House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

Moreover, consider the following where Grusch establishes twice he has knowledge of the names of SAPs that are crash retrieval programs.
External Quote:
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.
The point is that Grusch has not perjured himself here if these programs are not UAP-related, but that's the core of the claim. However, Grusch never asserts it. "I was informed" establishes his good faith, and then you're missing the intent to lie that is required for perjury.
 
Last edited:
So this all started with
This seems to be painting a picture that Grusch and others have not provided verifiable first-hand information to HPSCI and SSCI.
to which I've given multiple examples from Grusch's testimony where he states to have done so. I then claimed that for MonkeeSage's statement to hold, Grusch would have had to perjure himself.

Landru is arguing there's nothing perjurable in Grusch's testimony, because Grusch believe it to be true, by condition (3). So we're now into the weeds on a particular statement about being read into alleged SAPs concerning craft retrieval.
Do you have evidence he was not denied being read in?
Because Grusch was first-hand denied being read in, if it turns out he was not, he must have believed the statement to be untrue (3), perjury.

Also, "Grusch was not denied being read in" means "Grusch was read in". I have no evidence on that, but arguably Grusch would still work in the US military and be completely unknown.
 
The point is that Grusch has not perjured himself here if these programs are not UAP-related, but that's the core of the claim. However, Grusch never asserts it. "I was informed" establishes his good faith, and then you're missing the intent to lie that is required for perjury.
There many ways he could have perjured himself without the programs being UAP related, including his assertion he was denied access to SAPs that were beyond congressional oversight. There's no good faith argument to be made for that, it is perjury.
 
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.
Other then being mildly off-put by the use of "nuts," I am generally in agreement with the points in this post.

Especially worth highlighting, to my mind, is:
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.
I am not sure how many among the UFO-believers and UFO-intrigued folks are aware of the cyclical nature of this. Folks I communicate with about it are largely younger than I am (there is DIRT that is younger than I am!:eek:) and see all of this as new and exciting. They are not aware that these stories, or the stories they seem to be emulating, have been driven around the block a number of times and are getting more than a bit shop-worn and moth-eaten.
 
Because Grusch was first-hand denied being read in, if it turns out he was not, he must have believed the statement to be untrue (3), perjury.
"if it turns out he was not..." is not proof. Do you have proof? If not stop claiming proof of perjury.
 
Last edited:
Also, "Grusch was not denied being read in" means "Grusch was read in". I have no evidence on that, but arguably Grusch would still work in the US military and be completely unknown.
This does not make sense. Grusch testified that he was denied being read in. Do you have evidence that this statement is untrue?
 
So this all started with
(from @MonkeeSage) This seems to be painting a picture that Grusch and others have not provided verifiable first-hand information to HPSCI and SSCI.
to which I've given multiple examples from Grusch's testimony where he states to have done so.
To be fair, we don't know if the information he provided was either verified or "verifiable", whether they've followed it up, or whether he's provided information that caused people in those entities to shrug their shoulders, consign it to the circular file, and decide to ignore him.
 
to which I've given multiple examples from Grusch's testimony where he states to have done so. I then claimed that for MonkeeSage's statement to hold, Grusch would have had to perjure himself.
I have agreed that Grusch is acting in good faith, but I don't think he has to purjure himself to make claims *he* believes are true but might not be as @Mendel said. My interpretation of Turner and Gillibrand's statements is that they paint a picture that whistleblowers have not given HPSCI/SSCI the first-hand details needed to verify such programs exist. This is quite admittedly a subjective exercise in trying to read minds from the limited statements we have available, and I am ok with being wrong in that interpretation. You have presented a good counter-argument that Rubio and others think there is more to it. I think when you earlier said "we are at a stalemate" you are correct until more information is forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
There many ways he could have perjured himself without the programs being UAP related, including his assertion he was denied access to SAPs that were beyond congressional oversight. There's no good faith argument to be made for that, it is perjury.
yes.
But what you seem to be claiming is that he must have perjured himself if
• the claims he testified about to the HOC/HPSCI/SSCI are not verifiable
• there is no UFO retrieval program
• there is no UFO reverse engineering program
• there is no project that violated reporting requirements,
yes?

We agree that Grusch testified something to the intelligence committees. We disagree about the nature of his testimony. ("credible" is not "true", but Grusch's hearsay being "credible" if false would help him beat a perjury charge, because it's then logical that he did believe it himself.)

We agree that Grusch was denied access to some projects that he thought were UAP-related. We disagree that he perjured himself if they were not UAP-related (it's not perjury if he actually thought that).

We agree that some SAPs and CAPs are secretly funded. We disagree that Grusch perjured himself if these projects did not evade reporting requirements (neither Grusch nor Monheim should be able to determine that for waived projects).

Therefore, we disagree that Grusch is in legal jeopardy if these claims are false.
Therefore, I don't think it's evidence that they are true.
 
I'm going further.
I believe that Bigelow used money from a DoD contract to investigate paranormal phenomena.
I believe that Bigelow has facilities to reverse-engineer UFOs and "meta-materials", but doesn't actually possess materials crafted by unknown NHIs.
This is proof that Bigelow believes these things exist, not that they actually do.

I further believe that UAPTF did not have legal authority to access White House records. I believe the White House has no legal obligation to report UAP-related information. The IC/DoD elements that provided this information to the White House might have been required, though; unless they managed to identify the phenomena, of course.
 
Last edited:
yes.
But what you seem to be claiming is that he must have perjured himself if
• the claims he testified about to the HOC/HPSCI/SSCI are not verifiable
• there is no UFO retrieval program
• there is no UFO reverse engineering program
• there is no project that violated reporting requirements,
yes?

We agree that Grusch testified something to the intelligence committees. We disagree about the nature of his testimony. ("credible" is not "true", but Grusch's hearsay being "credible" if false would help him beat a perjury charge, because it's then logical that he did believe it himself.)

We agree that Grusch was denied access to some projects that he thought were UAP-related. We disagree that he perjured himself if they were not UAP-related (it's not perjury if he actually thought that).

We agree that some SAPs and CAPs are secretly funded. We disagree that Grusch perjured himself if these projects did not evade reporting requirements (neither Grusch nor Monheim should be able to determine that for waived projects).

Therefore, we disagree that Grusch is in legal jeopardy if these claims are false.
Therefore, I don't think it's evidence that they are true.
As I mentioned previously, if Grusch is accurate in his claims that 1) black programs illegally used/misused appropriated funds and/or 2) he was provided actual classified information over and above the level at which he was accessed to such programs, it's the people in those programs who could be facing federal charges. Doubt any of those folks would do more than plead the 5th if subpoenaed to testify under oath.
 
As I mentioned previously, if Grusch is accurate in his claims that 1) black programs illegally used/misused appropriated funds and/or 2) he was provided actual classified information over and above the level at which he was accessed to such programs, it's the people in those programs who could be facing federal charges. Doubt any of those folks would do more than plead the 5th if subpoenaed to testify under oath.
They would take the 5th if asked whether they had talked to Grusch. But if these programs are UAP-related, §3373b protections would apply for people using the proper channels.

Essentially, the request to Monheim we talked about earlier would result in a list of people who could be afforded this kind of protection.
 
They would take the 5th if asked whether they had talked to Grusch. But if these programs are UAP-related, §3373b protections would apply for people using the proper channels.

Essentially, the request to Monheim we talked about earlier would result in a list of people who could be afforded this kind of protection.

As I understand it, whistleblower protection can be extended to those who voluntarily come forward to proper authorities to "out" illegal or unethical practices they have witnessed and/or participated in while carrying out official duties. If a witness has to be subpoenaed to spill the beans, any testimony given isn't voluntarily. I could see a deal cut to get a subpoenaed witness to turn state's evidence, but don't think that counts as whistleblowing. That's covering one's ass, not looking out for the greater good.
 
As I understand it, whistleblower protection can be extended to those who voluntarily come forward to proper authorities to "out" illegal or unethical practices they have witnessed and/or participated in while carrying out official duties. If a witness has to be subpoenaed to spill the beans, any testimony given isn't voluntarily.
Yes. So Burchett has two options: a), give them a phone call and ask them to do an authorized disclosure (which some seem to already have done), or b), subpoena them into a SCIF, based on Monheim's list. Either option unlinks their testimony from Grusch.
 
"if it turns out he was not..." is not proof. Do you have proof? If not stop claiming proof of perjury.
It is Grusch's claim that he was denied being read in.
Article:
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-on's.

You acknowledged this statement earlier.
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.
The issue of perjury goes exactly the veracity of him being denied access, irrespective of what the program was about.
If he was denied being read in, it is not perjury.
If he was not denied being read in, it is perjury.
I don't have proof of either antecedent, but the two conditions cover the space of possibilities. I have never claimed proof of perjury, but this is proof of perjury in the event he was read in to said SAPs.

This does not make sense. Grusch testified that he was denied being read in. Do you have evidence that this statement is untrue?
It makes sense from logical equivalence to the statement you asked for evidence of
Do you have evidence he was not denied being read in?
(emphasis mine). Again, I've never made the claim Grusch perjured himself at the UAP hearing. I've argued against the proposition it was impossible for him to have perjured himself.
 
It is Grusch's claim that he was denied being read in.
Article:
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-on's.

You acknowledged this statement earlier.

The issue of perjury goes exactly the veracity of him being denied access, irrespective of what the program was about.
If he was denied being read in, it is not perjury.
If he was not denied being read in, it is perjury.
I don't have proof of either antecedent, but the two conditions cover the space of possibilities. I have never claimed proof of perjury, but this is proof of perjury in the event he was read in to said SAPs.


It makes sense from logical equivalence to the statement you for evidence of

(emphasis mine). Again, I've never made the claim Grusch perjured himself at the UP hearing. I've argued against the proposition it was impossible for him to have periured himself.H
If you are not claiming Grusch committed perjury then what are you claiming? You have hinted he has and have claimed:

There many ways he could have perjured himself without the programs being UAP related, including his assertion he was denied access to SAPs that were beyond congressional oversight. There's no good faith argument to be made for that, it is perjury.
Stop playing word games. Make a claim and support it with evidence.
 
If you are not claiming Grusch committed perjury then what are you claiming? You have hinted he has and have claimed:
I'm arguing against the proposition it was impossible for him to have perjured himself. My claim is it is possible for Grusch to have perjured himself. I show this claim by providing an example of a statement Grusch made, that if found untrue (3) meets the standards of perjury.

It's the example you cite "his assertion he was denied access to SAPs", which I made a logical analysis of in what you cite as well.

I do this because this was stated:
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.
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 when you say,
Stop playing word games. Make a claim and support it with evidence.
please help me understand what is unsupported.
 
I'm arguing against the proposition it was impossible for him to have perjured himself. My claim is it is possible for Grusch to have perjured himself. I show this claim by providing an example of a statement Grusch made, that if found untrue (3) meets the standards of perjury.
It is also possible that I have have committed perjury. Stop playing word games. Provide proof in accordance with the Posting Guidelines.
 
You picked a statement by me as justification.
I do this because this was stated:
From Grusch's opening statement:
External Quote:
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.
(some context restored, emphasis added)

You picked this statement by Grusch as an example:
It is Grusch's claim that he was denied being read in.
Article:
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-on's.
(I note there's an official transcript now.)
The part that "someone had actually told him" ("I was informed") is the claim about the UAP crash retrieval program, not the part about his access denial. So if you go by my statement, you should focus on the former, not the latter, when discussing perjury immunity.

(Though if you want to pick nits, some must have told him his access was denied, too. If his access wasn't denied, but he was told it was, it still wouldn't be perjury.)
 
Last edited:
All this recent discussion on whether Grusch was read in to black programs is ignoring at what level he was read in. This isn't necessarily an all or nothing situation.

External Quote:
In two thousand nineteen, the UAP task force director asked me to identify all special access programs and controlled access programs, also known as Sapps and Capps."
https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full...-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/

Following his tasking, I believe Grusch approached other agencies with his identify black, UAP related programs tasking. They would have done so in a defensive brief, meaning they divulged just enough information to allow Grusch to meet his tasking to identify programs. Officially, he probably didn't get much beyond the program(s) name(s) and very top level information. From their perspective, they gave him all he needed.

External Quote:
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 (emphasis mine) when I, requested it.
https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full...-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/

This confirms he was read in, but not read in at levels he felt he was entitled to/required to fulfill his tasking. This also tells me his boss lacked the authority to get him read in at deeper levels. Rice bowls...

External Quote:
I made the decision based on the data I collected to report this information to my superior, superiors, and multiple inspectors general, and in effect becoming a whistleblower.
So by his own admission he was read in, requested ("additional read ons") a deeper level of classified information and was denied. We have not seen the IG reports to know if they agreed with his need to see "additional read ons," but I doubt it.

I've been in this situation myself, btw. The difference was I knew better than to ask for information in excess of what I needed to do my job. Had I done so, I'm confident I've have been sitting in the office of our SPO's co-located OSI agent.
 
To which I was denied access to those ADDITIONAL READ ONS (emphasis mine) when I, requested it.
I understood Grusch to mean, in addition to the other SAPs he had access to. Grusch isn't always terribly exact with his phrasing (it's oral testimony, after all), so while you may have a point, maybe that's not what happened.

Your version would imply that this multi-decade UAP crash retrieval program actually exists.
 
Your version would imply that this multi-decade UAP crash retrieval program actually exists.

I'm simply stating what Grusch said/believes he was told. Being denied deeper levels of access doesn't mean those programs were retrieving UFOs, it only means those in authority in the programs felt he didn't have a need to know more than what they provided.

Btw, and it's probably intuitively obvious, black programs are more inclined to be forthcoming if they need you than vice versa. Had Grusch been a SME in an area one of those programs lacked, he'd have likely been given additional information. As it was, he showed up hat in hand and would have been viewed as non-value added by those programs. Or at least that's how I would have viewed him, especially if he was outside my chain of command.
 
I'm simply stating what Grusch said/believes he was told. Being denied deeper levels of access doesn't mean those programs were retrieving UFOs, it only means those in authority in the programs felt he didn't have a need to know more than what they provided.
Then I'm not following.

You wrote,
Following his tasking, I believe Grusch approached other agencies with his identify black, UAP related programs tasking. They would have done so in a defensive brief, meaning they divulged just enough information to allow Grusch to meet his tasking to identify programs. Officially, he probably didn't get much beyond the program(s) name(s) and very top level information. From their perspective, they gave him all he needed.
So, knowing this information, Grusch still maintains it's a "multi decade, UAP, crash retrieval, and reverse engineering program". I can only imagine three ways this happens in good faith:
a) Grusch was briefed that it was in fact that kind of program (it exists)
b) Grusch believes he was lied to ("coverup")
c) some kind of misinterpretation/misunderstanding going on
 
Then I'm not following.

You wrote,

So, knowing this information, Grusch still maintains it's a "multi decade, UAP, crash retrieval, and reverse engineering program". I can only imagine three ways this happens in good faith:
a) Grusch was briefed that it was in fact that kind of program (it exists)
b) Grusch believes he was lied to ("coverup")
c) some kind of misinterpretation/misunderstanding going on

I think he was told the minimal information to fulfill his "identity" tasking. At some point, he was convinced of a retrieval program(s) by someone (or multiple someones) he believed. He then tried to get more classified information from the programs he knew of from his initial tasking, but was denied because he had no need to know any more to complete that tasking.

Who told him there was a retrieval program(s) is unknown, at least here. We've seen lots of speculation here his information came from those who've been called "true believers." Certainly a number of those people (Elizondo, Davis, Lacatski, Green, et al.) met the description he gave at the hearing.

External Quote:
Following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and intelligence community individuals...

So Grusch bought their claims, apparently at least in part due to their current/former positions in the military and/or intel community.
 
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
Hang on Mendel. New to the site but I have to take this up with you here. I like Mick's video analysis but there's no agreement in the scientific community that these are likely jets. AARO, who have access to all of the data listed these as resolved right.
 
I think he was told the minimal information to fulfill his "identity" tasking. At some point, he was convinced of a retrieval program(s) by someone (or multiple someones) he believed. He then tried to get more classified information from the programs he knew of from his initial tasking, but was denied because he had no need to know any more to complete that tasking.

Who told him there was a retrieval program(s) is unknown, at least here. We've seen lots of speculation here his information came from those who've been called "true believers." Certainly a number of those people (Elizondo, Davis, Lacatski, Green, et al.) met the description he gave at the hearing.

External Quote:
Following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and intelligence community individuals...

So Grusch bought their claims, apparently at least in part due to their current/former positions in the military and/or intel community.

Duke, do you think something like a misunderstanding took place here.
  • Grusch looks into SAPs and CAPs he thinks or has been told have something to do with "crash retrieval" and/or "reverse engineering".
  • Giving his mandate the people in the program give him the bare minimum of information, "yes, we are a crash retrieval program" or "a reverse engineering program".
  • Grusch then reports this to Stratton, Taylor and other UFO believers at UAPTF and then goes back to ask to be read in further.
  • As the SAP program is about "crash retrieval" and "reverse engineering" of foreign assets and is not UAP related, they tell him to bugger off.
  • Grusch takes the denial of access to these programs as evidence of a coverup of Alien crash retrieval and reverse engineering, as that's what his cohorts are telling him.
I can see where this would account for the stories. He was denied access to legitimate programs because they had nothing to do with UFO/UAPs, but he's being told that they do, so he perceives a coverup.
 
Duke, do you think something like a misunderstanding took place here.
  • Grusch looks into SAPs and CAPs he thinks or has been told have something to do with "crash retrieval" and/or "reverse engineering".
  • Giving his mandate the people in the program give him the bare minimum of information, "yes, we are a crash retrieval program" or "a reverse engineering program".
  • Grusch then reports this to Stratton, Taylor and other UFO believers at UAPTF and then goes back to ask to be read in further.
  • As the SAP program is about "crash retrieval" and "reverse engineering" of foreign assets and is not UAP related, they tell him to bugger off.
  • Grusch takes the denial of access to these programs as evidence of a coverup of Alien crash retrieval and reverse engineering, as that's what his cohorts are telling him.
I can see where this would account for the stories. He was denied access to legitimate programs because they had nothing to do with UFO/UAPs, but he's being told that they do, so he perceives a coverup.
It's as good a theory as well any other based on the close hold nature of such programs and the characters we know to have been/be involved. To me the crux of the matter is who told Grusch about retrieval programs. Unfortunately we may never know.
 
Last edited:
Duke, do you think something like a misunderstanding took place here.
  • Grusch looks into SAPs and CAPs he thinks or has been told have something to do with "crash retrieval" and/or "reverse engineering".
  • Giving his mandate the people in the program give him the bare minimum of information, "yes, we are a crash retrieval program" or "a reverse engineering program".
  • Grusch then reports this to Stratton, Taylor and other UFO believers at UAPTF and then goes back to ask to be read in further.
  • As the SAP program is about "crash retrieval" and "reverse engineering" of foreign assets and is not UAP related, they tell him to bugger off.
  • Grusch takes the denial of access to these programs as evidence of a coverup of Alien crash retrieval and reverse engineering, as that's what his cohorts are telling him.
I can see where this would account for the stories. He was denied access to legitimate programs because they had nothing to do with UFO/UAPs, but he's being told that they do, so he perceives a coverup.

Doesn't make sense because Grusch has elaborated on some of those claims such as their being non-human biologics recovered and that we have some sort of deal in place with malevolent aliens. He seems to believe these are retrievals of non-human craft, he seems to have developed that idea from somewhere.
 
He seems to believe these are retrievals of non-human craft, he seems to have developed that idea from somewhere.
Eric Davis is one possible vector. Eric knew Grusch was the whistleblower before his name was made public and has claimed they worked together where Grusch was his 'Special Security Officer'.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/post-294373

Eric gave classified briefing of crash retrievals to two separate senate committees in 2019, which was during Grusch's time in the UAP task force so I find it very likely that Davis is one of his key sources, perhaps the only, for UFO retrievals.

External Quote:
Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
 
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:
External Quote:

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?

SmartSelect_20230916-112106_Samsung Notes.jpg


Reply:
F6GEDcLWIAAITOz.jpeg.jpg

F6GEGAZWwAAaEyP.jpeg.jpg


This response reads to me that IC IG very politely explains that he's not in the business of answering random letters from congresspeople; that there are processes to be followed that provide this information to Congress; and that, if he had answered their request, he wouldn't have been able to do much more than to repeat Grusch's claims back at them.
 
Last edited:
Regarding footnote 4:
Article:
(Slip Opinion)

Requests by Individual Members of Congress for Executive Branch Information

In reviewing requests from Congress, the Executive Branch's longstanding policy has been to engage in the established process for working to accommodate congressional requests for information only when those requests come from a committee, subcommittee, or chairman acting pursuant to oversight authority delegated from a House of Congress.Departments and agencies, however, may appropriately give due weight and sympathetic consideration to requests for information from individual members of Congress not delegated such authority.

Only a committee chairman may request presidential records under section 2205(2)(C) of the Presidential Records Act, unless the committee has specifically delegated that authority to another member.


Compare:
External Quote:

"We were not afforded access to all of the flight crew, and initially, we were not afforded access to images and to radar (data)," Gaetz said. "Thereafter, we had a bit of a discussion about how authorities flow in the United States of America, and we did see the image, and we did meet with one member of the flight crew who took the image."
 
1695017575874.png

So that blows up the claims from Coulthart, Corbell, Knapp and co. that the ICIG did a thorough investigation and interviewed first-hand witnesses that corroborated Grusch's claims about crash recovery programs, and had deemed Grusch's claims about such programs credible because of such investigation.

Edit: Adding a relevant example from Coulthart's response to Media Watch calling into question the nature of his reporting on Grusch:
Article:
The current ICIG Thomas Monheim is still preparing his report into Mr Grusch's allegations, comprising both Grusch's complaint about reprisals against him for being a zealous UAPTF investigator and whistleblower and also, most importantly, the Inspector General is investigating Mr Grusch's complaint that there has been a conspiracy within both the US Defense Dept & intelligence community and senior executives in private aerospace to illegally conceal a non-human intelligence [NHI] crash retrieval program and reverse engineering program from Congressional oversight.

Via: https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/ufos/102785078

We could already strongly infer that the ICIG would not have made such an investigation based on the content of Grusch's PPD-19 complaint (and CR's statement about it's limited scope), and the timeframe ICIG had to make a determination of the "apparent credibility" of the complaint (14 days), but here it is in writing--he never made any such investigation about any UAP recovery programs.
 
Last edited:
We could already strongly infer that the ICIG would not have made such an investigation based on the content of Grusch's PPD-19 complaint (and CR's statement about it's limited scope), and the timeframe ICIG had to make a determination of the "apparent credibility" of the complaint (14 days), but here it is in writing--he never made any such investigation about any UAP recovery programs.
Monheim also notes that he is required to protect the identities of whistleblowers and witnesses. So he can't just call anyone up and ask, "did you tell person A about secret X", because that would expose the whistleblower.
 
Monheim also notes that he is required to protect the identities of whistleblowers and witnesses. So he can't just call anyone up and ask, "did you tell person A about secret X", because that would expose the whistleblower.
It would seem he could do so NOW, since Grusch's identity as a whistle blower is now pretty well known and there is no risk of exposure. I suppose of the "I was retaliated against" claim seemed plausible, but the "there is a huge secret UFO reverse engineering program" did not, ten Monheim might see no need to do so. Or there could of course be other reasons not to do so. Or he may be doing so even now...
 
Adding a relevant example from Coulthart's response to Media Watch calling into question the nature of his reporting on Grusch:
Nice work MonkeeSage. A rare case where some of his claims could be fact checked. This really calls into question how much Coulthart and the others actually know and how much is just made up.
 
In August, shortly after U.S. government UFO whistleblower David Grusch gave testimony to Congress about crashed spacecraft and alien "biologics," many observers wondered how much credence to put in his testimony. After all, Grusch is just a single individual. The other two individuals who testified before Congress were former Navy pilots who said they had no evidence of a government program to retrieve and reverse-engineer spacecraft of exotic and apparently nonhuman origin.But at least 30 other whistleblowers working for the federal government or government contractors have given testimony, or a "protected disclosure," to the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG), the Defense Department Inspector General (DOD IG), or to Congress over the last several months, according to multiple sources interviewed by Public.When told that whistleblowers had come forward to share information similar to that shared by Grusch with Congress, Mick West, a prominent skeptic of UFOs, said, "It'd be very interesting. You know, more people saying the same thing independently makes it more likely to be true."And yet the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Thomas A. Monheim, on September 15 appeared to deny, in a letter to Congress, that his office was investigating these claims. Monheim said that his office "has not conducted any audit, inspection, evaluation, or review of alleged UAP programs within responsibility authority of the DNI that would enable … a fulsome response."But the way Monheim worded his response suggests he gave himself some wiggle room. Matthew Pines, a civilian intelligence analyst, noted last week that "the official taxonomy for IC IG activities includes: 'audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews.' Is it curious that an 'investigation' is not denied?... The Investigations Division is structurally separate from the Audit and Inspections & Evaluation Divisions."The fact that dozens of whistleblowers have come forward is not evidence of extraterrestrial life nor of a government conspiracy to cover up a retrieval or reverse-engineering program. And not all of the whistleblowers may be reporting evidence of UAPs. Some may simply be reporting illegal or unethical behavior related to UAP programs.But the sources, who asked to remain anonymous and are all in a position to know, told Public that, in addition to the whistleblowers reporting wrongdoing, between 30 to 50 government employees or contractors have gone to the DoD's All-Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to offer testimony about UAPs."Some witnesses/whistleblowers are coming forward directly to AARO, some to the DOD IG, some to the IC IG, and some to Congress," said Nick Pope, a UAP expert who worked on the issue for the UK's Ministry of Defense.Many have speculated as to whether Grusch and other UAP whistleblowers or witnesses might be part of a US government disinformation campaign.A former US Air Force intelligence officer working at Kirtland Air Force Base in the 1980s through to the first decade of this century admitted to British journalist Mark Pilkington and others that he spread disinformation about UFOs with the aim of misleading civilian UFO investigators in order to cover-up both US military as well as nonhuman technology programs.But, experts interviewed by Public say it is unlikely that people waging a disinformation campaign would do it through the Office of the Inspector General since doing so puts individuals at risk."Considering the broader context, to include Grusch's allegations, previous reporting by Public, and the extraordinary legislation working its way through Congress," said Marik von Rennenkampff, a former Pentagon appointee under the Obama administration, "I find it hard to believe that so many individuals would open themselves up to significant legal jeopardy by willfully lying to inspectors general."Knowingly giving false testimony to the IC IG is punishable by fines up to $ 10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. If found guilty of lying to Congress, Grusch would face up to five years in prison.At the same time, the history of past government disinformation campaigns in general, and as they specifically relate to UAPs, involves the mixing of accurate information and inaccurate information, making it difficult or impossible to feel confident in understanding the meaning of fundamental elements of the phenomenon.That reality and the need to prevent government officials from deliberately misleading journalists, policymakers, and the public make greater transparency and disclosure essential, both UFO skeptics and believers agree."It's either that dozens of highly cleared officials are in the grip of an enduring, bizarre delusion, are witting participants to a broad scale and long-running psychological deception," said Pines, "or they are relaying factual information on extraordinary covert programs."Said West, "I can understand why people would think ufology is frivolous and a waste of government money, and we shouldn't be looking into it. But they don't think we shouldn't release the secret information about crashed alien craft, you know, something everybody wants to see."
External Quote:
 
@Curious George
From your posted quote, I gather from Shellenberger, "between 30 to 50 government employees or contractors have gone to the DoD's All-Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to offer testimony about UAPs". That, of course, doesn't tell us if they offered corroborating testimony or negating testimony.
 
Back
Top