David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin

[JMartJr]

I'm surprised the American congress is not addressing this in the public immediately.

Congress. Immediately. You may select one, but not both.

More seriously, the US congress is designed as a deliberative body, hedged about with internal and external "checks and balances." The Congress, as a body, is not set up for doing things immediately.

 

[JMartJr]

But congressmen like Mike Turner (House Intelligence Committee) have said as recently as last Tuesday that there is no evidence of retrieved craft, or a materials recovery program (source). Would this not imply that Congress has already determined the information provided by Grusch to be insufficient to verify his claims? If so, I don't understand the current "it's now for Congress to get to the bottom of it one way or another" line. Wouldn't congressional denials (like Turner's and Himes') suggest they've already gotten to the bottom of it, and there's nothing there?

No, I wouldn't think so. Assume for a moment a legitimate whistle blower case, where some agency had in fact been withholding information from Congress. members of Congress, in that scenario, would not be aware of any evidence, yet, and an individual Congressman (or several) saying there is no evidence is not an official statement from Congress.
To be clear, I don't think there will be any evidence in this case, because I don't think there is any such program. But I could be wrong, of course.

However, as a general case, statements by a member of Congress should not be read as the opinion of Congress or as based on official congressional action.

 

[Duke]

Uncritical softball interview

This is basically Elizondo 2 except this time we're not bothering with any of that pesky evidence that Mick West just debunks anyway. They realised it doesn't actually matter, the stories are enough to play to the intended audience.

Your post reminded me of something filmmaker Jeremy Corbell said on C2C back in Nov 2018. He and Bob Lazar were promoting Corbell's (then) new documentary on Lazar and were being interviewed by rent-a-host/intrepid investigative journalist George Knapp.

A caller asked a very pointed question about Lazar's credibility as a function of the numerous false/unsupported claims he'd made over the years. Not an exact quote, but Corbell replied he didn't care what Lazar had lied about in the past, it was his story that was important. No surprise, Knapp did not challenge that comment.

 

[LilWabbit]

@Mick West touched briefly on some of the broader systemic issues with this whole UFO flap in his latest Grusch monologue which he uploaded today on Youtube.

I wanted to add these 4 points which may be helpful in unpacking the broader systemic issues.

Most lay folk mistake all this UAP ruckus for an essentially scientific dilemma (i.e. let's find out what are all these blurry observations about stuff happening in our skies) or a military dilemma (i.e. let's find out about the potentially threatening stuff flying around in our skies). All this recent UFO curiosity resurged ever since Lou leaked the three initial videos.

But on a deeper societal level, the whole flap seems to me, systemically, as just another example of:

(1) The inherent vulnerability of certain representative democracies to powerful political lobbies supported by money and a zealous constituency;

(2) A culture where critical, independent and scientific thought isn't promoted across the board ranging from homes to schools and even to universities and the political arena.

(3) A lazy entertainment culture-inspired epistemology whereby any idea/ideology that is propagated by seemingly credentialed/smart people, covered by seemingly respectable publications and outlets, that is personally appealing, fun, thrilling, validating, shocking, epic, secret-exposing, personally empowering or sometimes even selfishly useful, means it must be true.

(4) The vulnerability of lay folks to leadership-seeking, attention-seeking or ideologically fanatical charismatic individuals specifically targeting impressionable audiences.

Due to the ingrained systemic nature of the above societal and cultural challenges, there's no quick fix to ensure such flaps (and a host of other more serious problems and forms of fanaticism) won't keep resurging every decade or so.

As far as ufology goes, I'd rather have such benign delusions sticking around than the violent and abusive fanatical ideologies, both religious and political, that continue to wreak havoc to this world.

 

[Ann K]

Impressions of the interview, continued from 15:00. Yes indeed, my bias in favor of facts over hearsay is apparent throughout my commentary!

He claims there's been a "90 year coverup", but Mussolini's claims have long been known. Now he is on to Roswell, and expresses amazement there was a crash of an unfamiliar object ...in a part of the New Mexico desert near White Sands, where unfamiliar objects have long been tested.

(23:45) He actually mentions the possibility that "these people are lying to me" but appears to dismiss it immediately, although he follows it with "I have no good explanation". It sounds a lot like an unspoken "I have no good explanation but I'd prefer to think it's all true".

This is followed by a number of minutes of speculation and Grusch's unverified opinions, heavily larded with innuendo. It includes a number of statements about what may or may not be happening in other countries.

At about 34:30 minutes the interviewer poses direct questions to him about his mental state and veracity. To no one's surprise, he denies it, gives his "I'm for real" speech again, and claims to be there "at great personal risk", thus introducing the "persecution narrative" beloved of conspiracy theorists that he is physically endangering himself by speaking out.

He claims that the top echelon of the organization found his claims to be credible ...but is that true? He has poisoned the well with the concept that either they believe him, or they'll deny it which will prove they believe him.

In conclusion, "Obviously the non-human intelligences have been around for a while, at least multiple decades". That, David, is what we are trying to discover, because it is NOT obvious. He says he wants to bring humanity together, but it's another iteration of "Let's all agree to see it MY way".

 

[Agent K]

Not sure if already linked, but the full interview is (finally) dropped. Perhaps Mick wants to start a new thread on specifically this video, not sure. SPOILER: nothing we already discussed.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ceEJUnETo&ab_channel=NewsNation

The video has gone private. It was still missing the parts where he talked about exotic materials and craft the size of a football field.

Edit: It's on the NewsNation website: https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/we-are-not-alone-the-ufo-whistleblower-speaks/

 

[Rick Robson]

Impressions of the interview, continued from 15:00. Yes indeed, my bias in favor of facts over hearsay is apparent throughout my commentary!

He claims there's been a "90 year coverup", but Mussolini's claims have long been known. Now he is on to Roswell, and expresses amazement there was a crash of an unfamiliar object ...in a part of the New Mexico desert near White Sands, where unfamiliar objects have long been tested.

(23:45) He actually mentions the possibility that "these people are lying to me" but appears to dismiss it immediately, although he follows it with "I have no good explanation". It sounds a lot like an unspoken "I have no good explanation but I'd prefer to think it's all true".

This is followed by a number of minutes of speculation and Grusch's unverified opinions, heavily larded with innuendo. It includes a number of statements about what may or may not be happening in other countries.

At about 34:30 minutes the interviewer poses direct questions to him about his mental state and veracity. To no one's surprise, he denies it, gives his "I'm for real" speech again, and claims to be there "at great personal risk", thus introducing the "persecution narrative" beloved of conspiracy theorists that he is physically endangering himself by speaking out.

He claims that the top echelon of the organization found his claims to be credible ...but is that true? He has poisoned the well with the concept that either they believe him, or they'll deny it which will prove they believe him.

In conclusion, "Obviously the non-human intelligences have been around for a while, at least multiple decades". That, David, is what we are trying to discover, because it is NOT obvious. He says he wants to bring humanity together, but it's another iteration of "Let's all agree to see it MY way".

Accurately observed.
Sadly, my only hope left now is that some private scientific endeavour find some plausible explanation about the UFO Phenomenon, otherwise I'll have to live the rest of my life without having a convincing scientific description of 'what's that' that once upon a time I experienced and won't ever forget .... LOL
On another note (maybe related to the thread topic): Does anyone know when will Dr. Gary Nolan release for peer review his scientific paper about an "exotic material" he's alledgedy been long drafting?

 

[Agent K]

You can watch it here, from 16:00:

The video is on the NewsNation website.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/we-are-not-alone-the-ufo-whistleblower-speaks/

 

[Eburacum]

The video is on the NewsNation website.

Unavailable in Europe.

 

[John_Sheldon]

Spacecraft can refer to recovered Russian/Chinese satellites/rockets.

You can essentially describe a completely normal secret program of recovery and examination of other countries technology, aircraft, spacecraft (satellites/rockets) leave the details on that sparse by using some fun UFO friendly words like "craft" and "vehicle" which are technically accurate but leave room for the imagination, when you could probably have said "jet aeroplane," "booster rocket" and "satellite." Sprinkle a little "some stuff we couldn't work out what it was" and words like exotic and then leave the viewers to fill in the gaps to conjure up a junkyard full of flying saucers.

Exactly! As well as how the word "Alien" is used in the intelligence community.

In law, an alien is any person (including an organization) who is not a citizen or a national of a specific country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law)

So "recovered craft" & "dead alien pilots" could easily be very misleading in a top-secret compartmentalised set-up.

 

[Duke]

A spokeswoman for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) said the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base center has no record of an employee who has adopted the alias of "Jonathan Grey," the person who was recently quoted in a news article outlining the claims of an Air Force veteran who said the federal government had spacecraft of non-human origin.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/loc...mail&utm_campaign=ddn_AfternoonUpdate_7031287

Not sure if this part of the Grusch saga has gotten a lot of national airplay, but here locally his claim to have worked under an alias at NASIC has had many of us scratching our heads.

 

[PublicStranger]

A spokeswoman for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) said the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base center has no record of an employee who has adopted the alias of "Jonathan Grey," the person who was recently quoted in a news article outlining the claims of an Air Force veteran who said the federal government had spacecraft of non-human origin.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/loc...mail&utm_campaign=ddn_AfternoonUpdate_7031287

Not sure if this part of the Grusch saga has gotten a lot of national airplay, but here locally his claim to have worked under an alias at NASIC has had many of us scratching our heads.

Edit: Okay I've just read the article fully. I guess he just gave a fake alias, by revealing his alias he is essentially revealing his identity so it would make sense to hide it. Could be his alias but it also states 'the name he was known under in the agency'. Nickname maybe?

 

[NorCal Dave]

A spokeswoman for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) said the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base center has no record of an employee who has adopted the alias of "Jonathan Grey," the person who was recently quoted in a news article outlining the claims of an Air Force veteran who said the federal government had spacecraft of non-human origin.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/loc...mail&utm_campaign=ddn_AfternoonUpdate_7031287

Not sure if this part of the Grusch saga has gotten a lot of national airplay, but here locally his claim to have worked under an alias at NASIC has had many of us scratching our heads.

I missed that. Was that in the interview? I haven't seen all of it yet. He claimed to work under an alias? Why would anyone do that in an official capacity? Can it even be done?

The original article seems to treat Grey as a separate person:

Jonathan Grey is a generational officer of the United States Intelligence Community with a Top-Secret Clearance who currently works for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), where the analysis of UAP has been his focus. Previously he had experience serving Private Aerospace and Department of Defense Special Directive Task Forces.
"The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone," Grey said. "Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us."

Grusch's willingness to take risks and speak out appears to be emboldening others with similar knowledge who believe in greater transparency.

Jonathan Grey, the intelligence officer specializing in UAP analysis at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, is speaking publicly for the first time, identified here under the identity he uses inside the agency.

Grey said that such immense capabilities are not merely relegated to the study of the prosaic. "The existence of complex historical programs involving the coordinated retrieval and study of exotic materials, dating back to the early 20th century, should no longer remain a secret," he said. "The majority of retrieved, foreign exotic materials have a prosaic terrestrial explanation and origin – but not all, and any number higher than zero in this category represents an undeniably significant statistical percentage."

https://web.archive.org/web/2023060...icials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Somebody that is backing up Gurshc's claims.

EDIT: Added some more quotes showing Grey to be a different person.

 

[Duke]

Well I guess it makes sense, they didn't actually employ 'Jonathan Grey'. Could be his alias but it also states 'the name he was known under in the agency'. Nickname maybe?

My original thought was "Jonathan Grey" was a fictitious name used by the media to protect his true identity, but no, the claim was it was the name he worked under at NASIC. It was if he was trying to give the impression he was a covert operative.

I worked with NASIC (actually its predecessor, Foreign Technology Division) on a couple projects over the years. While most of what they did was classified, they were desk bound analysts, not field agents or undercover spooks. The whole idea he needed an alias while working there made no sense.

 

[Duke]

I missed that. Was that in the interview? I haven't seen all of it yet. He claimed to work under an alias? Why would anyone do that in an official capacity? Can it even be done?

The original article seems to treat Grey as a separate person:

Jonathan Grey is a generational officer of the United States Intelligence Community with a Top-Secret Clearance who currently works for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), where the analysis of UAP has been his focus. Previously he had experience serving Private Aerospace and Department of Defense Special Directive Task Forces.
"The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone," Grey said. "Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us."

Grusch's willingness to take risks and speak out appears to be emboldening others with similar knowledge who believe in greater transparency.

Jonathan Grey, the intelligence officer specializing in UAP analysis at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, is speaking publicly for the first time, identified here under the identity he uses inside the agency.

Grey said that such immense capabilities are not merely relegated to the study of the prosaic. "The existence of complex historical programs involving the coordinated retrieval and study of exotic materials, dating back to the early 20th century, should no longer remain a secret," he said. "The majority of retrieved, foreign exotic materials have a prosaic terrestrial explanation and origin – but not all, and any number higher than zero in this category represents an undeniably significant statistical percentage."

https://web.archive.org/web/2023060...icials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Somebody that is backing up Gurshc's claims.

EDIT: Added some more quotes showing Grey to be a different person.

Reading that you'd get that impression, but not the way it's been interpreted here. But if that is true, it's still a blow to Grusch's credibility if he had a "generational officer" from NASIC who doesn't exist vouch for him.

 

[Duke]

Reading that you'd get that impression, but not the way it's been interpreted here. But if that is true, it's still a blow to Grusch's credibility if he had a "generational officer" from NASIC who doesn't exist vouch for him.

I've gone back to look for the article(s) I read that implied Grey and Grusch were the same guy, but no luck. Maybe I misinterpreted what I read, if so that's on me.

Still, the more interesting bit is, even if Grey was meant only to confirm Grusch's claims, that support means little if Grey can't be identified. The idea he worked under an assumed name within NASIC is highly questionable. A fictitious name to hide his true identity in a news article I would get, but that's not the claim. I wonder how Kean/Blumenthal vetted Grey?

 

[Rocky]

I remember that years ago there was a hacker that found lots of top secret cables. I think he always claimed to not have seen any evidence of say, Grusch story or any ufo evidence for that matter.
I cannot believe a secret this big can be kept secret, even to hackers.

Are you referencing Wikileaks?
Julian Assange released cables from Wikileaks that had little to no info on UFOs.
He was quoted as saying...
"It is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.""Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-Christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot plant."

 

[Duke]

I remember that years ago there was a hacker that found lots of top secret cables. I think he always claimed to not have seen any evidence of say, Grusch story or any ufo evidence for that matter.
I cannot believe a secret this big can be kept secret, even to hackers.

Are you talking about Gary McKinnon from the UK? That's been 20 or so years ago?

After allegedly hacking into NASA websites -- where he says he found images of what looked like extraterrestrial spaceships -- the 40-year-old Briton faces extradition to the United States from his North London home. If convicted, McKinnon could receive a 70-year prison term and up to $2 million in fines.

https://www.wired.com/2006/06/ufo-hacker-tells-what-he-found/

 

[Mendel]

Exactly! As well as how the word "Alien" is used in the intelligence community.

In law, an alien is any person (including an organization) who is not a citizen or a national of a specific country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law)

So "recovered craft" & "dead alien pilots" could easily be very misleading in a top-secret compartmentalised set-up.

That's why we've been using "extraterrestrial" in this discussion. The alternative, "non-human species", covers the animals that were sent to space in the 1950s. Of course, Grusch also likes to think of dimension travellers...

Note also that we don't know what "exotic materials" are. I'm pretty sure if there's a reverse engineering effort, they don't want to analyse every panel that falls off an aircraft, so some field agent probably triages the materials into "mundane" and "exotic", depending on whether they seem worth analysing?

Grey said that such immense capabilities are not merely relegated to the study of the prosaic. "The existence of complex historical programs involving the coordinated retrieval and study of exotic materials, dating back to the early 20th century, should no longer remain a secret," he said. "The majority of retrieved, foreign exotic materials have a prosaic terrestrial explanation and origin – but not all, and any number higher than zero in this category represents an undeniably significant statistical percentage." Content from External Source https://web.archive.org/web/2023060...icials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Somebody that is backing up Grusch's claims.

I'm reading this as not backing Grusch up.

Grusch	"Grey"
retrieval program	retrieval program at NASIC
for downed craft	for exotic materials
of extraterrestrial origin	the majority is terrestrial
including pilots	including unexplained stuff
lots of it (12 craft)	little of it (a percentage higher than zero)

Grusch says there's an alien retrieval program, Grey says their analysis section has some unsolved cases. Now consider what the heat of re-entry can do to materials, and Grey's testimony is a nothingburger by itself. It only supports the very core of Grusch's complaint, that there's a program UAPTF would've liked to look at but couldn't.

From a DoD perspective, they had one group of people (UAPTF) collecting sightings for threat analysis, and another group collecting materials for threat analysis. It's only when you posit that UAPTF's job was to look for proof of extraterrestrials (it wasn't) that the need for them to look at materials even arises. And remember that UAPTF really sucked at analysis, out of over 100 sightings, they identified one (1). There's absolutely no reason to read them into a top secret reverse engineering program that mostly deals with foreign satellites etc.

 

[Mendel]

John Greenewald posted a transcript of the 42-minute interview at https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...eblower-full-newsnation-interview-transcript/ . It has some machine-generated errors, but is quite readable.

Two things caught my attention:

Ross Coulthart 20:33
These are the videos that started it all, footage captured by naval aviators on military grade cameras that defied all prosaic explanation. Dave Grusch has investigated this one, shot in 2015 off the east coast by fighter pilots from the USS Theodore Roosevelt. There is an industry of debunkers out there on the web, who say, Oh, they've got this wrong. It's a jet exhaust at a distance and the aircraft's turning. Give me an answer on that.

David Grusch 21:05
I had some optical engineering experts look at that and Raytheon ATFLIR system. Based on the pixel saturation and apparent size, it's certainly something that's not a jet. It might be some kind of natural phenomenon. It's quite strange, but it's not as simple as a jet.

He's referring to the GIMBAL video. We have a thread on the shape of the glare at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-shape-and-size-of-glare-around-bright-lights.10596/ , and a debunk on Travis Taylor's contention that the temperature is too high for a jet at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...nd-range-and-temp-to-of-the-gimbal-uap.12486/ .

(Oh, and a "military grade" camera isn't better than a normal camera.)

Ross Coulthart 09:42

Why are you doing this?

David Grusch 09:44

It's a sense of service you know, call me a boy scout or whatever it just when I saw the kind of wrongdoing I did, I don't want to be 60, 70 years old in the future and have that you know, coulda, shoulda woulda kind of feeling where I could have made a difference. I did not want to live a life of regret.

Ross Coulthart 40:25

Whoever they are. How will the nonhuman intelligence react to the revelation that human beings now know? They're here?

David Grusch 40:35

Yeah, I mean, obviously, the nonhuman intelligence is have been around for a while, at least multiple decades in modern history, and they've allowed ourselves to annihilate ourselves, genocide, war, famine, etc. So at the very least, I think they're kind of neutral on what humans decide to do with their free will.

Every serious whistleblower with a mission like this has named names and faced jail time, for example Manning and Snowdon.
Grusch, on the other hand, names nothing and nobody. They could kill him tomorrow, and nobody would know. He doesn't care about the information getting out, even though he says he wants to make a difference, he's keeping the information that could make a difference to himself. That strategy makes no sense if he's a bona fide whistleblower on non-human aliens being among us.

But the strategy makes a lot of sense if he's playing the QAnon game: that has always been about pushing conclusions that people want to believe, and letting the crowd look for "evidence" on their own. And that's precisely what Grusch is doing.
He has no evidence.

 

[FatPhil]

A spokeswoman for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) said the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base center has no record of an employee who has adopted the alias of "Jonathan Grey," the person who was recently quoted in a news article outlining the claims of an Air Force veteran who said the federal government had spacecraft of non-human origin.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/loc...mail&utm_campaign=ddn_AfternoonUpdate_7031287

Not sure if this part of the Grusch saga has gotten a lot of national airplay, but here locally his claim to have worked under an alias at NASIC has had many of us scratching our heads.

So he faked his identity to get onto an Air Force base and infiltrate an Intelligence operation? This wouldn't show great competence within your national security aparatus, were it to be true.
Of course, you wouldn't expect him to leak his real fake name to the public, so I think that specific part's a red herring. Maybe have them check again for a "Walter Mitty"?

 

[FatPhil]

A fictitious name to hide his true identity in a news article I would get, but that's not the claim. I wonder how Kean/Blumenthal vetted Grey?

How close an interaction did they even have with Grey? Have they claimed to have met him, video called him, just had a voice call with him, or just exchanged emails? If they expect us to trust their reporting on what he's said we at least need to know to what extent they trust him, and on what basis that trust is founded.

 

[FatPhil]

Reading that you'd get that impression, but not the way it's been interpreted here. But if that is true, it's still a blow to Grusch's credibility if he had a "generational officer" from NASIC who doesn't exist vouch for him.

"Generational officer" doesn't say anything to me apart from "daddy worked there before him" - am I missing something more coherent than that?
Or maybe it means he's a Generative AI?

 

[jarlrmai]

"Generational officer" doesn't say anything to me apart from "daddy worked there before him" - am I missing something more coherent than that?
Or maybe it means he's a Generative AI?

Googling around generational officer means just that, following on from one of your parents in the same organisation as an officer. Usually I see it in police contexts but it would apply to the military as well.

 

[GeekFurious]

In conclusion, "Obviously the non-human intelligences have been around for a while, at least multiple decades".

This is the biggest red flag for me when it comes to things feeling like someone is selling a scam, and not just caught up in what they want to believe. Why would any reasonable person say, without evidence, that an extraordinary thing not only exists but that it is obvious... unless they lack confidence in the statement? This is con-artistry 101: elevate the perception of your reality by stating your extraordinary claims require no evidence because they're "obviously" true.

 

[Stealth777]

I can not get behind David G , even if you paid me. Where things fall apart for me is , how he answers direct questions with wide open you fill in the blank answers. like if someone asked you how many cars in your driveway you don't answer with quite a few. you know the answer just say 3 in my driveway. if asked how many people have come to you about ufo's you know already how many, just say it 7 people have. direct answer period. I bet if his child went missing and was questioned by police you would direct answers to their questions. Now if the interviewer said ok David when we get to the question of how many ufo's don't say 10 say quite a few. I think I will wait for the Next Whistleblower. Next !

 

[Ann K]

I can not get behind David G , even if you paid me. Where things fall apart for me is , how he answers direct questions with wide open you fill in the blank answers. like if someone asked you how many cars in your driveway you don't answer with quite a few. you know the answer just say 3 in my driveway. if asked how many people have come to you about ufo's you know already how many, just say it 7 people have. direct answer period. I bet if his child went missing and was questioned by police you would direct answers to their questions. Now if the interviewer said ok David when we get to the question of how many ufo's don't say 10 say quite a few. I think I will wait for the Next Whistleblower. Next !

He was vague to the point of saying nothing of substance, while inviting his listeners to fill in the blanks with their own preconceptions and speculations. Meanwhile his own self-importance shone through every sentence: "Look at all the secret stuff I know!" All he did was stir the conspiracy pot, while whining about how he is being mistreated. It's impossible at the moment to decide if he is the monkey or the organ grinder. I suspect the former.

 

[fizzBuzz]

I can not get behind David G , even if you paid me. Where things fall apart for me is , how he answers direct questions with wide open you fill in the blank answers. like if someone asked you how many cars in your driveway you don't answer with quite a few. you know the answer just say 3 in my driveway. if asked how many people have come to you about ufo's you know already how many, just say it 7 people have. direct answer period. I bet if his child went missing and was questioned by police you would direct answers to their questions. Now if the interviewer said ok David when we get to the question of how many ufo's don't say 10 say quite a few. I think I will wait for the Next Whistleblower. Next !

I can't bring myself to nitpick this way, it adds nothing useful to the conversation, it only adds toxicity between the two sides. Maybe he doesn't know an actual number, maybe all he knows is "quite a few". If he does have a number, the smart thing for him to say is "quite a few", because there may be more (or less) than the number he was given - either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is can he prove that ONE exists. Mick has been nitpicking about the number of crashed craft compared to crashed airplanes. But the "quite a few" craft don't all have to be "crashed", they can be shot down, landed and handed over, etc. But none of that matters to the question of "do we have an alien space craft and can Grusch prove it?". I think all this petty nitpicking is what gives skeptics a bad look.

I think we need to analyze data WHEN DATA IS AVAILABLE. The nitpicking comes off like we're reaching for reasons to combat claims.

 

[Itsme]

I can not get behind David G , even if you paid me. Where things fall apart for me is , how he answers direct questions with wide open you fill in the blank answers. like if someone asked you how many cars in your driveway you don't answer with quite a few. you know the answer just say 3 in my driveway. if asked how many people have come to you about ufo's you know already how many, just say it 7 people have. direct answer period.

He probably does not know the exact numbers, as simple as that. Some of his answers are his own speculations based on the information he has heard. They are subsequently exaggerated in the press ('murdering aliens').
Also, he was not allowed by DOPSR to show any documents or photos, so I guess this means he is also not allowed to describe what he saw exactly in those photos.

But like the rest of us, I cannot wait to see real evidence.

 

[Stealth777]

I can't bring myself to nitpick this way, it adds nothing useful to the conversation, it only adds toxicity between the two sides. Maybe he doesn't know an actual number, maybe all he knows is "quite a few". If he does have a number, the smart thing for him to say is "quite a few", because there may be more (or less) than the number he was given - either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is can he prove that ONE exists. Mick has been nitpicking about the number of crashed craft compared to crashed airplanes. But the "quite a few" craft don't all have to be "crashed", they can be shot down, landed and handed over, etc. But none of that matters to the question of "do we have an alien space craft and can Grusch prove it?". I think all this petty nitpicking is what gives skeptics a bad look.

I think we need to analyze data WHEN DATA IS AVAILABLE. The nitpicking comes off like we're reaching for reasons to combat claims.

I understand what you mean about nitpicking, I wish he would have just said 1 , that would be the safest bet if he can even prove just 1 , a lot easier than trying to prove quite a few. I will wait to see when that data is available.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm reading this as not backing Grusch up.

Agreed, good point. I wasn't paying that much attention to the actual claims, rather there seemed to be some confusion on weather Grusch and Grey were the same person, Grey being an alias. I was trying to point out that Grey was presented as a separate person in the original article. I think in the article Grey is presented as "another" person coming forward with "similar" claims as evidence for Grusch even though as you noted, a careful reading shows the opposite.

As for the interview, 2 things caught my attention, Roswell and Malstrom:

Ross Coulthart

17:24

Most people would tell you the Roswell incident has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the Air Force published this report in 1994. To put the issue to rest once and for all Grusch has read it,

David Grusch 17:39

That analysis that didn't was a total hack job and even anybody with analytical skills. If you read it, you can, you can deduce that they're conflating multiple situations with crash test dummies and then mogul balloons. And they're just saying that the townsfolk who personally witnessed it are totally imagining things, they concocted that whole report just a different form.

I would have to think any level headed person that believes people like Graves and Favor and really thinks there are issues with UAPs flying around has got know that the vast majority of the Roswell story was tacked on 30 years after the fact by the guy that popularized the Bermuda Triangle. Don't they?

There are pictures of what was recovered from a few days after the event in 1947. They are consistent with a balloon. The type of balloon was classified at the time so while they said it was a weather balloon, it was in fact a Mogul balloon used to listen for Soviet nuclear tests. That was it.

The bodies, the crashed saucer(s), the secret retrieval operation(s) were all added 25-50 years later by archeologists, morticians and others that had nothing to do with the original story.

Same with Malstrom:

Ross Coulthart

18:17

Grusch says that through the 50s and 60s encounters with the NHI continued, as did the cover up one incident in 1967, about which multiple Air Force veterans have gone public involved UAPs tampering with the nuclear missiles at Malmstrom Air Base in Montana, they saw a craft appearing to be intelligently controlled, hovered over a nuclear weapons silo, and shut down 10 Nuclear ICBM missiles.

David Grusch 18:51

It certainly looks like they want to understand how far we've advanced in our nucular fissile kind of technologies at the very least, I mean, it looks like preparatory probing activity, it might be innocent kind of scientific gathering could be ISR probing.

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...eblower-full-newsnation-interview-transcript/

Discussed at length in this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uf...mstrom-eagle-flight-skeptical-resources.3284/

Bottom line, the entire Malstrom AFB case is concocted by one guy using the garbled memories of another older guy. The person at the silo where the nukes went off line momentarily, repeatedly said UFOs had nothing to do with it. Boeing discovered the glitch and the report is publicly avilible. The guy claiming UFOs were involved was at a different silo on a different day and his nukes did not go offline. He has changed his story multiple times and bases much of it off hypnotically retrieved memories.

To be fair, it's Coulthart that brings these very weak cases up for Grusch's response, but Grusch just seems to go along with them. Yep, government cover-up.

Again, these are not similar to someone like Favor describing his tictac encounter. These are amalgamations of stories from very unreliable witnesses and outright fabrications. I waiting to see if we get a nod to the Philidelphia Experiment.

I can't figure out if this is just throwing red meat to the hardcore fringe, or he's just not well versed in the actual stories and their origins, so he just nods along with Coulthart, or if Grusch is a hardcore UFOlogist and really believes all this stuff.

 

[Mendel]

This is where Jeremy and George lose me - I don't necessarily think they are dishonest, I just think they irrationally make assumptions (like most of the people in this space) and then they report on those assumptions.

That's what Grusch says it is. It's not their assumption, they're going along with Grusch's claims.

I can't bring myself to nitpick this way, it adds nothing useful to the conversation, it only adds toxicity between the two sides. Maybe he doesn't know an actual number, maybe all he knows is "quite a few". If he does have a number, the smart thing for him to say is "quite a few", because there may be more (or less) than the number he was given - either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is can he prove that ONE exists. Mick has been nitpicking about the number of crashed craft compared to crashed airplanes. But the "quite a few" craft don't all have to be "crashed", they can be shot down, landed and handed over, etc. But none of that matters to the question of "do we have an alien space craft and can Grusch prove it?". I think all this petty nitpicking is what gives skeptics a bad look.

I think we need to analyze data WHEN DATA IS AVAILABLE. The nitpicking comes off like we're reaching for reasons to combat claims.

I think we all agree that we want actual data to analyse.
That's why we're irritated by Grusch not providing any.
We expect that if he had facts to back up his claims, he'd share them.
Not sharing them leaves open the possibility that these facts don't exist.

Mind you, I'm ready to believe some claims based on common sense.
I believe some people gather up foreign hardware for analysis and reverse engineering.
I believe UAPTF didn't have access to that because it's secret, and crashed hardware is not an 'aerial phenomenon'.
I believe Grusch got wind of it, heard rumors about it, and augmented this with public material (and if somebody like Elizondo told him, might not be aware it's public).
Seeing Grusch in the interview, I well believe he thought he had to blow the whistle on that, and did.

For anything else, I want data, and I hold it against Grusch that he makes these claims but provides no evidence.

 

[Rick Robson]

These are amalgamations of stories from very unreliable witnesses and outright fabrications.

Just out of curiosity, would you please confirm the people names you're referring to here? It didn't get clear to me whom they are. Robert Salas springs to mind though.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Just out of curiosity, would you please confirm the people names you're referring to here? It didn't get clear to me whom they are. Robert Salas springs to mind though.

Sorry, didn't want to get all off topic. UFO researcher Robert Hastings (EDIT: James Klotz also self-published a book with Salas about this incident, Faded Giant in '05, Hastings picked up on the story in his '08 book UFOs and Nukes) seems to be the main proponent of the Malstrom nuke shutdown story based on memories from Robert Salas. The opening post for the thread I linked to gives multiple links to some highly detailed (375 pages worth) explanations of what happened and what was claimed happened: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uf...mstrom-eagle-flight-skeptical-resources.3284/

I don't think we have a dedicated Roswell thread here, but the 1980 book The Roswell Incident by Charels Berlitz, who also wrote uncriticaly about the Bremuda Triangle and The Philidelphia Experiment, is where much of the modern Roswell lore is introduced, like bodies and cover-ups. 2nd hand accounts of Civil-engineer Grady "Barny" Barnett and some archeology students it the first mention of bodies at Roswell. 25+ years after the event.

My point is, if someone is going to be serious about UFO/UAPs a little bit of digging will demonstrate beyond doubt that something like the Malstrom UFO nukes story is false as it's presented. So, either Coulthard and maybe Grusch are sloppy/lazy, or they believe the false version.

 

[fizzBuzz]

That's what Grusch says it is. It's not their assumption, they're going along with Grusch's claims.


I think we all agree that we want actual data to analyse.
That's why we're irritated by Grusch not providing any.
We expect that if he had facts to back up his claims, he'd share them.
Not sharing them leaves open the possibility that these facts don't exist.

Mind you, I'm ready to believe some claims based on common sense.
I believe some people gather up foreign hardware for analysis and reverse engineering.
I believe UAPTF didn't have access to that because it's secret, and crashed hardware is not an 'aerial phenomenon'.
I believe Grusch got wind of it, heard rumors about it, and augmented this with public material (and if somebody like Elizondo told him, might not be aware it's public).
Seeing Grusch in the interview, I well believe he thought he had to blow the whistle on that, and did.

For anything else, I want data, and I hold it against Grusch that he makes these claims but provides no evidence.

Corbell and Knapp:
I'm saying they are giving more weight to the document than the document weighs. The document says nothing on alien craft and reverse engineering programs. It also doesn't specify what classified info that was withheld from Congress. Corbell and Knapp are acting like this document is a big deal.. and it's just not.

Other:
I believe some people gather up foreign hardware for analysis and reverse engineering. Makes sense
I believe UAPTF didn't have access to that because it's secret, and crashed hardware is not an 'aerial phenomenon'. Maybe.. is there evidence of this?
I believe Grusch got wind of it, heard rumors about it, and augmented this with public material (and if somebody like Elizondo told him, might not be aware it's public). This doesn't make sense, this is conjecture

I stop way short of all this. If there is no basis to substantiate and belief in or belief not in, then I stop there and I don't speculate, wait for all the data to come out, then reassess. If the data never comes, I never reassess. Why are you irritated by Grusch not providing evidence? Maybe that evidence is classified and not for your eyes. Maybe he doesn't have any. I don't understand why it's irritating.. ?

 

[Mendel]

Corbell and Knapp:
I'm saying they are giving more weight to the document than the document weighs. The document says nothing on alien craft and reverse engineering programs. It also doesn't specify what classified info that was withheld from Congress. Corbell and Knapp are acting like this document is a big deal.. and it's just not.

I haven't listened to their podcast, so I can't speak on that. Do they make transcripts available?

I stop way short of all this. If there is no basis to substantiate and belief in or belief not in, then I stop there and I don't speculate, wait for all the data to come out, then reassess.

Yes, that's perfectly fine.
What we have here is a witness—Grusch—, and it's a judgment call how far to trust the witness. I guess I'm willing to believe his "ordinary" claims without additional evidence, but not the extraordinary claims.

 

[Mick West]

I started a new thread on the DOPSR cleared document they showed on NewsNation: (mostly to keep things organized)
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/david-gruschs-dopsr-cleared-statement.12989/

 

[Duke]

I believe some people gather up foreign hardware for analysis and reverse engineering.

In late 89, I was seconded to Foreign Technology Division (today's NASIC) to assist them in analyzing what they gleamed from the Soviet MiG-29 crash at the Paris Air Show. FTD had a core team, but augmented it with a few of us SMEs in engineering disciplines they lacked. This type activity shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, I'm sure most countries have similar capabilities.



As it turned out, it wasn't long before the US/NATO got our hands on full up, operational MiG-29s when they were absorbed into the Air Force of the reunited Germany from the former East German Air Force.

 

[Mick West]

I've moved discussion of the IG complaint and the DOPSR cleared statement to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/david-gruschs-dopsr-cleared-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/

 

[John J.]

Re. "Jonathan Grey",

Like other posters here (including NorCal Dave, Duke, FatPhil) I'm having trouble seeing where "Jonathan Grey" fits into the Grusch narrative.

Jonathan Grey is a generational officer of the United States Intelligence Community with a Top-Secret Clearance who currently works for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), where the analysis of UAP has been his focus. Previously he had experience serving Private Aerospace and Department of Defense Special Directive Task Forces.
"The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone," Grey said. "Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us."

"Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft Of Non-Human Origin", The Debrief, Leslie Keane and Ralph Blumenthal, June 05 2023 (accessed via Internet Archive Wayback Machine,
https://web.archive.org/web/2023060...icials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Keane and Blumenthal don't explain where they got Grey's statement from as far as I can see. They don't say whether it was via Grusch or someone supporting him, or if Grey is a reliable source already known to them, or if his (or her) words are from an unsolicited, unknown source (who nevertheless knew about the upcoming Keane/ Blumenthal article).

Jonathan Grey, the intelligence officer specializing in UAP analysis at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, is speaking publicly for the first time, identified here under the identity he uses inside the agency.

(My emphasis; link as above).
PERSEC (personal security) is vital to OPSEC (operational security), but I've not heard of service personnel, on home soil and not on exercise or "live" operations, using pseudonyms within their own establishment as routine.
There are Metabunkers here who will be able to correct me if I'm wrong about this, I think.

NASIC tells us the names of its Commander, Vice Commander, Chief Scientist and Command Chief, complete with (presumably checkable) mini-biographies and education/ career chronologies.
NASIC's website, https://www.nasic.af.mil/, look under "Senior Leaders".

"Grey" isn't a particularly rare surname. It might be coincidence- but in the context of Grusch's claims, the name has connotations which might be worth considering. (And yeah, this is conjecture):
Someone choosing a pseudonym, and with some knowledge or interest in the "intelligence" world, might be familiar with the "Grey Man" (or Gray Man) concept, the tactic of not drawing attention to yourself, perhaps to avoid the scrutiny of hostile investigators.
If- and this is speculation- this has figured in "Grey's" choice of name, it shows a performative aspect: it implies a knowledge of tradecraft, adding to their "spooky" credentials but in fact subverting the aims of the grey man persona.


Incidentally, Luis Elizondo has something of a performative air about him, IMHO.

New York Times Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper interviewed Elizondo in 2017. Cooper characterized Elizondo's behavior as typical of intelligence officers, who are "really spooky guys, they're very secretive, they tend to be more paranoid". According to Cooper, "There was a lot of looking over to make sure nobody was seeing us, he sat with his back to the wall. He said, because he wanted to see if anybody came in".

From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo, my emphasis.

Many of us might have read thrillers or books about espionage or counter-terrorism, and might be familiar with the "taking a seat facing the door" trope.
I'm sure the very brave men and women who work undercover on our behalf in the real world identify potential entrances and exits etc. if they're in a high-risk environment- and I'm equally sure they do this discretely. Noticeable alertness or defensive behaviour is the opposite of the "grey man" ethos, and presumably could be problematic.

If a New York Times reporter can pick up on Elizondo's behaviour, e.g.
"There was a lot of looking over to make sure nobody was seeing us...",
"..."really spooky guys, they're very secretive, they tend to be more paranoid",
...then he sounds like the last guy you'd pick for an undercover job. It all sounds very performative.

(Please note; I'm not casting any aspersions on Elizondo's military career "in the field", I have no reason to doubt he was a committed and competent soldier. But I think he might have been playing a role for Helene Cooper -a pop-culture stereotype of how "spooks" behave).

"Grey" (or gray) has another meaning to UFO enthusiasts, of course.
Maybe Jonathan is the adopted name of a "guest" UAP expert- his or her real name being unpronounceable- who's getting bored of their high security suite and their work at NASIC, and finally wants the truth to be known...

...maybe other NASIC staff of non-US origin, like Sven U. Nordic and Kelly Hopkinsville-Hobgoblin, will speak out for Grusch.