on the phenomena claims at Skinwalker Ranch, but Steven Greenstreet, a Mormon himself, explained some of the tenets of the LDS church that can lead their members into firm beliefs about things like UFOs. He claimed that they were all Mormons at the ranch, a place with which Puthoff was heavily involved. I have no idea of the religious beliefs of most of the players mentioned in this discussion and do not know if it's a thing that swayed Grusch, but it's a factor that we shouldn't discount completely.
Elizondo leaked LIZ videos. Because Grusch's anecdotes directly imply a deep-state conspiracy against whistleblowers and the general public, as well as mind-boggling facts about decades of USG's contacts with aliens, it's far more scoopworthy and politically usable. Despite being essentially 'UFO greatest hits' to borrow from 
