Stealth777
New Member
Good point , I thought is was he swore under oath that his accusations were true. And you are correct he could have just swore that the hearsay was true. just not the other stuff was true.
David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
- Status
Harry Reid was majority leader for the senate for 8 years? I don't know where to start.
Elizondo. Considering I've mentioned several times that I demoted and on the list and yet you still call him out is not good faith dialogue.
Mellon, the man is above reproach. If you have extraordinary proof to impugne his reputation, go ahead I'm all ears, otherwise attacking his credibility is not rational.
The points about davis are interesting, but he was/is a somewhat bit player. So, demote him, remove from the list, doesn't really move the needle.
Anyways, the lawyers walking away from Grusch is a serious problem.
Still intriguing, but for my purposes, I'm not really paying much attention until something earth shattering is produced.
John J.
Senior Member.
That's kind of presupposing that people seen as supporting UFO "believers" get threatened, or might be threatened, by agencies (government or otherwise) acting illegally.
While there have been claims along those lines- it's the origin of the whole "Men in Black" mythos that is now so much part of popular culture that there's a franchise of family-friendly comedy films referencing them- there's no tangible evidence that anyone has ever been physically threatened for stating "pro-UFO" beliefs, other than uncorroborated personal accounts, sometimes of "high strangeness" and unlikely to be connected to any real-world agencies or vested interests.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
OK. I was merely responding to your multiple mentions of your list that you said reenforced Grusch's credibility. I will confess the list I had made no mention of rankings and multiple tiers.
I was just pointing out that a quick glanced revealed people heavily involved in the nonsense of Skinwalker Ranch, people claiming to run non-existent government UFO programs or people invested and involved in DeLongs ridicules TTSA. None of their already well-known views on UFOs and such is all that credible. Regardless of who they are or were. Thier claims are as free of evidence as Grusch's are.
As you say, his lawyers walking away along with Kean distancing herself a bit is a far more important development.
EDIT: Didn't see Ravi's suggetion above untill I posted. I'll stop now
Ravi
Senior Member.
It is merely a suggestion, we live a democracy.EDIT: Didn't see Ravi's suggetion above untill I posted. I'll stop now
Stealth777
New Member
Oh very sorry should have been more detailed about what I meant. Didn't mean physically more like, example: "you know MR. Rose this could damage your company and who you stand for, if this goes sideways on you". hint , hint , nudge. I just really hope David G does have real evidence , even if we can not be show but leads to a investigation because there really is something going on in the shadows of our lights.
Ann K
Senior Member.
That's an assertion without evidence, and it's the evidence that we need FIRST before we reach that conclusion. The "something" may be all smoke and mirrors. I know, there are always going to be governmental secrets to which we are not privy, but that's as it should be. That doesn't mean that we just accept Grusch's assertions.
It's very easy for someone to claim that "they're keeping secrets", but when someone says "they're keeping secrets but I know what they are", it's appropriate to ask a lot of questions, such as how does he know, who told him, can he prove it, and (perhaps most importantly) what's his motivation for blurting it out.
John J.
Senior Member.
Easy Tiger!
I don't see anything in NorCal Dave's post that impugns Chris Mellon's reputation or that attacks his credibility, unless we choose to interpret (probably accurate) evidence of Mellon's interests and associates in a negative way.
Chris Mellon was an advisor (and reportedly shareholder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Mellon) in the "To The Stars" company (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)), which seems to be a good place to go if you're selling magic beans:
(My emphasis- obviously an amazing claim which it appears the claimant has back-pedalled on).External Quote:
Chris Mellon has referred to Luis Elizondo as a colleague, in what appears to be a positive context
...in "The military keeps encountering UFOs. Why doesn't the Pentagon care?", Christopher Mellon, Washington Post 9th March 2018 (Link here).External Quote:
Apologies to Mr Elizondo in advance if I'm mistaken, but I think it's fair to say that some of his claims about UAPs, and US government knowledge about them, are not widely accepted.
In the same article, Mellon writes
...referring to President Putin's boasts about Russian weapons systems on 1st March 2018.External Quote:
Useful summary here, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/advanced-military-technology-russia/03-putins-super-weapons,
"Advanced military technology in Russia", Bendett, S., Boulègue, M. et al, 2021, Chatham House
Mellon was clearly implying that Putin's superoruzhie ('super weapons') might be based on ETI technology.
Considering Mellon's past employment and experience, this is an extraordinary statement. Russia has a long history of competent missile (and other weapons) development. And as it happens, Putin's hypersonic missiles don't represent any form of "propulsion breakthrough".
"Why the 'hypersonic missile' Russia says it just used in Ukraine isn't as advanced as it sounds", Alex Hollings of Sandboxx News, Business Insider 21 March 2022, on Business Insider (link here)External Quote:
I've no reason to doubt that Chris Mellon is a decent, intelligent and hard-working man.
But I think it's legitimate to be aware of his chosen associates, and statements that he's made in the public realm, in the context of UAP investigations.
I think I agree with his main "political" views on the matter- that it makes sense to investigate UAP reports because they might have defence significance (even if they've not been found to in the past). But any role for To The Stars or Mr Elizondo in such investigations is surely at least questionable, unless they're prepare to support their extraordinary claims with at least some testable evidence.
And implying that Putin's armed forces might have ETI-derived technology is both extraordinary and unhelpful.
I'll start a new thread on Sunday for the full interview.
(Or someone else can, I might busy being interviewed myself!)
tjskep
Member
is this going to be the full interview that we have been getting bits and pieces of all week?
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
You are a media darling now
.Do we want a new thread that combines the 3(?) interviews in the OP and is concerned just with what is covered in those interviews?
That's what it seems like. It's on NewsNation, a 1-hour "Whistleblower Speaks" at 6 PT, 9 ET. , followed by a 1-hour special report. I'll be live on that at around 7:30 (Pacific)
I think all those three are clips from the loger interview, and likely will be included in tomorrow's show.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
If anything, Grusch hanging out with Corbell and Knapp at a Star Trek convention suggests prior friendship and shared interests with known hardcore ufologists.
The burden of proof reasonably rests on the claimant advancing Grusch was led to ufology by reliable and hard evidence discovered during his time at the UAPTF.
Stealth777
New Member
Wait a second , I might be wrong but that's why I am asking this. Could Corbell and Knapp and them be the ones that told David Grusch and they been feeding him the information to move this forward.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Before the David Grusch story came out, there was this post on Reddit below which was allegedly a post Eric Davis made.
It says that the whistleblower was Erics SSO - Special Security Officer.
The whisteblower seems to be David Grusch
Greenstreet mentioned that the timing of when Grusch was at the UAPTF, means that Stratton was probably still the lead at that time. Travis Taylor was the lead scientist at the UAPTF under stratton I think as well.
We also know that Lue Elizondo, who had also allegedly served at Afghanistan and was in Intel (Counter Intelligence)
said Grusch was his friend and former colleague.
If all this is accurate. You have connections between David Grusch and
Jay Stratton
Travis Taylor
Lue Elizondo
Eric Davis
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13swlvx/eric_davis_is_the_wapo_story_source/
It says that the whistleblower was Erics SSO - Special Security Officer.
The whisteblower seems to be David Grusch
Greenstreet mentioned that the timing of when Grusch was at the UAPTF, means that Stratton was probably still the lead at that time. Travis Taylor was the lead scientist at the UAPTF under stratton I think as well.
We also know that Lue Elizondo, who had also allegedly served at Afghanistan and was in Intel (Counter Intelligence)
said Grusch was his friend and former colleague.
If all this is accurate. You have connections between David Grusch and
Jay Stratton
Travis Taylor
Lue Elizondo
Eric Davis
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13swlvx/eric_davis_is_the_wapo_story_source/
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Of course they could but not just them. Also the likes of Stratton, Taylor, Elizondo and Davis whom @jackfrostvc just mentioned. And yet there's many more. It's a whole network of enthusiasts both within and without the government circles, including journalists such as Leslie Kean herself. It's hardly a conspiracy as their activities and mutual connections are somewhat public, and the part that isn't does not come across as a particularly sophisticated coordination of activities and stories. The latest Kean article is a case in point. You have to look at the bigger picture and the history for it to unfold properly.
Once upon a time. . .
. . . more specifically in 2007, three men with a shared interest in UFOs and the esoteric -- billionaire Robert Bigelow (from Nevada), his old friend Senator Harry Reid (also from Nevada), and James Lacatski from the Defense Intelligence Agency -- met to discuss their shared object of fascination. Later that year Lacatski visited Bigelow's Skinwalker Ranch where he "saw" a ghost from an observation trailer.
With Reid's help they lobbied congressional funding (USD 22 million) for their own brainchild, a contracted entity for UFO investigations, to exist loosely under the DoD. Various iterations of this entity have been successively called AASWAP, AATIP, UAPTF, AOIMSG and AARO over the years. The initial 22 million contract was awarded to Bigelow's Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), the sole applicant. Initially the entity was much more focused on the esoteric until Luis Elizondo, also a DoD insider, was picked by Reid to take Lacatski's place who was chasing ghosts a tad too eagerly. Whereas Elizondo's primary focus was to collect and analyze data on UAP.
There is no evidence indicating that any significant chunks of the defense budget was ever appropriated to a centralized UAP identification agency. The tiny appropriations disbursed for the AASWAP, due to political influence demonstrably pushed and headed by UFO enthusiasts, tells the opposite story. A separate UAP entity simply hasn't been a priority from a pure national security DoD perspective at the top command level. Otherwise they would have pushed for more appropriations and to keep pushing.
The above context is important since it illustrates that the AASWAP (and its direct successor entities) owes its existence to lobbying by UFO enthusiasts rather than DoD's official national security priorities. The complete list of these enthusiasts working together is a long one and unnecessary for establishing this fundamental scenario of an extensive ufologist lobby group as fact.
To recap: From the perspective of DoD core functions, the creation and operation of the AASWAP (and its successor entities) is a fringe exercise in compliance with congressional assignment and prompted by the merging of several political agendas within the Congress, which align with those of UFO enthusiasts both within and without the Government.
These agendas include a genuine interest in alien technology (e.g. Reid/Bigelow/Lacatski/Mellon and later Elizondo et al), concern for rival nation military capabilities (e.g. Rubio), as well as winning over an alien-believing demographic of voters in the name of public interest (congressmen across the aisle).
DoD is unlikely to express objections whenever this fringe entity secures funding from outside its core budget, concerns itself with mostly unclassified data, and strengthens Pentagon's public relations with the Congress and the general public. But as soon as they start sticking their noses into classified programs, the DoD has every reason to be concerned entirely irrespective of whether these programs involve aliens or not. Hence the consistent string of 'resigners-turned-whistleblowers' from the UAPTF/AARO.
Last edited:
Paladinhgwt
New Member
Just to make a point, If aliens were really buzzing our sky's, the govt not only knows this, but has recovered crashed crafts and bodies, they would be very scared.
They would not be able to keep this a secret for 80+ years just because they marked it classified / top secret. Edward Snowden himself, said he looked and couldn't find any references to aliens.
If true the dod wouldn't spend 22 million ( 0.001%) of the 2 trillion budget on this.
Furthermore according to the account only the govt recovers these crafts, not a farmer with a cell phone or whatever. Ie no evidence other than David Grusch statement.
Occam's razor and all, this account is not true.
They would not be able to keep this a secret for 80+ years just because they marked it classified / top secret. Edward Snowden himself, said he looked and couldn't find any references to aliens.
If true the dod wouldn't spend 22 million ( 0.001%) of the 2 trillion budget on this.
Furthermore according to the account only the govt recovers these crafts, not a farmer with a cell phone or whatever. Ie no evidence other than David Grusch statement.
Occam's razor and all, this account is not true.
Mendel
Senior Member.
An attorney is the last person I'd threaten like this, this could "go sideways" really quickly for the person making the threats.
If someone from the government talked to his lawyers it was probably to remind them that neither they nor their client are authorized to be in possession of classified documents. (I assume the lawyer does not have a high level security clearance).
If the client hands their lawyer some classified documents "to hang onto" for them in case the FBI searches the clients home the lawyer is now in unauthorized possession of classified documents, and in trouble themselves. Unless the lawyer has dealt with national security issues before they may wish to keep arms length. There are issues involved beyond those encountered in handling DUI cases.
Mendel
Senior Member.
This firm routinely represents whistleblowers and has dealt with national security issues before. Example:
Article: On Friday, January 31, 2020, the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association named Andrew P. Bakaj and his co-counsel, Mark S. Zaid, "Lawyers of the Year" for their work representing the Intelligence Community Whistleblower whose disclosure led to the 2019 Impeachment Inquiry.
Note that in their Grusch release, they refer to "alleged classified information" throughout, i.e. it looks like they're maintaining that they didn't have first-hand knowledge that this information was classified.
Note also that their client obtained official clearance to speak on his complaint to the press, likely at the behest of his lawyers.
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
This 2019 news release from the Office of the Inspector General says that in Urgent matters, they will accept whistleblower complaints with second hand knowledge
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Stealth777
New Member
So David had a foot in the door and now half his body is in. And if he has a clear photo or Video even paper documents of UFO'S he is going to be heard for sure. I wonder will more people step forward and start talking.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Grusch's lawyer was the original ICIG:
Article: Grusch is represented by Charles McCullough III, senior partner of the Compass Rose Legal Group in Washington and the original Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2011. At that time, McCullough reported directly to the then-Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, and oversaw intelligence officers responsible for audits, inspections, and investigations.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Compare:
Article: In May 2022, McCullough filed a Disclosure of Urgent Concern(s); Complaint of Reprisal on behalf of Grusch with the ICIG about detailed information that Grusch had gathered beginning in 2019 while working for the UAP Task Force.
An unclassified version of the complaint provided to us states that Grusch has direct knowledge that UAP-related classified information has been withheld and/or concealed from Congress by "elements" of the intelligence community "to purposely and intentionally thwart legitimate Congressional oversight of the UAP Program." All testimony Grusch provided for the classified complaint was provided under oath.
According to the unclassified complaint, in July 2021, Grusch had confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress.
It seems Leslie Kean has enough access to the unclassified complaint to quote from it. I would really like to see that document published. It's the best piece of evidence they have.
For example, we could then easily see how much of Grusch's testimony is actually first-hand.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
He has not seen photos:
Article: Grusch also said he has not seen photos of the alleged craft himself, but has spoken extensively with other intelligence officials who have.
At this point, I believe all Grush knows is that there is/was a crash retrieval program that might have retrieved unidentified objects, and the rest is rumors and conjecture.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Nope. We don't know Grush knows about any crash retrieval programs. We know he believes there are/have been crash retrieval programs.
Crash investigations during which government agencies recover classified material and data are known to happen. Whether these 'crash retrievals', say regarding crashes of foreign military vessels, constitute some distinct top secret programs under DoD is speculation.
ManInBlack
Active Member
These claims are wild. So wild in fact that I'm surprised the American congress is not addressing this in the public immediately. If this was in my country, the claims would be dismissed immediately and psychological evaluations would be done on anyone making these claims. If they were still in the establishment they would probably be dismissed. These are the same people making serious decisions for the public after all, it's concerning...
ImagoDei
New Member
Okay, help me out with this one. Maybe I'm just missing something.
According to the original Debrief article:
But congressmen like Mike Turner (House Intelligence Committee) have said as recently as last Tuesday that there is no evidence of retrieved craft, or a materials recovery program (source). Would this not imply that Congress has already determined the information provided by Grusch to be insufficient to verify his claims? If so, I don't understand the current "it's now for Congress to get to the bottom of it one way or another" line. Wouldn't congressional denials (like Turner's and Himes') suggest they've already gotten to the bottom of it, and there's nothing there?
Would this mean that future congressional hearings would be limited to the *materially distinct* claim that Grusch suffered retaliation for his disclosures? Let me know if I'm all wet on this one...
According to the original Debrief article:
But congressmen like Mike Turner (House Intelligence Committee) have said as recently as last Tuesday that there is no evidence of retrieved craft, or a materials recovery program (source). Would this not imply that Congress has already determined the information provided by Grusch to be insufficient to verify his claims? If so, I don't understand the current "it's now for Congress to get to the bottom of it one way or another" line. Wouldn't congressional denials (like Turner's and Himes') suggest they've already gotten to the bottom of it, and there's nothing there?
Would this mean that future congressional hearings would be limited to the *materially distinct* claim that Grusch suffered retaliation for his disclosures? Let me know if I'm all wet on this one...
captancourgette
Senior Member
I agree. I've said riffs on this many times in the past.
What do they get from covering it up?
If they had evidence of ETs surely it is in their own self interest in sharing this info
'We have found evidence of ETs, So we need 10s of billions of dollars to study them and protect the American public from this threat'
The blank check from congress practically writes itself
It is not in their own financial self interests in keeping this info quiet
ManInBlack
Active Member
Are there any legal consequences for lying to the public...i.e fines, jail?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Not per se.
Don't lie to law enforcement. (obstruction)
Don't lie under oath. (perjury)
Don't lie for financial gain. (fraud)
Don't lie to make other people look bad. (defamation, calumny)
The list goes on (and this is not legal advice).
Rick Robson
Active Member
I'm gonna wait for Grusch's testimony and see what happens when he drops the name of the program like Stargate or MK ultra — it didn't take long for those programs to unravel once the lid was lifted on them
Pepijn van Erp
Member
So, according to Grusch, the Vatican knows about the UFO allegedly recovered in Italy in 1933. In the original Italian version of the story on Mussolini's UFO, however, the Vatican plays no role. On the contrary, one of the (presumably forged) documents is a protocol that explicitly states that the Papal University should not be informed (is included among the institutes that should not receive reports), everything should go exclusively through the secret Cabinet RS/33. This indicates again that the story got to ufologists in the US via Billy Brophy as he mentions that Mussolini informed the Pope.
(picture from p7. in Pinotti's report Gli X Files del Fascismo)
(picture from p7. in Pinotti's report Gli X Files del Fascismo)
Attachments
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Good find. Note that Metabunk's link policy requires to quote your source before you paraphrase it, like so:
Article: U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Dayton, declined to comment to the Dayton Daily News on the subject. Turner is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has long advocated for NASIC and Wright-Patterson. He is a member of the "Gang of Eight," the eight Congressional leaders who are briefed on the most sensitive classified intelligence questions by the executive branch.
On Tuesday evening, Turner told Bret Baier on Fox News that there's nothing particularly new about these claims.
"Bret, this has been a story since the 1960s," Turner said on Fox's Special Report with Bret Baier. "Really every decade there have been individuals who have said that the United States has such pieces of unidentified flying objects that are from outer space. There is no evidence of this. And certainly, there (would) be quite a conspiracy for this to be maintained, especially at this level."
Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the committee, agreed with Turner on the lack of evidence.
"We did have a hearing, in fact we have had two hearings in the last couple of years on this subject," Himes told Baier. "And I asked a question in the second hearing, because of course we hear this kind of notion that has been out there forever that the United States government is hiding materials that we are hiding aliens or whatever. I asked a very specific question which is do we have any sort of matter, organic or inorganic or whatever, that we can't explain as to its source. Now this was a year, maybe a year-and-a-half ago, and the answer was an unequivocal no."
What they're saying is basically that they'd know if a program like that existed, and they don't, so it doesn't.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Here are some of my takeaway impressions from the NewsNation interview. Yes, I freely admit I'm asking more questions than answering them!
They start with the old trope "Decide for yourself", but can that be done honestly with only anonymously sourced hearsay to go on?
Is his eagerness to talk publicly a sign that perhaps he should never have been given a security clearance in the first place? I would have thought the ability to keep one's mouth shut to be a requirement for clearance.
Might there be an unofficial organization within an organization that consists of "the usual suspects" of UFO believers that sounded Grusch out as a potential member but shut him out when they deemed him unreliable?
Per post #345 from @Mendel Grusch said he had not seen photos, but in the interview (11:00) he clearly claims he has.
About 14:30 he talks about a "sophisticated disinformation campaign" to deceive the public. I can't help wondering if such a campaign exists to promulgate a UFO narrative rather than to hide it, and if he himself (perhaps unwittingly) is a part of it.
That's only the first portion of the video that I've seen so far.
They start with the old trope "Decide for yourself", but can that be done honestly with only anonymously sourced hearsay to go on?
Is his eagerness to talk publicly a sign that perhaps he should never have been given a security clearance in the first place? I would have thought the ability to keep one's mouth shut to be a requirement for clearance.
Might there be an unofficial organization within an organization that consists of "the usual suspects" of UFO believers that sounded Grusch out as a potential member but shut him out when they deemed him unreliable?
Per post #345 from @Mendel Grusch said he had not seen photos, but in the interview (11:00) he clearly claims he has.
About 14:30 he talks about a "sophisticated disinformation campaign" to deceive the public. I can't help wondering if such a campaign exists to promulgate a UFO narrative rather than to hide it, and if he himself (perhaps unwittingly) is a part of it.
That's only the first portion of the video that I've seen so far.
Mendel
Senior Member.
His language is maddeningly unprecise.
"I've seen some interesting photos." — so have I, dude
"The US have spacecraft" — yes, and their liftoff is usually televised
Why can't he state explicitly what he's implying? What's the point here? And why is the interviewer satisfied with that?
Rick Robson
Active Member
Both the interviewer and the interviewed sound like behaving that way on purpose. Maybe to end up making all the UFO stuff once and for all laughable to the general public?
Ravi
Senior Member.
The person that interviewed Mick (forgot his name but also from News Nation), was a lot more skeptical, at least he sounded like it. That person should get more on the forefront, over mr Coulthard who seems to be already convinced..
- Status
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
Thread '"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"'
- Mick West
Replies: 22 -
Thread 'Claim: Election Truth Alliance "proves" voter fraud in Clark County, NV'- Peter Delaney
Replies: 15 -
-