In the strictest sense, you're absolutely right, but if we use witness credibility as a proxy we can to a certain degree. That is relatively testable.I don't think we can at this point. Falsifiability works with something testable.
In the strictest sense, you're absolutely right, but if we use witness credibility as a proxy we can to a certain degree. That is relatively testable.I don't think we can at this point. Falsifiability works with something testable.
I agree with this to an extent, but if he has the detailed knowledge he claims to have he should be able to provide information regarding the names of people he spoke to, names of programs, locations and so on.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.
In the strictest sense, you're absolutely right, but if we use witness credibility as a proxy we can to a certain degree. That is relatively testable.
The DoD has hidden classified aircraft programs behind UFO reports going back to the U-2 in the late 50s. It got even easier to taken advantage of UFOs with the black programs in later years because of the nonstandard physical appearance of a/c like the F-117, the Whale (Tacit Blue), and the Boeing's one-off Bird of Prey.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?
I agree with this to an extent, but if he has the detailed knowledge he claims to have he should be able to provide information regarding the names of people he spoke to, names of programs, locations and so on.
words like credible are opinion. so are pretty much worthless. plus you would have to seriously define your terms and criteria. getting a consensus of terms is gonna be a tough nut.In the strictest sense, you're absolutely right, but if we use witness credibility as a proxy we can to a certain degree. That is relatively testable.
But we assess witness credibility by evaluating the truth of what they say. You can't turn around and do the reverse, evaluate the truth by witness credibility. Firstly, it's circular. Secondly, it's akin to the defendant who says "but I never robbed a bank before!".In the strictest sense, you're absolutely right, but if we use witness credibility as a proxy we can to a certain degree. That is relatively testable.
eh. only to a certain extent and those witnesses (even in civil trials) can be cross examined. which is key. and hearsay is hearsay and the opposing counsel will object.Maybe! I know that legally, witness credibility and corroborating testimony is a big deal.
i'm not sure i agree with this statement. "expert" is a big word. and he's only 36. how long was he involved in any uap programs with the government? a year? ie. so now i need you to define 'expert'.Grusch may not be an expert on aliens, but I think it's reasonable to say he's an expert on UAP programs.
I had a boss back in the day who defined an expert as anyone "with a briefcase and more than 35 miles from home."eh. only to a certain extent and those witnesses (even in civil trials) can be cross examined. which is key. and hearsay is hearsay and the opposing counsel will object.
in criminal trials you need some actual evidence.
to me if he was credible he would at least say. 'i got my information from mellon and elizondo and the skinwalker dude, etc. but four current high level employees have never spoken about ufos publicly and dont want to be named."
The fact that he wont name even the 'well known in ufo circle' guys who have already spoken out, means he loses all credibility for me personally. Does anyone believe he didnt get at least some info from Elizondo and Mellon ( i dont remember the other big names attached to the Nimitz thing). Just be straight with us.
i'm not sure i agree with this statement. "expert" is a big word. and he's only 36. how long was he involved in any uap programs with the government? a year? ie. so now i need you to define 'expert'.
He may be knowledgeable about a UAP program he was read into and/or a member of, but he'd know nothing (other than what he's heard) about other programs, especially if they are classified.i've been on MB like 10 years and i read alot. and have been exposed to alot. am i an expert debunker? if you want to call me that, i'm going to need to know your definition of 'expert'. because i wouldn't call myself an expert.
I had a boss back in the day who defined an expert as anyone "with a briefcase and more than 35 miles from home."
Grusch may not be an expert on aliens, but I think it's reasonable to say he's an expert on UAP programs.
https://web.archive.org/web/2023060...icials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/External Quote: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.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releas...t-of-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-task-forceExternal Quote:On Aug. 4, 2020, Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved the establishment of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF). The Department of the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, will lead the UAPTF.
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...dr-travis-taylors-uap-task-force-involvement/External Quote:At the time of Dr. Taylor's initial work with the UAPTF, former Office of Naval Intelligence senior civilian John Stratton was leading the effort and informally referred to Dr. Taylor as his chief scientist as efforts to assemble a larger team were underway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_S._TaylorExternal Quote:
Filmography[edit]
Year Title Role Production Episodes Notes 2009–2010 The Universe Self The History Channel 6 episodes [24] 2010 Life After People Self The History Channel 5 Episodes [24] 2011 When Aliens Attack Self National Geographic Channel Film [24] 2011–2013 Rocket City Rednecks Host and producer National Geographic Channel 6 Episodes (Producer for 1 episode) [24] 2014 The Independents Self Fox Business Apocalypse Now (2014) [24] 2015 3 Scientists Walk into a Bar Host The Weather Channel 4 episodes [24] 2018 The Tesla Files Host The History Channel 5 episodes [24] 2014–present The Curse of Oak Island Self The History Channel Rock Solid (2019) [24] 2019 In Search of Monsters Self Travel Channel The Loch Ness Monster (2019) [24] 2019 NASA's Unexplained Files Self Science Channel 5 episodes [24] 2021 America's Book of Secrets Self The History Channel 5 episodes [24] 2017–2021 Ancient Aliens Self The History Channel 23 episodes [24] 2019–2021 The UnXplained Self The History Channel 15 episodes [24] 2022 A Tear in the Sky Self Omnium Media Documentary Film [24] 2020–present The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch([a]) Self The History Channel 27 episodes [24]
No, we're trying to figure out what the truth is.Great question, truly, but we're not here to prove Grusch is telling the truth, but rather try to falsify it.
Stratton, Taylor, Reid and Lacatski are all heavily into the Skinwalker Ranch "phenomenon" and are all connected to it's former owner Robert Bigelow.
. . .
Here is another thread highlighting the very large shadow Skinwalker Ranch has cast over any US UAP/UFO program of the last 15 years:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ar...fo-projects-linked-to-skinwalker-ranch.12490/
A charitable interpretation might be just a tautology - if Grusch's credibility is buoyed by the credibility of those who agree with his narrative, then the reduction in perceived reliability of those who support him reduces his credibility.i'm positive that statement is one of the classic logical fallacies.
Other than his claims, what proof is there that "people" have told Grusch about aliens?
I roughly estimate about 50%, 30%, and 20%. It would be 60%, 35% , 5% if not for the highly credible voices that seem to be vouching for it. Nobody credible that I'm aware of is saying it's not possible, only just unlikely, of course proving a negative here is very hard to do.
- David is telling the truth, but some combination of the following
- He misunderstood some of his sources
- Some of his sources are confabulating, but not purposely and misunderstood what they saw
- Some of his sources are purposely confabulating for reasons of
- Supporting their reputations or others in ufology
- trying to undermine trust in government, whether criminal conspiracy or just individual actions
- David is trying to create a career for himself in the industry of unfology/undermine trust in govt and has stretched the truth
- Stretched it by lying about how reliable he thinks his sources are
- Stretched it by personally fabricating sources of information
- David is telling the truth and there are non human craft
It's worth noting that everything is in a constant heisenberg state and as boxes are opened, waveforms will collapse, and priors need to be updated with appropriate changes to probabilities.
That all said, I think falsification is a very admirable activity and given the lack of folks listing both pros and cons to these stories, that's why I reasonably assumed what was being done here.
4. David sincerely believes in the truth of the anecdotes of other sincerely believing DoD ufologists who misconstrue the nature of the classified programs they've received only anecdotal knowledge of due to inherent believer's bias and lack of security clearance to gain direct access to said programs.
A compelling thesis, but it largely rests on the idea that David was a ufologist before joining the task force. If you have proof, even weak proof that he was already a ufologist before joining the task force - I'd really love to hear that. Otherwise it sounds like very unfair speculation.
Jonathan Grey, 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:External Quote:"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"
Secondly, this is not 'a friend of a friend told me'. Grusch had direct contact with people involved in the recovery operations:External Quote:"The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone"
"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."
"A vast array of our most sophisticated sensors, including space-based platforms, have been utilized by different agencies, typically in triplicate, to observe and accurately identify the out-of-this-world nature, performance, and design of these anomalous machines, which are then determined not to be of earthly origin,"
"High-level, classified briefing materials exist in which real-world scenarios involving UAP, as evidenced by historical examples, are made available to Intelligence Personnel on a need-to-know basis," he told us. "I have been the recipient of such briefings for almost a decade."
Thirdly, the IG does not only have second hand information from Grusch. These 'current members of the recovery program' spoke to the IG but apparently do not seek public exposure:External Quote:
Grusch said that the craft recovery operations are ongoing at various levels of activity and that he knows the specific individuals, current and former, who are involved.
"Individuals on these UAP programs approached me in my official capacity and disclosed their concerns regarding a multitude of wrongdoings, such as illegal contracting against the Federal Acquisition Regulations and other criminality and the suppression of information across a qualified industrial base and academia," he stated.
And fourthly, Grusch does have evidence:External Quote:
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.
This, of course, is all according to the content of the Debrief article.External Quote:Beginning in 2022, Grusch provided Congress with hours of recorded classified information transcribed into hundreds of pages which included specific data about the materials recovery program.
I dispute that.External Quote:"the indisputable realization that at least some of these technologies of unknown origin derive from non-human intelligence"
There is also similar discussion of this in the Public article which I referenced in an earlier post.Beginning in 2022, Grusch provided Congress with hours of recorded classified information transcribed into hundreds of pages which included specific data about the materials recovery program.
Absolutely agreed, I'm tracking this here - https://github.com/qrdlgit/misc/blob/main/vouch.md and have been updating it carefully on feedback from both sides of the discussion.I see a lot of speculations here based on assumptions easily falsified by the Debrief article.
<snip>
Just out of interest how do you define a ufologist? For example, is Kirkpatrick a ufologist because he wrote that strange paper with Avi Loeb? Can someone be open minded and not be ufologist or is it black and white?Absolutely agreed, I'm tracking this here - https://github.com/qrdlgit/misc/blob/main/vouch.md and have been updating it carefully on feedback from both sides of the discussion.
Any rational discussion needs to account for these voices.
LilWabbit's thesis that David was already a ufologist before his 'interviews' would blow a hole wide open in all of this.
Why?
Because a) it would contradict David's critical assertion that he was skeptical and b) it would show significant bias
I see a lot of speculations here based on assumptions easily falsified by the Debrief article.
All excerpts below are from this article (https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/)
First of all, Grusch is not alone:
Just out of interest how do you define a ufologist? For example, is Kirkpatrick a ufologist because he wrote that strange paper with Avi Loeb? Can someone be open minded and not be ufologist or is it black and white?
It's probably more of a spectrum thing and you are right perhaps ufologist isn't the right term. I
Anyways, David expressed significant skepticism here - "I thought it was totally nuts":
Source: https://youtu.be/ZSj7QsHRxHQ?t=236
If there is prior evidence that David does not think it was 'totally nuts', then my belief is we've caught him out on a lie around a very core premise. His credibility largely rests on the fact that he is an impartial observer as he is trying to lead us to believe.
P.S. It's also possible that Grusch is a ufologist convert due to other convincing senior ufologists within DoD rather than any credible piece of physical evidence that he has had access to. Nobody claims he had to be a strong ufologist before the UAPTF in order for the narrative I presented to still remain compelling.
This feels like you're walking a bit backwards, but I'll allow it, because I agree it's a spectrum. He could have been a 'weak' ufologist. It would be less compelling argument, but still an important red flag.
Don't misconstrue the argument. He'd still be a strong ufologist, especially since he's a convert. But he's a ufologist converted by other ufologists. It actually makes even more sense since he's a more junior figure as compared to the Elizondos and Mellons.
Yeah, I don't find that as compelling as being a prior ufologist (weak or not) because it means he was lying when he said "i thought it was totally nuts". And not just any lie, but a lie at the heart of his claims to credibility.
Don't misconstrue the argument. He'd still be a strong ufologist, especially since he's a convert. But he's a ufologist converted by other ufologists. It actually makes even more sense since he's a more junior figure as compared to the Elizondos and Mellons.
What do you mean by more Junior figure? His role in NRO and NGA would likely give him clearance above Elizondo, Taylor etc. Why would he need to believe their stories?