House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

[Nemon]

To me, there's a nonzero chance that this is a foreign intelligence operation.

it's easy to make such a statement. And from here, there are many avenues of thought. Wouldn't you like to expand on your thought a little further?

 

[FatPhil]

it's easy to make such a statement. And from here, there are many avenues of thought. Wouldn't you like to expand on your thought a little further?

If you can create a list of countries who view things as zero-sum and therefore consider the US flailing about and wasting of every type of resource on such matters to be beneficial, then you might be able to create a shortlist of countries who have an incentive to encourage such wasteful activities.

What would Bezmenov's input be?

 

[Mendel]

it's easy to make such a statement. And from here, there are many avenues of thought. Wouldn't you like to expand on your thought a little further?

This is not the right thread for this; and as far as you're calling for speculation, this isn't even the right forum. If you'd like to discuss this in-depth, please create a new thread.

Evidence supporting the notion:
• Stratton not going up the chain of command when he should have
• Cui bono? Who profits from knowing what the U.S. can identify? and what programs exist for that? (ufology gets another "Blue Book" at best.)
• Matt Gaetz, who went to Elgin AFB to look at classified data, holds no clearance and is probably quite blackmailable given his history.
• Russia is known to actively foment the spread of misinformation on social media. As ufology is CT-adjacent (with considerable overlap especially as the "government coverup" faction is getting stronger), it stands to reason they have their fingers in that pie as well.

Please remember, I've claimed a very small ("non-zero") chance. I've not said that it's likely. And I'm not going to discuss this evidence further in this thread.

 

[AmberRobot]

It's only been two months but does anyone willing to hazard a guess if anything ever comes of these hearings? Will members of Congress follow up on the detailed information and specific names Grusch claimed he was willing to give them in non-public environments? Will those Congress people call up to testify any people who may actually have firsthand knowledge? Or will this just disappear in the wind, subsumed by the noise of what passes for news these days?

 

[Rocky]

It's only been two months but does anyone willing to hazard a guess if anything ever comes of these hearings? Will members of Congress follow up on the detailed information and specific names Grusch claimed he was willing to give them in non-public environments? Will those Congress people call up to testify any people who may actually have firsthand knowledge? Or will this just disappear in the wind, subsumed by the noise of what passes for news these days?

I think it will just disappear in the wind. I say this because so much of the hearing was based off of David Grusch's testimony that sounds pretty wacky. Especially since he lost all credibility when he invokes the much debunked story of the fictitious Italy UFO crash. A story that has also been maligned by the UFO community. As Brian Dunning has brilliantly brought to light in his latest Skeptoid podcast. So if any of our officials at the hearing had done any kind of post vetting of his stories then they would know Grusch is extremely gullible and not basing anything he says on facts. Just stories. And as far as I'm concerned, Grusch has an agenda. And not an honest one either with the list of UFO grifters he's associated with.

 

[Duke]

I think it will just disappear in the wind. I say this because so much of the hearing was based off of David Grusch's testimony that sounds pretty wacky. Especially since he lost all credibility when he invokes the much debunked story of the fictitious Italy UFO crash. A story that has also been maligned by the UFO community. As Brian Dunning has brilliantly brought to light in his latest Skeptoid podcast. So if any of our officials at the hearing had done any kind of post vetting of his stories then they would know Grusch is extremely gullible and not basing anything he says on facts. Just stories. And as far as I'm concerned, Grusch has an agenda. And not an honest one either with the list of UFO grifters he's associated with.

I was in agreement with you until that last sentence. Yes, he has an agenda, but it's an agenda based on something he honestly believes/accepts, and also honestly believes/accepts as being for the greater good. Any dishonest agenda here is that of the "UFO grifters" who are taking advantage of Grusch's gullibility and/or delusions.

 

[Rocky]

I was in agreement with you until that last sentence. Yes, he has an agenda, but it's an agenda based on something he honestly believes/accepts, and also honestly believes/accepts as being for the greater good. Any dishonest agenda here is that of the "UFO grifters" who are taking advantage of Grusch's gullibility and/or delusions.

Fair enough. But I guess we really don't know what Grusch's actual intentions are right now. So both of our statements are just conjecture.

 

[AmberRobot]

I think it will just disappear in the wind. I say this because so much of the hearing was based off of David Grusch's testimony that sounds pretty wacky. Especially since he lost all credibility when he invokes the much debunked story of the fictitious Italy UFO crash. A story that has also been maligned by the UFO community. As Brian Dunning has brilliantly brought to light in his latest Skeptoid podcast. So if any of our officials at the hearing had done any kind of post vetting of his stories then they would know Grusch is extremely gullible and not basing anything he says on facts. Just stories. And as far as I'm concerned, Grusch has an agenda. And not an honest one either with the list of UFO grifters he's associated with.

He very clearly said he could give specific names and groups of those with firsthand knowledge to the congresspeople, just not in a public setting like that hearing. Presumably, any congressperson taking this seriously would follow up with him, get the specific names, and then reach out to those people. They were not the ones whistle blowing, so either they are more fearful of the consequences of whistle blowing or perhaps the information they have isn't what Grusch thinks it is. Either way, Congress should find these people and interview them.

 

[JMartJr]

I doubt we'll here any much about it from Congress. If Grusch is wrong, intentionally or otherwise, it would not be terribly difficult to quietly ascertain this to be the case. In the current political climate, however, there seems little to be gained from publicly calling him out on it. If he is correct, then there is a massive government conspiracy that has very successfully kept the secret from Congress (and, some claim, successive Presidents) for decades, there is no particular reason to assume THIS congressional hearing is what will finally defeat them.

For a variety of reasons my money of on the former, but either way I expect things to go quiet outside of the UFO belieververse.

 

[tintintintin]

It's only been two months but does anyone willing to hazard a guess if anything ever comes of these hearings? Will members of Congress follow up on the detailed information and specific names Grusch claimed he was willing to give them in non-public environments? Will those Congress people call up to testify any people who may actually have firsthand knowledge? Or will this just disappear in the wind, subsumed by the noise of what passes for news these days?

He very clearly said he could give specific names and groups of those with firsthand knowledge to the congresspeople, just not in a public setting like that hearing. Presumably, any congressperson taking this seriously would follow up with him, get the specific names, and then reach out to those people.

The congresspeople wanting Grusch in a SCIF remain denied that option per Aug 17, so no giving of names/groups with first hand knowledge.

Burchett, Luna, Gaetz and Moskowitz requested a Select Committee Jul 27, about which Burchett confirmed recently he'll soon have a meeting with McCarthy about:

Mr. Speaker, we ask that you immediately establish a Select Committee, outside the jurisdiction of any standing committee, and with subpoena authority, to go about the task of collecting information from the Pentagon and elsewhere for the benefit of the public and to discharge our constitutional, legislative and oversight roles.

On Aug 21 Burchett, Luna, Moskowitz, Mace, Burlison and Ogles wrote an open letter to ICIG Thomas Monheim (who said Grusch's complaints were credible and of urgent concern) asking the following with a Sep 15 deadline:

1. Which intelligence community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors are involved with UAP crash retrieval programs, directly or indirectly?

2. Which intelligence community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors are involved with UAP reverse engineering programs, directly or indirectly?

On Aug 24 Mace appeared on the Campaign War Stories podcast and said (of the hearings and UAP topic):

Absolutely one of the top most important stories in US history.

These bureaucrats oftentimes they mock Congress. They mock the people who are not in the know, because they can skirt around our laws and get away with it. That's what the travesty in it is. It should be taken seriously.

It's about the money laundering and the federal government putting it into these black box programs and the government obfuscating the law by using private contractors

So if we are to believe this bipartisan group they still actively seek answers, just as they expressed after the hearing 6 weeks ago.

I think it will just disappear in the wind. I say this because so much of the hearing was based off of David Grusch's testimony that sounds pretty wacky. Especially since he lost all credibility when he invokes the much debunked story of the fictitious Italy UFO crash. A story that has also been maligned by the UFO community.

I still think the coverup/conspiracy is more wacky. If that can be shown (by following the money), then I don't see why any of the other parts couldn't be true. Because such a, in my view, betrayal of the social contract shakes the foundation of democracy.

On the issue disappearing you may be right. Burchett, Luna, Gaetz and Moskowitz try to argue it's too big for that.

This issue is much bigger than the news cycle: it represents a confluence of concerning governmental actions that indicates a lack of forthrightness on the part of the Pentagon and intelligence community. No governmental program, no matter how sensitive, can be outside the view of Congress. And yet, the Executive Branch routinely redacts and entirely withholds information in other domains that we are entitled to, and is doing so here

I doubt we'll here any much about it from Congress. If Grusch is wrong, intentionally or otherwise, it would not be terribly difficult to quietly ascertain this to be the case. In the current political climate, however, there seems little to be gained from publicly calling him out on it.

We'll see what happens with Congress, but I'm not seeing signs that the seven congresspeople mentioned here are letting up. And then there's the UAPD Act by the Senate and how it will fare in conference of course.

It strikes that Grusch being wrong has not been ascertained, given the involved politicians haven't quieted down (basically no new information seems to have reached them).

You'd never call out a veteran and a whistleblower I think, but you could certainly call out your opponents across the aisle for falling for Stratton/Grusch shenanigans. I guess that's numbed by the bipartisan nature of the efforts so far.

 

[Mendel]

Will members of Congress follow up on the detailed information and specific names Grusch claimed he was willing to give them in non-public environments?

Grusch testified that Congress already has that information.

From https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...os-and-government-transparency-transcript/amp :

On UAP possession:

I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General and some of which to the intelligence committees,

Tim Burchett (01:19:49):

Okay. Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct firsthand knowledge and access to some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities, military bases that the recovered material would be in? I know a lot of Congress talked about we're going to go to Area 51 and there's nothing there anymore anyway, and we move like a glacier and as soon as we announce it I'm sure the moving vans would pull up. But please.

David Charles Grusch (01:20:20):

I can't discuss that publicly, but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General.

He's referring to the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress. So there are a bunch of Congresspeople who already knew at the time of the HOC hearing.

And then there's this:

US Representative Nancy Mace (01:49:42): Gotcha. Okay, and you may or may not be able to answer my last question and maybe we get into a skiff at the next hearing that we have, but who in the government either, what agency, sub-agency, what contractors, who should be called into the next hearing about UAPs, either in a public setting or even in a private setting? And you probably can't name names, but what agencies or organizations, contractors, et cetera, do we need to call in to get these questions answered, whether it's about funding, what programs are happening and what's out there?

David Charles Grusch (01:50:14): I can give you a specific cooperative and hostile witness list of specific individuals that were in those.

US Representative Nancy Mace (01:50:21): And how soon can we get that list?

David Charles Grusch (01:50:23): I'm happy to provide that to you after the hearing.

The problem for Burchett et al. is that this list is all but worthless without subpoena power.

 

[Cogg84]

Fair enough. But I guess we really don't know what Grusch's actual intentions are right now. So both of our statements are just conjecture.

Grush claimed In a french interview that he wanted to be a "thought" leader on this subject. Whatever that means.

 

[Nemon]

This is not the right thread for this; and as far as you're calling for speculation, this isn't even the right forum. If you'd like to discuss this in-depth, please create a new thread.

Please don't get me wrong. I did not intend to force this discussion on you and derail the thread. I just felt a little more background on your very succinct statement would be appropriate. But you have provided that.

 

[Duke]

The problem for Burchett et al. is that this list is all but worthless without subpoena power.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/post-301033

Subpoena or no subpoena, I can't see any of those people Grusch is said to have named being willing to testify under oath. I'd expect a series of "taking the 5th" responses. To validate what Grusch claims, those witnesses would have to admit to two federal crimes.

 

[Ann K]

Brian Dunning in Skeptoid today has a great article on the hearing, Grusch's testimony, and a particular case that Grusch cited on NewsNation.

Only once did he (Grusch) ever give a single specific, at least that I caught, and it was when he said that there's been a 90-year coverup of UFOs. One of the Congresspeople asked him to clarify 90 years, and Grusch answered:

Certainly, like I've discussed publicly, previously 1930s.

1930s! Well, that's certainly an old UFO case. Which one might he have been referring to?
....(concerning a supposed 1933 crash of a UFO).....

Then during World War II when the Allies captured that part of Italy, the Americans secured the spacecraft and bodies, and whisked it all off to the United States, to the Army's Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, home of the mythical Hangar 18.

So now you know everything David Grusch does. But what you may not know, and what Grusch does not appear to know either, is the extraordinarily dubious growth and transfiguration of that story over the years. Let's take it from the very beginning.

The very beginning of the story, it turns out, is not 1933, but 1996. Prior to 1996, there is no documentary evidence that anyone had ever told any part of this story, or that the story had existed at all, in any form.
.....
A few years later, the whole modern UFO thing exploded into the media in the United States beginning in 2017 when a large group of longtime UFO promoters and authors deluged the press (see Skeptoid #787 and 788 for this cast of characters — but suffice it to say they are the same characters who persuaded Congress to hold this 2023 subcommittee hearing). Among the newly minted UFO celebrities were burned-out rock musician Tom Delonge, former government official Chris Mellon, and UFOlogist Lue Elizondo, whom the press had made famous as the head of an alleged Pentagon UFO program called AATIP, but who has since been revealed to have had nothing to do with any such program.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4900?...ent=current_episode_textlink&utm_medium=email

The story, well worth reading, goes on to discuss Bill Brophy and his habit of writing letters to various people concerned, adding new details every time he did so.

 

[Mendel]

Grush claimed In a french interview that he wanted to be a "thought" leader on this subject. Whatever that means.

He said he wanted to be an "opinion leader" in his first TV interview.
But neither he nor his messaging is suitable to lead opinion.

 

[Mendel]

1930s! Well, that's certainly an old UFO case. Which one might he have been referring to?
....(concerning a supposed 1933 crash of a UFO).....

Then during World War II when the Allies captured that part of Italy, the Americans secured the spacecraft and bodies, and whisked it all off to the United States, to the Army's Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, home of the mythical Hangar 18.

As noted by Mick at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-of-non-human-origin.12977/page-3#post-291315 when Grusch's first interview came out. Discussion including sources continues intermittently onto the next forum page. I was left with considerable doubt that this UFO ever existed.

 

[tintintintin]

Grush claimed In a french interview that he wanted to be a "thought" leader on this subject. Whatever that means.

I guess being stripped of your security clearances is a blow to your career options. (Also, I think it was mentioned in News Nation with Coulthart as well?). He's pursuing the thought leader track as COO in the Sol Foundation, a non-profit research organization relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena.

 

[Mendel]

I guess being stripped of your security clearances is a blow to your career options.

When was Grusch stripped of his clearances? I don't recall him claiming that.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/david-gruschs-dopsr-cleared-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/

 

[tintintintin]

When was Grusch stripped of his clearances? I don't recall him claiming that.

He hasn't claimed anything about that to my knowledge.

I was going off of Rep. Luna explanation for why he could not testify in a SCIF:

the excuse that the Department of Defense is using for us not being able to get a SCIF is that, Grusch doesn't have an active clearance so unless he has an active clearance they're saying that he can't divulge that information to us. Which is 1) I believe false and then also 2) it just is another point that we're trying to make that the Department of Defense is literally trying to Stonewall us. But the status is as follows, we are working on him getting him a clearance for 1) and then also 2) we're working on getting access to be allowed to use a SCIF.

but I was incorrect about them being stripped, rather they are inactive if we believe Luna. So that could be due to End of Employment, Continuous Evaluation Findings, Lack of Need-to-Know or Change in Status.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Grusch testified that Congress already has that information.

According to Grusch and other unknown whistleblowers, they have already testified before the HPSCI and SSCI in TS/SCI settings last year. Coulthart repeated this in his recent statements in response to Media Watch chastising him for uncritical reporting about the claims. He says,

Article:

I have also confirmed that multiple witnesses have already given evidence under oath in secret to Congress' two powerful intelligence oversight committees, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have confirmed directly with Congressional sources that this evidence includes multiple direct first-hand witnesses to a still secret and possibly illegal NHI crash retrieval and reverse engineering program.

Source: https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/10e448d8df4899aa8ee90c3222d61b90

This makes sense as it was one of the requests for remediation in Grusch's PPD-19 complaint.

Article:

7. Consistent with 50 US.C § 3033 (k)(5)(D)(ii)(I), Mr. Grusch now wishes to directly communicate the classified specifics of his UAP-related Urgent Concern(s) to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Accordingly, we hereby request that your office facilitate Mr. Grusch's direct communication with the SSCI and HPSCI.

Source: https://archive.org/details/grusch_icig/David-Grusch-PPD-19-Procedural-Filing

We also have statements from various members of both committees that would appear to support this. For example, Marco Rubio, member of the Gang of Eight and vice-chair of the SSCI said,

Article:

"There are people who have come forward to share information with our committee over the last couple of years," Rubio said on Monday, adding in reference to Grusch: "I would imagine some of them are potentially some of the same people perhaps he's referring to."

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/marco-rubio-ufo-uap-top-us-officials-investigation-1809201

However, statements from members of both committees appear to cast doubt on the nature and extent of information provided to the committees.

Mike Turner is chair of the HPSCI and presumably has access to Grusch's private testimony with all the classified details. He has previously stated,

Article:

"Every decade there's been individuals who've said the United States has such pieces of unidentified flying objects that are from outer space," Rep. Turner of Ohio said when asked on Fox News about Grusch's claims. "There's no evidence of this and certainly it would be quite a conspiracy for this to be maintained, especially at this level."

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-oversight-plans-ufo-hearing-after-unconfirmed-claims/story?id=99899883

More recently in an interview with Maria Bartiromo he was even more pointed in his statements about the whistleblowers not providing first-hand info,

Article:

I always love it when you have somebody who comes forward and testifies about things that they don't know anything about. The most striking aspect of all of the testimony was repeatedly, over and over again, the whistleblowers had to say, actually, I don't have any knowledge of this. Somebody else told me that. This would take thousands and thousands of people for such an unbelievable cover-up to be occurring. And for people to speak with such confidence over something that they do not know is, I think, something certainly everybody needs to be concerned about.

Source: https://www.air.tv/watch?v=cqOOynnXQreXKtMdiDvehQ

If Turner hasn't seen reliable first-hand evidence, that may imply that such information was either not provided in the various testimony from whitleblowers to the HPSCI, or else was not found to be reliable.

Likewise, Kirsten Gillibrand is a member of the SSCI, and would presumably have access to the testimony Grusch and others provided to that committee, but she also states that she has not been provided with the needed information to verify the whistleblower claims.

Article:

The second testimony was about a service member [David Grusch] whose job was to investigate all UAP programs and co-locate them and write an assessment. Through that effort, this whistleblower met several people who said they had worked on alien-related programs where they either had crash material or that crash material resulted in dead aliens. I have no ability to verify that testimony because we've not been told of any such programs. We've asked for all information related to all programs and have not been given that detail. One of three things are true: Either it doesn't exist and they worked on programs that were alien-related which weren't, or they are making it up, or these programs do exist and the Department of Defense is not either read in on it, or the need to know is so small that the people that have been testifying in front of us don't know about it, or they are just misrepresenting the facts.

Source: https://www.cityandstateny.com/personality/2023/08/kirsten-gillibrand-wants-know-truth-about-aliens/389198/

This seems to be painting a picture that Grusch and others have not provided verifiable first-hand information to HPSCI and SSCI.

 

[tintintintin]

@MonkeeSage great summary. I'll add to your newsweek/Rubio quote from late June, statements Marco Rubio made to thehill late July.

Article:

"If there's an explanation for it that's being kept from Congress, then we need to force the issue. We're not getting answers,"

Rubio said he was familiar with the claims of David Grusch [who] claims the federal government has retrieved "non-human origin technical vehicles" that have landed or crashed on Earth. "We have a number of people including that gentleman who have come forward both publicly and privately to make claims,"

"One of two things are true. Either A, they're telling the truth or some version of the truth or B, we have a bunch of people with high clearances and really important jobs in our government are nuts. Both are a problem. And I'm not accusing these people of being nuts. That said, that's something we'll look at and continue to look at seriously,"

"Without speculating or adding to intrigue about this whole topic, there's no doubt that in this field, generally, there's more than what we know," he said. "We're trying to get to a process where at least some people in Congress do know."

Asked why he suspects there's more for Congress to know about UAPs, Rubio said "there's pieces of puzzles that don't fit."

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4110974-frustrated-lawmakers-demand-answers-on-ufos/

So for Rubio answers are being withheld from Congress and even from Gang of Eight (as per ICIG complaint), Grusch has testified with other whistleblowers (whose claims Rubio at least is aware of), and something is simply not adding up for Rubio to turn away Grusch.

Also included Rubio's "One of two things are true" which I find funny, because it's the same logic Gillibrand is applying here,

I have no ability to verify that [i] testimony because we've not been told of any such programs. We've [ii] asked for all information related to all programs and have not been given that detail. One of three things are true: Either it doesn't exist and they worked on programs that were alien-related which weren't, or they are making it up, or these programs do exist and the Department of Defense is [1] not either read in on it, or [2] the need to know is so small that the people that have been [iii] testifying in front of us don't know about it, or [3] they are just misrepresenting the facts.

1. So [i] means lack of verification of Grusch's testimony as DoD has not told of such programs.
2. Due to [ii] not being given enough detail when asking the DoD
3. Either Programs don't exist (as in Rubio's logic),
4. or Programs do exist, but DoD's testimonies [iii] are not adding up due to
   1. 1) DoD not read in,
   2. 2) need to know so small they've gotten the wrong individuals from DoD in to testify,
   3. 3) DoD is effectively lying to Congress.

Therefore I think the needed information which hasn't been provided is by the DoD, not Grusch, hence I the following modification would be useful to clear that up.

Likewise, Kirsten Gillibrand is a member of the SSCI, and would presumably have access to the testimony Grusch and others provided to that committee, but she also states that she has not been provided [by the DoD] with the needed information to verify the whistleblower claims.

This brings her quote inline with Rubio's and markedly changes where things stand in terms of who the burden of evidence is on.

This seems to be painting a picture that Grusch and others have not provided verifiable first-hand information to HPSCI and SSCI.

And also changes this conclusion I reckon.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Also included Rubio's "One of two things are true" which I find funny, because it's the same logic Gillibrand is applying here,

1. So [i] means lack of verification of Grusch's testimony as DoD has not told of such programs.
2. Due to [ii] not being given enough detail when asking the DoD
3. Either Programs don't exist (as in Rubio's logic),
4. or Programs do exist, but DoD's testimonies [iii] are not adding up due to
   1. 1) DoD not read in,
   2. 2) need to know so small they've gotten the wrong individuals from DoD in to testify,
   3. 3) DoD is effectively lying to Congress.

Therefore I think the needed information which hasn't been provided is by the DoD, not Grusch, hence I the following modification would be useful to clear that up.

This brings her quote inline with Rubio's and markedly changes where things stand in terms of who the burden of evidence is on.

And also changes this conclusion I reckon.

That's interesting. I wish both Turner and Gillibrand were clearer on which whistleblowers and testimony they were speaking about at different times. I'm not sure Gillibrand's statement is consistent with the interpretation that the DoD is who has not provided the necessary information. I am understanding it as follows,

One of three things are true:

1. Either it doesn't exist and they worked on programs that were alien-related which weren't, or
2. they are making it up, or
3. these programs do exist and
   1. the Department of Defense is not either read in on it, or
   2. the need to know is so small that the people that have been testifying in front of us don't know about it, or
   3. they are just misrepresenting the facts.

What I have labeled (3.2) above implies to me that the whistleblowers who testified to the SSCI are the people who were "asked for all information related to all programs and have not...given that detail."

 

[Mendel]

So for Rubio answers are being withheld from Congress and even from Gang of Eight (as per ICIG complaint), Grusch has testified with other whistleblowers (whose claims Rubio at least is aware of), and something is simply not adding up for Rubio to turn away Grusch.

That's your interpretation.

Rubio as well as Gillibrand leave the possibility open that the DoD has been honest and complete in its disclosures, and that it's Grusch's hearsay testimony (rumors) that is wrong.
They simply don't know.

Unfortunately, spreading uncertainty and doubt with no evidence is a common disinformation tactic. From a debunker's view, creating uncertainty without evidence is a familiar pattern, perhaps most starkly exemplified by the anti-vaxx scares. Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May, and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO, and his information led nowhere. It feels very likely that "there's no 'there' there".

 

[tintintintin]

That's your interpretation.

It's quite a plausible interpretation of the latest interview with Rubio, the Vice chair of SSCI and Gang of Eight member, on this topic, in which he makes statements such as "We're not getting answers", "We're trying to get to a process where at least some people in Congress do know", "there's pieces of puzzles that don't fit.". To reject my interpretation you need to be putting forth an at least as plausible interpretation of your own. I think it is insincere not to.

Rubio as well as Gillibrand leave the possibility open that the DoD has been honest and complete in its disclosures, and that it's Grusch's hearsay testimony (rumors) that is wrong.
They simply don't know.

I agree, which also means they're operating on beliefs until certainty sets in. It follows directly from Rubio's option B quote, and the first and second option of Gillibrand's ditto quote. Both of which i included in my post, in case that wasn't clear.

Unfortunately, spreading uncertainty and doubt with no evidence is a common disinformation tactic. From a debunker's view, creating uncertainty without evidence is a familiar pattern, perhaps most starkly exemplified by the anti-vaxx scares. Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May, and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO, and his information led nowhere. It feels very likely that "there's no 'there' there".

So why don't they know? They're in HPSCI/SSCI. Two of them are Go8. Is there any government secret these people should not be privy to, in particular if they ask about it?

Anti-vaxx scares hit the populace. It wasn't like people in Congress were running around unable to get an answer from NIH to whether a Moderna jab would kill you 2 years down the road. They were unable to combat the spread of misinformation across the US. Here the senators are unable reject a whistleblower's completely fantastical claims, a task that should be much much simpler, assuming his testimony is akin to his public statements. Could you provide a better example to match the situation we're seeing here?

You say "Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May" but I've understood it was December 2022. Do you have a source?

You say "and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO" but I've understood they never talked beyond hello (if even that much). Do you have a source?

You say "and his information led nowhere" but I'd argue that

1. Not being rejected after 7 months (it can of course still happen), and
2. Being the source of 16 sections in the Senate's NDAA-24, namely Sec. 1546. Funding limitation on certain unreported programs and Division G: Sec. 9001 - Sec. 9015 (UAP Disclosure Act of 2023),

are both very remarkable outcomes, and not "nowhere".

 

[Mendel]

So why don't they know? They're in HPSCI/SSCI. Two of them are Go8. Is there any government secret these people should not be privy to, in particular if they ask about it?

They don't know because there is no secret.

Here the senators are unable reject a whistleblower's completely fantastical claims, a task that should be much much simpler,

Not being rejected after 7 months

It's hard to prove a negative. "There is no coverup."—"That's exactly what you'd say if there was a coverup!"

You say "Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May" but I've understood it was December 2022. Do you have a source?

I probably misremembered, thanks for correcting me. My point is, it's been months, and Rubio still doesn't know? That indicates to me that Grusch's classified information was useless.

Being the source of 16 sections in the Senate's NDAA-24, namely Sec. 1546. Funding limitation on certain unreported programs and Division G: Sec. 9001 - Sec. 9015 (UAP Disclosure Act of 2023),

Likely a shot in the dark.
Grusch's HOC testimony seemed to amount to contractors using the money for whatever, which they can legally do without reporting it, I think?

You say "and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO" but I've understood they never talked beyond hello (if even that much). Do you have a source?

HOC hearing transcript

Article:

Anna Paulina Luna (01:01:30):

Okay. On the 19th of April, Dr. Kirkpatrick, head of AARO had said that he did not find any evidence of UAPs. You also stated in your interview that you had briefed him on information that you were uncovering, but that he did not follow up with you. Were the items that you divulged to him pertinent to national security?

David Charles Grusch (01:01:49):

Yes. Him and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July 2022. And I provided him some concerns I had.

Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-holds-hearing-on-ufos-and-government-transparency-transcript/amp

Article:

Ms. Foxx (01:10:41):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Grusch, in your sworn testimony you state that the United States government has retrieved supposedly extraterrestrial spacecraft and other UAP related artifacts. You go so far as to state that the US is in possession of, "Non-human spacecraft." And that some of these artifacts have circulated with defense contractors. Several other former military and intelligence officials have come forward with similar allegations, albeit in non-public settings. However, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the Director of ARRO previously testified before Congress that there has been and I quote, "No credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity or of off world technology brought to the attention of the office." To your knowledge, is that statement correct?

David Charles Grusch (01:11:56):

It's not accurate. I believe Dr. Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to ARRO thus far. A few of those individuals have also come to ARRO that I also interviewed and I know what they provided Dr. Kirkpatrick and their team.

Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-holds-hearing-on-ufos-and-government-transparency-transcript/amp

 

[knobby]

That's interesting. I wish both Turner and Gillibrand were clearer on which whistleblowers and testimony they were speaking about at different times. I'm not sure Gillibrand's statement is consistent with the interpretation that the DoD is who has not provided the necessary information. I am understanding it as follows,

One of three things are true:

1. Either it doesn't exist and they worked on programs that were alien-related which weren't, or
2. they are making it up, or
3. these programs do exist and
   1. the Department of Defense is not either read in on it, or
   2. the need to know is so small that the people that have been testifying in front of us don't know about it, or
   3. they are just misrepresenting the facts.

What I have labeled (3.2) above implies to me that the whistleblowers who testified to the SSCI are the people who were "asked for all information related to all programs and have not...given that detail."

The DoD being co-operative but unable to supply any details of UAP recovery programs because they don't exist would also fit the narrative.

We have had Gen Miley, Kirkpatrick and various others, even Mellon when he worked for the DoD, publicly saying there is no evidence of any UAP recovery programs inside the DoD. I presume they say the same in private conversations with the senators.

 

[tintintintin]

That's interesting. I wish both Turner and Gillibrand were clearer on which whistleblowers and testimony they were speaking about at different times. I'm not sure Gillibrand's statement is consistent with the interpretation that the DoD is who has not provided the necessary information. I am understanding it as follows,

Totally about clarity. Let's see where your argument takes my interpretation of Gillibrand, here now full paragraph from the reference.

The second testimony was about a service member whose job was to investigate all UAP programs and co-locate them and write an assessment. Through that effort, this whistleblower met several people who said they had worked on alien-related programs where they either had crash material or that crash material resulted in dead aliens. I have no ability to verify that testimony [from Grusch] because we've not been told [by DoD] of any such programs.

Verification is of Grusch's testimony ("second testimony"). I'd also claim the "several people" are met only by Grusch. Since it's about verifying Grusch, and there's no mention of "several people" coming forward to anyone else but Grusch, the only entity left to tell anything is the DoD which haven't told of any such programs.

Clearly Grusch can never verify Grusch. But in the above we could consider "several people" rather than the DoD, which is exactly what @MonkeeSage does. I think this interpretation is difficult because Gillibrand talks about "several people" only in relation to Grusch meeting them. Assume however that "several people" replaces the DoD: This is

1. Akward since Grusch claims came from these people according to Grusch, i.e. why he reported the programs in the first place, thereby such non-response implies Grusch is lying about his sources, so surely it's over,
2. Very unlikely verify Grusch's testimony because it's exceedingly difficult to verify that these "several people" came from legacy/black program alien-related programs, and
3. Somewhat a stretch but "we've not been told by several people of any such programs" this sentence only works if you talk singular entity.

Indirect proof is this Gillibrand quote from same article

If there are special access programs – they are called SAP programs – that Congress was not read in on, we put an amendment in the defense bill to say they can't be funded.

And on the other side we do have Gillibrand who states she's met multiple whistleblowers, whether those include individuals from "several people" is not clear.

I intend to get to the bottom of it. I think these service members – certainly the whistleblowers that I've met – are very thoughtful, serious people. So I really want to investigate it to its fullest

For these reasons I feel the DoD is the sound option for who/what hasn't informed Gillibrand about alien-related program. It follows that

We've asked [of the DoD] for all information related to all programs [claimed by Grusch via "several people"] and have not been given that detail. One of three things are true:

Fast approaching (3.2)!

So for 1. and 2. we have ET alien-related programs is false, non-existant. While for 3. we have the existence of alien-related programs. This entails Grusch and "several people" are truthful, because clearly the DoD have not acknowledged alien-related programs.

1. Either it doesn't exist and they ["several people"] worked on programs that were alien-related which weren't, or
2. they ["several people"] are making it [alien related programs] up, or
3. these programs do exist and the Department of Defense is
   1. [the DoD is] not either read in on it, or
   2. the need to know is so small that the people [from the DoD] that have been testifying in front of us don't know about it, or
   3. they [the DoD] are just misrepresenting the facts.

Your argument is

What I have labeled (3.2) above implies to me that the whistleblowers who testified to the SSCI are the people who were "asked for all information related to all programs and have not...given that detail."

So by replacing [from the DoD] in 3.2 is with ["several people"], I find ["several people"] unlikely to be the true semantics:

1. We're in the case where alien-related programs exist, meaning "several people" brought forth this fact but couldn't testify about it cause they didn't know about it. But in claiming the existence they did know, a contradiction.
2. As we enter 3. "Department of Defense" becomes the subject, and 3.1 and 3.3 clearly shows that. For 3.2 to switch subject to "several people" midway is more than odd.
3. So 3. is an exhaustive list of options for how alien-related programs can exists without DoD being able to confirm: 3.1 "Outside DoD", 3.2 "Very exclusive circle alluding testifying to Congress inside DoD knows", 3.3 "DoD are not being honest". Without 3.2 this option is really missing to explain why verification has not been possible.

So the consequent of your implication shouldn't follow as I see. Also, I gave a direct argument as to why replacing "DoD" with "several people" in the paragraph below is unlikely.

I have no ability to verify that testimony [from Grusch] because we've not been told [by DoD] of any such programs. We've asked [of the DoD] for all information related to all programs [claimed by Grusch via "several people"] and have not been given that detail.

Therefore I think logic dictates it's still an open question whether these programs exist, but the Grusch hasn't been disproved.

This turned super long, apologies if I could have shortened the argument. Hope it is clear albeit verbose.

 

[Mendel]

Indirect proof is this Gillibrand quote from same article

If there are special access programs – they are called SAP programs – that Congress was not read in on,

Note Gillibrand leaves open the possibility that these programs don't exist!

I have no ability to verify that testimony because we've not been told of any such programs.

There is no testimony [on this matter] that Gillibrand has heard that she's been able to verify, or she would say so.
There is nobody who named a specific program. That includes the DoD, Grusch, and the other witnesses.

 

[tintintintin]

They don't know because there is no secret.

So I think we agree the alleged secret is an "alien-related" Secret Access Program (SAP) or Compartmented Access Program (CAP). Consider now Marco Rubio's access to classified information being Vice chair of SSCI and so Go8, meaning there's no intelligence (SAP or CAP) he's not privy to. So Rubio is either informed of such a secret, or would be able to immediately be brought up to speed about it.

Assume the secret is made up. Credible and of urgent concern it lands at his office in December, 2022 (having fooled the ICIG's investigation that started July, 2022). Rubio inquires his sources and contacts and the ICIG. None seemingly able to verify or disprove the secret.

It's hard to prove a negative. "There is no coverup."—"That's exactly what you'd say if there was a coverup!"

We're stuck at you can't prove a negative: DoD: "There is no coverup."— Rubio: "That's exactly what you'd say if there was a coverup!"

Now, assume the secret is substantially true. This case is essentially symmetric, ending up at the same inability to prove a negative (this time factually false). However, the whistleblowers are perhaps testifying besides Grusch to tell a more coherent story. So there are negatives to be proven regardless of whether Grusch is correct or not. Hence it cannot inform us as to what's going on behind the scenes.

I probably misremembered, thanks for correcting me. My point is, it's been months, and Rubio still doesn't know? That indicates to me that Grusch's classified information was useless.

Rubio still doesn't know after 7 months because he has to prove a negative, as you yourself pointed out (but only considered for the case of the secret being false).

The need to prove a negative isn't informing us of anything, it's symmetric regardless of the truth of the secret
For someone like Rubio (Vice Chair SSCI, Go8), no situation has ever been like this, and indeed it's only been brought about by the whistleblower protections he himself helped introduce. The claims are completely bonkers and still there isn't any convincing officer/department of the executive branch that's willing or able to deny it? Not even the subset relating to misappropriation of money (which also shows secret is made up)?

Indeed for six months, Rubio and his staff tries to determine the veracity of the secret to no avail. No one is able to tell Rubio, privy to all US government secrets, that this is SkunkWorks and Grusch et. al misunderstood. No one is able to discredit Grusch and the actions he took leading to the ICIG complaint. No one is saying "this is a PsyOp to deter invasion of Taiwan". And no part of the executive branch is able to convince Rubio that Grusch misunderstood/made it up for half a year.

The choice to go public
At this point (June, July) Rubio goes on News Nation, Fox, TheHill and other outlets to acknowledge Grusch, mentioning that Grusch's and other whistleblowers' claims should be taken seriously and be investigated. This is potentially political suicide, but he's allied with Gillibrand and so far no one has come after him. This is the start of the "Either A he's telling the truth, or B he's crazy and dangerous to have in government" statements.

Both the executive and the legislative branch had every desire to determine the veracity of Grusch's story, but were seemingly not able to do so for over half a year. When you conclude Grusch's classified information was useless, I argue it stood up to a year of scrutiny which made a very senior senator was ready to acknowledge it's importance.

I will add that clearly other whistleblowers have come forth (Rubio said as much), we just don't know how they've been investigated.

Likely a shot in the dark.
Grusch's HOC testimony seemed to amount to contractors using the money for whatever, which they can legally do without reporting it, I think?

I don't buy your argument from infinite monkey theorem. Here's what the IAA-24 from June (week or two after Grusch went public) says:

Article:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2024 may be obligated or expended [...] in support of activities involving unidentified anomalous phenomena protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations that have not been formally, officially, explicitly, and specifically described, explained, and justified to the appropriate committees of Congress, congressional leadership

Source: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/935/text

This is both for contractors and non-contractors, and it aligns exactly with an inability to prove a negative about the DoD spending money on legacy craft retrieval programs information is withheld from Congress and so oversight is not possible (ICIG investigation).

HOC hearing transcript

Thanks for the April 2022 reference, which is right before Grusch files his second complain. Sure would be nice to learn what they talked about.

Sorry it got so long, I hope it's clear nonetheless.

 

[tintintintin]

Note Gillibrand leaves open the possibility that these programs don't exist!

I really believe it's covered in my posts that dissect her statements about exactly that, for instance when I say "So for 1. and 2. we have ET alien-related programs is false, non-existant". And also, I understand, very well I think, material implication.

There is no testimony [on this matter] that Gillibrand has heard that she's been able to verify, or she would say so.
There is nobody who named a specific program. That includes the DoD, Grusch, and the other witnesses.

You derive these two propositions from (let me put in the entire quote):

The second testimony was about a service member whose job was to investigate all UAP programs and co-locate them and write an assessment. Through that effort, this whistleblower met several people who said they had worked on alien-related programs where they either had crash material or that crash material resulted in dead aliens. I have no ability to verify that testimony because we've not been told of any such programs.

On the first: Yes, she has to prove a negative as you stated, so verification is difficult unless of course there was anything making Grusch not credible (or the DoD saying we do crash retrievals by cooking the books).

On the second: So Gillibrand knows that Grusch did investigate UAP programs and potentially learned about alien-related programs, but opted not to mention any specific program to Gillibrand, nor did any other witness ("several people"), nor did the DoD. And Gillibrand plays it cool in saying "I've not been able to verify any of these 0 named programs?", and so when she later says:

I intend to get to the bottom of it. I think these service members – certainly the whistleblowers that I've met – are very thoughtful, serious people. So I really want to investigate it to its fullest

she's being just about as disingenuous as humanly possible, just so she... what?

 

[MonkeeSage]

Therefore I think logic dictates it's still an open question whether these programs exist, but the Grusch hasn't been disproved.

This turned super long, apologies if I could have shortened the argument. Hope it is clear albeit verbose.

Haha I don't mind the detailed break down. I see now the use of pronouns and who exactly is being spoken of at each point is more ambiguous in Gillibrand's statement than I realized.

I was not taking "the people that have been testifying in front of us" in 3.2 as being the same group as with Grusch's "several people". I was taking it as people that she or other SSCI members had questioned during testimony at some point, and the "they" from the preceding expressions as referring to the same group of people, which I was taking to be the same group of people she asked for information about the programs. Basically the "one of three things are true" being a tangent on asking the whistleblowers who had testified to SSCI for info on the programs needed to verify Grusch's HOC testimony.

But I can see there are several ways to interpret who is being spoken about at each point. In any case, I think it's always an open question if such programs exist if there are seemingly credible people claiming they do.

 

[Mendel]

Now, assume the secret is substantially true. This case is essentially symmetric, ending up at the same inability to prove a negative (this time factually false). However, the whistleblowers are perhaps testifying besides Grusch to tell a more coherent story. So there are negatives to be proven regardless of whether Grusch is correct or not. Hence it cannot inform us as to what's going on behind the scenes.

The whistleblowers have a positive claim.
Ultimately, if they're right, then there are actual UFOs, actual "biologics", and paperwork created by these programs, any of which would be positive proof of their existence. Since Grusch claims to know people who worked on these programs, why is there still no proof?

 

[Mendel]

So Gillibrand knows that Grusch did investigate UAP programs and potentially learned about alien-related programs, but opted not to mention any specific program to Gillibrand

I've not seen Grusch claim that he can name a program that does this.

Gillibrand says, "we've not been told of any such programs", she does not say "the DoD denied knowledge of the programs the witnesses told us about".

 

[tintintintin]

I was not taking "the people that have been testifying in front of us" in 3.2 as being the same group as with Grusch's "several people". I was taking it as people that she or other SSCI members had questioned during testimony at some point, and the "they" from the preceding expressions as referring to the same group of people, which I was taking to be the same group of people she asked for information about the programs. Basically the "one of three things are true" being a tangent on asking the whistleblowers who had testified to SSCI for info on the programs needed to verify Grusch's HOC testimony.

I find those semantics for 3.2 ill suited for what's overall conveyed. When you consider Gillibrand says

[3] or these programs do exist and the Department of Defense is not either read in on it, or the need to know is so small that the people that have been testifying in front of us don't know about it, or they are just misrepresenting the facts.

For me there's no doubt that the construct "do exist and the DoD either 1 or 2 or 3" conditions that alien-related programs exist and that we're discussing DoD's role in each of 1, 2 and 3. But I recognise the potential she's going out on a tangent as you say, though it sounds pretty rehearsed/preplanned just like Rubio's.

So is your reading of 3.2, that it means no one questioned by SSCI had the need to know and still the programs exist? It's much more natural that 3.2 talks about the possibility of that in verifying the claims, those questioned from DoD didn't have the need to know. It is more natural because she's exactly trying to pinpoint why verification (DoD confirming Whistleblowers) has not happened. How does any whistleblower actually verify Grusch? (except for maybe arriving in a UFO).

But I can see there are several ways to interpret who is being spoken about at each point. In any case, I think it's always an open question if such programs exist if there are seemingly credible people claiming they do.

Yeah, Rubio or Gillibrand doubling down on Option B/1/2 would be helpful obviously. But I think you two are off when you interpret it as Grusch's claims having been brushed aside, obviously that could happen still.

The whistleblowers have a positive claim.
Ultimately, if they're right, then there are actual UFOs, actual "biologics", and paperwork created by these programs, any of which would be positive proof of their existence. Since Grusch claims to know people who worked on these programs, why is there still no proof?

If their claims are correct, then those NHI trinkets and documentation is withheld from Congress as we speak. Therefore the part of DoD withholding that information are saying "There is no coverup." and so that's a negative claim.

The people who worked on those programs also have no paper trail, so testifying won't change anything definitively, so long as those withholding information keep saying "There is no coverup".

Now, what can change that stalemate? Well, honestly those 16 sections of NDAA-24 might do the trick, in both directions mind you.

I've not seen Grusch claim that he can name a program that does this.

Gillibrand says, "we've not been told of any such programs", she does not say "the DoD denied knowledge of the programs the witnesses told us about".

He claims that at least a couple of times at the UAP Hearing July 26 and even that he's done so the Turner, Rubio, Gillibrand etc (or subordinates at least) already. Obviously it's with the "I can tell you more if you get me in a SCIF" caveat, there's some risk of perjury here I reckon:

AOC: If you were me, where would you look titles, programs, departments, regions. If you could just name anything and I put that as an open question to the three of you
Grusch: I'd be happy to give you that in a closed environment. I can tell you specifically thank you

Rep. Burchett: Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge and access to some of this crash retrieval some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities military bases that would the recovered material would be in and I know a lot of Congress talked about we're going to go to Area 51 and you know. [...]
Grusch: uh I can't discuss that publicly but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General and we could get that in this give if we were allowed to get in a SCIF.

So who/what, except precisely DoD, can verify these claims?

 

[Mendel]

Therefore the part of DoD withholding that information are saying "There is no coverup." and so that's a negative claim.

yes, but that is not the whistleblower claim. It's the DoD claim.

 

[Mendel]

If you could just name anything

is not specific

names and titles of the people

does not refer to program designations

 

[MonkeeSage]

But I think you two are off when you interpret it as Grusch's claims having been brushed aside, obviously that could happen still.

I can only speak for myself but I don't brush off Gruch's claims easily. He is a decorated veteran, I have nothing against him testifying what he knows.

 

[FatPhil]

I can only speak for myself but I don't brush off Gruch's claims easily. He is a decorated veteran, I have nothing against him testifying what he knows.

There's nothing intrinsic about having been a veteran that makes you more likely to be reliable on matters that you aren't specifically trained in. And some can be real wildcards. DIdn't Jan 6th happen? Weren't 10% of those arrested veterans?

"Storming the Castle." Examining the Motivations of the Veterans Who Participated in the Capitol Riots
Authors: Eric B. Hodges

Abstract

Ten percent of the Americans arrested for storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, are military veterans. These veterans have been charged with federal crimes ranging from Obstruction of an Official Proceeding to Assaulting Capitol Police Officers. This paper seeks to answer three questions related to those veterans' participation in the Capitol Riots. Were their actions patriotic? What were their motivations? And was there anything about their military experience that made these veterans more likely to riot than non-veterans? A content analysis of 71 remarks made by 40 of the veterans arrested, both before and after the riots, was used to ascertain the motivations of those individuals. Analysis of the veterans' comments revealed that they believed they were acting patriotically; however, closer examination shows that their motivations were more consistent with nationalism than patriotism. Additionally, the military training and combat exposure of the veterans, along with the "Stop the Steal" rhetoric, particularly comments made by former President Donald Trump, also played an integral role in influencing the veterans. The analysis also indicated that the Capitol Riots should be classified as a form of proto-sectarian violence and should serve as a cautionary tale against the growing divisiveness that sparked this incident.

https://journal-veterans-studies.org/articles/10.21061/jvs.v7i3.274

 

[gabelewis]

I can only speak for myself but I don't brush off Gruch's claims easily. He is a decorated veteran, I have nothing against him testifying what he knows.

There's nothing intrinsic about having been a veteran that makes you more likely to be reliable on matters that you aren't specifically trained in. And some can be real wildcards. DIdn't Jan 6th happen? Weren't 10% of those arrested veterans?

Assuming trustworthiness from a person due to a position they hold or have held in an institution one happens to support broadly is bad logical deduction in almost any context. The safe assumption is that incompetence, corruption, and duplicity can exist at any level of society.

Similar logic is applied to Cops all the time, sometimes on this very forum, yet Police perjury is common enough that the police have their own behind-closed-doors word for it: "testilying."

'Testilying' by Police: A Stubborn Problem

"Behind closed doors, we call it testilying," a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. "You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit."
An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer's testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.

In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects' hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight. They have barged into apartments and conducted searches, only to testify otherwise later. Under oath, they have given firsthand accounts of crimes or arrests that they did not in fact witness. They have falsely claimed to have watched drug deals happen, only to later recant or be shown to have lied.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-new-york.html

I afford no special abilities to law enforcement or the military - even highly specialised training is not a one-size-fits-all guarantee that an individual actually absorbed said training well or that the training is applicable to the current task (in Grusch's case, I doubt he received training in investigating cover-ups.) While not an exact science, the Peter Principle* exists for a reason.