David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint

tobigtofool said:
Are you saying for a fact the urgent and credible complaint he made was not about retaliation, and about something else the IG decided was urgent and credible?
Click to expand...
Grusch's IC IG complaint is at the top of the thread, in post #2.
• Find it!
• Read it! (3 pages)
• If there's anything in it that seems unclear to you, quote & ask!

Then think about why we have the complaint, but not the IC IG response. Grusch's attorneys said the case was concluded, so the IC IG definitely responded, and it would be up to Grusch to have that published. In your lingo, ask yourself why Grusch is "covering up" the response, and only gave us the complaint.
 
Last edited:
Mendel said:
ask yourself why Grusch is "covering up" the response, and only gave us the complaint.
Click to expand...

Because they're trying to stretch the story for virality?

To get strangers arguing online so later they can release it and we'll paste links to settle arguments they forgot about and run up the clicks?

I am expecting that he will release that information eventually:

Mick West said:
Ross seems to say there's more to this aspect, which we will learn soon, where the DoD complaint was inspected.
Click to expand...

The only thing we can do is wait and find out what truth we are given access to.
 
Last edited:
The DOPSR, IG complaints and everything non classified will become available eventually. We have Elizondos interview with the IG investigators, and some documents from his complaint. The issue I see is that this story might gather wings before we can verify his claims. To me the "urgent and credible" debate will go away once we have more information from the documents IG has and their investigation.
 
AliceTheMalice said:
The DOPSR, IG complaints and everything non classified will become available eventually. We have Elizondos interview with the IG investigators, and some documents from his complaint. The issue I see is that this story might gather wings before we can verify his claims. To me the "urgent and credible" debate will go away once we have more information from the documents IG has and their investigation.
Click to expand...

The transcript of the Elizondo interview is a fascinating read indeed, corroborating a lot that we've already covered here. I got hooked reading it, like a cheap novel. :p I wonder if someone's able to post the transcript here properly? It really unravels the whole dynamics quite well.

A little taster (W is Lou and IO#1 is one of the DoD IG investigators):

IO#1: And under evaluation by whom?
W: By the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency, DCSA.
IO#1: Roger, sir. And why are you currently having your clearance reevaluated?
W: I was contacted by a DCSA investigator approximately one month ago, and there were two allegations. One allegation was that there were three -- while I was a DoD employee, I had released three videos, unclassified videos to the public. And the other allegation was that [redacted]
Click to expand...

The case Grusch seems to read like case Lou in many, many ways.
 
The DoD IG interviewed Elizondo for him to be heard because he wanted to be heard. Not because the DoD IG had some prior concerns that led them to him. However, the DoD IG's office, according to the transcript, was solely interested in Lou's allegation of reprisals through restricted clearance. Not in aliens. The Grusch case seems like a spitting image.

IO#1: Well part of our work, sir, is making sure that everybody that wants to be heard is heard. And that's what we did today, you know, give you an opportunity. Tell me your story. Let's talk about what happened, and then we will, you know, balance what you've told us today against the statutes that were in play and the regulations that govern us in terms of our jurisdictional authority, things like that. And we will go from there.
Click to expand...
 
LilWabbit said:
However, the DoD IG's office, according to the transcript, was solely interested in Lou's allegation of reprisals through restricted clearance. Not in aliens. The Grusch case seems like a spitting image.
Click to expand...
Elizondo's reprisal complaint failed. Note that their standard isn't "access", but "eligibility for access".
Article:
In addition to this, other key records became available, including a February 16, 2022, letter from Nilgen Tolek, Director of the Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations within the DoD/OIG, wherein it was stated that, “The evidence we reviewed does not support your client’s reprisal complaint because no action affecting his eligibility for access to classified information was taken or threatened against him.”

Tolek continued, “Your client’s eligibility for access to classified information remains intact. Accordingly, we are closing his case.”

Also in February 2022, Compass Rose had started representing David Grusch.
 
Last edited:
An excerpt from the DoD IG's Single Audit Program that carries out internal audits reviewing the effectiveness and compliance of DoD internal processes rather than being merely concerned with standard financial audits (highlights added):

Article:

Mission​

To provide audit policy guidance, direction, and oversight on matters related to single audits of DoD Federal awards received or administered by States, local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, and non-profit organizations (non-Federal entities).

Responsibilities​

The Single Audit Policy and Oversight Division of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General performs the following functions as a cognizant agency for audit responsibilities:
  • Provides technical audit advice to auditors and auditees.
  • Conducts desk and quality control reviews of selected audits.
  • Informs affected Federal agencies of auditee's illegal acts.
  • Advises auditors and auditees of audit report deficiencies.
  • Coordinates audit responsibilities among several sets of auditors.
  • Provides advice on resolution responsibility for audit findings/recommendations that impact DoD programs.
  • Provides advice to auditees regarding changes in fiscal years.
  • Provides advice on annual updated to the OMB Compliance Supplement


According to the DoD OIG inspector in the Lou Elizondo interview transcript, the DoD "owns" the security clearances to DoD information granted to the contracted entity (UAPTF). For any mishandling, the DoD OIG is duty-bound to "inform affected federal agencies of illegal acts".

In other words, the DoD OIG is duty-bound to rat on Lou or Grusch if it deems something illegal is going on. Indeed it seems the OIG was easy on Lou but case Grusch, which was maybe seen as an alarming repetition and escalation of case Lou by an individual that seems more unhinged, was perhaps deemed too much not to act upon.
 
LilWabbit said:
In other words, the DoD OIG is duty-bound to rat on Lou or Grusch if it deems something illegal is going on.
Click to expand...
We don't have grounds to suggest that Elizondo or Grusch did anything illegal.

(I expect they'd have been charged and disciplined if that was the case.)
 
Mendel said:
We don't have grounds to suggest that Elizondo or Grusch did anything illegal.

(I expect they'd have been charged and disciplined if that was the case.)
Click to expand...

Obtaining and releasing classified videos would well qualify as illegal if outside Lou's clearance. Hence, even according to the transcript, Lou was 'threatened' by consequences by unnamed individuals. In Grusch's case if he had obtained classified information outside his clearance, it would obviously also constitute an illegal act. It's hard to tell from the outside whether anything illegal actually occurred or didn't occur.

The DoD criminal investigations branch (also under the DoD OIG) may deem not to pursue a suspect with charges if the violations are regarded as minor compared to the legal consequences of the minimum charges (a type of proportionality principle that is usually part and parcel of modern criminal law).

In any case, the DoD OIG appears well-placed under its mandate to alert the DoD of any acts compromising security including information security. Such acts are, to a large extent, criminalized by various statutes as well as internal DoD provisions.
 
In the Dutch tabloid Nieuwe Revu, Max Moszkovicz published an article on the situation surrounding Grusch. The magazine (paper) came out today. It also includes a short interview with Grusch, which I reproduce here in translation. Grusch is telling us that the alien tech that he claims is withheld from us would give us clean energy and that keeping it secret is a crime against humanity.

Are you under any threat because of what you are bringing out now?
'I cannot comment on that, but very unpleasant things have happened both on a personal and career level.'

Why are you sounding the alarm?
'I know that the US Department of Defence is withholding crucial information from Congress, particularly on the possession of uaps and body remains of aliens by our intelligence agencies. They refuse to share crucial information and deny its existence. It is even a criminal offence to withhold that information from your elected officials. That is why I started sounding the alarm.

How were you able to do that? Do you have some kind of security clearance?
'That is partly because of the NDAA whistleblower act that guarantees protection for whistleblowers. I filed a complaint in May 2022 and had an intelligence officer testimony prepared.'

How did you get the inspector general to let you share the information about the Mussolini uap?
'Because this uap crash took place on Italian soil and that, moreover, it happened almost 90 years ago.'

Are only America and Italy involved in this?
'No, there are also known cases in Russia, for example. It even culminated in a race with the Russians as to who could master uap technology first.'

What is the most important thing this uap technology can offer humanity?
'One of the most scandalous aspects of withholding the technology is that while we could have been generating clean energy for decades, we deliberately keep polluting the earth with oil. Climate change tech is being withheld. This technology potentially has a huge positive impact on the ecosystem. The Department of Energy, which is also part of the secret services, has some explaining to do because this is a crime against humanity and the earth. We are using the tech for war and not for peace and nature. The people withholding this will have to seek amnesty for crimes against humanity somewhere one day.'

Are there people who have tried to raise this before?
'Yes, but they disappeared, or were silenced with heavy threats. This is life-threatening knowledge.'




Nieuwe Revu Grusch.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Pepijn van Erp said:
Grusch is telling us that the alien tech that he claims is withheld from us would give us clean energy and that keeping it secret is a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...
This article sounds like an escalation of his claims, making them sound even more serious (and any perceived "risk" to himself more immanent) than previous statements. And yet to my ears, the more loudly he protests, the more paranoid and less believable he sounds.
 
Ann K said:
This article sounds like an escalation of his claims, making them sound even more serious (and any perceived "risk" to himself more immanent) than previous statements. And yet to my ears, the more loudly he protests, the more paranoid and less believable he sounds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wondered if he would start to ratchet up the claims, especially if the story started to fade. This is the first, I think, mentioning clean energy and the potential to solve climate change. The plot thickens.
 
Pepijn van Erp said:
...[T]he Dutch tabloid Nieuwe Revu.... ...includes a short interview with Grusch
Click to expand...
The people withholding this will have to seek amnesty for crimes against humanity somewhere one day.
Content from External Source
(David Grusch, Nieuwe Revu interview as posted above).

First, sounds like the sort of language used by some people (who have mistaken and, frankly, dangerously unpleasant beliefs) to badger Anthony Fauci (chief medical advisor to the President, 2021-2022).

Second, withholding useful information or resources isn't illegal in itself, no matter how beneficial its use might be, AFAIK.
There are too many obvious real-world examples to labour the point, whatever the ethical rights and wrongs.


"At the very least, I saw substantive evidence that white-collar crime was committed," he said.
"I’ve heard some really un-American things I don’t want to repeat right now."
Content from External Source
David Grusch quoted in the Daily Mail by reporter Jen Smith, 12 June 2023 (link here).

It's a bit of a leap from "substantive evidence that white-collar crime was committed" to accusing (and apparently pre-judging) someone of "...crimes against humanity", in the space of 16 days or so.

Publicly accusing people of "crimes against humanity" is -or should be- one of the most serious allegations one can make.
It can arouse hatred, perhaps leading to harm, towards the accused party.
Grusch appears to be accusing people within the United States' Armed Forces of crimes against humanity, without providing any evidence.
If such claims are made without basis, then they're the claims of an extremist or bully. They make innocent people fearful, and make decent institutions targets for the anger of the misguided (or just violently-inclined).

Unless he provides some convincing evidence to back up his increasingly troubling claims, say, within the week, I think I'll lose any respect I might have had for David Grusch.
 
John J. said:
Unless he provides some convincing evidence to back up his increasingly troubling claims, say, within the week, I think I'll lose any respect I might have had for David Grusch.
Click to expand...
If you asked him, he'd probably say that it's classified, and that he's testified to Congress.
 
Mendel said:
If you asked him, he'd probably say that it's classified, and that he's testified to Congress.
Click to expand...
And who knows, that might even be true. And if true, it's a fair point.

But it STILL leaves us in the usual position that previous claims of "The Government has captured/crashed/shot-down UFOs and is keeping them a secret from the public" -- no evidence that we, the public, can see and evaluate, and so no basis for believing the claim other than "it would be a cool story if true, so I believe it" or "well, I don't trust the government, so I believe it!"
 
JMartJr said:
And who knows, that might even be true. And if true, it's a fair point.

But it STILL leaves us in the usual position that previous claims of "The Government has captured/crashed/shot-down UFOs and is keeping them a secret from the public" -- no evidence that we, the public, can see and evaluate, and so no basis for believing the claim other than "it would be a cool story if true, so I believe it" or "well, I don't trust the government, so I believe it!"
Click to expand...
I'm convinced that the government, in a stunning display of naïveté, actually thought that showing the public some of the videos and reports they've amassed would satisfy both believers and skeptics. On the contrary, skeptics are still skeptics, believers are still believers, and the subject still continues to provoke debates that never really settle the matter. Grush and his comments just stir the conspiracy pot but provide no evidence at all.
 
Ann K said:
I'm convinced that the government, in a stunning display of naïveté, actually thought that showing the public some of the videos and reports they've amassed would satisfy both believers and skeptics.
Click to expand...
Unless I've missed something, though, the big attention-getting videos and stories coming out of the government were initially leaked rather than intentionally released by the government.

But yeah, the government can't "disclose" enough to satisfy those that are convinced that they are hiding The Truth -- I remember when Project Blue Book files were made available at the National Archives, and going up there with a friend to "research" a story for the school newspaper, running the rolls of film through the readers to look at all the documentation and pictures that did not amount to much. Similar situation when the CIA, in response to an FOA request, released their files that had anything to do with UFOs. Turns out they didn't have anything significant to "disclose" either.

This collection catalogues CIA information on this subject from the 1940s through the early 1990s. Most of the documents concern CIA cables reporting unsubstantiated UFO sightings in the foreign press and intra-Agency memos about how the Agency handled public inquiries about UFO sightings.
Content from External Source
Source: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/ufos-fact-or-fiction

Actual disclosure seems to be, consistently, "Well, we looked but as far as we can tell there is nothing much to this" or "actually we never cared much about this topic at all."
 
"If they’re out there, they’re out there, and if they have this kind of technology, then they could turn us into a charcoal briquette," (Rep. Tim) Burchett said.

The House Oversight Committee is preparing a hearing to discuss Grusch's unverified claims. Burchett (Republican Rep. of Tennessee) and fellow Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida will lead the committee's investigation.
Content from External Source
https://www.foxnews.com/us/congressman-has-grim-take-after-access-to-ufo-footage-we-cant-handle-it

Would like to be a fly on the wall during the classified portions of that hearing.
 
Duke said:
"If they’re out there, they’re out there, and if they have this kind of technology, then they could turn us into a charcoal briquette," (Rep. Tim) Burchett said.

The House Oversight Committee is preparing a hearing to discuss Grusch's unverified claims. Burchett (Republican Rep. of Tennessee) and fellow Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida will lead the committee's investigation.
Content from External Source
https://www.foxnews.com/us/congressman-has-grim-take-after-access-to-ufo-footage-we-cant-handle-it

Would like to be a fly on the wall during the classified portions of that hearing.
Click to expand...
If you're not sure who Tim Burchett is, he is the former mayor of Knoxville TN, and pretty much a stereotype of the of the worst of the right wing. (Bolding mine)

Burchett appeared here last month when he declared that UFOs are real because it says so in the Bible.

Burchett also appeared here in April 2023 when he blamed a mass shooting in his home state on a lack of Jesus in public schools. Days earlier, Burchett claimed that “people who pray” never commit mass shootings.

Burchett earned national headlines that month when he declared that there’s simply no way to “fix” the epidemic of mass shootings.
Content from External Source
https://www.joemygod.com/2023/07/gop-bill-would-require-trans-men-to-register-for-draft/

Anna Paulina Luna is more of the same, following the agenda of congress' loonier fringe.

In a November 2018 Fox News segment, she compared Hillary Clinton to herpes, leading the network to cut the segment short and host Rick Leventhal and anchor Arthel Neville to apologize to viewers.[14]

During the 2023 Speaker of the House election, Luna voted against Kevin McCarthy on the first 11 ballots, instead nominating Representative Jim Jordan and later Representative Byron Donalds.[28]

In May 2023, Luna co-sponsored resolutions by Marjorie Taylor Greene to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland,[29] FBI Director Christopher Wray,[30] Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas,[31] and U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matthew M. Graves.[32]

In May 2023, Luna sponsored a resolution to have Adam Schiff removed from Congress and fined $16 million.[33]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Paulina_Luna

i wouldn't expect an unbiased examination of Grusch's statements.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
"If they’re out there, they’re out there, and if they have this kind of technology, then they could turn us into a charcoal briquette," (Rep. Tim) Burchett said.

The House Oversight Committee is preparing a hearing to discuss Grusch's unverified claims. Burchett (Republican Rep. of Tennessee) and fellow Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida will lead the committee's investigation.
Content from External Source
https://www.foxnews.com/us/congressman-has-grim-take-after-access-to-ufo-footage-we-cant-handle-it

Would like to be a fly on the wall during the classified portions of that hearing.
Click to expand...
Here's the ful linterview where that quote came from:

At 12:10 is the buildup to that quote:

Q Have you seen more compelling evidence than what's out there publicly?
A Heck yes
Q Do you think they [the pentagon] can make a case to you not to spill the beans [because of security reasons] if you find out
A No, I don't think they could [...] we've been dealing with this at least since 1947 [...] if they're out there, they're out there and if they have this kind of technology they could turn us into a charcoal briquette [...] we couldn't fight them off when we wanted to. That's why I don't think they're a threat to us or they would already have been.
Content from External Source
Interesting to see how this 'charcoal' quote is often taken out of context in the media as if Burchett warns we are in danger while he actually meant to say the opposite.
 
Itsme said:
Interesting to see how this 'charcoal' quote is often taken out of context in the media as if Burchett warns we are in danger while he actually meant to say the opposite.
Click to expand...
No, to any authoritarian this is absolutely a threat. "Ain't nobody tellin' us what to do" and they need to feel they're the strongest. If there are aliens who could outgun us, it's a cause to start freedom fightin'.
 
From @Itsme post above, I find this quote a bit more interesting:


Q Have you seen more compelling evidence than what's out there publicly?
A Heck yes
Q Do you think they [the pentagon] can make a case to you not to spill the beans [because of security reasons] if you find out
A No, I don't think they could [...] we've been dealing with this at least since 1947
Content from External Source
Burchett is saying IF he finds out this stuff is true, he WILL tell the public. But he also says he's seen more compelling evidence, that so far, he's hasn't shared, So where does that leave us?

Should be some fun hearings. We're might get a lot of hearsay with no real evidence, classified you know. We may get the usual suspects, Elizondo, Davis maybe Graves and some other pilots, a confused Salas talking about nukes being deactivated maybe Art's Parts or other bits of meta-materials, but again, no real evidence. Or maybe an actual crashed flying saucer! We'll see.
 
NorCal Dave said:
From @Itsme post above, I find this quote a bit more interesting:


Q Have you seen more compelling evidence than what's out there publicly?
A Heck yes
Q Do you think they [the pentagon] can make a case to you not to spill the beans [because of security reasons] if you find out
A No, I don't think they could [...] we've been dealing with this at least since 1947
Content from External Source
Burchett is saying IF he finds out this stuff is true, he WILL tell the public. But he also says he's seen more compelling evidence, that so far, he's hasn't shared, So where does that leave us?

Should be some fun hearings. We're might get a lot of hearsay with no real evidence, classified you know. We may get the usual suspects, Elizondo, Davis maybe Graves and some other pilots, a confused Salas talking about nukes being deactivated maybe Art's Parts or other bits of meta-materials, but again, no real evidence. Or maybe an actual crashed flying saucer! We'll see.
Click to expand...
think the last part would fall under classified though lol
 
NorCal Dave said:
From @Itsme post above, I find this quote a bit more interesting:


Q Have you seen more compelling evidence than what's out there publicly?
A Heck yes
Q Do you think they [the pentagon] can make a case to you not to spill the beans [because of security reasons] if you find out
A No, I don't think they could [...] we've been dealing with this at least since 1947
Content from External Source
Burchett is saying IF he finds out this stuff is true, he WILL tell the public. But he also says he's seen more compelling evidence, that so far, he's hasn't shared, So where does that leave us?
Click to expand...
I had the exact same thought, there's a disconnect between his "if they are out there" comment and his claims to have seen classified information confirming their existence.

NorCal Dave said:
Should be some fun hearings. We're might get a lot of hearsay with no real evidence, classified you know. We may get the usual suspects, Elizondo, Davis maybe Graves and some other pilots, a confused Salas talking about nukes being deactivated maybe Art's Parts or other bits of meta-materials, but again, no real evidence. Or maybe an actual crashed flying saucer! We'll see.
Click to expand...
I'd settle for seeing whatever Burchett claims he's already seen.
 
Ann K said:
Well ...he says has seen UFOs in the bible...
Click to expand...
I saw you mentioned that yesterday. According to Wiki, Burchett is a Presbyterian. Interesting to me in that one of my best friends is a Southern Baptist pastor, and his claim is exactly the opposite. He says there are no aliens/UFOs because they aren't mentioned in the Bible. He believes what people are seeing/experiencing are demonic.
 
NorCal Dave said:
In my earlier days, I was a Bible study leader, and I don't remember studying a lot of UFO verses. Maybe Ezikiel's Wheel and the Cherubim. Might actually make a fun thread.
Click to expand...

There was 'war in heaven'.....Revelations 12..... ( which is actually described as a literal place...not some ethereal realm ) and 1/3 of the angels were cast out, and down to Earth. Straight out of Star Wars. There's actually an entire sub-culture of UFOlogy, going back to the 70s, based on UFOs being demons....and the main adherents do seem to be southern USA religious types.
 
Duke said:
I had the exact same thought, there's a disconnect between his "if they are out there" comment and his claims to have seen classified information confirming their existence.


I'd settle for seeing whatever Burchett claims he's already seen.
Click to expand...

Burchett was a true believer in ET and a government cover-up even before Grusch, based on pilot testimony and stories. There's a vid from January where he talks about it that I posted on a different thread after reports he would probably head the hearing. From watching a bunch of interviews with him, including recent ones, I expect the hearing to be more of a pony show with testimony about UAP from Fravor and Graves (Graves and Crispin have been doing the rounds in DC this week for their Americans for Safe Aerospace org, and the hearing is supposed to the at the end of the month), and similar discussion of UAPs, possibly revisiting old cases (Rep. Luna on an OutKick interview mentioned "UAP data dating back to Project Blue Book"). I would also like to be a fly on the wall for that hearing.
 
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but I found this interesting. With regards to the claim that the ICIG found Grusch's claims to be "credible and urgent", I've never been quite sure if that meant his claims of having been retaliated against were deemed credible and urgent, or if was his claim about UAP information being withheld from congress that were deemed so instead.

According to the Compass Rose legal group (https://compassrosepllc.com/news/):

"The ICIG found Mr. Grusch’s assertion that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible in response to the filed disclosure. Compass Rose brought this matter to the ICIG’s attention through lawful channels and successfully defended Mr. Grusch against retaliation."

Thankfully that clears the question up for me.
 
Last edited:
MonkeeSage said:
Burchett was a true believer in ET and a government cover-up even before Grusch, based on pilot testimony and stories. There's a vid from January where he talks about it that I posted on a different thread after reports he would probably head the hearing. From watching a bunch of interviews with him, including recent ones, I expect the hearing to be more of a pony show with testimony about UAP from Fravor and Graves (Graves and Crispin have been doing the rounds in DC this week for their Americans for Safe Aerospace org, and the hearing is supposed to the at the end of the month), and similar discussion of UAPs, possibly revisiting old cases (Rep. Luna on an OutKick interview mentioned "UAP data dating back to Project Blue Book"). I would also like to be a fly on the wall for that hearing.
Click to expand...
Politicians like this, whether they are left or right, Q tards or Russian collusion conspiracists need to be called out and hopefully voted out of office. It's crazy for a person to say that wacky conspiracy theories and religion doesn't cause harm and people in power, whether they really believe this stuff or are just pandering and positioning to stay in power, need to go!
 
This is probably the best interview I've listened to with Leslie Kean:


Source: https://youtu.be/hjAyxA4sI1k


Ezra asks a lot of good questions that other interviewers haven't thought to, including several of interest to the folks here. One of these questions is regarding the pentagon clearing Grusch's statement for publication (essentially giving him the go-ahead to say what he wanted to say since it didn't violate national security or state secrets). Ezra correctly points out that that this is a very strange thing for the pentagon to do if what Grusch is revealing is actually true. If you want to publicly come out and tell the world about what essentially amounts to the biggest kept secret in the history of our nation, possibly even the world, the Pentagon isn't simply going to stamp off their approval and give you the go-ahead.

When she's asked about this, she grants that it's an interesting point and seems like she hadn't really thought about it much prior to this interview. She gives some possible reasons why the Pentagon might do so, some more plausible than others, but ultimately admits that she doesn't know and that it is an interesting question.

He also asks about just what it is she's claiming about the structure of these programs (for instance, her 2017 NYT claims Elizondo left AATIP because it was poorly funded and had a hard time being taken seriously by anyone in the pentagon, but this latest article makes incredible claims about the pentagon being in possession of crafts and bodies, why would such a disconnect exist between funding AATIP if the Grusch claims are true? Surely at least some people in the Pentagon have a bird's eye view of all the programs that exist under them).

He also asks about how she determines who is credible and who isn't, where "fringe" begins and ends, and about the more extraordinary claims Grusch went on to make in his 60 minutes interview with Ross Coulthardt that he did not make to Leslie, nor were discussed in her original piece (bodies, the Vatican, etc)

If only more interviewers were as good as Klein is here at asking the right sorts of questions. Major credit to him for this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
  • Locked
David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin
11 12 13
Replies
490
Views
86K
Mick West
Mick West
Amathia
On David Grusch's "whistleblowing" and other apparent (but not quite) nothing burgers
2 3 4
Replies
126
Views
14K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
18K
Don Kielty
D
K
George Knapp - Statement to Congress
Replies
17
Views
3K
nathan13
nathan13
Mick West
The "Chandelier" UFO
2
Replies
69
Views
13K
FatPhil
FatPhil

Latest posts

Back
Top