House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

Candy-O said:
Good point, and where is Assange now? Handing over a wad of stolen US documents is unwise.
Click to expand...
Your argument was, "Did you want him to present stolen documents? Those would be worthless."

My argument is, they wouldn't be worthless.
Grusch's claims are worthless to me because I don't trust them, and I can't investigate them.

Your base commander would have a classified meeting with the armed forces oversight committee (?), and the committee members would confirm his or her public claims. This has not yet happened with Grusch.
 
LilWabbit said:
I'm confused as to how Grusch cannot discuss contacts with ETs in a public setting whilst he can comfortably declare alien bodies or possibly body parts have been recovered from alien crafts (which is of course an old UFO trope). If the purpose of the DoD classification was to withhold all information and evidence on aliens from the public, then it's highly inconsistent to classify alien contacts but not their bodies. There are many more similar inconsistencies in Grusch's statements.
Click to expand...
I wish we had Grusch's full DOPSR cleared statement. Grusch is keeping it secret. Why?

So he can change and add on to his story from public sources whilst enjoying the reputation of secret knowledge?
 
Mendel said:
I wish we had Grusch's full DOPSR cleared statement. Grusch is keeping it secret. Why?

So he can change and add on to his story from public sources whilst enjoying the reputation of secret knowledge?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Or so he can't be called out for blatant errors that are easy to demonstrate and which he has come to realize afterwards.
 
Mendel said:
Your argument was, "Did you want him to present stolen documents? Those would be worthless."

My argument is, they wouldn't be worthless.
Grusch's claims are worthless to me because I don't trust them, and I can't investigate them.

Your base commander would have a classified meeting with the armed forces oversight committee (?), and the committee members would confirm his or her public claims. This has not yet happened with Grusch.
Click to expand...
And I granted that you brought up good examples where detailed documents were later verified. I suppose it depends on what kind of information is in the documents, and how specific those documents are. The onus would be on him to get the juicy stuff.

My broader point was that it would be difficult for him to present something tangible without having stolen it, and if it really were something significant comparable to WikiLeaks, would he not be at immediate risk for incarceration?
 
Mendel said:
The reason they're "illegal" is that Congress was supposed to be informed of anything UAP-related. The projects might be legal otherwise, and if Grusch is mistaken about their UAP character, they're 100% legal.
Click to expand...

Grusch is not just claiming lack of Congressional oversight, but also that there was syphoning off of funds. Misappropriation of funds would clearly make a project illegal. However, as with all these claims we do have the rather cart before horse issue of how did Grusch know the projects did not have Congressional oversight or proper funding....given that at the same time he is claiming he was denied access to those projects. How would anyone he spoke to know these details either, and I am not aware of him saying he spoke to any financial auditors.
 
beakflip said:
What about the bit where Grusch (I think) brings up holography as, what was my impression, a buzzword. I can't remember how he worded it. Was it just personal speculation? Or speculation on the part of the supposed programs studying the craft? As a claim he made, is there any scientific hypothesis about FTL travel or teleportation being possible, were the world indeed a hologram?
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be an 'expert' on physics, but my knowledge is considerable. The holographic principle is a means by which the equations of relativity ( and hence gravity ) can be derived from string theory by means of an encoding in lower dimensions. The term 'holographic' is a misnomer, as the result is not a hologram in the classic sense. The entire thing is really just a mathematical construct that allows relativity and quantum mechanics to be linked. It is, to date, just about the only thing in favour of string theory.....a theory increasingly coming under criticism as having failed to produce any results in 40 years or so.

There is nothing in the holographic principle that specifically generates the idea of overlapping realities or dimensions, as such concepts are already a part of quantum mechanics ( for example the many worlds interpretation ). Thus one does not really even need to invoke the holographic principle to envisage dimension jumping aliens and I'm surprised Grusch didn't simply mention the many worlds theorem that most people are rather more familiar with.

It's worth adding.....dimension jumping time travelers ( one hypothesis I have seen ) cannot jump to their own timeline or you get the 'grandfather paradox'. So the whole notion of time travelers from 'our' future coming back to prevent us having nuclear war is a logical and scientific absurdity. And the irony is that time travelers jumping backwards into a random other timeline ( which to them might be ours ) would actually be creating a new branch...not preventing anything. The original timeline they intersected would still go on to have the nuclear war. Even in the many worlds theorem you cannot alter the past. You would simply generate new timelines...and be responsible for whatever new misfortune occured in them ! It's all a bit like the infamous 'death in Samarra' tale.
 
Last edited:
Mendel said:
Could you find a direct quote for that? I don't think we've discussed this on metabunk yet.
Click to expand...

It is mentioned in the hearing, but I don't recall whether it was Grusch who brought it up or one of the Congress people who did and Grusch simply gave his 'yup' response. Do we have a transcript of the hearing yet ? I don't fancy wading through all 2 hours 45 minutes again.
 
I haven't watched or listened to much of the hearing, but I note that Ryan Graves is still banging on about 'cubes on a sphere', without mentioning the plausible hypothesis (discussed on Metabunk and elsewhere) that these were radar reflectors.

Fravor's opening statement mentions the way in which the 'tic tac' rapidly accelerated and disappeared. It wasn't clear from his description whether it disappeared because it went too far away or because it suddenly became invisible, like a magic trick. It might be worth comparing the new description with others by Fravor and Dietrich. I think Dietrich somewhere says it disappeared into the haze.
 
Scaramanga said:
I don't claim to be an 'expert' on physics, but my knowledge is considerable. The holographic principle is a means by which the equations of relativity ( and hence gravity ) can be derived from string theory by means of an encoding in lower dimensions. The term 'holographic' is a misnomer, as the result is not a hologram in the classic sense. The entire thing is really just a mathematical construct that allows relativity and quantum mechanics to be linked. It is, to date, just about the only thing in favour of string theory.....a theory increasingly coming under criticism as having failed to produce any results in 40 years or so.

There is nothing in the holographic principle that specifically generates the idea of overlapping realities or dimensions, as such concepts are already a part of quantum mechanics ( for example the many worlds interpretation ). Thus one does not really even need to invoke the holographic principle to envisage dimension jumping aliens and I'm surprised Grusch didn't simply mention the many worlds theorem that most people are rather more familiar with.

It's worth adding.....dimension jumping time travelers ( one hypothesis I have seen ) cannot jump to their own timeline or you get the 'grandfather paradox'. So the whole notion of time travelers from 'our' future coming back to prevent us having nuclear war is a logical and scientific absurdity. And the irony is that time travelers jumping backwards into a random other timeline ( which to them might be ours ) would actually be creating a new branch...not preventing anything. Even in the many worlds theorem you cannot alter the past.
Click to expand...
This is where people like Grusch are way over their heads technically, and the wild speculation is cringe inducing when the the usual buzzwords get thrown around. "Higher Dimensions" "Alternate Realities" "Wormholes" etc do not work the way pop-sci uses them in movies and such. So many people have been immersed in science-fiction and superhero movies for so long they just hear "alternate dimensions" and imagine a plane of reality where another version of superman comes from.

People using anything from String Theory to explain how supposed ET tech works are on very shaky ground. As you touched on, it has really failed to deliver on the many promises made around it. Here is a good quick example:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOvqJwgY8ow
. Weinstein is not alone, I have seen many similar sentiments from various physicists (but with a more tempered tone. Weinstein has a personal axe to grind against String Theory and he's a bit more blunt than most).

People like Grusch just throw a word salad of technical terms at people in hopes to confuses or impress the layman. By definition, some sort of advanced non-human technology that wildly defies the known laws of physics leverages an understanding of physics and engineering that is beyond current human understanding and capability. So don't conjecture on it in the first place. IMO it hurts his credibility to even speculate.

Better to just say "by unknown means" or "beyond current human capabilities" when discussing the details, lest one sounds like an ancient Roman explaining how a Harrier jet works. Not saying that guy could not never grasp the math and physics if it were explained correctly to him, but his best guesses based on his paradigm of the natural world are going to be humorous as best.

My hunch is that ALL of the guesses we make about how it works would be way off base, but obviously that's just wild speculation as well :)
 
Last edited:
Scaramanga said:
It is mentioned in the hearing, but I don't recall whether it was Grusch who brought it up or one of the Congress people who did and Grusch simply gave his 'yup' response. Do we have a transcript of the hearing yet ? I don't fancy wading through all 2 hours 45 minutes again.
Click to expand...
I have the nagging impression that Grusch claimed to have specific knowledge about the way the funding works, which he can't discuss in a public setting, much like everything else. I've no confidence in my memory though.

Btw, isn't there some pseudo-transcript from the video captions? I know it butchers some parts, but it might be useful to get the timing of some particular fragment of the video.
 
I watched the whole thing, some good story telling. Only one part peaked my interest, starting at 1:56:11, the comments by Mr Gaetz.

1. I want to see the witness (pilot) statements.
2. I want to see the photograph of the 'Orb'.
3. I want to see the radar of the 4 craft in a diamond formation.

Wouldn't that be the 'trinity' of data...

SOURCE:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NE9IhP5mZw
 
Hi there, new poster here.
In terms of yesterday's hearing there are 2 options for each of the 3 witnesses.
They are either deliberately lying or they believe they are telling the truth.
What do people think of each of them?
 
Candy-O said:
Weinstein has a personal axe to grind against String Theory and he's a bit more blount than most
Click to expand...

There's a growing backlash against string theory, led largely by Weinstein and Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose. What is fascinating is seeing Briane Greene defend a theory that Hossenfelder claims is 'dead'. It reminds me so much of UFOlogists who've spent 40 years persuading themselves aliens are here...and who are probably never going to give up that belief because it has been their life's work.
 
beakflip said:
I have the nagging impression that Grusch claimed to have specific knowledge about the way the funding works, which he can't discuss in a public setting, much like everything else. I've no confidence in my memory though.
Click to expand...
He did mention (paraphrase) that he knows how funding that was supposed to go to a specific program, internally was re-assigned to secretive black(?) programs. Without any funding authority knowing about it.
 
Scaramanga said:
There's a growing backlash against string theory, led largely by Weinstein and Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose. What is fascinating is seeing Briane Greene defend a theory that Hossenfelder claims is 'dead'. It reminds me so much of UFOlogists who've spent 40 years persuading themselves aliens are here...and who are probably never going to give up that belief because it has been their life's work.
Click to expand...

Weinstein is an interesting character who has also been wrangled into the UFO sphere. But unlike the average human, you cannot BS him with physics mumbo jumbo. One of the most salient points I've seen him make is one that I agreed with for a long time.

He said essentially ( I think on Joe Rogan) "OK in order to discuss this topic, we need to get someone in here who speaks physics, but as far as I can tell, there is no one in the entire realm who can do so on an advanced level. That should strike people as odd" He mentioned that outside of Hal Putoff and Eric Davis (ugh), no one can really hang in there on a technical level, and those 2 guys are far from the world best and brightest when it comes to theoretical physics.

One would hope that something potentially more importance than even the Manhattan Project would be sucking up the best minds in the world to have a crack at solving this. That means elite physicists, engineers, and mathematicians. Working an entire lifetime on it if needed.

But Bob Lazar is the best that the vast military industrial complex can manage?

It doesn't pass the smell test to me.
 
Candy-O said:
And If he truly believes that people have been killed over this subject as he implied, then of course he is going to be cagey and guarded in what he says publicly. I'm willing to bet that he is worried about being hung out to dry if this all goes South, so he is trying to cover his behind as best he can with legal council advising him what he should, and should not, say. Just saying "I have nothing to fear because I have the truth on my side so I will blurt out everything I know in public" would be idiotic.
Click to expand...
If one believed that, blurting out everything you know would be a viable strategy to avoid being killed to prevent you from blurting out everything you know. Telling part of what you know and publicly affirming you will be happy to tell the rest later under proper conditions, would seem counterproductive.
 
Candy-O said:
This is where people like Grusch are way over their heads technically, and the wild speculation is cringe inducing when the the usual buzzwords get thrown around. "Higher Dimensions" "Alternate Realities" "Wormholes" etc do not work the way pop-sci uses them in movies and such. So many people have been immersed in science-fiction and superhero movies for so long they just hear "alternate dimensions" and imagine a plane of reality where another version of superman comes from.

People using anything from String Theory to explain how supposed ET tech works are on very shaky ground. As you touched on, it has really failed to deliver on the many promises made around it. Here is a good quick example:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOvqJwgY8ow
. Weinstein is not alone, I have seen many similar sentiments from various physicists (but with a more tempered tone. Weinstein has a personal axe to grind against String Theory and he's a bit more blunt than most).

People like Grusch just throw a word salad of technical terms at people in hopes to confuses or impress the layman. By definition, some sort of advanced non-human technology that wildly defies the known laws of physics leverages an understanding of physics and engineering that is beyond current human understanding and capability. So don't conjecture on it in the first place. IMO it hurts his credibility to even speculate.

Better to just say "by unknown means" or "beyond current human capabilities" when discussing the details, lest one sounds like an ancient Roman explaining how a Harrier jet works. Not saying that guy could not never grasp the math and physics if it were explained correctly to him, but his best guesses based on his paradigm of the natural world are going to be humorous as best.

My hunch is that ALL of the guesses we make about how it works would be way off base, but obviously that's just wild speculation as well :)
Click to expand...

Mick was on a show recently with Weinstein, I found it hard to listen to him. Came across as very arrogant with a lot of “don’t you know who I am”.
 
Candy-O said:
Weinstein is an interesting character who has also been wrangled into the UFO sphere. But unlike the average human, you cannot BS him with physics mumbo jumbo. One of the most salient points I've seen him make is one that I agreed with for a long time.

He said essentially ( I think on Joe Rogan) "OK in order to discuss this topic, we need to get someone in here who speaks physics, but as far as I can tell, there is no one in the entire realm who can do so on an advanced level. That should strike people as odd" He mentioned that outside of Hal Putoff and Eric Davis (ugh), no one can really hang in there on a technical level, and those 2 guys are far from the world best and brightest when it comes to theoretical physics.

One would hope that something potentially more importance than even the Manhattan Project would be sucking up the best minds in the world to have a crack at solving this. That means elite physicists, engineers, and mathematicians. Working an entire lifetime on it if needed.

But Bob Lazar is the best that the vast military industrial complex can manage?

It doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Click to expand...

Well, 1) No way in hell Bob Lazar ever did any of the things he claims he did, or saw any of the things he claims he saw. The holes in his story, coupled with the lack of a single corraborative piece of evidence (no diploma? Can't name any of your professors or classmates?), coupled with obvious behavior aimed at diverting away from conversations where he'd have to actually give details (suddenly having a "migraine" in his Joe Rogan interview during specific questions) makes his entire story consistent with exactly what we tend to find in outright fabrications.

He can safely be ruled out.

As for who they've got working on this stuff (if any of it is real)? Why would we ever be in a position to know if such a ridiculously classified project exists? Does Weinstein know any of the people who work at Skunkworks? Surely they too have some of the world's best engineering minds designing some of the most advanced aircraft in the US arsenal. How many of them do we know about? What about test pilots? Surely only the best pilots in the military would be hired on to fly top secret experimental aircraft. Do we know who they are?

By the same token, why would we know any more about alleged UFO crash retrieval personnel than we know about non extraordinary top secret projects? Weinstein always gives off this weird arrogant "I know all the best minds in physics, if any of them were up to something, I'd know about it."
 
Last edited:
Candy-O said:
Good point, and where is Assange now? Handing over a wad of stolen US documents is unwise.
Click to expand...

So you're able to expose the government lied about and concealed from the public a matter the repercussions of which are far beyond anything anyone's ever blown the whistle on (and the consequences of which are literally world-changing) and you're worried where Assange is? Assange, a man who's still alive and able to fight the system in court over a much smaller matter that the majority of people never truly cared about (as opposed to ETs) and whom a good portion of those who know about him even consider a traitor? Sorry, but these are very different scenarios and you know it.
 
So they've got Corbell and (I think I recognize Knapp?) sitting behind them. Does anybody know who the others are?
(That may have already been discussed but if so I can't find it.)
 
Scaramanga said:
There's a growing backlash against string theory,
Click to expand...
True, because it has had no evidence provided for it, but the backlash against string theory has existed for decades, due to the lack of evidence. Even though the math behind it is elegant.

Scaramanga said:
led largely by Weinstein and Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose.
Click to expand...
The backlash is not led by these names. It is led by actual leaders in physics, not youtube contrarians. Weinstein opposes string theory because of his own nonsense theory of everything. Hossenfelder opposes it because she's a MONDer (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). Not sure about Penrose. Point being: you don't need to go to other fringe thinkers to find opposition to string theory. Just ask the majority of physicists.
 
yoshy said:
True, because it has had no evidence provided for it, but the backlash against string theory has existed for decades, due to the lack of evidence. Even though the math behind it is elegant.


The backlash is not led by these names. It is led by actual leaders in physics, not youtube contrarians. Weinstein opposes string theory because of his own nonsense theory of everything. Hossenfelder opposes it because she's a MONDer (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). Not sure about Penrose. Point being: you don't need to go to other fringe thinkers to find opposition to string theory. Just ask the majority of physicists.
Click to expand...

Not only did you beat me to it but formulated it far more poignantly than I would have.

To be honest, to 'string' (pun intended) Penrose together with Weinstein and Hossenfluffen :) together in one sentence is a bit of a sacrilege.
 
Mendel said:
I wish we had Grusch's full DOPSR cleared statement. Grusch is keeping it secret. Why?
Click to expand...
Great point.

Mendel said:
So he can change and add on to his story from public sources whilst enjoying the reputation of secret knowledge?
Click to expand...
I have a question. Why are you so bent on others sourcing the things they say or being 100% accurate about the things they say, and then you say things like this that are complete conjecture?
 
AR318307 said:
This comment isn't directly related to the above because the dude gives the vibe of a grifter dangling a carrot without being able to deliver the goods (as usual), but the descriptions of these videos reminded me of something I've been wondering lately. These descriptions refer to "orbs", and "tic tacs", and other recent UAP claims have mentioned metallic spheres as being commonly sighted. Tic tacs, cigar shaped objects, metallic spheres, and triangular craft are the types of objects I hear most about in UFO circles, which brings me to my question: what ever happened to flying saucers? Anyone know if anyone's done a deep dive into UFO/UAP sightings across the decades and documented when claims about flying saucers stopped being as prominent? Just seems to me like you don't hear about them very much anymore.
Click to expand...
There was a discussion on this topic here, but I can't remember if it was its own thread or was in included in another thread. I do recall posting in the discussion, and reading some insightful comments on the subject by @John J. If I have time later today, I'll see if I can find you a link.
 
And my apologies if this has been posted before; the opening and closing statements by Fravor, Graves and Grusch.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...r-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Ryan-HOC-Testimony.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dave_G_HOC_Speech_FINAL_For_Trans.pdf

I note that Graves seems to allude to the 'racetrack' UAPs seen by airline pilots, most of which seem to be caused by Starlink flares (as demonstrated on this forum).
One question eludes me; has Graves actually got any first hand experience of UAPs, or is it all second-hand reporting?
 
fizzBuzz said:
I have a question. Why are you so bent on others sourcing the things they say or being 100% accurate about the things they say, and then you say things like this that are complete conjecture?
Click to expand...
I think you missed @Mendel 's question mark. It makes it quite clear it is meant to be conjecture, not a statement of fact.
 
AR318307 said:
My apologies if this has been shared here or elsewhere already. Here's the 177 page debrief given to congress yesterday:

https://pdfhost.io/v/gR8lAdgVd_Uap_Timeline_Prepared_By_Another
Click to expand...

Just a quick glance so far but looks like a UFO greatest hits through the decades kinda thing. Each tidbit is presented as almost factual, and the skeptic must chase down the various sources to see how much validity there is to any of it.

Quick observation, from page 2:

(PUBLIC DOMAIN) - October 1947 —
Pilot Selman E. Graves states he witnessed the recovery of a crashed craft and two humanoid “bodies” in Paradise Valley, AZ. Graves states the federal government sponsored a state government project that relocated a nearby road and bulldozed the land to cover up the
crash site.
https://archive.org/details/B-001-014-055/page/396/mode/2up
Content from External Source
Following the link takes us to Timothy Good's 600 page tome on all things UFO, Above Top Secret from 1988, so 40 years after the supposed crash. The relevant passage begins:

1690482452458.png

This is John Scully's story of a crashed UFO he heard from 2 hucksters that were trying to sell "doodlebugs" made from Fling Saucer parts to help find oil. Good admits that the story was debunked in 1952, a year after it came out, but then says "new" investigations and "witnesses" have given it new credence.

I guess this is 177 pages of stuff like this. One gigantic Gish Gallop.
 
Alien Chess Fiend said:
He likely meant to imply that, but his wording seems consistent with him interviewing 40 people and a couple of them telling him some tall tales.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but he's repeatedly said he spoke or interviewed or was briefed by multiple people with direct knowledge of these programs. And again, this raises some serious questions about the people talking to him. Are they just passing on information that they heard from somebody else? That would make his claims 2nd and 3rd hand or more.

The implication is that they are PART of these programs, which means they are passing CLASSIFIED material to someone that is NOT authorized to see that material. I would think these people would be in serious legal jeopardy, if this is true.

Alien Chess Fiend said:
The $22 million as discussed in your thread on The Origins of AAWSAP would surely count as misdirection of funds and I wouldn't be surprised if he had specific knowledge of that.
Click to expand...

That would indeed be rich, if true. We all have specific knowledge about the program since the book was published in October of '21.

IF that's what he's referring too, he's kinda throwing his UAPTF boss, Jay Stratton, his buddy Eric Davis and his associates like George Knapp under the bus. All those guys were associated with AAWSAP in one way or another. And while the book does basically spell out how Reid, Lacatski and Bigelow swindled the DIA out of $22 million, that's not how it's presented as written largely by, I think, Knapp.

It's presented as a serious program doing serious work that was driven out of the DoD by jealous bureaucrats.

For Grusch to hang around with all these guys and then offer up their pet project as an example of misappropriations of funds would be fun to see.
 
AR318307 said:
Anyone know if anyone's done a deep dive into UFO/UAP sightings across the decades and documented when claims about flying saucers stopped being as prominent?
Click to expand...
Duke said:
There was a discussion on this topic here
Click to expand...
Here it is,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-have-descriptions-of-uaps-changed-over-the-years.12619/

It was kind of a fun thread which petered out to soon... some bits might be of interest to you AR318307.

Duke's too modest, I thought his observation (on that thread) that people started reporting flying saucers after a journalist misquoted Kenneth Arnold (the pilot whose 1947 sighting is often regarded as the first "classic" UFO sighting) was highly relevant, and thought-provoking.
Duke said:
A writer coined the term "flying saucer" based on Arnold's description of the flight characteristics of the craft, not based on his description of the craft themselves. Amazingly, reports and even photos of saucer/disc shaped craft started soon afterwards. Had that writer not conceived the term that was essentially an erroneous description of Arnold's sighting, would saucer/disc shaped craft have dominated UFO reports for at least the next few decades?
Click to expand...
 
John J. said:
Here it is,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-have-descriptions-of-uaps-changed-over-the-years.12619/

It was kind of a fun thread which petered out to soon... some bits might be of interest to you AR318307.

Duke's too modest, I thought his observation (on that thread) that people started reporting flying saucers after a journalist misquoted Kenneth Arnold (the pilot whose 1947 sighting is often regarded as the first "classic" UFO sighting) was highly relevant, and thought-provoking.
Click to expand...

Awesome, looking forward to reading it, thank you.
 
adam_n_eve said:
Hi there, new poster here.
In terms of yesterday's hearing there are 2 options for each of the 3 witnesses.
They are either deliberately lying or they believe they are telling the truth.
What do people think of each of them?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think that's a useful question, because unless we can show they're lying, what they believe doesn't really impact the truth of their words.

Remember also that "I saw X" is a factual statement that can be true or false, but "I think X was a UFO" is a statement of opinion that is not a lie even if X is no UFO. "I saw a strange light that looked like a UFO" means the light may well have been there, but the opinion that it was a UFO was almost certainly wrong. We've all mistaken things at first glance, so there's no shame in that.
Scaramanga said:
OK...found it. The section where Grusch clearly specifically refers to 'misappropriation of funds' and that he has knowledge of it is at 1 hour 24 mins when responding to Moscowitz.....


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NE9IhP5mZw
Click to expand...

I'd start at 1:23:00. He basically says that there are black programs developing "conventional advanced tech" (AT). I am not surprised.

fizzBuzz said:
I have a question. Why are you so bent on others sourcing the things they say or being 100% accurate about the things they say, and then you say things like this that are complete conjecture?
Click to expand...
Because I like speculating on evidence, trying to figure out what it means. Note that I marked it as speculation, and I invite anyone to speculate on a better reason why Grusch's DOPSR cleared statements are not public.

If you doubt my claim that Grusch's cleared statements are not public, we can talk about that. It's a fact that I'd be happily corrected on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NorCal Dave
Claim: Representative Anna Paulina Luna has seen UAP photos of Technology the US Doesn't Have.
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
Greene
Greene
Mick West
Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
17K
Don Kielty
D
MonkeeSage
Comments from Senator Gillibrand on HOC hearing and AARO
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
The Congressional UAP Hearings Debrief
2 3
Replies
102
Views
11K
John J.
John J.
DavidB66
Dr Phil Metzger's Take on the Nimitz Incident (Post UAP Hearing)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top