David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint

[Mendel]

Yep, it seems to be an open secret in the UFO community that Lockheed Martin is one of the holders of craft.

I think it's on the record though that a huge number of UFO sightings were caused by test flights of Lockheed's top secret high altitude spy aircraft? So there's a mundane core of truth to this.

(I was trying to remember the lore of some contractor finding documents/photos in a floor space that were then removed by "men in black", but couldn't pin it down.)

 

[John J.]

I think it's on the record though that a huge number of UFO sightings were caused by test flights of Lockheed's top secret high altitude spy aircraft?

BLUE BOOK investigators regularly called on the Agency's [CIA- John J.] Project Staff in Washington to check reported UFO sightings against U-2 flight logs. This enabled the investigators to eliminate the majority of the UFO reports, although they could not reveal to the letter writers the true cause of the UFO sightings. U-2 and later OXCART flights accounted for more than one-half of all UFO reports during the late 1950s and most of the 1960s.

Content from External Source

From the section "U-2s, UFOs, AND OPERATION BLUE BOOK", pages 72-73 (PDF pages 34 and 35), chapter 2
(PDF attached or available at https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/docs/U2 - Chapter 2.pdf)
of The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and Oxcart Programs,
Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, History Staff, Central Intelligence Agency, 1992.

An overview of the book (and PDFs of the other chapters) has been written up as "The Secret History of the U-2 - and Area 51", edited by Jeffrey T. Nicholson, 15/08/2013, accessible from The National Security Archive,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/

 

[Ann K]

There doesn’t need to be “sides” - just people trying to get to the truth of whatever is going on here

That's a lot of rosy optimism. But experience shows us that there are people who are trying to establish the truth, people who want to make some money out of an exaggerated tale, and people who want to be re-elected and know their voters want them to take a particular position. Sorting out which is which can be tricky.

 

[NorCal Dave]

(I was trying to remember the lore of some contractor finding documents/photos in a floor space that were then removed by "men in black", but couldn't pin it down.)

That's a deep pull!

Marion Rudnyk claimed he found film from the Gemini flights hidden in the floor of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena. The film had frames removed that supposedly would have shown UFOs, so in the usual UFOlogy logic the lack of evidence was proof of evidence. Even though the film had NO images of UFOs, the MiBs came and took it anyway because, again, the missing photos of the UFOs was proof that there were in fact photos of UFOs.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/astronomer-marian-rudnyk-ufo-convert.12286

Yep, it seems to be an open secret in the UFO community that Lockheed Martin is one of the holders of craft.

Probably because Lockheed Martin is the biggest defense contractor there is, and Lockheed had and still has the Skunk Works which created the U2, the SR71, the F117 and other advanced aircraft. But, Lockheed Martin has only existed since the mid '90s when they merged. But Northrup-Grumman has their own secret hanger near the Skunk Works at Edwards AFB where they developed the and B2 and B21 stealth bombers, so do they have their own UFO? Prior to Lockheed, EG&G was often the big boogie man defense contractor that was reverse engineering UFOs, likely because they were a big contractor at Los Alamos and Area 51.

That story doesn't work as well anymore, as EG&G was repeatedly bought sold and split up meaning the either the UFOs they had were moved around a number of times, or they're still at Area 51 in the possession of the US government. Coulthart made a big deal about a story he was told about EG&G maybe reverse engineering UFOs at Area 51 and a patch that supposedly was issued to people that worked on said UFOs. Or maybe to people that just worked at Area 51 for EG&G and knew about the UFOs or something like that as his claim changed with the telling's. Spoiler, the patch was for an EG&G radar group at Area 51, something folks here figured out.

Discussed, at length, here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ro...reverse-engineering-program-at-area-51.13109/

Speaking of Coulthart:

As well as this, there's Coulthart's claim that one UFO is so big that it was immovable and required a building to be constructed over it - so there is a path to examining these claims.

He also made this dubious claim about a huge UFO hidden under a building, but of course he can't tell us where it is.

The thing here is, the shear logistics involved in building a structure to hide a humongous UFO means there are scores of architects, engineers and everyday trades people and construction workers, such that any one of them could be Coulthart's source. Meaning, he can tell us where this UFO is and settle all of this right now without giving up his source. But he doesn't. That's not his shtick, his thing is to just continue to tease and promise.

Discussed here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ross-coultharts-huge-buried-ufo.13040/

 

[davo27]

That's a deep pull!

Marion Rudnyk claimed he found film from the Gemini flights hidden in the floor of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena. The film had frames removed that supposedly would have shown UFOs, so in the usual UFOlogy logic the lack of evidence was proof of evidence. Even though the film had NO images of UFOs, the MiBs came and took it anyway because, again, the missing photos of the UFOs was proof that there were in fact photos of UFOs.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/astronomer-marian-rudnyk-ufo-convert.12286



Probably because Lockheed Martin is the biggest defense contractor there is, and Lockheed had and still has the Skunk Works which created the U2, the SR71, the F117 and other advanced aircraft. But, Lockheed Martin has only existed since the mid '90s when they merged. But Northrup-Grumman has their own secret hanger near the Skunk Works at Edwards AFB where they developed the and B2 and B21 stealth bombers, so do they have their own UFO? Prior to Lockheed, EG&G was often the big boogie man defense contractor that was reverse engineering UFOs, likely because they were a big contractor at Los Alamos and Area 51.

That story doesn't work as well anymore, as EG&G was repeatedly bought sold and split up meaning the either the UFOs they had were moved around a number of times, or they're still at Area 51 in the possession of the US government. Coulthart made a big deal about a story he was told about EG&G maybe reverse engineering UFOs at Area 51 and a patch that supposedly was issued to people that worked on said UFOs. Or maybe to people that just worked at Area 51 for EG&G and knew about the UFOs or something like that as his claim changed with the telling's. Spoiler, the patch was for an EG&G radar group at Area 51, something folks here figured out.

Discussed, at length, here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ro...reverse-engineering-program-at-area-51.13109/

Speaking of Coulthart:



He also made this dubious claim about a huge UFO hidden under a building, but of course he can't tell us where it is.

The thing here is, the shear logistics involved in building a structure to hide a humongous UFO means there are scores of architects, engineers and everyday trades people and construction workers, such that any one of them could be Coulthart's source. Meaning, he can tell us where this UFO is and settle all of this right now without giving up his source. But he doesn't. That's not his shtick, his thing is to just continue to tease and promise.

Discussed here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ross-coultharts-huge-buried-ufo.13040/

I'm starting to think that your voluminous background knowledge with these things just about qualifies you to be a ufologist!

 

[2pint]

That's a lot of rosy optimism. But experience shows us that there are people who are trying to establish the truth, people who want to make some money out of an exaggerated tale, and people who want to be re-elected and know their voters want them to take a particular position. Sorting out which is which can be tricky.

Totally agree, it appears I got the wrong end of the stick and thought it was being suggested that Burlison was on Grusch’s side and not the other way around.

My comments regarding not taking sides were related to people posting here rather than the congressmen / women as there seems to be a few assumptions being made. Subjective opinions are a waste of our time and just lead to speculation and there’s enough of that on YT and other platforms

 

[Mendel]

I'm starting to think that your voluminous background knowledge with these things just about qualifies you to be a ufologist!

Dave is an excellent ufology-logist.

Ufologists don't exist in the sense other -logists do because of a total and utter lack of subject matter. None of them has ever seen or touched a UFO. There is not a single hard [fact] that the field has established. Ufologists come to prominence because they turn science fiction into reality TV, by spinning "UFO sightings" into tales of actual UFOs.

 

[Stryer]

Let me first summarize your post—please correct me if I'm wrong.
• Moskowitz confirms ICIG Monheim reported "on the merits of Grusch’s claims".
• He claims there was new information, because it “actually moved the needle.”
• He also said, "many of Grusch claims have merit!"
• Burchett said, "Grusch is legit"
• Nancy Mace said, "Grusch [was] determined to be credible in some of the things".
• She also said, "Private contractors should be on that witness list".
• Luna said, "I feel that he’s a very credible witness."

(Note that even credible witnesses can be mistaken.)

Now, as I've explained before, Grusch's published ICIG submission did not involve any "UFOnut stories", it involved 1) a UAP-related project concealed from Congress, and 2) whistleblower reprisal.

I've always opined that these claims are somewhat credible: that Grusch may have reason to suspect reprisals, justified or not; and that he may well have found a secret project, the legality of which he was unable to determine.

Nothing in your quotes gives me the confidence to believe that Grusch knows more than this.
The public hearing indicated that the secret project may have been legally removed from oversight by locating it at a contractor with fewer reporting requirements.

There is still no evidence that a crime has been committed.
There is still no evidence that the US has NHI material or bodies.
In summa, there is still no evidence that this is more than a "nothingburger".

I think you are confusing evidence with proof.

The IGIC would not deem a nothing burger as you put it to be urgent and credible. Now that does not mean that Grusch has made accurate statements in regards to NHIs but this would not have got to this level in the absence of any evidence.

 

[Mauro]

I think you are confusing evidence with proof.

The IGIC would not deem a nothing burger as you put it to be urgent and credible. Now that does not mean that Grusch has made accurate statements in regards to NHIs but this would not have got to this level in the absence of any evidence.

Proof yes, but of what? There may well have been 'reprisals' against Grutsch! I have already said that I don't find strange at all for 'reprisals' on the workplace to be taken against an employee who acts disruptively (ie.: alleging without proofs the existence of secret unlawful operations). The 'reprisals' may themselves have been lawful or unlawful, and this is what IGIC is tasked to settle and thinks 'urgent and credible', but even unlawful reprisals are by no means a proof that Grutsch knows about secret alien reverse engineering, it just means he was reprimanded (rightfully, if my hypothesis is true) in the procedurally wrong way (which, by the way, would entail him to compensations). I don't know about US, but this happens every day in Italy: a disgruntled employee sues her/his employer for having been fired or de-mansioned or harassed or whatever. Possibly she/he has very good reasons to sue but, just as possibly, she/he actually was disruptive in the work environment and deserved what she/he got (at least morally from my point of view, if also legally and procedurally, that's another matter).

 

[Stryer]

Proof yes, but of what? There may well have been 'reprisals' against Grutsch! I have already said that I don't find strange at all for 'reprisals' on the workplace to be taken against an employee who acts disruptively (ie.: alleging without proofs the existence of secret unlawful operations). The 'reprisals' may themselves have been lawful or unlawful, and this is what IGIC is tasked to settle and thinks 'urgent and credible', but even unlawful reprisals are by no means a proof that Grutsch knows about secret alien reverse engineering, it just means he was reprimanded (rightfully, if my hypothesis is true) in the procedurally wrong way (which, by the way, would entail him to compensations). I don't know about US, but this happens every day in Italy: a disgruntled employee sues her/his employer for having been fired or de-mansioned or harassed or whatever. Possibly she/he has very good reasons to sue but, just as possibly, she/he actually was disruptive in the work environment and deserved what she/he got (at least morally from my point of view, if also legally and procedurally, that's another matter).

It is evidence that at least some of Grusch's allegations have credibility. He seems to be a credible person.

You cannot compare a complaint submitted to the IGIC to a regular work dispute in Europe. There are far different standards applied to the two complaints.

 

[JWrightBrain]

It is evidence that at least some of Grusch's allegations have credibility. He seems to be a credible person.

You cannot compare a complaint submitted to the IGIC to a regular work dispute in Europe. There are far different standards applied to the two complaints.

The big problem is we don't know which claims have merit and which are total bs. And we don't really know what Grusch actually believes. It's very probable that Grusch totally believes everything that he is saying but he was fed stories that have no real merit...or only partial merit. It seems pointless to speculate until some actual information gets out. Experts have been fooled by flim flam before, and (cynical_opinion) I don't really count congressmen as much of experts on anything except how to grab a spotlight (/cynical_opinion).

 

[Duke]

The big problem is we don't know which claims have merit and which are total bs.

When Grusch and his handlers release the IG findings/reports resulting from his complaints, we'll have a pretty good idea.

 

[JWrightBrain]

When Grusch and his handlers release the IG findings/reports resulting from his complaints, we'll have a pretty good idea.

Do we know if that is a "When" or an "If"?

 

[Mendel]

I think you are confusing evidence with proof.

The IGIC would not deem a nothing burger as you put it to be urgent and credible. Now that does not mean that Grusch has made accurate statements in regards to NHIs but this would not have got to this level in the absence of any evidence.

I would say that Grusch being credible means that there's a strong suspicion of workplace reprisals, and of a program misappropriating funds. Suspicion, not proof. It's the difference between a witness being credible, and a witness being correct.

But note that the ICIG has not alleged that a crime was committed, nor that the US has alien material/bodies. There being suspicion does not mean there's a crime.

The ICIG's task was to determine whether the whistleblower had justification to blow the whistle, i.e. was there reason to think something shady wad going on. But having reason to think that doesn't mean there was something shady going on: that would be the end of a process, ideally with a conviction in court. The whistleblowing is the start of it, and the ICIG first determines whether it's frivolous, or should be investigated further.

It is evidence that at least some of Grusch's allegations have credibility. He seems to be a credible person.

Watch your logic here.
Con men also say credible things, true things even. That's how they're able to slip the essential untruths in. Grusch had professional legal councel; and that tells me that the claims in his ICIG report are well founded, or they'd have been left out.
Now look at all of the other claims Grusch has been making on TV that are not in the ICIG complaint. The verdict of credibility does not extend to those.

I personally think Grusch is not a credible person, because he has seriously entertained an incredible concept in a public hearing. I don't trust his judgment at all. He's also super evasive. That doesn't mean everything he says is false, but it means I won't trust that it's true.

You cannot compare a complaint submitted to the IGIC to a regular work dispute in Europe. There are far different standards applied to the two complaints.

Please elaborate.

 

[Ann K]

this would not have got to this level in the absence of any evidence.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Congressional inquiries have often been held on the flimsiest of evidence for the most mundane topics, a form of "show trials" to make a political point or merely to get attention. Without getting into politics by giving current examples, one could compare them to the fictitious Captain Queeg and the investigation into the strawberries, in "The Caine Mutiny".

 

[Stryer]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Congressional inquiries have often been held on the flimsiest of evidence for the most mundane topics, a form of "show trials" to make a political point or merely to get attention. Without getting into politics by giving current examples, one could compare them to the fictitious Captain Queeg and the investigation into the strawberries, in "The Caine Mutiny".

Ignores exact context and compares to a fictional story while ignoring the reality of the situation. We are not just talking about Congressional inquiries, but an investigation by the inspector general of the intelligence community. Deeming a complaint urgent and credible has its own set of criteria as explained in this press release from the IGICs office. The IGIC has to be in possession of first hand information to find that a complaint is credible.

 

[Stryer]

I would say that Grusch being credible means that there's a strong suspicion of workplace reprisals, and of a program misappropriating funds. Suspicion, not proof. It's the difference between a witness being credible, and a witness being correct.

But note that the ICIG has not alleged that a crime was committed, nor that the US has alien material/bodies. There being suspicion does not mean there's a crime.

The ICIG's task was to determine whether the whistleblower had justification to blow the whistle, i.e. was there reason to think something shady wad going on. But having reason to think that doesn't mean there was something shady going on: that would be the end of a process, ideally with a conviction in court. The whistleblowing is the start of it, and the ICIG first determines whether it's frivolous, or should be investigated further.


Watch your logic here.
Con men also say credible things, true things even. That's how they're able to slip the essential untruths in. Grusch had professional legal councel; and that tells me that the claims in his ICIG report are well founded, or they'd have been left out.
Now look at all of the other claims Grusch has been making on TV that are not in the ICIG complaint. The verdict of credibility does not extend to those.

I personally think Grusch is not a credible person, because he has seriously entertained an incredible concept in a public hearing. I don't trust his judgment at all. He's also super evasive. That doesn't mean everything he says is false, but it means I won't trust that it's true.


Please elaborate.

The IGICs office has a specific requirment for labelling a complaint urgent and credible. An Italian workplace is not comparable in the slightest.

 

[FatPhil]

The IGICs office has a specific requirment for labelling a complaint urgent and credible. An Italian workplace is not comparable in the slightest.

"Urgent" and "credible" weren't the descriptors that were being applied to what takes place. What was being compared was simply: "it just means he was reprimanded".

Which side of the Atlantic do you think that people don't get reprimanded?

 

[Mauro]

The IGICs office has a specific requirment for labelling a complaint urgent and credible. An Italian workplace is not comparable in the slightest.

I apologize for using the Italian analogy, which was redundant and prone to cause unneeded detours in the thread, I should have known better. Please consider my post #409 amended as follows:

I don't know about US, but I think it's not so rare a disgruntled employee sues her/his employer for having been fired or de-mansioned or harassed or whatever. Possibly she/he has very good reasons to sue but, just as possibly, she/he actually was disruptive in the work environment and deserved what she/he got (at least morally from my point of view, if also legally and procedurally, that's another matter).

 

[Stryer]

"Urgent" and "credible" weren't the descriptors that were being applied to what takes place. What was being compared was simply: "it just means he was reprimanded".

Which side of the Atlantic do you think that people don't get reprimanded?

What do you mean? What are you referring to?

 

[JMartJr]

Subjective opinions are a waste of our time and just lead to speculation

Can also lead to a bit of brainstorming... where some wrong solutions get floated and tested in hopes of finding tne right one!

 

[Stryer]

Can also lead to a bit of brainstorming... where some wrong solutions get floated and tested in hopes of finding tne right one!

I thought speculation was frowned upon on this site?

 

[NorCal Dave]

The IGIC has to be in possession of first hand information to find that a complaint is credible.

Does he? The basic complaint is 2 parts.

1. Grusch claims to have found evidence of programs that were misappropriating funds and not under government oversight.

Remember, originally his big complaint is that he was not read into some programs to the level he thought he should be. He felt that as a representative of the UAPTF, he was to be giving access to ALL programs that MIGHT be UAP related. IIRC, that resulted in him filing a whistleblower complaint with IG of the DoD because he was denied access to programs that were being hidden from him. That complaint didn't go anywhere and Grusch claimed he suffered retaliation because he filed the complaint.

2. Grusch then filed a second whistleblower complaint with the IG of the IC about the supposed retaliation suffered from the first whistleblower complaint.

So, does the IGIC need to know about recovered UFO programs and aliens to find some of Grusch's complaint credible? I would argue not necessarily. Does the IG think Grusch had a good reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that there were some programs being hidden and misusing funds and if so, was he unfairly treated because of that?

That is, Grusch may have been denied access to programs he should have been granted access to or was properly denied access too that he felt were misusing money and beyond government oversight and he raised concerns over that. If his claims were not taken seriously and he was then retaliated against for them, his complaint would be credible. Note, in this case the programs in question could be completely legit and NOT out of government oversight or misusing funds, they were just beyond Grusch's access.

He could have been unfairly treated, or even convinced he was treated unfairly when he wasn't, about something he believed, recovered UFOs and aliens, but was not true. His complaint could be credible.

And lastly, credible doesn't mean true. It means it's worth looking into. As @Duke pointed out above, if the IG finds in Grusch's favor he may be entiltled to back pay and compensation. As most of this thread is about inferring things from vague statements and Grusch has not made any claims of such success to date, one could argue the IG has NOT found in his favor. Yet.

 

[Mendel]

Deeming a complaint urgent and credible has its own set of criteria as explained in this press release from the IGICs office.

Which press release are you referring to?

The IGICs office has a specific requirment for labelling a complaint urgent and credible. An Italian workplace is not comparable in the slightest.

I was hoping you'd elaborate on the standards/requirements being applied by the ICIG.

 

[JMartJr]

I thought speculation was frowned upon on this site?

'tis, particularly in excess. But before you can go look for evidence to support or refute an idea, you have to wonder if it might be true. We've had two threads where somebody said, in essence, "I think that looks like a buyterfly," and people followed up and found species of butterfly that matched the image from the area where the image was taken.

 

[FatPhil]

What do you mean? What are you referring to?

I am referring to what he said, and what you said later when you inaccurately referred back to it.

 

[FatPhil]

I thought speculation was frowned upon on this site?

Unfounded speculation, yes. But if you see what you think might be a butterfly, then the suggestion that it might be a butterfly might not be just useful, but as we've a couple of times actually the ultimate solution to the conundrum. And those are encouraged. The question to ask is how firm a basis the speculation is grounded. Pulling random ideas out of thin air, bad; recalling something from prior experience that was similar; normally quite good.

 

[Ann K]

The IGICs office has a specific requirment for labelling a complaint urgent and credible.

Assumes facts not in evidence again, unless I simply have been unable to find such a reference. Do you have their specific requirements? Or is, perhaps, the "urgency" defined as "Congressmen are asking you to look into this"? As I've mentioned, there are not necessarily any material facts required for congressmen to initiate a probe, and many of such probes are trivial.

 

[Stryer]

I am referring to what he said, and what you said later when you inaccurately referred back to it.

I fail to see the point you're making. I was citing the inaccuracy of comparing a random work dispute to one that warrants an investigation by the IGIC.

 

[Stryer]

Unfounded speculation, yes. But if you see what you think might be a butterfly, then the suggestion that it might be a butterfly might not be just useful, but as we've a couple of times actually the ultimate solution to the conundrum. And those are encouraged. The question to ask is how firm a basis the speculation is grounded. Pulling random ideas out of thin air, bad; recalling something from prior experience that was similar; normally quite good.

In other words speculation, which is subjective is useful when it agrees with you.

 

[Stryer]

There's a few people who seem to be asking me for the same information so here it is. This was an IGIC press release in relation to whistleblowers. This relates to when a complaint is urgent.

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respectto an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse,violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, oroperation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director ofNational Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinionsconcerning public policy matters.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of theIntelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to suchan alleged urgent concern.

The bit below relates to when an IGIC finds a complaint urgent and credible.

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be inpossession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmitinformation via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-handknowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received fromanother person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/shewitnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledgeof the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.)Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not providesufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If youthink wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process thecomplaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

So we know that David Grusch has supplied first hand evidence that resulted in his complaint (SAP funding and retaliation) being deemed credible.

 

[Mendel]

The bit below relates to when an IGIC finds a complaint urgent and credible.

Yeah, no.
From https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...cessing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf :

But then the document continues:


Not only did you not cite your source, you completely misrepresented what it said!

 

[Stryer]

You're confusing two completely different things. Anyone can file a report, however, the IGIC can only find it credible and urgent under the aforementioned conditions.

 

[Mendel]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Congressional inquiries have often been held on the flimsiest of evidence for the most mundane topics, a form of "show trials" to make a political point or merely to get attention. Without getting into politics by giving current examples, one could compare them to the fictitious Captain Queeg and the investigation into the strawberries, in "The Caine Mutiny".

Prime example is the HUAC, a House committee now disbanded. Its predecessor investigated a hoax:

Article:

In 1934, the Special Committee subpoenaed most of the leaders of the fascist movement in the United States.[10]​ Beginning in November 1934, the committee investigated allegations of a fascist plot to seize the White House, known as the "Business Plot". Contemporary newspapers widely reported the plot as a hoax.[11]​ While historians have questioned whether a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[12]​

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

You can find more examples on that page.

When there's smoke, there's smoke. That's it.

 

[Mendel]

You're confusing two completely different things. Anyone can file a report, however, the IGIC can only find it credible and urgent under the aforementioned conditions.

see, if you could support this with evidence, that'd actually be a constructive contribution.

My quote says explicitly that you are wrong.

"Harder" and "less likely", not impossible.

 

[Mendel]

Anyone can file a report, however, the IGIC can only find it credible and urgent under the aforementioned conditions.

it's false

Article:

[Senators] Johnson, Grassley, Lee Call For Answers Regarding Intelligence Community Changing Requirements For Whistleblowers

[...]

We are not aware of any federal law, regulation, or internal directive relating to whistleblowers that requires first-hand information in order for the complaint to be accepted as credible or receive legal protections, which calls into question why your office used it in the first place.

Source: https://www.grassley.senyate.gov/news/news-releases/johnson-grassley-lee-call-answers-regarding-intelligence-community-changing

 

[Stryer]

see, if you could support this with evidence, that'd actually be a constructive contribution.

My quote says explicitly that you are wrong.

"Harder" and "less likely", not impossible.

Wrong again.

The quote below states that the IC IG needs to have first hand information. Your quote states that the person who files the complaint doesn't necessarily need it.

"In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be inpossession of reliable, first-hand information"

 

[Stryer]

it's false

Article:

[Senators] Johnson, Grassley, Lee Call For Answers Regarding Intelligence Community Changing Requirements For Whistleblowers

[...]

We are not aware of any federal law, regulation, or internal directive relating to whistleblowers that requires first-hand information in order for the complaint to be accepted as credible or receive legal protections, which calls into question why your office used it in the first place.

Source: https://www.grassley.senyate.gov/news/news-releases/johnson-grassley-lee-call-answers-regarding-intelligence-community-changing

Nope. You're quoting a request for information from an external body. I quoted a press release from the IGIC.

 

[Duke]

Recently released documents to The Black Vault via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) offer a rare glimpse into the Department of Defense Inspector General’s evaluation of the DoD’s response to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). The documents focus on a June 12, 2021, interview with “UFO Whistleblower” David Grusch. The interview summary, part of the “Evaluation of the DoD’s Actions Regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena” DODIG-2023-109, highlights Grusch’s critique of the existing UAP analysis methods and his proposal for a new approach.

Content from External Source

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...nterview-with-ufo-whistleblower-david-grusch/

Just a bit of background, this June 2021 meeting between then Maj Grusch and DoD IG was part of an evaluation of the extent of actions taken on the part of DoD relative to UAPs.This is explained in DODIG-2024-109 which is linked in the Black Vault article above and includes this letter.


A few observations:

1) It's doubtful Maj Grusch was the designated representative to this evaluation group from whichever organization he worked for at the time. The above letter required the representative to be a GS-15 or "military equivalent." That would be an 0-6/full colonel, or two ranks above his then rank of 0-4/major.

2) The briefing charts used by Maj Grusch (included in the the FOIA response to BV) are devoid of unit/organizational identification/logo (except the one someone ginned up for the new organization he was espousing). As someone who's presented many briefings outside one's own organization, this tells me he was talking to the IG representating only himself, not his organization. There is no way this briefing as shown would have gotten past his unit "murder board" for presentation outside the organization at the DoD level.

3) Assuming #2 above is correct, that probably means Maj Grusch asked to address the group, as opposed to having been called as a witness or sent by his organization.

If these points are accurate, it would be interesting to know what the very senior officials who comprised the team made of him. The audacity of a relatively junior officer to invite himself to lecture them on how UFOs needed to be investigated must have generated some intriguing commentary.

 

[Curious George]

Today we have some clarity on exactly what was confirmed by the ICIG. This is pretty direct.

So safe to say, what was in the SCIF was lending weight and credibility moreso to David Grusch's claims, and for you and your colleagues, those go from being claims, or, wild claims to, to real substance?

Yeah, I would say that, to put it, to try to be clear, there's some validation of his claims on process, that, in the process that its difficult to get information to members of Congress, or that information is being witheld, I think that's been proven. I think that it's been proven prima facie, the fact that we are having a difficult time getting this information and we're seeking it, proves that claim.
In addition, you know I think that it's been proven his, what he said, the information's being compartmentalized, and that the information is, there's a culture of fear and intimation around this, so, I think that his claims about those are pretty bold claims, but they've, in my mind, been validated, enough that, it makes me wonder what else of his claims are true.

Source: https://twitter.com/ufouapam/status/1747391681291509813


I think this confirms, there is a secret program operating without oversight, and people are being threatened to keep the secret.