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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s no evidence he was referring to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which isn’t part of a QM Class syllabus anyway (other than perhaps a philosophical side note).

He could have been referring to the extra dimensions that string theory requires but that’s not QM per se. and won’t be taught in an QM class for an physics degree. and those dimensions aren’t like ours anyway.

Is he claiming to be an actual physicist working on the frontiers of QM theory? I don’t think so. In fact, I’ve not seen anything indicating his background enough to know what his degree(s) might be in.

My point is that when people preface a statement with their degree they are e intending to put extra weight and credibility about the statement. Since his statement makes no sense from a physics point of view it actually undermines his credibility not bolsters it.

It would have made more sense if he said “I *don’t* have a degree in physics, but…”

I don’t think this is a derail because it speaks directly to his credibility, which, without direct evidence, is all we have to go on for judging his claims.
I’m not sure if he’s claiming to be a physicist or even to have a deep understanding of this field. Indeed his role was in the IC not as a scientist. I think there are far more pressing questions that should be answered about his claims beyond whether he knows/remembers the difference between many worlds or extra dimensions from high degree class.
 
I honestly think the question of aliens or not is distracting us from the far more fascinating set of events that are occuring (or not occuring!)


Source: https://twitter.com/HighPeaks77/status/1666772506206666753


An elected rep saying 'we not alone' after talking with Grusch is unprecedented afaik, and if not, is worth putting on the bingo card as part of the standard sequence of events.
See my thread here - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...d-craft-of-non-human-origin.12977/post-291380

The bingo card approach to analyzing this has huge value, as it will give us much more sophisticated understanding of what is or isn't occurring.

Trying to debate aliens when no evidence is being presented is just going to result in a constant stream of speculative noise.

Better questions I think -

a) is Grusch trying to insert himself profitably into ufology industry?
b) is there a concerted effort to leverage these reveals for some other purpose? (seriously being discussed in many quarters)
c) is Grusch telling the truth as he sees it? (Again, ignore the question of existence of aliens. Grusch might be totally sincere, if a little confused on some specific points)
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure if he’s claiming to be a physicist or even to have a deep understanding of this field. Indeed his role was in the IC not as a scientist. I think there are far more pressing questions that should be answered about his claims beyond whether he knows/remembers the difference between many worlds or extra dimensions from high degree class.
Sure, I don’t need to continue on the QM details, but it speaks to his credibility. It doesn’t pass the smell test, so to speak. If he’s suggesting purely philosophical ideas as explaining the observations then maybe more of what he’s saying is also fanciful. How can we know?

It’s not as egregious as the fighter pilot’s confident ignorance of optics but it doesn’t inspire me. It comes across as someone speaking outside of their expertise, but trying to convince you of their expertise by flouting their supposed credentials.
 
Sure, I don’t need to continue on the QM details, but it speaks to his credibility. It doesn’t pass the smell test, so to speak. If he’s suggesting purely philosophical ideas as explaining the observations then maybe more of what he’s saying is also fanciful. How can we know?

It’s not as egregious as the fighter pilot’s confident ignorance of optics but it doesn’t inspire me. It comes across as someone speaking outside of their expertise, but trying to convince you of their expertise by flouting their supposed credentials.
Nuclear physicist Stanton Freeman made a pretty fair living doing just that in the UFO community.
 
Some interesting things from the Public/Substack article. The individuals that spoke to Public appear to be passing on 2nd hand information, much like Gursch (bold by me):

And now, multiple sources close to the matter have come forward to tell Public that Grusch’s core claims are accurate. The individuals are all either high-ranking intelligence officials, former intelligence officials, or individuals who we could verify were involved in U.S. government UAP efforts for three or more decades each. Two of them have testified, including as recently as last year, to both AARO and Congress.

The individuals said they had seen or been presented with “credible” and “verifiable” evidence that the U.S. government, and U.S. military contractors, possess at least 12 or more alien space crafts, some of which they shared with AARO, which AARO has refused to provide to Congress. The reason AARO “has not discovered any verifiable information,” they said, is because it does have the authority to verify it and may not want to verify it.
Content from External Source
So again, they're telling what they have been told. And what they have been told seems to contradict each other (bold by me):

The sources said that the Pentagon and military contractors keep the nonhuman spacecraft in different locations, including Area 51 in Nevada, and that they move the craft around to different facilities, both military bases and contractor facilities, for research.

The sources differed on whether the U.S. was able to operate them. “As far as I know, we are not able to operate them,” said one person, who said they were last briefed on the crashed craft five years ago. “There are people who say we have reverse-engineered them and are flying them. I never found any support for that. And found a lot of support for saying we can’t figure it out. If we do, it would be in some program at a higher security level.”

Others said that the U.S. has been able to fly at least one of the retrieved craft.
“Some of the tech is very cutting-edge,” said a source, “and they have to travel to places like Italy, Belgium, and Indonesia to do flight testing. It’s worldwide. Some of our allies know about the programs. The clandestine places that they work out of have grown larger.”
Content from External Source
https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft

And note where they go to fly the retrieved craft. It makes no sense at all. Why drag this retrieved UFO to these places to fly it? Wouldn't they just keep it at Groom lake out of prying eyes? Or out on Diego Garcia?

Belgium. Is that a tie in to the Belgin UFO flap in the late '80s? Some of what turned out to be hoaxed photos.

Italy. In the last 2-3 days now UFOs and Italy has mentioned together more than in the last few decades I would wager.

Indonesia. Indonesia? Seems an odd place for US intel people to go to fly UFOs.

Maybe it has more to do with this recently "crashed UFO" in Indonesia:

The bizarre footage of the long, black object plunging into the water was filmed at Jangkar Beach in East Java - with some people claiming it was a damaged UFO.

The aeronautics expert said it could have been a type of balloon - and added it "it was too slow to be a falling object from space".

It comes after an ex-astronaut weighed in on footage of mysterious UFO sightings released by the US Navy.

Former International Space Station commander Chris Hadfield claimed that the unidentified phenomena are not the work of aliens – adding that if you think they are, you're an idiot.
Content from External Source

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2960559/mystery-ufo-smoke-crashing-into-sea-indonesia/
Indonesia
 

Attachments

  • 1686240115878.png
    1686240115878.png
    92.5 KB · Views: 50
Again, devil's advocating, he has no evidence THAT WE'VE SEEN YET. And how much evidence he has managed to collect is not a reliable measure to judge his intent. He could be 100% wrong, but still believe what he is saying and have good motives.

To be clear, I do not believe his story is true. I have no opinion on his motives, yet, or whether or not he believes it. I have no evidence on which to base such an opinion.
No, he has no evidence. From his interview he says he only HEARD it from other people. So how could he show you evidence of hearsay conversations? Am I missing something here?
 
Or: The general idea that there's something utterly and forever beyond our limited human comprehension and experience which underlies all existence and is called by different names in different cultures is arguably a more powerful idea, demonstrated by the very numbers it attracts over great periods of time.
Argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.
 
Argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.

Except that if you're honest to yourself, you'd also readily admit the said idea, when you really reflect on it, is more powerful and sensible than little green men and pixies. And hence sometimes even the majority gets something right across cultures. Even when they disagree vehemently on the minutiae.

Your little quip-in-retort is proof enough for
me the initial statement was powerful enough to strike a nerve and rouse the need for some defiant snark. :p

Argumentum ad populum is indeed a fallacy whereby history often proves to be the final arbiter of a formerly popular idea becoming outmoded, having lost its appeal or simply being disproven. However, it hasn't done it with this one. Nor will it.

P.S. Awaiting more quips invoking ghosts and fairies whilst thinking you're making a reasoned argument against the mentioned generic idea.
 
P.S. Awaiting more quips invoking ghosts and fairies whilst thinking you're making a reasoned argument against the mentioned generic idea.
A generic idea is indeed hard to disprove. And the more generic the more difficult it is to disprove. Some of us believe the burden, though, is on the claimant to prove, not the disbeliever to disprove.

For example, there’s a big difference between the claim that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe and the claim that non-human creatures piloted a spacecraft from an alternate dimension, crashed it on Earth and the US government has obtained the ship and is holding it in a secret building in Area 51.
 
P.S. Awaiting more quips invoking ghosts and fairies whilst thinking you're making a reasoned argument against the mentioned generic idea.
Large/close UFOs, ghosts, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., are variations on the same phenomenon, and are all real in the sense that they are genuinely experienced by some people (or at least they are genuinely remembered as having been experienced). Apparently though, they are all equally stubborn to being measured and documented by technological means. Those two qualities are what ties them all together. They are subjective internal experiences, rather than objective ones that can be agreed upon by all observers, including technological devices.

Importantly however, this phenomenon has zero to do with Grusch's claims. The only connection is that I see people believing his stories and defending him because they are experiencers. This I find unfortunate.

Personal, subjective experiences ("The Phenomenon") must not be confused/conflated with claims of anyone having custody of material flying saucers.
 
A generic idea is indeed hard to disprove. And the more generic the more difficult it is to disprove. Some of us believe the burden, though, is on the claimant to prove, not the disbeliever to disprove.

That would indeed be the case if it were a mere claim.

In the case of powerful generic ideas such as the one I articulated (in the way it was articulated) they're not just some cognitively abstract theories or hypotheses to be demonstrated by some separate body of evidence constituting direct experience (in the form of observation). They themselves directly generate subtle but compelling experiences of profound truth, but only after honest and unbiased reflection. They generate it to everyone, including you and me. Not just to fringe groups seeking some validation and thrill derived from extreme beliefs.

Sometimes this elimination of bias is a tall order.

Anyway, this digression is unnecessary but was caused by @Ravi (whose contributions I usually enjoy) derailing an otherwise valid point on people often believing in nonsense into a blanket statement dissing religions and their followers.

I acted in their defense, and did it in fair terms.
 
Now in response to (Grusch's) allegations, the US House of Representatives is planning to hold a formal hearing in an effort to investigate whether or not there is any truth to these claims.
What we do know is that the oversight committee investigation will be headed up by Republicans Tim Burchett and Anna Paulina Luna.
Content from External Source
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.c...-to-hold-hearing-on-whistleblowers-ufo-claims

So Grusch is apparently going to get his "day in court" in front of a Congressional committee. I'm not familiar with Rep. Luna, but Rep Burchett has been very vocal in support of his UFO conspiracy and cover-up beliefs as he discusses in this news interview.

Source: https://youtu.be/IFI6gbERl_E


"Congressman Burchett's office is working through logistics, including a witness list of the most credible witnesses and sources who would be able to speak openly at an unclassified hearing," said a spokesman.
Content from External Source
I got a chuckle out of this last line of the above article. I'm not sure how someone can "speak openly" in an unclassified hearing.
 
Sometimes this elimination of bias is a tall order.
As you say...
You can't present your personal beliefs as a notion that is immune from questioning. And questioning is what we do on Metabunk.

The topic is Grusch's claims.
 
As you say...
You can't present your personal beliefs as a notion that is immune from questioning. And questioning is what we do on Metabunk.

The topic is Grusch's claims.

Then stop enabling others derailing it into religion-bashing no matter how tempting.

Nobody's claiming religions can't be criticized on topic and with reason. Don't be silly.
 
D.G.: My degree is in physics. The mechanical and experimental data shows that it's not human. It could be extraterrestrial, or it could be something else, coming from other dimensions as described by quantum mechanics. I haven't seen enough data to say it's one thing instead of another. The U.S. government must have more information.

He has a degree in physics but the part I bolded is pure nonsense. Not a good sign
 
No, he has no evidence. From his interview he says he only HEARD it from other people. So how could he show you evidence of hearsay conversations? Am I missing something here?
Fair point. I'll amend to "There is no evidence that we've seen yet." Still not a good metric to use in determining his motive.
 
Argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad populum is indeed a fallacy whereby history often proves to be the final arbiter of a formerly popular idea
I wonder how that fallacy and the idea of The Wisdom of Crowds coexist? But that's probably drifting off topic faster than a Tick Tack zooming past a camera in a meadow full of mayflies...
 
So Grusch is apparently going to get his "day in court" in front of a Congressional committee. I'm not familiar with Rep. Luna, but Rep Burchett has been very vocal in support of his UFO conspiracy and cover-up beliefs as he discusses in this news interview.
The full membership of the Committee is:


Majority

* James Comer, Kentucky, Chair

* Jim Jordan, Ohio

* Mike Turner, Ohio

* Paul Gosar, Arizona

* Virginia Foxx, North Carolina (Hey, I know her! -- JM)

* Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin

* Gary Palmer, Alabama

* Clay Higgins, Louisiana

* Pete Sessions, Texas

* Andy Biggs, Arizona

* Nancy Mace, South Carolina

* Jake LaTurner, Kansas

* Pat Fallon, Texas

* Byron Donalds, Florida

* Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota

* Scott Perry, Pennsylvania

* William Timmons, South Carolina

* Tim Burchett, Tennessee

* Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia

* Lisa McClain, Michigan

* Lauren Boebert, Colorado

* Russell Fry, South Carolina

* Anna Paulina Luna, Florida

* Chuck Edwards, North Carolina

* Nick Langworthy, New York

* Eric Burlison, Missouri

*
* Minority

* Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking Member

* Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia

* Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts

* Gerry Connolly, Virginia

* Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois

* Ro Khanna, California

* Kweisi Mfume, Maryland

* Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York, Vice Ranking Member

* Katie Porter, California

* Cori Bush, Missouri

* Jimmy Gomez, California

* Shontel Brown, Ohio

* Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico

* Robert Garcia, California

* Maxwell Frost, Florida

* Becca Balint, Vermont

* Summer Lee, Pennsylvania

* Greg Casar, Texas

* Jasmine Crockett, Texas

* Dan Goldman, New York

* Jared Moskowitz, Florida


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Oversight_and_Accountability
 
I've renamed this thread to reflect the more general discussion of Grusch's claims, not just the Debrief article.
 
I am skeptical about Grusch. He doesn't talk carefully about what he's personally verified versus what he's been told. He has also stated he wants to be an opinion leader. The way he's talking about things sounds like he wants more to be controversial and (in)famous than credible.

However, I find the growing chorus of credible voices supporting him and/or his claims to be quite astonishing. This is contrary to my previous experience with similar events.

At some point, I think debunking requires explaining this phenomenon. These people are not random individuals, but senior officials with very significant expertise.

I've compiled a list: https://github.com/qrdlgit/misc/blob/main/vouch.md

There's also the https://www.safeaerospace.org/#team which seems like a support group for pilots who see ufos.

Does anyone have any figures for how much money is pouring into this industry? I think that would bring clarity.

For fun, I asked GPT4 for a standard sequence of events thatt will occur if Grusch is telling the truth:
  1. Prominent ex-government officials support the claims: Retired high-ranking officials, who are no longer tied to any government responsibilities, subtly showing their support for the claim.
  2. Increased UFO-related programming on major networks: A subtle rise in UFO and extraterrestrial themed documentaries, talk-show discussions, and news features.
  3. Cryptic statements from current government officials: Rather than flat-out denying the claims, officials might avoid direct answers or use vague, non-committal language.
  4. Whistleblower protections emphasized: An increase in discussion about whistleblower protections and rights, indirectly hinting at the possibility of more insiders coming forward.
  5. Increase in declassification of related documents: An uptick in the release of formerly classified documents that indirectly support the claims.
  6. Rise in former intelligence officials speaking out: A noticeable increase in the number of ex-intelligence personnel subtly supporting the claims, perhaps by writing articles or books.
  7. Retired military personnel sharing personal experiences: An increase in stories from retired military personnel about unexplained events or sightings.
  8. Subtle shifts in official language around UFOs: A shift from dismissive or mocking language to a more neutral, scientific tone in official communications.
  9. Public sentiment shift: A measurable increase in belief in UFOs or extraterrestrial life in public opinion polls.
  10. Increase in funding for space research and exploration: A rise in the budget allocation for NASA or other space-related research institutions.
And if he is lying:
  1. Vague Descriptions: The official fails to provide specific details about the alleged UFO incidents or uses language that is intentionally ambiguous.
  2. Lack of Corroborating Evidence: There are no documents, witnesses, or other pieces of evidence presented that can independently verify the official's claims.
  3. Inconsistent Timeline: The official gives conflicting dates or timelines about the events.
  4. Avoidance of Direct Questions: The official routinely deflects or avoids direct questions about his claim, perhaps changing the subject or answering a different question.
  5. Body Language: The official exhibits common signs of deception, like fidgeting, breaking eye contact, or excessive blinking (Note: body language analysis is not always a reliable indicator of deception).
  6. Inconsistent Storytelling: The official's narrative changes or evolves over time, suggesting the story may be fabricated.
  7. Lack of Peer Support: Other intelligence officials do not support or validate the official's claims.
  8. Emotional Appeal: The official uses emotional or sensational language in an attempt to sway opinion rather than presenting hard facts.
  9. Improbable Details: The official presents details that, given our current understanding of physics or technology, seem highly improbable.
  10. Claims of Unverifiable Sources: The official claims his information comes from sources that cannot be verified or contacted.
  11. Unusual Secrecy: The official's handling of the issue involves more secrecy than standard for classified information.
  12. Lack of Prior Disclosure Indicators: There are no past indicators, leaks, or whistleblowers suggesting that such a significant secret has been kept.
  13. Deflection to National Security: The official overuses the national security argument as a reason to not provide further information.
  14. Resistance to Investigation: The official resists any third-party efforts to independently verify or investigate the claims.
  15. No follow-up Evidence: The official fails to provide any further evidence over time, despite promising to do so.
 
Last edited:
At some point, I think debunking requires explaining this phenomenon

what phenomenon? the alien materials and bodies he was told about, that noone has presented any evidence for? how are 'we' supposed to explain something when we have no idea what exactly the claims are.?
 
I read it as the phenomenon of a "growing chorus of credible voices supporting him and/or his claims." I'm not sure I'd agree it is up to skeptics to explain that. Though it would be nice to be able to do so, I suppose.
hmmm. you might be right.

yea 11 out of the tens of thousands with the same credentials who don't believe these things are extraterrestrial, doesnt really seem like it needs explaining. or rather, it would be impolite to explain it. :)
 
My understanding is that this guy doesn't have first hand knowledge of anything.

So, there isn't really anything to debunk there. All he really seems to have is knowledge of the program and what other people have told him and maybe some documents that he's seen. The documents could all have been fabricated for what David or anyone else knows.

So, what we're refuting is the program's existence and that other people actually told him about these things. What they actually saw doesn't seem super relevant, tbh.

What I am curious about is whether he's lying or not. Is there a program? Did people tell him these things?

When you think about it, it would be a great way to test who's a leaker and who isn't. David is definitely a leaker..
 
Last edited:
No, he has no evidence. From his interview he says he only HEARD it from other people. So how could he show you evidence of hearsay conversations? Am I missing something here?
The government doesn't believe he has any evidence either.

If they did the FBI would have gotten a search warrant and kicked in his front door and searched his home by now.

The lack of any law enforcement type response is telling. No way they would be so passive if they believed he had classified documents or flying saucer parts in his possession.
 
However, I find the growing chorus of credible voices supporting him and/or his claims to be quite astonishing. This is contrary to my previous experience with similar events.

At some point, I think debunking requires explaining this phenomenon. These people are not random individuals, but senior officials with very significant expertise.
I know, disparaging individuals is not a significant argument in favor of debunking specific claims, but I think I'd want to know about the history of the individuals involved regarding UFO beliefs before Grusch's testimony hit the fan. You call them "credible voices", but being in a responsible senior position does not guarantee that to be the case. Do they actually have first hand evidence of the claims? Are they, perhaps, speaking up out of support for Grusch (who was also in a fairly high position). Or are they basing their opinions on the same kind of hearsay which persuaded Grusch?

We've already heard a lot about how the Skinwalker Ranch crowd dealt with credulous individuals in the top rungs of government, providing them, in the end, nothing but a TV show and some unverifiable claims. I think we would have to examine each one separately before we refer to them as a chorus of credible voices.

Results of a quick search - We have long been familiar with Elizondo and Reid as proponents of UFOs.

Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study.
.....
In some cases, earthly explanations have been found for previously unexplained incidents. Even lacking a plausible terrestrial explanation does not make an extraterrestrial one the most likely, astrophysicists say.

Mr. Reid, the former Democratic senator from Nevada who pushed for funding the earlier U.F.O. program when he was the majority leader, said he believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred and that retrieved materials should be studied.
“After looking into this, I came to the conclusion that there were reports — some were substantive, some not so substantive — that there were actual materials that the government and the private sector had in their possession,” Mr. Reid said in an interview.

No crash artifacts have been publicly produced for independent verification. Some retrieved objects, such as unusual metallic fragments, were later identified from laboratory studies as man-made.

Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”
Content from External Source
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html

Of the others, Mellon and Burchett have long supported the notion that there were ufos in our air space. Nell and Shell vouched for Grusch's character, not for the claims themselves. Grey said it's true but it's not clear if that's an opinion or from a first hand study.
 
Last edited:
Rough part of the news cycle to drop this story.
-Apartment collapse in Davenport, Iowa
-Dam blown in Ukraine as offensive starts.
-Northeast cities blanketed by forestfire smoke.
-Trump indicted.
 
CP: As a follow-up to that, are there consequences if he falsified the information he provided in his Inspector General complaint?

TM
: Yes, absolutely.
Remember, we haven't seen Grusch's IG complaint. It can be very different from what he says on TV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top