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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see plenty of religions that span hundreds (or thousands?) of years. I would not guarantee that people are quickly fed up by non sense..
Religions provide sustenance to people, cults and conspiracy theorists don't. If you want to go into that, make a topic in the Chitchat forum and @Mendel me.
 

External Quote:
In @lesliekean / @ralphblu 's interview with @Debriefmedia / @chrissynewton, Kean states that the "UFO whistleblower"'s claim about "dead pilots" and bodies from the "non-human craft" was never discussed with her, she doesn't want to talk about it, nor would she have published it.

That is in line with her statements (on Showtime "U.F.O") about why she did not include reports of alleged alien contact in her 2017 NYT article--she wanted to present the topic of aliens as credible. I am sure she's not very happy that Grusch is talking about alien bodies, alien attacks, ships the size of football fields and other things you would associate with UFO...enthusiasts.
 
External Quote:
In @lesliekean / @ralphblu 's interview with @Debriefmedia / @chrissynewton, Kean states that the "UFO whistleblower"'s claim about "dead pilots" and bodies from the "non-human craft" was never discussed with her, she doesn't want to talk about it, nor would she have published it.

That is in line with her statements (on Showtime "U.F.O") about why she did not include reports of alleged alien contact in her 2017 NYT article--she wanted to present the topic of aliens as credible. I am sure she's not very happy that Grusch is talking about alien bodies, alien attacks, ships the size of football fields and other things you would associate with UFO...enthusiasts.
Do you have the link to the article/video which references alien attacks and craft the size of football fields? I have heard the latter referenced but can’t seem to find the relevant interviews.
 
Do you have the link to the article/video which references alien attacks and craft the size of football fields? I have heard the latter referenced but can’t seem to find the relevant interviews.
They are being released piecemeal by NewsNation in excerpts on one of their daily shows, it's honestly kind of annoying to not be able to hear the entire interview.

Alien attacks (I didn't timestamp that one, but it's the excerpt from around 0:44):


Football field sized (it's the timestamped excerpt):
Further excerpts from Coulthart interview released. Timestamped to the start of the first excerpt:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCmsK7-k6mI&t=95s

The second excerpt starts around 2:30.
 
They are being released piecemeal by NewsNation in excerpts on one of their daily shows, it's honestly kind of annoying to not be able to hear the entire interview.

Alien attacks (I didn't timestamp that one, but it's the excerpt from around 0:44):


Football field sized (it's the timestamped excerpt):
Thanks, agreed it is annoying how it’s being drawn out like this.
 
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.
One explanation is that it's a simple typo, and it should read "credulous", not "credible". Luis Elizondo, for example is notorious for believing (or, alternatively, propagating and claiming to believe, possibly a worse behaviour to be guilty of) easily debunked nonsense.
 
Thanks, agreed it is annoying how it’s being drawn out like this.
It also makes it hard to get a sense of context for his statements to be fair to Mr Grusch. I hope they release the uncut interview at some point. I still don't think it will make his case stronger, if all he has is second or third hand information and he's making such extraordinary claims, but we can at least hear a coherent interview and not just buzzworthy clips in whatever order.
 
External Quote:
In @lesliekean / @ralphblu 's interview with @Debriefmedia / @chrissynewton, Kean states that the "UFO whistleblower"'s claim about "dead pilots" and bodies from the "non-human craft" was never discussed with her, she doesn't want to talk about it, nor would she have published it.

That is in line with her statements (on Showtime "U.F.O") about why she did not include reports of alleged alien contact in her 2017 NYT article--she wanted to present the topic of aliens as credible. I am sure she's not very happy that Grusch is talking about alien bodies, alien attacks, ships the size of football fields and other things you would associate with UFO...enthusiasts.

Why did she never discuss such matters with him? Surely that's what a genuine investigative journalist would do?
 
I think a part of the debunking process should be analyzing the flow of money. Opensecrets has some good data here, and you can get IRS filings for various non profits as they are public.

The advantage of this approach is that it adds facts to the discussion that are not speculative.

safeaerospace is one non profit that I am aware of. The names on my vouch list are useful for opensecrets. Are there non profits and names to look into relevant to Grusch? Has there been an effort like this done on metabunk or elsewhere?
 
Leslie Keane appears to be admitting that there is no proof of any of this stuff anywhere, and this is more a tactic to "find" proof. (and since we know she's spoken to several -if not all- the people who fed [airquotes] "info" to Grusch, i'll personally take that to mean there is literally no proof anywhere)

6:15
External Quote:
Leslie Keane:The important thing about it is that it lead to further investigation. Because there is no proof of this, and we don't offer proof of that and neither does David Grusch. It's all about the people that he has spoken to that has provided him with information. So the Congress needs to take this up and they just announced it today that they do want to, the approriations committee, want s to hold hearings on this. so it's the beginning of an investigation that needs to happen to find out more.

Source: https://youtu.be/gkyzgPvVnBI?t=373
 
i'll personally take that to mean there is literally no proof anywhere

Not to be difficult, but this is speculative - just the other way.

I think what is frequently missing from these discussions, in any direction, is only making claims which are transparent, truthful, and have been carefully falsified. The goal should always be to reduce heat and increase light. Put another way, the signal/noise ratio should be kept as high as possible. What are the facts - rather than what we want the facts to be.

Leslie Keane appears to be admitting that there is no proof of any of this stuff anywhere

This is a misquote, hopefully not intentional. Keane is saying Grusch has no proof beyond what people told him. I'm glad she said that, because that's what I was assuming, despite all the things that Grusch has been saying and how he has been saying it.

If credibility is important to Grusch, he should start reining in how he phrases things and caveat what he knows to be true versus what he's been told is true.

So what are we debunking? We are debunking whether or not people told him these things. We could also try to debunk *who* told him these things, because there could be enough facts which may allow us to do more than speculate around that topic.
 
In some cases, especially when it comes to bodies, Mr. Grusch plays with words very well.

If his moral character and competence in the professions where he serves are confirmed, then how are the facts confirmed that, for example, alloys are not derived from human science? Is he an expert in chemistry, in alloys? If he has seen the document, can it be indicated there that these are precisely non-human developments?

Bodies of dead pilots - bodies can look literally unrecognizable. If he did not communicate with specialists, if he did not see special documents, then how does he confirm this?

Let's say he could see specialized reports on the analysis of chemical, molecular, atomic composition and so on, in which he was not competent, why is he sure that the evidence from third parties will be competent? All this is very vague and stands only on his reputation, moral character and inability to check literally nothing. Mr. Grusch could repeat the words of any informants before him, and only his status would only strengthen these testimonies.

In general, it is useful to get details about how exactly he made sure of the testimony.
 
I agree with some above, we have slipped a bit into speculation. Not surprising, having no data. But indeed lets try to stay to facts.
 
We are establishing, admittedly in an unnecessarily longwinded way, that anecdotes of anecdotes by former DoD officials qualify poorly as scientific evidence for UFOs.

This feels very strawman to me. There is no scientific proof of anything here. Dunking on irrationality might be easy, but it's not particularly informative.
 
This feels very strawman to me. There is no scientific proof of anything here. Dunking on irrationality might be easy, but it's not particularly informative.

Maybe not to you. But basic science education for the lay reader is one of MB's stated objectives.
 
Maybe not to you. But basic science education for the lay reader is one of MB's stated objectives.

The story here is not about aliens. There is zero proof presented of that. There is only proof that people have told Grusch about aliens.

We are arguing against that other thing, which is trivial because there is no proof of that thing.

We are avoiding the interesting question - the unprecedented claims (the real ones, not the secondhand ones) by a highly credentialed individual who has been vouched for by many senior officials.

This isn't earth shaking news, but it's a very serious milestone worth debunking if false.

I appear to be isolated in this perspective, so I'll bow out here.

I do want to say however, that I am grateful that you guys are trying to provide another point of view, even if it isn't strictly what I would do.
 
Other than his claims, what proof is there that "people" have told Grusch about aliens?

Great question, truly, but we're not here to prove Grusch is telling the truth, but rather try to falsify it.

VAnity fair did a reasonable job, and there is a follow up here -
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14527zj/might_be_unpopular_but_i_put_together_a_list_of/


Interestingly, Gary Nolan has been on partial leave since April 1st. I have to say, as a professor at a university, it was very irresponsible of him claiming extraordinary facts without extraordinary proof. I wouldn't be surprised if the university placed him on partial leave, and rightly so.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan
 
Last edited:

Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal - June 5, 2023

A former intelligence official turned whistleblower has given Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin.

The information, he says, has been illegally withheld from Congress, and he filed a complaint alleging that he suffered illegal retaliation for his confidential disclosures, reported here for the first time.

Other intelligence officials, both active and retired, with knowledge of these programs through their work in various agencies, have independently provided similar, corroborating information, both on and off the record.

The whistleblower, David Charles Grusch, 36, a decorated former combat officer in Afghanistan, is a veteran of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). He served as the reconnaissance office’s representative to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force from 2019-2021. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the NGA’s co-lead for UAP analysis and its representative to the task force.


Article: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023060...icials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

External Quote:

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are “of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures,” he said.
In filing his complaint, Grusch is represented by a lawyer who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).
“We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities,” Grusch said, referencing information he provided Congress and the current ICIG. “The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles.”
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.”


This article would appear to validate key portions of UFO mythology. Currently though it seems largely based on the good moral character of the informants:

Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness. He remains well-supported within intelligence circles, and numerous sources have vouched for his credibility.

“His assertion concerning the existence of a terrestrial arms race occurring sub-rosa over the past eighty years focused on reverse engineering technologies of unknown origin is fundamentally correct, as is the indisputable realization that at least some of these technologies of unknown origin derive from non-human intelligence,” said Karl Nell, the retired Army Colonel who worked with Grusch on the UAP Task Force.

In a 2022 performance evaluation, Laura A. Potter, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Headquarters, Department of the Army, described Nell as “an officer with the strongest possible moral compass.”


Nobody doubts that there are top-secret programs dedicated to reverse engineering foreign technology. What is less clear is the basis for "the indisputable realization that at least some of these technologies of unknown origin derive from non-human intelligence"

That's loosely described here:

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are “of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures,” he said.


I await more details of that evidence with interest.

On watching the Ross Coulthart interview it is clear that although Grusch likely has been privy to knowledge of classified 'reverse engineering' programs, all of the info allegedly relating to aliens is of the 'friend of a friend told me' sort and not direct. I am always suspicious of third hand accounts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grusch likely has been privy to knowledge of classified 'reverse engineering' programs
that's the crux, though

we know the US retrieves foreign hardware and reverse engineers it

the sensation is if that hardware isn't from some other country, but from another planet, and the evidence for that sounds like it's rumors
 
Other than his claims, what proof is there that "people" have told Grusch about aliens?
it's far from definitive, but the debrief article states: "Several current members of the recovery program spoke to the Inspector General’s office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint."

it's difficult to see why the article would assert this if in fact grusch is the only person talking to the icig. not only because it would be an obvious opening for grusch's entire account to be undermined if he was in fact lying about the source(s) of his information, but also because grusch is represented by a real law firm re his dealings with the icig, and speaking as a lawyer, i'd imagine they would object to him signing off on the big reveal article if it included clear and easily disprovable falsehoods.

again, not definitive, but to my mind that strongly suggests people other than grusch are talking to the icig about at least some of the matters set out in grusch's complaint. granted, that's separate from the question of whether any of those people (or others) were interviewed by grusch in the first place, which is what i understand your comment to be getting at, but it seems unlikely that grusch would invent the interviewees only to have corroborating witnesses appear out of the woodwork.

(also, hi, first post here, look forward to some interesting discussions!)
 
Last edited:
Great question, truly, but we're not here to prove Grusch is telling the truth, but rather try to falsify it.
The question came as a result of this definitive statement you made above in post #208:

External Quote:
The story here is not about aliens. There is zero proof presented of that. There is only proof that people have told Grusch about aliens.
You can't have it both ways, either there is proof or there isn't. You stated there is proof Grusch was told about aliens. What is the proof?

I also take issue with your statement that we are here to prove Grusch is falsifying the truth. We are here to determine if there is credible evidence to support his claims.
VAnity fair did a reasonable job, and there is a follow up here -
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14527zj/might_be_unpopular_but_i_put_together_a_list_of/


Interestingly, Gary Nolan has been on partial leave since April 1st. I have to say, as a professor at a university, it was very irresponsible of him claiming extraordinary facts without extraordinary proof. I wouldn't be surprised if the university placed him on partial leave, and rightly so.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan

Dr Nolan is not on topic here.
 
that's the crux, though

we know the US retrieves foreign hardware and reverse engineers it

the sensation is if that hardware isn't from some other country, but from another planet, and the evidence for that sounds like it's rumors

One of the things one has to consider, and it is my own personal view, is that perhaps there is an element in the DOD, Pentagon, or wherever, that wants to keep the whole UFO mythology going for whatever reasons and which is gaslighting its own members ( and UFOlogists ) with 'information' to that effect.

UFOs have always been a great cover for whatever was really going on.
 
prove Grusch is falsifying the truth.

Not prove that Grusch if falsifying the truth, but rather perform falsification on the theory that Grusch is telling the truth. It's why trying to argue against the secondhand proof is not scientific. You can't falsify it.

Here's a good introduction to the concept of falsification - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability .. it's why debunking is so important.

Dr Nolan is not on topic here.

The redditor above made the interesting connection between Nolan's isotope ratios and Grusch's claims. It's also worth noting that Nolan has been largely echo'ing everything Grusch has been claiming (or vice versa). There are enough facts to connect the two, I believe.
 
Last edited:
Not prove that Grusch if falsifying the truth, but rather perform falsification on the theory that Grusch is telling the truth. It's why trying to argue against the secondhand proof is not scientific. You can't falsify it.
Again, only responded to what you said in #220 above.

External Quote:
Great question, truly, but we're not here to prove Grusch is telling the truth, but rather try to falsify it
If you misspoke with this and the previous statement about proof being told about aliens, just say so. When you contradict yourself or make unsubstantiated claims, you're going to be challenged.

Here's a good introduction to the concept of falsification - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability .. it's why debunking is so important.



The redditor above made the interesting connection between Nolan's isotope ratios and Grusch's claims. It's also worth noting that Nolan has been largely echo'ing everything Grusch has been claiming. There are enough facts to connect the two, I believe.
External Quote:
Interestingly, Gary Nolan has been on partial leave since April 1st. I have to say, as a professor at a university, it was very irresponsible of him claiming extraordinary facts without extraordinary proof. I wouldn't be surprised if the university placed him on partial leave, and rightly so.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan
Where does that connect to Grusch?
 
If you misspoke with this and the previous statement about proof being told about aliens, just say so. When you contradict yourself or make unsubstantiated claims, you're going to be challenged.

I didn't misspeak. I'm sincerely trying to falsify Grusch's claims. It's a productive scientific exercise.

Where does that connect to Grusch?

If Grusch and Nolan are saying the same things, and there are serious academic concerns about Nolan's credibility, than that speaks to Grusch's credibility by association.

Largely the case for Grusch relies on the credibility of those vouching for him. I had considered listing Nolan as a credible supporter, but I am skeptical that it would be worthwhile. I have created a secondary table where I put Elizondo and I'll probablly add Nolan there.
 
Last edited:
I just think there's is a limit to how much people can be deceived before they lose faith in what is being presented to them.
I think many (not all) adult UFO enthusiasts don't accept that they have been deceived- there are still apologists for George Adamski.
Belief in UFOs as alien craft has become an act of faith amongst some people. Sceptics and "debunkers" are regarded almost as heretics, or agents of some dark power bent on hiding the truth.
Evidence that many here might regard as clear evidence of a particular UFO case being a misinterpretation or a hoax, or at least utterly unreliable, is often dismissed out of hand by UFO enthusiasts without addressing the new or more reliable information (a behaviour that the "believers" often criticize sceptics for- often unfairly I think). It's a test of their faith.
 
One of the things one has to consider, and it is my own personal view, is that perhaps there is an element in the DOD, Pentagon, or wherever, that wants to keep the whole UFO mythology going for whatever reasons and which is gaslighting its own members ( and UFOlogists ) with 'information' to that effect.

UFOs have always been a great cover for whatever was really going on.
I'm wondering the same thing and frankly all options I can imagine are highly concerning.

H1:
DoD and / or US government are using the 'alien' UFO narrative as psyop in a new Cold War against Russia and China. If I had a say in counterintelligence I'd go that path. The message is simple. There may or may not be unidentified objects exhibiting intelligent behavior and capabilities beyond known physics in our airspace and we may or may not be in possession of this technology. So think twice before messing with us. Given the paranoia of both Russian and Chinese administration, I'm certain such rumors would indeed leave some nagging afterthoughts over there. But that would be a reverse UFO conspiracy.

H0:
The US military and administration are utterly incompetent with staff not only routinely reporting misidentified mundane objects as exotic UAPs but also leaking such info to the general public. And the tax payer is being scammed by UFO nutjobs making a fortune promoting their fringe ideas.

Personally I hope H0 is not true but the ignorance and incompetence of humans should never be underestimated. The question remains - who aggressively pushes this entire UAP phenomenon and who profits from it?
 
If Grusch and Nolan are saying the same things, and there are serious academic concerns about Nolan's credibility, than that speaks to Grusch's credibility by association.
i'm positive that statement is one of the classic logical fallacies.
 
There is only proof that people have told Grusch about aliens.

But there really isn't. There is only his claim that he was told about these things. Kean made it sound like she spoke to other unnamed officials that confirmed Grusch was told these things, but she is now saying "there is no proof" as of now.

Consider the Bob Lazar case. He made most of the same claims concerning captured UFOs, aliens and reverse engineering of UFOs. One could say his evidence was better than Grusch's 2nd hand accounts. Lazar was giving firsthand accounts of things he actually did and saw. Didn't make any of it true. The difference here is Crusch has much better credentials, so it seems more believable that he would have been told these things. Maybe he was, but we don't know.
We are avoiding the interesting question - the unprecedented claims (the real ones, not the secondhand ones) by a highly credentialed individual who has been vouched for by many senior officials.

I would not consider the claims "unprecedented". They are rather standard UFOlogy fair from the last 40 years or so. Crashed UFOs, retrieved aliens, both dead and alive, and the often touted reverse engineering of UFOs has been part of UFOlogy going back to the '50s:

External Quote:
In 1950, journalist Frank Scully publicized a tale of a crashed saucer in Aztec, New Mexico that was later proved to be a hoax by two con-men.
Then expanding and becoming more popular into the '80s:

External Quote:
In October 1980, Marcel's story was featured in the book The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore. The authors had previously written popular books on fringe topics such as the Philadelphia Experiment and the Bermuda Triangle.[1]

The book argues that an extraterrestrial craft was flying over the New Mexico desert to observe nuclear weapons activity when a lightning strike killed the alien crew and, that after discovering the crash, the US government engaged in a cover-up.[1]
External Quote:

The Roswell Incident (1980) was the first book to introduce the controversial second-hand stories of civil engineer Grady "Barney" Barnett and a group of archaeology students from an unidentified university encountering wreckage and "alien bodies"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_incident

People like Bob Lazar popularized the ideas of reverse engineering and "strange materials" in the late '80s:

External Quote:
Since 1989, Lazar has achieved public notoriety as an Area 51 conspiracy theorist.[d] In May of that year, he appeared in an interview with investigative reporter George Knapp on Las Vegas TV station KLAS, under the pseudonym "Dennis" and with his face hidden, to discuss his purported employment at "S-4", a subsidiary facility he claimed exists near the Nellis Air Force Base installation known as Area 51.

Lazar said that his job was to help with the reverse engineering of one of nine flying saucers, which he alleged were extraterrestrial in origin. He claims one of the flying saucers, the one he coined the "Sport Model", was manufactured out of a metallic substance similar in appearance and touch to liquid titanium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

This all got thrown in a blender with other paranormal themes and a search for TV ratings to create The X Files:

External Quote:
The X-Files
External Quote:
is an American science fiction drama television series created by Chris Carter. The original television series aired from September 1993 to May 2002 on Fox.

The series revolves around Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who investigate the eponymous "X-Files": marginalized, unsolved cases involving paranormal phenomena.

The agents also discover an agenda of the government to keep secret the existence of extraterrestrial life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X-Files

So, Grusch's claims are nothing new. They have been part of the UFO zeitgeist for quite a while, he' simply repeating them with a veneer of "officialness".

Him being a verified Intel Officer isn't exactly unprecedented either. He's following almost verbatim the same route as Elizondo before him. Also a verified and vouched for Intel Officer, he like Grusch, filed a complaint with IGs office and said he passed classified information to congress about UFOs, then left government and went to Kean and Blumenthal and became a UFO celebrity.

Elizondo claimed to head the probably non-existent AATIP and still makes lots of promises about upcoming disclosures.

I appear to be isolated in this perspective, so I'll bow out here.

No need to bow out, were just having a discussion and it's ok to differ. It looks like you stayed around for some more fun anyway.
 
Under Oath, This is where I get a Ice Cream Headache. If you go under Oath is that like saying " yes I saw , heard , touched , smelled etc.. that is what happen". and In Grusch case if he is under Oath, how does " I heard from so in so that told about what they seen and heard and touched". Is it possible to bring in the the So in So's to question them until they get to the one that really did see and touch physical things. And I am glad to a part of this Forum. perfect for my Brain to get some exercise.
 
The Shellenberger article in Public https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft states “Grusch has not shared written evidence in an unclassified way, he did provide classified intelligence reports, emails, and other documents to Thomas A. Monheim, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, as the law allows. As for photographs, the Defense Department prohibited Grusch from sharing any…”. If you believe this, you could conclude that something has been provided, what it is or if it proves anything, who knows. I believe he has also submitted names of programs and names of people, all of which could, you would imagine be followed up. If he can’t do that then any investigation will be very short.

I thinks it’s problematic to state he has/there is no proof when (if it exists) it is classified and not seen/available beyond those investigating.
 
He's following almost verbatim the same route as Elizondo before him.

Elizondo did not have the backing listed here, beyond Harry Reid. I would argue that Elizondo is a credible witness and unfairly impugned, but I'm willing to bow to consensus. His support isn't crucial, so it seems silly to force the issue.

One interesting question is whether more credible sources will come out of the woodwork at this point. There is a great deal of speculation among proponents that this will occur. If it doesn't, that's a possible red/yellowish flag.

Another red flag is if supporters on the list start walking away from Grusch. One reason to track them.
 
One of the things one has to consider, and it is my own personal view, is that perhaps there is an element in the DOD, Pentagon, or wherever, that wants to keep the whole UFO mythology going for whatever reasons and which is gaslighting its own members ( and UFOlogists ) with 'information' to that effect.

UFOs have always been a great cover for whatever was really going on.

We know from declassified CIA documents that many experimental USAF capabilities such as the SR-71 Blackbird were initially reported as UFOs when first spotted. The Pentagon had no qualms going along with that smokescreen.

So it's certainly useful to maintain some ambiguity whilst Pentagon (or any other gov't agency) isn't by law allowed to blatantly deceive the public.
 
I didn't misspeak. I'm sincerely trying to falsify Grusch's claims. It's a productive scientific exercise.

I don't think we can at this point. Falsifiability works with something testable. If I say "there are 59 cards in a standard deck of cards", that's a testable statement. We can count a bunch of decks and find that my statement is false.

If on the other hand I say, "I was told there are 59 cards in a standard deck of cards and I was shown a deck of 59 cards", that's not a very testable statement. How does one falsify what I claim I was told? One can show that what I was told is not accurate, but that doesn't falsify what I claim I was told or saw.

Grusch's claims are step removed from my example above. In the case of being told there are 59 cards in a deck, we can at least show that the idea of 59 cards in a deck is inaccurate. I was told something inaccurate, even I was told it. Claims of retreaved UFOs isn't easily shown to be inaccurate. We can say there is no current evidence for retrieved UFOs, but that's the best we can do.

Right now, Grusch's claims consist largely of what he was told, what he heard and maybe what he was shown and even what he was told is hard to falsify, let alone trying to falsify that he was told something.
 
The Shellenberger article in Public https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft states “Grusch has not shared written evidence in an unclassified way, he did provide classified intelligence reports, emails, and other documents to Thomas A. Monheim, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, as the law allows. As for photographs, the Defense Department prohibited Grusch from sharing any…”. If you believe this, you could conclude that something has been provided, what it is or if it proves anything, who knows. I believe he has also submitted names of programs and names of people, all of which could, you would imagine be followed up. If he can’t do that then any investigation will be very short.

I thinks it’s problematic to state he has/there is no proof when (if it exists) it is classified and not seen/available beyond those investigating.

Elizondo did not have the backing listed here, beyond Harry Reid. I would argue that Elizondo is a credible witness and unfairly impugned, but I'm willing to bow to consensus. His support isn't crucial, so it seems silly to force the issue.

One interesting question is whether more credible sources will come out of the woodwork at this point. There is a great deal of speculation among proponents that this will occur. If it doesn't, that's a possible red/yellowish flag.

Another red flag is if supporters on the list start walking away from Grusch. One reason to track them.

it seems highly likely that grusch and others have provided something to the icig that has a reasonable level of prima facie credibility and detail, and that purports to be evidence for what grusch is saying publicly and / or to point to where such evidence could be found (per my comment above).

to my mind, the only thing that would obviously undermine that conclusion would be the abrupt end of the icig investigation, as martinicus1 points out.

assuming that doesn't happen, it seems very unlikely that we (the public) will get further details of the information disclosed / discovered any time soon, unless there is a meaningful and credible leak of classified material (which seems unlikely, given the potential consequences for the leaker) or a decision to declassify (which seems like a pretty radical move).

the longer the investigation goes on, the more likely it is that there is something worth investigating, but not at all clear that there would be any confirmation as to what that is or how closely it tracks with grusch's allegations.

so unless something unexpected happens, it seems as though the only evidence in favour of grusch that we could reasonably expect to get any time soon would be statements (containing only unclassified information) from other credible people supporting his allegations. eyes on the upcoming house oversight committee hearing to see what the witness list looks like for that - if they can't get anyone vaguely credible to speak in support, i agree with qrdl that grusch's credibility will take a knock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top