House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

[Tezcatlipoca]

They don't know because there is no secret.

It's hard to prove a negative. "There is no coverup."—"That's exactly what you'd say if there was a coverup!"

I probably misremembered, thanks for correcting me. My point is, it's been months, and Rubio still doesn't know? That indicates to me that Grusch's classified information was useless.


Likely a shot in the dark.
Grusch's HOC testimony seemed to amount to contractors using the money for whatever, which they can legally do without reporting it, I think?


HOC hearing transcript

Article:

Anna Paulina Luna (01:01:30):

Okay. On the 19th of April, Dr. Kirkpatrick, head of AARO had said that he did not find any evidence of UAPs. You also stated in your interview that you had briefed him on information that you were uncovering, but that he did not follow up with you. Were the items that you divulged to him pertinent to national security?

David Charles Grusch (01:01:49):

Yes. Him and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July 2022. And I provided him some concerns I had.

Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-holds-hearing-on-ufos-and-government-transparency-transcript/amp

Article:

Ms. Foxx (01:10:41):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Grusch, in your sworn testimony you state that the United States government has retrieved supposedly extraterrestrial spacecraft and other UAP related artifacts. You go so far as to state that the US is in possession of, "Non-human spacecraft." And that some of these artifacts have circulated with defense contractors. Several other former military and intelligence officials have come forward with similar allegations, albeit in non-public settings. However, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the Director of ARRO previously testified before Congress that there has been and I quote, "No credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity or of off world technology brought to the attention of the office." To your knowledge, is that statement correct?

David Charles Grusch (01:11:56):

It's not accurate. I believe Dr. Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to ARRO thus far. A few of those individuals have also come to ARRO that I also interviewed and I know what they provided Dr. Kirkpatrick and their team.

Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-holds-hearing-on-ufos-and-government-transparency-transcript/amp

One thing I found a bit funny here was Grusch specifically mentioned funding through IRAD. So, you partially were correct in stating there's not as much paper trail, but there being none is untrue. As accurately identified by Grusch and also in contradiction to some of his other claims, the IRAD process actually does require paperwork to receive the money. You need to justify obtaining it, you do not need to list it out as specific line items with funding allotments like you would formal contracts or grants. At the absolute least, if anything he stated is accurate, there would be documents traceable to the programs through IRAD, even if deceptively written.




A more generalized comment towards the positive vs negative claim debate. I think you guys are both right in differing contexts, but I think what we're speaking about alters that heavily. When we're talking about intentional deception, there is entire sets of tools for analyzing these matters. It is absolutely possible to prove this stuff, even if it is true.
There are plenty of comparative examples of what the theoretical deception of this would be, in professional parlace, although adding in public theories makes a lot of it contradictory to those actual fields.
Taking the most likely hypotheses considering it's true with the element of deception - it would be a Deception Operation in Support of Operational Security, more specifically, a DISO in support of Covert R&D (DISO in support of Covert R&D is an important comparative distinction as this represents a very small and linear type of operation). I'll link a study below that talks about them in generalities to save a wall, while it focuses on programs surrounding nuclear R&D it also makes references to others. I love the South African example specifically because, everyone actually had all the information to know, just, the people indicating it went unheard until after South Africa self-dismantled their own program;

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD300/RGSD370/RAND_RGSD370.pdf

 

[Mendel]

One thing I found a bit funny here was Grusch specifically mentioned funding through IRAD. So, you partially were correct in stating there's not as much paper trail, but there being none is untrue. As accurately identified by Grusch and also in contradiction to some of his other claims, the IRAD process actually does require paperwork to receive the money. You need to justify obtaining it, you do not need to list it out as specific line items with funding allotments like you would formal contracts or grants. At the absolute least, if anything he stated is accurate, there would be documents traceable to the programs through IRAD, even if deceptively written.

If I was funding a secret program (which I'm in no position to do), I'd award my chosen contractor a legitimate contract that I'd overpay them on, according to the secret contract we have that covers their secret research. There'd be a paper trail for the money, but you'd not learn about the secret project by following it.

Kinda like BAASS delivered a bunch of DIRDs but spent most of the money looking for werewolves:

AATIP was more something Lue Elizondo did in his spare time...with the bulk of AWWSAP money going to Bigelow's investigation of skinwalkers.

That's why Grusch isn't quite certain whether he found government waste or a secret program.

 

[tintintintin]

yes, but that is not the whistleblower claim. It's the DoD claim.

I pointed out both sides had put forth negative claims, because you insist the DoD is the victim here. Originally you were comparing Grusch to anti-vaxxers.

Unfortunately, spreading uncertainty and doubt with no evidence is a common disinformation tactic. From a debunker's view, creating uncertainty without evidence is a familiar pattern, perhaps most starkly exemplified by the anti-vaxx scares. Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May, and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO, and his information led nowhere. It feels very likely that "there's no 'there' there".

Anti-vaxx scares hit the populace. It wasn't like people in Congress were running around unable to get an answer from NIH to whether a Moderna jab would kill you 2 years down the road. They were unable to combat the spread of misinformation across the US. Here the senators are unable reject a whistleblower's completely fantastical claims, a task that should be much much simpler, assuming his testimony is akin to his public statements. Could you provide a better example to match the situation we're seeing here?

You say "Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May" but I've understood it was December 2022. Do you have a source?

You say "and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO" but I've understood they never talked beyond hello (if even that much). Do you have a source?

You say "and his information led nowhere" but I'd argue that

1. Not being rejected after 7 months (it can of course still happen), and
2. Being the source of 16 sections in the Senate's NDAA-24, namely Sec. 1546. Funding limitation on certain unreported programs and Division G: Sec. 9001 - Sec. 9015 (UAP Disclosure Act of 2023),

are both very remarkable outcomes, and not "nowhere".

You completely deflected the question, and you've done so (or simply ignored refutals) on multiple occasions in these few back and forths we've had.

does not refer to program designations

You're cherry picking and ignoring the other half exactly stating this. That's simply bad faith Mendel.

Rep. Burchett: Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge and access to some of this crash retrieval some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities military bases that would the recovered material would be in and I know a lot of Congress talked about we're going to go to Area 51 and you know. [...]
Grusch: uh I can't discuss that publicly but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General and we could get that in this give if we were allowed to get in a SCIF.

Additionally, on Aug 21 Burchett, Luna, Moskowitz, Mace, Burlison and Ogles wrote an open letter to ICIG Thomas Monheim (who said Grusch's complaints were credible and of urgent concern) asking the following with a Sep 15 deadline:

1. Which intelligence community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors are involved with UAP crash retrieval programs, directly or indirectly?

2. Which intelligence community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors are involved with UAP reverse engineering programs, directly or indirectly?

So Mendel: Are you still holding on to this claim of yours:

I've not seen Grusch claim that he can name a program that does this.

 

[tintintintin]

I can only speak for myself but I don't brush off Gruch's claims easily. He is a decorated veteran, I have nothing against him testifying what he knows.

Alright, I was referring to earlier when you said,

This seems to be painting a picture that Grusch and others have not provided verifiable first-hand information to HPSCI and SSCI.

which is what we've been going back and forth over. I'm unsure if this has landed at "no such verifiable information can ever be provided because such programs don't exist". That's a disillusioned state to end up in.

I think it's fine people argue against believing things just because of its source. What I don't get is why, when the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) finds Grusch's claims that information has been inappropriately concealed from Congress to be credible and of urgent concern, as defined in 50 USC 3033, that Grusch's GS-15 rank as an intel officer and veteran from Afghanistan is all that important. I guess it just moves the post to now saying the IC IG, as a source, isn't credible enough.

 

[Mendel]

I pointed out both sides had put forth negative claims, because you insist the DoD is the victim here.

This isn't about a "victim". To put it simply:
1) Grusch says, "the DoD has UFOs".
2) The DoD says, "we don't have UFOs".
The first is a positive claim. It can be proven, e.g. by finding a UFO in the DoD's possession.
The second is a negative claim. It is unprovable.

Grusch has a burden of evidence that he seems to not have met.

Originally you were comparing Grusch to anti-vaxxers.

Yes. Ask any anti-vaxxer, and they'll tell you of the authorities they believe in that convinced them vaccines are deadly. Like Grusch, they don't have credible evidence when you follow it up.

You completely deflected the question, and you've done so (or simply ignored refutals) on multiple occasions in these few back and forths we've had.

Your refutal is that the anti-vaxxers don't have the same influence in Congress that the ufo conspiracy theorists have? And anti-vaxxers are easier to refute, since vaccine safety is a positive claim that can be proven.

The 2020 election conspiracy theory is a good example as it has many adherents in Congress, and "no fraud" is another difficult negative to prove (recounts and audits notwithstanding), yet the people with the positive claim of ballot fraud have failed to provide evidence of it.

You're cherry picking and ignoring the other half exactly stating this. That's simply bad faith Mendel.

Rep. Burchett: Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge and access to some of this crash retrieval some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities military bases that would the recovered material would be in and I know a lot of Congress talked about we're going to go to Area 51 and you know. [...]
Grusch: uh I can't discuss that publicly but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General and we could get that in this give if we were allowed to get in a SCIF.

This is about the names of people with access to programs, and not the names of programs. Would you like the grammar explained?

Additionally, on Aug 21 Burchett, Luna, Moskowitz, Mace, Burlison and Ogles wrote an open letter to ICIG Thomas Monheim (who said Grusch's complaints were credible and of urgent concern) asking the following with a Sep 15 deadline:

that doesn't indicate they have any program names

we do not know whether Grusch is "cherry-picking" because questions and answers are so unspecific.

So Mendel: Are you still holding on to this claim of yours:

Yes. I still haven't.

 

[Mendel]

when the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) finds Grusch's claims that information has been inappropriately concealed from Congress to be credible and of urgent concern, as defined in 50 USC 3033,

Do you have a second source for that, besides Grusch himself?
Grusch has not released the IC IG's response.

 

[tintintintin]

The 2020 election conspiracy theory is a good example as it has many adherents in Congress, and "no fraud" is another difficult negative to prove (recounts and audits notwithstanding), yet the people with the positive claim of ballot fraud have failed to provide evidence of it.

I don't see the 2020 election conspiracy and its instruments of gaslighting and deception as a good analogy to the process a law abiding whistleblower goes through to prove fraud in government. Consider also most other HOC hearings this year that's been very contentious and frame it against this UAP hearing and its bipartisan nature and respect. If you merely meant it for proving a negative, that is now between Congress and the DoD/IC as I clarify below. Otherwise, you will have to expand.

Regarding

This is about the names of people with access to programs, and not the names of programs. Would you like the grammar explained?

I've not seen Grusch claim that he can name a program that does this.

Gillibrand says, "we've not been told of any such programs", she does not say "the DoD denied knowledge of the programs the witnesses told us about".

which you equate to Gillibrand saying "we've not been told of any such program designations" and that you reiterated

Mendel: I've not seen Grusch claim that he can name a program that does this.

I missed the fine print on your involuntary informal fallacy here. I thank you for the offer of a grammar lesson, but as this is a matter of semantics, I'll leave it on the burner.

In my intrepid desire to please, I've now extended the second excerpt from the hearing where indeed Grusch claims he can name specific SAPs that cover crash retrieval/recovered materials and evade oversight. Added some more oath-sworn claims by Grusch as well. There's actually a condensed video with Grusch-only testimony if you can't get enough.

Rep. Burchett: Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge and access to some of this crash retrieval some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities military bases that would the recovered material would be in and I know a lot of Congress talked about we're going to go to Area 51 and you know. [...]
Grusch: uh I can't discuss that publicly but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General and we could get that in this give if we were allowed to get in a SCIF.
Rep. Burchett: What special access programs cover this information and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight I in a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft use

Grusch [Opening Statement]: I became a whistleblower through a PPD19 urgent concern filing in May 2022 with the intelligence Community Inspector General following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and intelligence Community individuals that the U.S government is operating with secrecy above Congressional oversights with regards to uaps

Garcia: Mr Grusch Finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of uaps?
Grusch: Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years
Garcia: and, and where?
Grusch: I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General and some of which to the intelligence committees I actually had the people with the first-hand knowledge um provide a protected disclosure to the Inspector General

This isn't about a "victim". To put it simply:
1) Grusch says, "the DoD has UFOs".
2) The DoD says, "we don't have UFOs".
The first is a positive claim. It can be proven, e.g. by finding a UFO in the DoD's possession.
The second is a negative claim. It is unprovable.

Thank you.

However, it is more nuanced. Grusch made oathsworn statements (see above):
- He knows specific SAP designations outside Congressional oversight
- He knows there are craft(s) at this/these location(s)
- He knows money is being illegally funnelled into UAP projects (misappropriated funds)

So Grusch has made those to ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI in a closed setting with details. Therefore what Congress is to verify is not your proposition "the DoD has UFOs" but rather either of the above positive claims. When Congress tries to do this verification, and the DoD answers "we don't know of such a program", "we don't have crafts there" and "we're not doing such illegal funding" then it is now Congress that is stuck.

Obviously, if Congress believed the IC/DoD this would end. Since it hasn't, it's not rational to say Grusch hasn't provided this information to either (likely all) of ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI.

Grusch also makes more positive claims such as there are individuals currently involved in reverse engineering programs that are willing to testify (and some that already have), and that he has a list of IC officials who have subverted Congress' oversight role.

But the three above go directly to the semantics of Gillibrand's "we've not been told of any such programs", where those who haven't told are in fact DoD/IC. Moreover, Grusch testified to having provided locations to the intelligence committees where Gillibrand sits on SSCI.

Do you have a second source for that, besides Grusch himself?
Grusch has not released the IC IG's response.

I have Rubio acknowledging him as a legal whistleblower, and Rubio is on a committee (same as Gillibrand) who receives credible complaints from the ICIG. Additionally, I have this press release from his legal representation (the guy right behind him at the UAP hearing, former ICIG)

Article:

Compass Rose Legal Group has successfully concluded its representation of former client David Grush on matters limited to his reasonable belief that elements of the Intelligence Community improperly withheld or concealed alleged classified information from the U.S. Congress. [...]

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.

Source: https://compassrosepllc.com/news/

Getting back to,

There is no testimony [on this matter] that Gillibrand has heard that she's been able to verify, or she would say so.
There is nobody who named a specific program. That includes the DoD, Grusch, and the other witnesses.

and

This seems to be painting a picture that Grusch and others have not provided verifiable first-hand information to HPSCI and SSCI.

we have that each of these three statements can hold only if Grusch is perjuring himself.

 

[Ann K]

However, it is more nuanced. Grusch made oathsworn statements (see above):
- He knows specific SAP designations outside Congressional oversight
- He knows there are craft(s) at this/these location(s)
- He knows money is being illegally funnelled into UAP projects (misappropriated funds)

If Grusch made the claims, it's incumbent on him to provide the evidence. He may have done that in private conversations; he may not have. But when the agencies involved say they do not have alien craft (or pieces, or bodies) they really can't prove that negative, and it would be unfair to demand that they do so. Grusch may be speaking the truth, or only speaking what he THINKS is the truth, perhaps gleaned from casual comments.

we have that each of these three statements can hold only if Grusch is perjuring himself.

It need not be perjury. He could simply be wrong. We can give him the benefit of the doubt about his intentions and STILL think he is incorrect.

 

[Mendel]

I missed the fine print on your involuntary informal fallacy here.

The link here is that unspecific information isn't helpful. By saying "the DoD has a secret UAP crash retrieval program", we've been "told about a program", but haven't been told any information that would help anyone find it, or would help the DoD determine what caused this misunderstanding, if there is one. So in the context of evidence, "being told of a program" and expecting the DoD to be able to verify it means being told of its designation, at least. (Unless the secret UAP retrieval program actually exists, then it's somewhat easier to verify.)

Similar concerns exist with regard to the "exact locations" Grusch claims to know.

Rep. Burchett: What special access programs cover this information and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight I in a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft used

Thank you. I'm sorry I missed this when I scanned the transcript for "access".

However, it is more nuanced.

Yes. That's why I indicated that I put it simply.

Therefore what Congress is to verify is not your proposition "the DoD has UFOs" but rather either of the above positive claims. When Congress tries to do this verification, and the DoD answers "we don't know of such a program", "we don't have crafts there" and "we're not doing such illegal funding" then it is now Congress that is stuck.

Exactly. And the reason for that is that the DoD is not actually able to prove its negative claims, not because they're false, but because there is no way to prove a negative claim, even if it is true.

If you walk into the DA's office and say, "mendel has told me he has murdered his aunt", and I have no alibi but you have no evidence (and the DA can't find any), then the DA "is stuck". But because I have no way to prove I didn't do it, it's your positive claim that needs to be proven: until then, I'm presumed to be innocent.

I have Rubio acknowledging him as a legal whistleblower, and Rubio is on a committee (same as Gillibrand) who receives credible complaints from the ICIG.

They also receive the "incredible" complaints.

But I'll take this as a second source (thank you!):

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. Source: https://compassrosepllc.com/news/

we have that each of these three statements can hold only if Grusch is perjuring himself.

the alternative being Rubio's breakdown of how the DoD witnesses are perjuring themselves (and I'm sure their credentials are as good as Grusch's) or don't know about it

From Grusch's opening statement:

But as I stand here under oath now, I am speaking to the facts as I've been told them.

With that caveat, Grusch's testimony could be entirely bogus, as long as someone had actually told him, he wouldn't have perjured himself.

We have identified the hearsay nature of Grusch's testimony as a problem from day 1.

So 10 US code section 119 discusses congressional oversight of SAPs, discusses the Dept's ability to waive congressional reporting. However, the Gang of Eight is at least supposed to be notified if a waived or waived, bigoted [?], unacknowledged SAP is created. And that's public law.

Representative Nancy Mace (01:48:19): Do you believe that officials at the highest levels of our national security apparatus have unlawfully withheld information from Congress and subverted our oversight authority?

David Charles Grusch (01:48:29): There are certain elected leaders that had more information that, I'm not sure what they've shared with certain Gang of Eight members or et cetera, but certainly I would not be surprised.

Grusch does not actually know what has been shared with the Go8, but acknowledges that much of what he has shared is only unlawful if they haven't been. Yet he sacrificed his career on the assumption that what he thinks is a secret actually is.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/post-295873 (and the next post) earlier in this thread to learn more about waived programs, and how they're secretly (but legally) funded.

Note also how Grusch suspects "certain elected leaders" of unlawful conduct, again with no evidence.

I "would not be surprised" if Grusch's other accusation suffered from a similar lack of evidence.

 

[Mendel]

Let's review the context.

Grusch's public claims are not new; they've been around in one form or another for half a century. The only new thing about it is that there's now an insider making them.
But after 50 years, there is still no credible evidence, not a single person or other country has come forward, and the aliens still keep their visits secret.

That means Grusch's claims are extraordinary, and they require extraordinary evidence.
AARO/Kirkpatrick's claim, that there is no secret UFO program, is ordinary, "business as usual".

That's another reason to doubt Grusch until such a time as his testimony has led to actual evidence for his claims. (I expect that to be never.)

 

[tintintintin]

If Grusch made the claims, it's incumbent on him to provide the evidence. He may have done that in private conversations; he may not have.

As I've demonstrated, Grusch claims to have provided that evidence to ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI (and it's perjury if he hasn't provided it).

It need not be perjury. He could simply be wrong. We can give him the benefit of the doubt about his intentions and STILL think he is incorrect.

Being wrong at the atomic level of a claim doesn't absolve you of perjury. You can for instance perjure yourself with propositions that are false yet you believe them true. This by making claims that those propositions have been directly communicated to others (e.g. SSCI) when that communication hasn't happened.

It's perjury if Grusch hasn't at least told ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI about SAPs/Craft locations/Misappropriated funding, as well as if other whistleblowers haven't come forward. It's perjury if he's not been retaliated against. Just one of these have to be false, and he's perjured himself. Incidentally, it'd take the ICIG one sentence to indicate exactly that to HOC subcommittee who held the hearing (or the subset of six who requested information from the ICIG).

Exactly. And the reason for that is that the DoD is not actually able to prove its negative claims, not because they're false, but because there is no way to prove a negative claim, even if it is true.

If you walk into the DA's office and say, "mendel has told me he has murdered his aunt", and I have no alibi but you have no evidence (and the DA can't find any), then the DA "is stuck". But because I have no way to prove I didn't do it, it's your positive claim that needs to be proven: until then, I'm presumed to be innocent.

All good with me. This was about your semantic analysis of Gillibrand's comments on Grusch, your misinformation/anti-vaxx/election fraud comparison to Grusch, and the suggestion:

Grusch had testified to the intelligence committees in May [maybe December], and talked to Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO, and his information led nowhere. It feels very likely that "there's no 'there' there".

where, if Congress is the entity inquiring the DoD, the information has led somewhere since Congress (including Go8 members) thinks there's something 'there' there.

They also receive the "incredible" complaints.

True, if ICIG finds whistleblower not credible, whistleblower may contact Congress directly. But not the case here.

the alternative being Rubio's breakdown of how the DoD witnesses are perjuring themselves (and I'm sure their credentials are as good as Grusch's) or don't know about it

A bit imprecise on it being an alternative, as under B (see below) we still do have testimony given to Congress. The idea it wasn't given came out of Gillibrand's quote. So Congress is investigating and the DoD is faced with having to show their innocence by proving a negative, which means Congress cannot verify.

This stalemate comes about in either of the cases in Rubio's wonderful application of the law of excluded middle:

"One of two things are true. Either A, they're telling the truth or some version of the truth or B [alternative], we have a bunch of people [including Grusch] with high clearances and really important jobs in our government are nuts. Both are a problem. And I'm not accusing these people of being nuts. That said, that's something we'll look at and continue to look at seriously,".

Where A means DoD/IC guilty, B means whistleblowers guilty (at least Grusch who will go to jail).

From Grusch's opening statement:
But as I stand here under oath now, I am speaking to the facts as I've been told them. With that caveat, Grusch's testimony could be entirely bogus, as long as someone had actually told him, he wouldn't have perjured himself.

We have identified the hearsay nature of Grusch's testimony as a problem from day 1.

He found the caveat that makes one immune to perjury? I'm unconvinced this is a piece of legal masterminding, could you provide some reference?

Of course hearsay has its limitations, but as I believe I've demonstrated quite clearly, there are multiple first-hand claims Grusch could be held to account for. As would the other bunch of people, who are nuts, under option B.

Grusch does not actually know what has been shared with the Go8, but acknowledges that much of what he has shared is only unlawful if they haven't been. Yet he sacrificed his career on the assumption that what he thinks is a secret actually is.

We're back to information inappropriately concealed from Congress and how the ICIG said that was credible and urgent, and so Grusch could get such an idea (that things hadn't been shared with Go8) from ICIG's determination. Perhaps he learned from the SSCI/HPSCI briefings. Or learned about it during his DoD IG complaint (of which very little is known, except it led to reprisal according to Grusch). Or option B, he is nuts for sacrificing his career on a whim.

See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/post-295873 (and the next post) earlier in this thread to learn more about waived programs, and how they're secretly (but legally) funded.

Thanks for the reference. So for the DoD (title 10) to legally fund, but not report a SAP to both defense committees, the Secretary of Defense must waive the SAP in which case only informing the chairman and ranking minority member of each of the defense committees (four people).

For the IC (title 50) it's instead the Present who can waive programs so as to not inform both intelligence committees, instead informing only the Go8: Chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

So when we have testimony such as

Burchett: What special access programs cover this information [recovered UAP materials] and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: uh I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight I in a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft used

we might speculate whether either SecDef (title 10) or POTUS (title 50) that has waived that information. But when Grusch talks tradecraft he surely doesn't believe this is by the book, that is, the SAPs he claims to know of are not being perpetually waived by every administration.

We've discussed what Gillibrand and Rubio know and, to some extent, what they believe. Here's what they want enacted by the end of the year (originating in IAA-24, now part of Senate's NDAA-24):

Article:

SEC. 1546. FUNDING LIMITATION ON CERTAIN UNREPORTED PROGRAMS.
(a) Limitation on Availability of Funds.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2024 may be obligated or expended, directly or indirectly, in part or in whole, for, on, in relation to, or in support of activities involving unidentified anomalous phenomena protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations that have not been formally, officially, explicitly, and specifically described, explained, and justified to the appropriate committees of Congress, congressional leadership, and the Director [of AARO], including for any activities relating to the following:

(1) Recruiting, employing, [for] capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft
(2) Analyzing such craft, including for the purpose of determining properties, [...], origin, [...], or reverse engineering of such craft or component technology.
(3) Managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise.
(4) Actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance based on analysis of materials or sensor and observational information associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena.
(5) The development of propulsion technology, or aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology, systems, or subsystems that is based on or derived from or inspired by inspection, analysis, or reverse engineering of recovered unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or materials.
(6) Any aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology other than chemical propellants, solar power, and electric ion thrust.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/935/text

Let's review the context.

The context is all of the above and includes SEC. 1546 that did come out of the SSCI and that did hear testimony from multiple whistleblowers on UAPs, who were believed to the point that counter legislation to the tradecraft preventing congressional oversight will be part of the US Code in December.

And if Grusch et al. can convince SSCI, and we see a bipartisan Senate lead by Schumer introduce the UAPD Act ("Eminent Domain"), then it's an exercise for the reader to determine if POTUS is looped in.

Of course, they could be doing the DoD/IC a favor here. After all, this legislation could help vindicate those parts of the US Government, an aid to proving the negative.

Grusch's public claims are not new; they've been around in one form or another for half a century. The only new thing about it is that there's now an insider making them.
But after 50 years, there is still no credible evidence, not a single person or other country has come forward, and the aliens still keep their visits secret.

That means Grusch's claims are extraordinary, and they require extraordinary evidence.

Or option B, the whistleblowers are crazy. (I struck out that which I believe needs sourcing)

 

[Landru]

It's perjury if Grusch hasn't at least told ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI about SAPs/Craft locations/Misappropriated funding, as well as if other whistleblowers haven't come forward. It's perjury if he's not been retaliated against.

Provide the law that supports this assertion because I believe you are wrong.

 

[Landru]

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...nts of perjury are,related to a material fact.

Sections 1621 and 1623 of title 18, variously amended, of the U.S. Code define perjury before a Federal tribunal. The elements of perjury are (1) that the declarant took an oath to testify truthfully, (2) that he willfully made a false statement contrary to that oath (3) that the declarant believed the statement to be untrue, and (4) that the statement related to a material fact.

 

[Mendel]

We're back to information inappropriately concealed from Congress and how the ICIG said that was credible and urgent, and so Grusch could get such an idea (that things hadn't been shared with Go8) from ICIG's determination.

"credible and urgent" doesn't mean true. Again, if the DA charges you with a crime in a court of law, there's credible evidence, but people still get acquitted or falsely convicted.
The IC IG has no way to determine what has been shared to the 4/8 people in question.

where, if Congress is the entity inquiring the DoD, the information has led somewhere since Congress (including Go8 members) thinks there's something 'there' there.

Rubio et al. see a discrepancy, and political pressure/curiosity forces them to investigate. That doesn't necessarily mean they've formed an opinion (though Gaetz/Burchett/Luna certainly have). If you have a source that says a Go8 member believes Grusch, I'll grant your point.

As would the other bunch of people, who are nuts

not what Rubio said

Or option B, the whistleblowers are crazy.

not what anyone here said, and rude

But when Grusch talks tradecraft he surely doesn't believe this is by the book, that is, the SAPs he claims to know of are not being perpetually waived by every administration.

I'm not following that speculation. He's referring to "by the book" methods intelligence uses to keep stuff secret, and it stands to reason tradecraft would be used to keep secret projects secret, legal or not.

The context is all of the above and includes SEC. 1546 that did come out of the SSCI and that did hear testimony from multiple whistleblowers on UAPs, who were believed to the point that counter legislation to the tradecraft preventing congressional oversight will be part of the US Code in December.

And if Grusch et al. can convince SSCI, and we see a bipartisan Senate lead by Schumer introduce the UAPD Act ("Eminent Domain"), then it's an exercise for the reader to determine if POTUS is looped in.

Of course, they could be doing the DoD/IC a favor here. After all, this legislation could help vindicate those parts of the US Government, an aid to proving the negative.

Thread on that legislation is at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disclosure-act-of-2023-proposed-u-s-legislation.13058/ . My opinion on that is that it's a "costs nothing if not true" legislation for the most part, though the review board is going to be a pain.
I don't follow your opinion that it indicates knowledge.

"The only new thing about it is that there's now an insider making them." Elizondo/Mellon claimed pictures/video of aliens iirc; Grusch claims retrieval/possession of UFOs and aliens (NHI).

"But after 50 years, there is still no credible evidence" — again, negative claim, but we're on Metabunk and would certainly recognize credible evidence.

"not a single person or other country has come forward" — pretty confident no other country has said, "look, people, here's our UFO" — do you think that would've been missable?

"the aliens still keep their visits secret." — patently obvious, or have you seen it reported on the evening news?

 

[JMartJr]

the information has led somewhere since Congress (including Go8 members) thinks there's something 'there' there.

Brief sticking in of oar: DOES Congress think this? Some Congressmen clearly do, but some Congressmen believing a thing is not the same as something the Congress as a body/institution thinks.

If Congress has acted on this (not a committee, not some individual members) then a claim could be made that Congress believes certain things about it. And it is certainly possible they have and I missed it.

 

[MapperGuy]

One of the things I find most funny about all this is the idea of such a program "evading oversight".

Any agency with a program like this would certainly not keep it quiet (within the Top Secret environment that is).

Why? MONEY!!!

This program would mean FUNDING, lots and lots of MONEY, more funding than they could spend (and they can spend a lot when its available).

This all goes back to the whole UFO "we must hide the existence of aliens" conspiracy nonsense about trying to hide the existence, or presence, of aliens on this planet. That conspiracy that must, after all the years it is claimed to have been going on, must have involved millions of people, in practically every nation on Earth. Millions of people who have never slipped up and let the cat out of the bag.

Looking at things in isolation, what one person said, or what one photo shows, things can be more easily believed. But when you take a bunch of these isolated things and try to put them together into a Big Picture suddenly that big picture can look pretty silly.

 

[Mendel]

Any agency with a program like this would certainly not keep it quiet (within the Top Secret environment that is).

Why? MONEY!!!

That depends entirely on how successful the program is.
For example, AASWAP tried to stay under the radar because they didn't really have results justifying the expense.

Now imagine a UAP retrieval program, and every time it retrieves something it's some cheap hardware someone bought off the internet with a few LEDs glued on.
They'd never share any information with UAPTF or AARO because they never actually retrieve anything that's unidentified.
And they'd try very hard not to let anybody know what a waste of money this is, because tomorrow could always be the day when they find their first actual UFO...

 

[JMartJr]

Now imagine a UAP retrieval program, and every time it retrieves something it's some cheap hardware someone bought off the internet with a few LEDs glued on.

My word, THAT is an angle that never would have occurred to me.

 

[Ann K]

My word, THAT is an angle that never would have occurred to me.

Perhaps built by the same people who used game controls to send people on a deep dive in a submersible...

 

[Mendel]

My word, THAT is an angle that never would have occurred to me.

Is that because I didn't write "expensive kite with LEDs sewed on"?

My post is entirely hypothetical, and that "cheap hardware with LEDs" is just a stand-in for anything "mundane". However, I expect that if there are actual UFO programs, these programs won't have had tangible results, much like Bigelow's Skinwalker Ranch investigations.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Additionally, on Aug 21 Burchett, Luna, Moskowitz, Mace, Burlison and Ogles wrote an open letter to ICIG Thomas Monheim (who said Grusch's complaints were credible and of urgent concern) asking the following with a Sep 15 deadline:

1. Which intelligence community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors are involved with UAP crash retrieval programs, directly or indirectly?

2. Which intelligence community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors are involved with UAP reverse engineering programs, directly or indirectly?

I thought that was kind of weird they phrased it that way...people who are involved in these programs. Can't Monheim can just state DoD stance there is no verifiable information that such programs exist now or ever existed? Like why didn't they ask for the names of people Grusch told ICIG were involved?

 

[Mendel]

I thought that was kind of weird they phrased it that way...people who are involved in these programs.

They probably hope that Monheim's answer gives them a list of people to ask for testimony officially, without revealing who the "whistleblowers" were.
It gives us a clue as to the quality of their witnesses, some of may only claim to be "involved" "indirectly".

 

[tintintintin]

It's perjury if Grusch hasn't at least told ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI about SAPs/Craft locations/Misappropriated funding, as well as if other whistleblowers haven't come forward. It's perjury if he's not been retaliated against.

Provide the law that supports this assertion because I believe you are wrong.

There's been multiple parts of testimony posted to substantiate these are met for instance https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ho...n-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/page-27#post-301234

(1) that the declarant took an oath to testify truthfully, yes
(2) that he willfully made a false statement contrary to that oath yes
(3) that the declarant believed the statement to be untrue, and yes. Ex. Grusch knows whether he's testified in front of ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI, and so in saying he's done so he'd know whether true or false.
(4) that the statement related to a material fact. yes it's material

Rubio et al. see a discrepancy, and political pressure/curiosity forces them to investigate. That doesn't necessarily mean they've formed an opinion (though Gaetz/Burchett/Luna certainly have). If you have a source that says a Go8 member believes Grusch, I'll grant your point.

I think it is the whistleblower legislation that forces them to investigate though, more so than political pressure. They have to take whistleblowers referred by ICIG seriously. I don't know what opinion Rubio et al have formed privately, but publicly it's the A or B one. Agree Gaetz/Burchett/Luna as well as Mace and Moskowitz are vocal in their opinion that transparency is needed, and a subset much more direct in their allegations against the Pentagon.

I believe I merely tried to make the point as to why Grusch would make this claim about Go8 (which goes to his claim of withholding information from Congress). While not a quote, we have the Schumer/Rubio (2 from Go8) sponsored UAPD Act stating:

9002(4) Legislation is necessary because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review as set forth in Executive Order 13526 (50 U.S.C. 3161 note; relating to classified national security information) due in part to exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as well as an over-broad interpretation of ``transclassified foreign nuclear information'', which is also exempt from mandatory declassification, thereby preventing public disclosure under existing provisions of law.

9010(a) Exercise of Eminent Domain.--The Federal Government shall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interests of the public good.

This speaks to loopholes in/abuses of current legislation hindering transparency, and Grusch's claim that UAP materials have ended up at defense contractors. So it's saying we (Congress) trust evidence and testimony (that unidentified testimony fully consistent with Grusch's testimony) enough that it warrants legislation. More concretely, Schumer/Rubio believe Grusch's claims about oversight loopholes and legacy crash retrieval programs enough to legislate about it. That's an opinion they must have formed, under regular caveats of politics.

not what Rubio said

Incorrect. Rubio does say "a bunch of people with high clearances and really important jobs in our government are nuts.". Grusch says first-hand witnesses have gone to ICIG, and I make the trivial inference those are the people with high clearances and really important jobs in our government.

not what anyone here said, and rude

It is Rubio who says 'crazy' but I forgot which of the multiple times he has spoken to the UAP whistleblowers was cited here.

Article:

Either A they're telling the truth and that is something that obviously would be the biggest story in human history, or B we have people in really important positions of government who are crazy and who are out there making up stories, and who are still in positions of importance either one is a big problem.

So we've got to figure out which one of these two it is because uh the second one B in particular would be very troubling. All we know is claims that people have made, these are credible people that have done and continue to do important work for the country and and and by law we're required when they come forward as whistleblowers to take their claims seriously and and to investigate but we just don't know that's the answer

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMvFZvhUaGU&t=270s

Since you are offended others probably are as well, so that may explain why he in the later article used 'nuts'. As I highlight, there are also whistleblowers who are still in government that have come forward.

I'm not following that speculation. He's referring to "by the book" methods intelligence uses to keep stuff secret, and it stands to reason tradecraft would be used to keep secret projects secret, legal or not.

Grusch is talking about how they escape congressional oversight, the substantial part of his whistleblower claim. The legislation I cited is meant to prevent this and it does so by saying you must report to Congress if you want to fund a SAP that involves anything UAP. So IAA-24 is trying to close a loophole, not "by the book" methods because "by the book" methods do have congressional oversight.

I don't follow your opinion that it indicates knowledge.

I neither have that opinion nor have I expressed it.

Thread on that legislation is at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disclosure-act-of-2023-proposed-u-s-legislation.13058/ . My opinion on that is that it's a "costs nothing if not true" legislation for the most part, though the review board is going to be a pain.

Yeah I'm unsurprisingly also expressing minority analysis in that thread . The consensus for the political motivation is that it's done to stem the tide of mounting UAP pressure, which I think you can only arrive at by ignoring material parts of the legislation. It's relevant here because it ties into Grusch's testimony, for instance the whole Go8 discussion and the instruments used to be exempt UAP records from automatic desclassification as per Executive Order 13526 (Obama's campaign promise).

a "The only new thing about it is that there's now an insider making them." Elizondo/Mellon claimed pictures/video of aliens iirc; Grusch claims retrieval/possession of UFOs and aliens (NHI).

b "But after 50 years, there is still no credible evidence" — again, negative claim, but we're on Metabunk and would certainly recognize credible evidence.

c "not a single person or other country has come forward" — pretty confident no other country has said, "look, people, here's our UFO" — do you think that would've been missable?

d "the aliens still keep their visits secret." — patently obvious, or have you seen it reported on the evening news?

I'll just nuance your statements, as I agree there's no definitive proof.

a Whistleblower complaint to IG made it to Congress who are investigating, there's not one but multiple whistleblowers, so that is novel. That the claims fit some previous accusations is, well, consistent with the claims themselves, so couldn't really be any other way?
b so it's free to make.
c I wanted to rebuke the suggestion this was a US phenomenon e.g. Brazilian Senate hearings last year and professor Haim Eshed, former head of Israel's space program for 30 years, explained that Israel and the US have both been dealing with aliens for years. Hard to believe they're right, but they are credible non United States sources.
d The unresolved cases from the military makes this disputed, as does the tons of reports originating from elsewhere than the US military.

Brief sticking in of oar: DOES Congress think this? Some Congressmen clearly do, but some Congressmen believing a thing is not the same as something the Congress as a body/institution thinks.

If Congress has acted on this (not a committee, not some individual members) then a claim could be made that Congress believes certain things about it. And it is certainly possible they have and I missed it.

The Senate acted in sending their NDAA-24 to conference committee, which contains the UAPD Act and Funding Limitation On Certain Unreported Programs. The former was sponsored by three Democrats and three Republicans: Schumer, Rounds, Rubio, Gillibrand, Young, Heinrich; the latter introduced by Gillibrand. Both were bipartisan additions to the NDAA-24 of the Senate. The House acted with the UAP Hearings discussed in this thread, and their request for a select committee as addressed to Speaker McCarthy.

I take one chamber of Congress trying to pass legislation that addresses the claims by whistleblowers, in a bipartisan manner, as acting. The House's UAP hearing was also nonpartisan in how speaking time was used, unlike anything else coming out of HOC hearings this session. Would note it's rational for Congress to act on allegations that its oversight prerogative has been violated.

Further analysis is punditry. Congress just came back from recess, so perhaps more news to come on how NDAA-24 fares in conference. I think abortion and transgender surgery will be debated, not transparency and oversight. There's also potential for more (public) hearings and come December we'll know what NDAA Biden is signing.

One of the things I find most funny about all this is the idea of such a program "evading oversight".

Any agency with a program like this would certainly not keep it quiet (within the Top Secret environment that is).

Why? MONEY!!!

This program would mean FUNDING, lots and lots of MONEY, more funding than they could spend (and they can spend a lot when its available).

This all goes back to the whole UFO "we must hide the existence of aliens" conspiracy nonsense about trying to hide the existence, or presence, of aliens on this planet. That conspiracy that must, after all the years it is claimed to have been going on, must have involved millions of people, in practically every nation on Earth. Millions of people who have never slipped up and let the cat out of the bag.

Looking at things in isolation, what one person said, or what one photo shows, things can be more easily believed. But when you take a bunch of these isolated things and try to put them together into a Big Picture suddenly that big picture can look pretty silly.

Grusch claims to know how funding such SAPs evades oversight. Grusch said on News Nation "There is a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. populace which is extremely unethical and immoral". Because you're right, any story talking about a 75+ years coverup needs to explain what you state. This is how Grusch explains it.

You further seem to suggest (big picture looks silly) we should default to option B he is 'nuts', and I point out Congress is not ready to rule option A he's telling the truth or partially the truth. You can be outraged or intrigued, but you can't claim Congress ignores the whistleblowers.

For example, AASWAP tried to stay under the radar because they didn't really have results justifying the expense.

They lasted 2 years though IIRC, so they did something wrong.

Now imagine a UAP retrieval program, and every time it retrieves something it's some cheap hardware someone bought off the internet with a few LEDs glued on.

My word, THAT is an angle that never would have occurred to me.

Perhaps built by the same people who used game controls to send people on a deep dive in a submersible...

My post is entirely hypothetical, and that "cheap hardware with LEDs" is just a stand-in for anything "mundane". However, I expect that if there are actual UFO programs, these programs won't have had tangible results, much like Bigelow's Skinwalker Ranch investigations.

This bantersome exchange is a good example of how "someone said UFO, turned out to be a batman balloon" risks turning into the unsound inference rule that "anyone saying UFO means not credible".

So, whistleblowers (including Grusch) made claims about information being withheld from Congress and either 1 No one can validate the claims or no one wants to validate the claims, or 2 Congress is trying to legislate and exercise oversight so as to validate the claims.

Hopefully 1 can now be ruled out given the discussions on thread-page 26 and 27. Under 2 that means Congress is trying to validate claims about the biggest story in human history. Therefore we need to give Grusch's claims in this UAP hearing an honest review, because they're unclassified subset of what he testified to the congressional intelligence committees.

You can either not care, be outraged as the big picture looks silly, or be intrigued. As I don't think I'm more in the know than the highest ranking members of Congress, I'll allow myself to be intrigued.

 

[Landru]

(2) that he willfully made a false statement contrary to that oath yes
(3) that the declarant believed the statement to be untrue, and yes. Ex. Grusch knows whether he's testified in front of ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI, and so in saying he's done so he'd know whether true or false.

Please provide proof that support your claims here. Also, do not Gish Gallup your replies. One response for one post.

 

[JMartJr]

The Senate acted in sending their NDAA-24 to conference committee, which contains the UAPD Act and Funding Limitation On Certain Unreported Programs.

I'd be hesitant to call accepting a rider on a larger and critical bill evidence that Congress agrees with the assumptions behind the rider. We may just have to respectfully disagree on whether Congress as an institution holds any views at all on this question.

edited to finish sentence, tapped "send" inadvertantly...

 

[tintintintin]

Please provide proof that support your claims here. Also, do not Gish Gallup your replies. One response for one post.

You interjected into a discussion demanding proof of perjury, when in that line of discussion I believe I already provided said proof, coming directly from Grusch's testimony given at the hearing, of which this thread pertains. Here are those excerpts with an additional one, which shows perjury unless Grusch has actually testified in front of ICIG/SSCI/HPSCI.

Article:

Rep. Burchett: [...] So please what corporations?
Grusch: I don't know these specific metrics towards the end of your question, the specific corporations I did provide to the Committees in specific divisions and, I spent eleven and a half hours with both Intel committees.

Rep. Burchett: Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge and access to some of this crash retrieval some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities military bases that would the recovered material would be in and I know a lot of Congress talked about we're going to go to Area 51 and you know. [...]
Grusch: uh I can't discuss that publicly but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General and we could get that in this give if we were allowed to get in a SCIF.
Rep. Burchett: What special access programs cover this information and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight I in a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft use

Garcia: Mr Grusch Finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of uaps?
Grusch: Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years
Garcia: and, and where?
Grusch: I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General and some of which to the intelligence committees I actually had the people with the first-hand knowledge um provide a protected disclosure to the Inspector General

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEPeT-GsX5A&t=1277s

 

[John J.]

I believe I already provided said proof

I think the point Landru is making is that, if you state something believing it to be true, you are not committing perjury.

It is possible that Mr Grusch entirely believes what he says, but is totally incorrect. He might be re-cycling "tall stories" told to him, which are untrue, but which he believes.
However, he hasn't put any material in the public domain- other than what he claims to have been told by unidentified others- that might be used as testable evidence for his assertions.

 

[tintintintin]

I'd be hesitant to call accepting a rider on a larger and critical bill evidence that Congress agrees with the assumptions behind the rider. We may just have to respectfully disagree on whether Congress as an institution holds any views at all on this question.

We can certainly be not in agreement on the matter.

For further context, and not one that opposes your analysis of Congress' view, I'll add the UAPD Act was highlighted (4 out of 51 amendments explicitly called out) by Senate Majority leader when the NDAA passed, though obviously Schumer himself sponsored it. As he does that, you can see him recognize this is a space for misinformation, which the quote towards the end could certainly feed.

Article:

Finally, I'm pleased the NDAA will include my amendment on increasing transparency on UAPs, or unidentified anomalous phenomena. UAPs generate a lot of curiosity for many Americans. With the curiosity sometimes comes misinformation. My amendment will require the national archive and records administration to create a collection of records from across government agencies that can be declassified for the public's use, similar to the approach used in 1992 with the JFK assassination records collection act. These records will carry a presumption of immediate disclosure, which means they can only remain classified with good reason. I thank my colleagues who worked with me on this legislation, senator Rounds, Rubio, Heinrich, Gillibrand and Young for their partnership on this amendment. As many know, my mentor and dear friend who I miss so much, Harry Reid, was passionate about this issue. So were senators Stevens and Inouye. I'm glad we could get this into the amendment. For these and many other reasons, I look forward to beginning floor consideration of the NDAA bill today. The four things I've mentioned, dealing with fentanyl, dealing with competition with china, dealing with the AI, and with making public the UAP phenomena and what we know about them in an unclassified way, are all important additions to the defense bill, and I'm glad we added them in.

Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5083507/user-clip-ndaa-4th-highlight

 

[tintintintin]

I think the point Landru is making is that, if you state something believing it to be true, you are not committing perjury.

It is possible that Mr Grusch entirely believes what he says, but is totally incorrect. He might be re-cycling "tall stories" told to him, which are untrue, but which he believes.
However, he hasn't put any material in the public domain- other than what he claims to have been told by unidentified others- that might be used as testable evidence for his assertions.

So, in Grusch's testimony he's testified for 11.5 hours to both intel committees. That is perjury if he hasn't, regardless of what he said. Correct?

Moreover, consider the following where Grusch establishes twice he has knowledge of the names of SAPs that are crash retrieval programs.

Rep. Burchett: What special access programs [crash retrieval programs] cover this information and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight I in a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft use

Grusch (Opening Statement): I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-ons when I requested it.

But he also establishes these were denied to him. Grusch claims first-hand knowledge of names of SAPs and being denied access to them, thus claiming to have tested their existence. So Grusch must have been denied to be read in on those SAPs, which is not a "tall story", or he's perjured himself.

 

[Landru]

So, in Grusch's testimony he's testified for 11.5 hours to both intel committees. That is perjury if he hasn't, regardless of what he said. Correct?

Moreover, consider the following where Grusch establishes twice he has knowledge of the names of SAPs that are crash retrieval programs.

Rep. Burchett: What special access programs [crash retrieval programs] cover this information and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight I in a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft use

Grusch (Opening Statement): I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-ons when I requested it.

But he also establishes these were denied to him. Grusch claims first-hand knowledge of names of SAPs and being denied access to them, thus claiming to have tested their existence. So Grusch must have been denied to be read in on those SAPs, which is not a "tall story", or he's perjured himself.

He was denied to be read into the programs. It does not mean those programs are UAP related. As he was not read into them he dod not know what they were.

 

[tintintintin]

He was denied to be read into the programs. It does not mean those programs are UAP related. As he was not read into them he dod not know what they were.

Correct. Still implies he perjured himself.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I was in agreement with you until that last sentence. Yes, he has an agenda, but it's an agenda based on something he honestly believes/accepts, and also honestly believes/accepts as being for the greater good. Any dishonest agenda here is that of the "UFO grifters" who are taking advantage of Grusch's gullibility and/or delusions.

His motives are complex, but common.

I'll borrow something from Dr. Grande, because I agree with him and he has put it very well.

David's story is not supported by any evidence and doesn't make any sense. I think it's highly likely that he is mistaken. It's possible that all these people really did tell David that the government was running an alien spacecraft junkyard and David believed their statements. David might not be lying or he might not think of himself as lying. Some people simply need to believe and find any reason to do so. A number of factors can explain how someone could reach this point. A few examples: Elevated levels of distrust and even paranoia, confirmation bias, discomfort with ambiguity, a deficit in critical thinking skills, high levels of gullibility, extremely high openness to experience - like living in a fantasy world - and a need to find purpose in life which has not been satisfied through more conventional thought or other non-alien experiences.

This is not delusion or psychosis. These are common factors in normal psychology. This state of mind is not the kind of thing that would typically show up in a performance evaluation in any type of organization. Citing his past performance evaluations is therefore not relevant.


I think Grusch was listening to Urban Legends that have been around for decades.

Spoiler: More info on urban legends

Experts have done decades of research on Urban Legends in general, and some things are known about them:

-They are popular because they often have some theme which is rewarding to some people: moralistic, racist, religious, fantastic (ghosts, spirits), schadenfreude, a dramatic twist of fate, suspicion of authorities, and so on.

-They don't need to based on anything real. They are usually not even a highly distorted version of something that really happened or is happening.

-They often don't make sense.

-They are resistant to debunking.

-They can be specialized to a certain audience.

-People like to tell these Urban Legends because it's fun and/or they want to promulgate their own special pet theories or bigotries.

I think there's good evidence that Grusch was targeted by True Believers, because True Believers of any sort like to proselytize. These Alien Spacecraft Junkyard Urban Legends are repeated - and elaborated upon - by this population. I think it likely that Grusch was carried away by the enthusiasm of the recent convert. The Inter-Dimensional Being Hypotheisis is exciting.

This does not at all conflict with the possibility that he was set up as a front man by these same True Believers.

 

[Landru]

Correct. Still implies he perjured himself.

How?

 

[tintintintin]

How?

Because saying he knows SAP names and that he was denied being read into them and these are outside Congressional oversight satisfy (1)-(4) of perjury properties.

 

[Landru]

Because saying he knows SAP names and that he was denied being read into them and these are outside Congressional oversight satisfy (1)-(4) of perjury properties.

How? What part was knowingly untrue to Grusch?

 

[tintintintin]

How? What part was knowingly untrue to Grusch?

denied being read in

 

[Landru]

denied being read in

Do you have evidence he was not denied being read in?

 

[Mendel]

professor Haim Eshed, former head of Israel's space program for 30 years, explained that Israel and the US have both been dealing with aliens for years

your source: "While it is unclear if any evidence exists that could support Eshed's claims". UFO nuts are everywhere, that's global, no tangible evidence anywhere, that's also global, so the alleged coverup must also be global, and that's unprecedented and highly unlikely.

d The unresolved cases from the military makes this disputed

no, they don't. "Fuzzy blobs of light" is a far cry from a news item about a foreign dignitary visiting (or even about illegal immigrants crossing the border).

This bantersome exchange is a good example of how "someone said UFO, turned out to be a batman balloon" risks turning into the unsound inference rule that "anyone saying UFO means not credible".

none of the people involved in the "banter" have touched on credibility issues.
Though I'll readily admit I want to see evidence before I consider a tale of UFOs credible.

Under 2 that means Congress is trying to validate claims about the biggest story in human history. Therefore we need to give Grusch's claims in this UAP hearing an honest review, because they're unclassified subset of what he testified to the congressional intelligence committees.

As far as they have been reviewable, they've been bunk, be it the 1930s Italian UFO or quantum dimensional travelers.

I'm not intrigued because I see the big campaign he's a part of, and I know history is repeating itself for at least the third time, and it was a waste of money and effort before.

 

[Mendel]

As he does that, you can see him recognize this is a space for misinformation

heavily paraphrased:
Elizondo: "the Navy has UFO videos"
videos get released
Mick West: "my analysis shows those are likely ordinary jets"

the release of the UAP data reduces the space that misinformation (claims without proof) can occupy

 

[Mendel]

So, in Grusch's testimony he's testified for 11.5 hours to both intel committees. That is perjury if he hasn't, regardless of what he said. Correct?

No, because it's not material. If it turns out he only testified 10 hours, that's not perjury.