deirdre
Senior Member.
I trust The Black Vault has already filed the FOIA paperwork to see just what the [alleged] DOPSR application says. Then we'll know more.
David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
- Status
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
A skeptical response, on the same channel.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqfGkifPEA
As usual, constrained by the short time. But hopefully raised some useful points.
Chris also had Avi Loeb and Tim Burchett.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqfGkifPEA
As usual, constrained by the short time. But hopefully raised some useful points.
Chris also had Avi Loeb and Tim Burchett.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
At first reading I thought Luis Elizondo's at it again until I realized it's a literal re-enactment of the Lou episode, but with a new star and a plot twist.
Very Lou-like of Grusch.
"Other intelligence officials, both active and retired", such as Lou the First Whistleblower?
I've served my Government in Afghanistan for 4 years and been decorated. What does that have to do with my credibility as a UFO witness or any witness for that matter? I know for a fact that I can spout hogwash every so often whilst sincerely convinced about being right at the moment of my brainfart. This is rather substandard journalism once again from Keane.
Overall it appears that the transition from UAPTF (thru AOIMSG) to AARO has involved a conscious attempt to 'purge' the organization from 'believers' in order to preserve objectivity and to uphold a reputation of impartiality. Lou was the first 'victim' of the purge, but there's later been Taylor and now Grusch. I would be surprised if they didn't make a fuss and try to paint themselves as whistleblowers of a conspiracy to cover up mind-blowing secrets.
I don't think AARO, let alone the DoD, will ever be completely 'purged' from ufologists, nor does the latter need to. As long as the DoD is able to carry out its main tasks whilst employing the competence of a wide variety of professionals irrespective of their personal beliefs.
Since AARO (like its precursors) exists solely at the request of the Congress and has a lobby behind it consisting of known ufologists, I do not expect it will be entirely free to express itself with blunt cynicism even if the rank-and-file investigators serving under it were in fact blunt cynics entirely demystified after reviewing hundreds of blurry blobs a month without being particularly impressed by a single video or photograph.
He meant space aliens, let's not try to find hidden meanings where there is none.
I don't think anyone put him on intentionally, but rumors tend to take life of their own.
Like the "furries in schools" theory - every time some talks about it, they always say they've been told by a close friend or a relative that it's happening in their kids school.
Martinicus1
Member
Tim McMillan recently tweeted (attached) about the security clearance of AARO - Title 10 authorities whereas as UAPTF had title 50. This was also referenced during the April Congress briefing, in a discussion with Kirkpatrick and Senator Gillibrand, alluding to the fact that Title 10 was inadequate. The wording in the press release is interesting as it does not mention evidence, rather "discovered any verifiable information to substantiate".
Attachments
Ravi
Senior Member.
What is interesting to me is that the NASA meeting and also the narrative from Avi Loeb basically means that NASA needs to look for sound evidence in the future and forget about the past "evidence", because that was scientifically no good.
Now, the True Believers (Kean/Lou/etc etc) are the ones that focus on the past and all the "evidence" they claim to have... Think about it.
Now, the True Believers (Kean/Lou/etc etc) are the ones that focus on the past and all the "evidence" they claim to have... Think about it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't know why he's using ambiguous language when UAP used to be his job.
"Non-human species" is ambiguous.
If you're speculating about rumors, you don't know what that language referred to originally, before someone thought it meant extraterrestrials (or lizard people?).
There are enough claims floating around that could be evidence if they were ever verifiable.
The AARO does this as a job, and is paid (in part) by believers. Someone comes with shaky, blurry smartphone video of a light in the sky, they're not going to say, "that's no UFO", because how could you tell either way? They'll say, this is useless as evidence. So the specificity of saying "verifiable information to substantiate" for "evidence" helps them.
Martinicus1
Member
So are you saying that AARO has the ability to access absolutely everything it needs to, because that is its job? I don't know, but the indications, on record, in the April hearing is they don't. If so they would have the ability to prove or disprove such claims. My point is the wording is political in terms of how it can be interpreted. As for funding by believers- I can see the link here with AWWSAP - who are the believers that "fund" AARO?
Nemon
Active Member
Sorry if that has already been discussed, but the many statements made by Garry Nolan in recent times must also be considered in this context. One had to ask oneself who his informants are. Since he remained vague and neither does David Grusch provide any further details, one could assume that one is peddling the hearsay of the other - a special kind of echo and PR chamber once again behind the scenes in Washington? (And once again Lesie Kean...)
It's difficult to make that assessment. But what are we to make of scientists like Loeb and Nolan?
I refer specifically to this passage from a May 22, 2023 Debrief article regarding Garry Nolan, which I couldn't get out of my head:
https://thedebrief.org/garry-nolan-...-to-resolve-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/
It's difficult to make that assessment. But what are we to make of scientists like Loeb and Nolan?
I refer specifically to this passage from a May 22, 2023 Debrief article regarding Garry Nolan, which I couldn't get out of my head:
https://thedebrief.org/garry-nolan-...-to-resolve-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/
GeekFurious
Member
It should be no surprise that a government has a unit whose job it is to retrieve potentially sensitive intel from foreign spy equipment. What would actually be surprising was that a government had a unit whose job it was to retrieve EXTRA TERRESTRIAL equipment that there is no evidence has ever existed. Though, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that there would be an entire unit or division with people hired to do NOTHING.
Mendel
Senior Member.
No, I don't, why would you think that?
Why do you believe all claims can be proven or disproven? The Condon committee couldn't, UAPTF couldn't, and Metabunk can't. There are always claims where the evidence is inconclusive, and it's not a matter of access. Didn't we talk about the Low Information Zone just the other day?
What is political about it?
E.g. Senator Reid, I think. Basically, some members of Congress either believe in UFOs or play to the crowd that does.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I think one of the more important points was to remind people about the compartmentalized allocation of tasks, and that people might not actually know whether they're studying extraterrestrial craft or something like Chinese craft. (It's a great pity that we apply the term "alien" to both, as it causes confusion in this kind of discussion!) A significant question about Grusch's story is "Would he be expected to know this?", and it would appear from multiple comments that he only had stories from other parties to go on. We can't know how accurate his source material is, nor can we tell if he has pieced together his patchwork with his own preconceptions.
Ann K
Senior Member.
"Political" in the sense that congress allocates the funds, and that congress (and most especially the voter base upon whom their jobs depend) contains a generous portion of UFO believers. A statement from the organization stating a position dismissive of the extraterrestrial notion would alienate that fraction to the point that nothing they say will be believed. But to go along with that belief will similarly discredit them in the eyes of the scientists. It's a difficult tightrope to walk.
Mendel
Senior Member.
View attachment 59661
An example for evidence to "substantiate claims that programs regarding the posession of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past" would be Sgt. Melvin Brown's testimony regarding Roswell, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/roswell-ufo-witness-sgt-melvin-e-brown.12162/ . It's just completely unverifiable. So they can't say they don't have evidence; they do. They just can't trust it.
We know about `Oumuamua. Is it an alien artifact? Who knows! The data we have is verified, but not enough to substantiate or disprove the claim.
There's evidence, but it's not verifiable, or not substantive. And that's not political, that's just clear thinking.
An example for evidence to "substantiate claims that programs regarding the posession of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past" would be Sgt. Melvin Brown's testimony regarding Roswell, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/roswell-ufo-witness-sgt-melvin-e-brown.12162/ . It's just completely unverifiable. So they can't say they don't have evidence; they do. They just can't trust it.
We know about `Oumuamua. Is it an alien artifact? Who knows! The data we have is verified, but not enough to substantiate or disprove the claim.
There's evidence, but it's not verifiable, or not substantive. And that's not political, that's just clear thinking.
ManInBlack
Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Martinicus1
Member
The claim is about non-human crash retrieval programs in the US government, not photos or videos. Surely it could be proved or disproved that such crash retrieval programs exist?
Political in the sense of what is actually said on record and how this can be interpreted. For example, does the statement say that crash retrievals have been investigated or that AARO does not have sufficient clearance to access them? Both could be true from the statement.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't think it's disprovable. A negative tends to be very hard to prove.
And my contention is that they always use this language, for any subject matter they're investigating. Saying "we don't have evidence" means just that. It's a scientific way of stating the matter. There's no need to read anything into it (though I realize conspiracy theorists enjoy that).
Martinicus1
Member
It's hard to prove something does not exist in the scientific sense. However, this is related to programs of work - the government should be able to investigate what it's special access programs are actually researching, if not that is a huge problem or oversight.
The scientific way is also about stating methods and processes along with conclusions so others can critique.
Ravi
Senior Member.
What are you trying to convey? A link is not enough IMO.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Please appreciate the inherent ambiguity of the subject.
Imagine something falls from the sky into someone's back yard. The DoD sends a unit to investigate and pick up the debris. Is that unit a UFO retrieval squad, even if they've never retrieved a UFO? Then there might be pieces of a spy balloon, and it's unclear if it's Russian or Chinese, so it's labeled "unidentified". How can you tell without looking at it if it's extraterrestrial, if the original experts never investigated that?
And then it'd be obviously very valuable to the Russians to learn which of their lost equipment has been retrieved, so that's also very sensitive information that needs to be classified.
So you're demanding that the AARO gets access to all of that, because you distrust the people who did the retrieving. But the DoD doesn't distrust itself, so they tell the AARO "there's nothing there", and that's that. Make sense?
And that's why AARO's knowledge is limited. They're working for the DoD, not against them. And some of what they have is ambiguous, which is not unusual at all.
Maybe it's just "government speak" - the lingo they used in their memos, reports, etc.
Or he could be trying to sound unbiased or sophisticated. Or all of the above.
Whatever the reason, my point is that when you look at the totality of the interview, it's pretty clear he's talking about space aliens and not AI or Russian/Chinese unmanned wreckage.
Last edited:
Curt Collins
New Member
Good job, Mick, but I think your discussion of compartmentalized reverse engineering programs needs a tweak, because to the devout, it will sound like the Roswell "crash dummies" explanation. Instead on focusing on program participants doing the analysis, mention the associated personnel who are out of the loop.
This kind of thing happened at Area 51 and other bases when secret aircraft were being tested. The personnel without program clearance had to be removed, and it led to wild speculation about what was being hidden. Such things led guards to tell rumors that they were guarding hangars with saucers inside.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
They weren't pilots, they were payload.
At least apart from minor details like that his claims seem fairly unambiguous, so it should be easy to evaluate his reliability if any evidence ever becomes public.
Martinicus1
Member
I actually meant reverse engineering not retrieval so apologies for the confusion. I would imagine that the first stage would be identification to find out what's actually crashed, but who knows.
I'm not demanding anything! AARO is performing a historical investigation, and it is taking testimony from whistleblowers - my original point was about security clearances and if they can actually investigate, as per the claims in Debrief.
John J.
Senior Member.
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/External Quote:
Totally. And given his former position, the fact he hasn't seen any photos is in itself extraordinary, if his claims are even halfway true.
(Quoting from https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/)
Vehicle morphologies? Incorrect use of a scientific term, pseudo-scientific jargon. Why not say "shapes"?
Good question. If he means metals that have different isotopic ratios than terrestrial metals, that could be evidence (unless they're metals of meteoritic origin which have been worked by humans- something which we know ancient metal workers did- and which would be a decent basis for a hoax, surprised no-one's tried it AFAIK).
But why not just give a specific example?
Are we to believe that the US government would allow a contractor to have prime responsibility for retrieving a crashed alien craft?
I don't know much about US law (though I liked Ally Mc Beal) but I doubt if a contractor would have much legal basis for establishing a "cordon sanitaire" around a crash site not on their own or government land.
Do they employ medical teams to assist any injured aliens found? If not, why not?
What are the names of the company departments which employ the necessary security and NCBR teams, and where are they based? Is it credible that not a single one- private employees, not service personnel- has spoken out over past decades?
(Apart from Bob Lazar
).Is there any evidence that any of the major defence contractors have specialised recovery vehicles- or do all crashed UFOs, or their fragments, conveniently fit onto a truck trailer?
If UFOs are the product of a star-faring technology, apparently making frequent visits here, why do they crash so frequently? Considering that they (allegedly) employ exotic materials and manufacturing techniques- and are prone to crashing- why do they fragment on impact at (it would seem) relatively low speed? I guess the aliens should award their production contracts to the manufacturers of the Kecksburg "craft", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident, which stayed intact.
(If the Kecksburg "sighting" was of a real object, I suspect it was a terrestrial re-entry vehicle similar to General Electric's Mark 2).
How would a defence company know where a vehicle had crashed, unless told by the government?
Why aren't their shareholders insisting on disclosure? I would have thought that knowing a specific company had access to ET technology would be rather good for share prices! -But as always, the claims seem to occur in an almost parallel reality where day-to-day practicalities and concerns can be ignored.
How does Grusch know other nations have retrieved alien technology? Defectors (e.g. from Russia) have been prepared to disclose high-level secrets about nuclear research, military capabilities and human rights abuses both to Western authorities and Western media, I don't recall anything about crashed UFOs being mentioned.
I do wonder- and it is speculation on my part, with apologies in advance to Mr Grusch if I'm wrong- if in some parts of US officialdom, people are being employed and/ or promoted because of their interests or outlook about specific subjects, not necessarily because of their technical/ academic abilities or broader understanding of real-world structures and issues which might inform an understanding of that subject.
Something I've done before for a couple of unusual claims, though of no use in the short term here:
A testable prediction:
In two year's time, the claims of David Charles Grusch will not have advanced our knowledge of UAP in any way.
Subsidiary predictions: (1) We will have no testable evidence that an ETI has ever visited Earth.
(2) Nothing from Grusch or anyone connected in any way to his claims will have helped answer whether there are other technological species elsewhere.
(3) Grusch's claims will continue to be discussed by "the UFO community", and will feature on TV shows, blogs, and speaking tours by "UFO researchers".
We don't know what any of us will be doing in a couple of years- but make a quick note somewhere (maybe set an earlier "review" date) and then re-visit the topic, see how things have progressed.
Of course, if I'm wrong about the main prediction, or (1) or (2) above, we'll have much more interesting things to talk about!
deirdre
Senior Member.
isn't that the whole story behind the Bigelow contract? (and those stories led to the skinwalker ranch myths and Elizondos stories).
I thought the [unverified] story, in UFO circles, was that Bigelow Aerospace was hired by the government and they allegedly retrieved alien materials and were reverse engineering. Or am i remembering Elizondos claims wrong? I dont remember them saying anything about bodies connected to Bigelow though.
Martinicus1
Member
If true he also might be 2 years into a 5 year stretch and 10,000k out of pocket.
Attachments
Mendel
Senior Member.
Remember that we haven't seen his official disclosure forms. One hopes he had legal counsel, and that his "whistleblowing" is limited to the existence of a retrieval&analysis group who picked up a few hitherto unidentified pieces of hardware.
P.S. You can display an attachment in your post from the editor by selecting "Insert.." on the attachment icon and then choosing "full image".
There is no evidence here, so you have to go purely on official statements, who's making them, who's rebutting them, and who's reporting them.
This actually is doable, fwiw, and from a bayesian p.o.v. has proven to provide fairly accurate estimations of probability.
What they're actually saying isn't super relevant, nobody is perfect and everyone says inconsistent things now and then. I think we can all agree that Grusch is claiming aliens here. So:
- Grusch is credible, and I don't see his connection to Elizondo problematic as there is no evidence, afaik, that Elizondo lied.
- newsnation is fairly credible, though not prime MSM. MSM will pick this up I'm sure, though how above the fold not clear.
- Mellon vouching for this story in politico a few days ago
- AARO issuing denial so quickly, is huge, I have to say. Even if they don't have clearance, presumably someone with clearance let them go ahead and do that.
- DOPSR might have just been an exercise in transparency, I wouldn't read too much into that
On just those facts, I'd say odds are good (80%) that Mick's explanation of a satellite recovery program being blown out of proportion is the most likely. We can thank govt incompetence and arrogance for not being more transparent about that. I mean, as if foreign adversaries didn't realize that this was being done.
These odds will go down if we hear credible statements from folks backing up David's statement. Ideally they will not be directly in his sphere to make a significant impact and most importantly - they will be new voices not heard before.
Another factor that will decrease the odds is if we find out that AARO jumped the gun and there wasn't much institutional backing behind the statement.
Finally, one thing to do is just take the claim at face value based on what Grusch directly knows: govt keeps a program secret for a long time, potentially even from congress. He could be mostly right, right enough to do what he did. Maybe folks in government have been reverse engineering stuff and giving it to the private sector in secret deals.
This actually is doable, fwiw, and from a bayesian p.o.v. has proven to provide fairly accurate estimations of probability.
What they're actually saying isn't super relevant, nobody is perfect and everyone says inconsistent things now and then. I think we can all agree that Grusch is claiming aliens here. So:
- Grusch is credible, and I don't see his connection to Elizondo problematic as there is no evidence, afaik, that Elizondo lied.
- newsnation is fairly credible, though not prime MSM. MSM will pick this up I'm sure, though how above the fold not clear.
- Mellon vouching for this story in politico a few days ago
- AARO issuing denial so quickly, is huge, I have to say. Even if they don't have clearance, presumably someone with clearance let them go ahead and do that.
- DOPSR might have just been an exercise in transparency, I wouldn't read too much into that
On just those facts, I'd say odds are good (80%) that Mick's explanation of a satellite recovery program being blown out of proportion is the most likely. We can thank govt incompetence and arrogance for not being more transparent about that. I mean, as if foreign adversaries didn't realize that this was being done.
These odds will go down if we hear credible statements from folks backing up David's statement. Ideally they will not be directly in his sphere to make a significant impact and most importantly - they will be new voices not heard before.
Another factor that will decrease the odds is if we find out that AARO jumped the gun and there wasn't much institutional backing behind the statement.
Finally, one thing to do is just take the claim at face value based on what Grusch directly knows: govt keeps a program secret for a long time, potentially even from congress. He could be mostly right, right enough to do what he did. Maybe folks in government have been reverse engineering stuff and giving it to the private sector in secret deals.
Last edited:
John J.
Senior Member.
I don't know, but considering Bigelow Aerospace's modest size (both financially and in terms of workforce) and history of laying off large numbers of employees when times get tough, I suspect they'd have problems maintaining secrecy.
Loyalty is a two-way street, as they say.
If Bigelow Aerospace have the equipment to retrieve large objects from further away than their own car park, or a deployable security team, or a team in a position to assess and contain threats to health on an open-field site, they've hidden it well.
Just did a quick check via Wikipedia, Bigelow Aerospace laid off all its workers in March 2020
https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-lays-off-entire-workforce/, website Space News, Jeff Foust 23/3/20.
The article states that Bigelow Aerospace faced "a perfect storm of problems", one being
If we are to believe à la Grusch that (1) The USA has retrieved alien craft over many years and (2) Bigelow has the contract to retrieve them, it seems unlikely that they would be classed as a "nonessential business".External Quote:
Bigelow Aerospace's hypothetical partners in the Pentagon (or wherever) could presumably have told the Nevada government that Bigelow's work had vital defence significance, and should continue.
There have been no "News" updates, or any other updates that I can see, on the Bigelow Aerospace site since October 2020.
https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/
I don't know- and I could be completely wrong- but I wouldn't be too surprised if the USA had some sort of contingency plan for a landing or crash of a possible alien craft hidden away somewhere. But I think it would make more sense to have some small military units "earmarked" for use (SF or close protection teams, NBC specialists, medical units, aerospace/ nuclear specialists, ordnance disposal teams) probably without the knowledge of most (or any) of those personnel, with possibly a few "trusted experts" in the mix (vetted physicists, surgeons- maybe veterinaries!) who might have consented to "serve their country should the need arise" after a suitably discrete approach.External Quote:
Guess it's possible that Mr Grusch might have heard garbled rumours along those lines.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i don't think his main company would have bearing on his contract with the government for the ufo stuff.
? i can rent a box truck or flat bed and retrieve a large object from further away then my car park.
the skinwalker ranch small team is allegedly a security team and they think they are assessing and containing threats on thier open field site.
i think you are giving the contractors the government hires too much credit..and the government's oversight of the hoards of contracters they hire (for various things) too much credit.Article: New York Times
"Contracts obtained by The Times show a congressional appropriation of just under $22 million beginning in late 2008 through 2011. The money was used for management of the program, research and assessments of the threat posed by the objects. The funding went to Mr. Bigelow's company, Bigelow Aerospace, which hired subcontractors and solicited research for the program. Under Mr. Bigelow's direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena.
All i'm saying is that i think Grosch is likely retelling stories he heard from others retelling stories that they heard about the Bigelow program.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Not quite, but the Bigelow-Skinwalker Ranch-AASWAP/AATIP thing does sometimes get confused and mashed up with the with DeLong-TTSA-Elizondo-Arts parts thing.
Bigelow's BASS was funded by the government through AASWAP to basically study speculative future stuff and Skinwalker ranch adjacent phenomenon. While the study of "meta-materials" was one of the subjects, I don't remember much coming of it. Elizondo had very little if anything to do with BASS or the ranch.
Elizondo did leave the government claiming to have been head of the largly non-existant AATIP and joined Tom DeLong's To The Stars Acadamy. TTSA claimed to have "meta-materials" that they were having tested and were going to reverse engineer for humanities benefit. It appears the "meta-materials" in question were likely some bits of industrial waste known as "Art's Part" because they were giving to former Coast to Coast AM host, Art Bell.
It's all very entangled and a bit incestuous.
That part might not be so farfetched. For a number of reasons, the government might choose to use outside contractors for something like this, be it alien or not. And there is a history of it.
Outside contractors may have the very specific and specialized knowledge and equipment needed. The vast majority of the DoD's "stuff" from uniforms to the B21 Raider are not designed and built by the DoD, they're made by contractors. The DoD can create specs for a B21, but they need Northrup-Grummen to build it.
During the development of the A12/SR71 at Groom lake, the DoD operated Area 51, but it was Lockheed contract employees that did the design and building of the plane.
The afore mentioned Project Azorian to retrieve the Soviet sub, was performed largely by outside contractors because they had the relevant expertise, and they provided a modicum of government deniability
Mendel
Senior Member.
Would that mission profile be any different from "Russian bomber crew defects, crash lands on US farm"? or "Chinese diplomatic aircraft crashes"? or "foreign space capsule comes down on US territory"? or "Chinese spy balloon downed off East coast"?
deirdre
Senior Member.
i didnt say they werent seperate "companies". But elizondo leaned heavily on the Bigelow program, he repeated the stories and added a bit of his own "new stuff".
exactly. i've had Aerosmith's "same old story, same old song and dance" playing in my head since yesterday.
deirdre
Senior Member.
the problem is Gorsch uses the term "non-human". Russians and Chinese are human.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Or, I suppose, does not exist and will continue to not do so.
I have my hunch as to which, open to being shown to be wrong, someday...
Duke
Senior Member.
At least some of those TTSA "parts" were the basis for a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with an US Army lab to determine if there is any technology that can be derived from them to upgrade military ground transport.
https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-te...tive-camouflage-and-other-sci-fi-tech/160787/External Quote:
The DoD has the ability to produce a fair amount of certain types of equipment/gear/munitions, but doesn't because of contractor complaints to Congress of the government taking away business from them. I've been involved in a few such situations.
- Status
Similar threads
