House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

@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.
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
Unfortunately, the rest of the article is behind a pay-wall, but a commenter claimed that the article referred to first-hand witnesses as well.
 
Unfortunately, the rest of the article is behind a pay-wall, but a commenter claimed that the article referred to first-hand witnesses as well.
Article:
Testimony has included both first-hand and second-hand reports of crash retrieval and reverse-engineering programs by US, Russian, and Chinese governments; the testing of materials obtained from retrieved craft; active and ongoing government disinformation operations; kinetic military action with UAPs; contact and collaboration with nonhuman intelligence (NHIs); and the successful reverse-engineering of a triangle-shaped craft with unconventional propulsion.

How does Shellenberger know?
 
Article:
Testimony has included both first-hand and second-hand reports of crash retrieval and reverse-engineering programs by US, Russian, and Chinese governments; the testing of materials obtained from retrieved craft; active and ongoing government disinformation operations; kinetic military action with UAPs; contact and collaboration with nonhuman intelligence (NHIs); and the successful reverse-engineering of a triangle-shaped craft with unconventional propulsion.
How does Shellenberger know?
Ah, great that you found that. The original tweet did not provide a link. Who could these sources be? The most likely is the staffers:
Dec 2022 Grusch testified at the TS/SCI Level to:

HSPCI: 20 staffers, committee lawyers. No elected reps, 4hrs.

SSCI: IG rep, a court reporter, & 2 committee lawyers (5 people). Senate staffers were not permitted to attend. 8hrs


Source: https://twitter.com/Go_Kick_Rocks88/status/1686121959371710465?s=20

And another reporter claims the information came from staffers, senators, and congress persons:
Ross Coulthart states that he talked to senators, representatives, and staffers who have been in the room with credible witnesses that have given evidence about retrieved non-human technologies.

Source: https://twitter.com/Baptiste_Fri/status/1675267747712753664

So, we've narrowed it down to about 25 direct witnesses and the members of Congress whom they've briefed (at least with Grusch, there's been other whistleblowers we don't know publicly about), or the whistleblowers themselves.
 
Last edited:
Article: Testimony has included both first-hand and second-hand reports of crash retrieval and reverse-engineering programs by US, Russian, and Chinese governments; the testing of materials obtained from retrieved craft; active and ongoing government disinformation operations; kinetic military action with UAPs; contact and collaboration with nonhuman intelligence (NHIs); and the successful reverse-engineering of a triangle-shaped craft with unconventional propulsion. Source: https://public.substack.com/p/dozens-of-government-ufo-whistleblowers
How does Shellenberger know?
From that same article:

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...
Content from External Source
So we have cautionary disclaimers, followed immediately by yet another claim, from anonymous sources, no less. We are still in the cycle of "he said, he said", being asked to accept as fact what we're told by an unknown number of unknown informers, each with unknown prior beliefs and unknown connections and unknown credibility and unknown motivation. Until something more solid is presented, I remain skeptical.
 
We are still in the cycle of "he said, he said", being asked to accept as fact what we're told by an unknown number of unknown informers, each with unknown prior beliefs and unknown connections and unknown credibility and unknown motivation. Until something more solid is presented, I remain skeptical.
Does it help to name the sources? These are all first-hand witnesses to the legacy UFO program who are known publicly:

Nat Cobitz
Director of Science Technology Development
US Navy

Source: https://youtu.be/cbJDRwPHnqE?t=151
Content from External Source
Jonathan Grey, National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC)
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Content from External Source
Army Colonel Karl E. Nell
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Content from External Source
Luis Elizondo, Director of AATIP
U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo
Content from External Source
 
@Curious George
Apart from the fact that four names do not constitute the "dozens" they claimed, you're not providing names that inspire a lot of confidence. Three of them are mentioned in the Newsweek article
https://www.newsweek.com/did-us-government-admit-finding-alien-spacecraft-1805664

The centrality of Elizondo to all sorts of wild claims has been well documented, including on a number of Metabunk threads. Jonathan Grey is "Jonathan Grey", a mysterious figure that may be a pseudonym. Karl Nell, according to the Newsweek article, "On LinkedIn, Nell lists his most recent position as "Modernization Advisor to Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.", but that does not appear to be any sort of technical position that might give him first-hand information, and he appears to be testifying in his capacity of friend-of-Grusch.

As for Nat Kobitz, I can't find much on him except that he seems to be a climate change denier who can't spell.
IMG_2153.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2153.jpeg
    IMG_2153.jpeg
    341.7 KB · Views: 32
Ted Howells, Intel Analyst and colleague of David Grusch
<ex>
Source: https://youtu.be/jBeKzm9ntME?t=8955
</ex>
-strictly speaking, AARO has found anomalous craft
-has been there with David and seen classified material indicating that his claims are true, in that a secret US military group has retrieved alien craft
-the famous tic tac video is truly anomalous, he said it went from 10,000 feet to just above the water. In his opinion, he thinks it could be an experimental vehicle of the US that was being tested
-believes there's at least 15 types of aliens in our galaxy, but no direct evidence
-says Grusch had documents and photographs from the program
 
Does it help to name the sources? These are all first-hand witnesses to the legacy UFO program who are known publicly:

Nat Cobitz
Director of Science Technology Development
US Navy

Source: https://youtu.be/cbJDRwPHnqE?t=151
Content from External Source
Jonathan Grey, National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC)
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Content from External Source
Army Colonel Karl E. Nell
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Content from External Source
Luis Elizondo, Director of AATIP
U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo
Content from External Source

It's not what "whistleblowers" claim or testify to, it's what they can prove/have proven. Considering the time honored tradition of keeping "Pearl Harbor files" in the DoD, you'd think at least some of those 30 (40? 50?) who have testified (to IG, AARO, Congress/staffers. etc.) about crash retrieval programs would have presented such documents to at least cover their own asses.
 
There seems to be some doubt that 'Jonathan Grey' even exists;
Screenshot5.png
------------------------
There are many threads on Elizondo's reliability on Metabunk. Particularly interesting is his interview with Mick West, where he refers to the expertise of others in the analysis of the US Navy videos he is promoting. He does not seem to have done the analysis himself, so he is not much of a primary witness.

...the famous tic tac video is truly anomalous, he said it went from 10,000 feet to just above the water. In his opinion, he thinks it could be an experimental vehicle of the US that was being tested
As @jarlrmai says, the video shows nothing of the sort. It appears to show an unknown (terrestrial) plane in level flight at an unknown distance, probably 40 nautical miles or so, which was suddenly lost by the FLIR system because someone adjusted the magnification.
 
Last edited:


George, PLEASE review the how to links for Metabunk linked below. This post is almost unreadable with the tiny font and lack of paragraph breaks, nor is it clear where it came from. If it's from one of the X links posted below than please clarify who posted it as X can get confusing with multiple replies and re-tweets.

The way you share quotes makes it almost indistinguishable from a "reply" to another Metabunk user, so it's difficult to tell if you're providing external content or quoting a previous post.

They're different ways of presenting external content, but a simple bone-head version that I use is that after copying and pasting your quote, type the letters EX inside of brackets [ ] at the beginning of your quote and the /EX in brackets at the end of your quote. This will offset your external content in a colored box making it obvious to all that it is in fact from an external source.

So, for example I pulled this from the article in your post with a copy and paste and typed the EX tags as described above. I'm using a screen grab to show what it would look like before being posted:

1695748422201.png
You can also click on the "Preview" button at the top/right of the posting box to see what the post will look like, including the external content box.

I'll also add a paragraph break to make it easier to read. The result when posted is below and followed by the source. In this case the source is X, which is a pain to follow, so I might explain to readers that they may have to click on the second tweet to get to the story. Even better, I went to Substack Public Shellenberger and found the actual article and used that as my source, so people don't have to weed through tweets trying to find the information:

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.
Content from External Source
https://public.substack.com/p/dozens-of-government-ufo-whistleblowers

As for the quote above, why does Shellenberger et al describe a "former US Air Force intelligence officer working at Kirtland AFB" instead of just naming him? This sound exactly like Richard Doty who likely gave disinformation to Paul Bennewitz in the '80s (bold by me):

As a result, Bennewitz claimed to have uncovered evidence of aliens controlling humans through electromagnetic devices, and furthermore claimed that UFOs were regularly flying near Kirtland Air Force Base and the nearby Manzano Nuclear Weapons Storage Facility and Coyote Canyon Test Area.[26]

Convinced that he was intercepting electronic communications originating from alien spacecraft located outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Bennewitz soon believed that he had located a secret alien facility that he called Dulce Base.

Convinced that he was intercepting electronic communications originating from alien spacecraft located outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Bennewitz soon believed that he had located a secret alien facility that he called Dulce Base.

On July 1, 1989, William Moore revealed that he tried to push Bennewitz into a mental breakdown by feeding him false information about aliens.[26] This was corroborated by a declassified CIA document that claims Moore and another officer of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Richard Doty, are responsible for a disinformation campaign against Bennewitz.[28]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bennewitz

They appear to be rehashing an old known story, but are making Doty anonymous in their retelling, why? Possibly to make the story sound more nefarious with a secret government source. More likely they are aware, or should be if they are actual investigative journalist, that Doty isn't a great source. He says all kinds of stuff including that he told Bennewitz disinformation to hide a top-secret aircraft (or maybe a rocket) program at Kirtland, which there was, but also that Bennewitz was right, and the government has and is contact with aliens.

You can hear an interview with Doty on season 2 of the Strange Arrivals podcast if anyone is interested. He's all over the place with claiming that aliens are part of a disinformation program, but that aliens are also real and the government meets with them. It's hard to tell if he's making it up or what. Bottom line, he can sound a bit nutty, thus, Shellenberger may have kept his identify hidden. Or they heard the story 2nd hand and are just passing it along without any due diligence that would have led them to the Dulce Base conspiracy theory, which is well known in UFOology.

Regardless, it's classic UFOlogy, as they just regurgitate old stories as if they are new and compelling.

Podcast link:
https://www.grimandmild.com/strangearrivals

From the difficult to find How To threads for using Metabunk:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-one-click-copy-selected-text-to-article-format.11475/
 
The problem with believing that 30+ people have come forward with information based on Grusch's allegations is how those 30+ people can be relaying information that they believe to be factually correct on the basis of glorified Chinese whispers.

It's either they are relaying something completely unrelated to Grusch's claims or over 30 people have been convinced through hearsay that there is indeed a non human crash retrieval program.
 
The problem with believing that 30+ people have come forward with information based on Grusch's allegations is how those 30+ people can be relaying information that they believe to be factually correct on the basis of glorified Chinese whispers.
Another problem is that it is (so far, at least) the equivalent of "We have all these close up pictures of orbs. I've seen them. YOU can't, of course, all you can see are the Batman balloons and butterflies, but trust me the evidence I can't show you is irrefutable."

Of course there may well be very valid reasons why, at least to this point, identities of witnesses and contents of what they are claiming should be held confidential, or pictures kept classified -- if they exist. But I'm not particularly impressed by evidence we can't see nor testimony we can't hear.
 
From that same article:

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...
Content from External Source
So we have cautionary disclaimers, followed immediately by yet another claim, from anonymous sources, no less. We are still in the cycle of "he said, he said", being asked to accept as fact what we're told by an unknown number of unknown informers, each with unknown prior beliefs and unknown connections and unknown credibility and unknown motivation. Until something more solid is presented, I remain skeptical.
But are we really being asked to accept the reality of what is being said? I actually don't mind this. They're saying things that can potentially be revealed to be true or false. All it takes is for some people in Congress or the inspector general's office to say "yes people have come forward, we are verifying it" or "no some people came forward but they were full of it". Of course be skeptical but let's wait and see.
 
It seems as though there has been an update on the "dadgum SCIF" situation:




As of the time I posted this, further information or details have yet to be provided by Luna or anyone she tagged (or anyone else I could find).

This whole thing is just fascinating to watch unfold. I don't believe that anyone is hiding alien bodies or technology, but just watching all of this happen, trying to imagine the conversation that might take place in this SCIF. It is just mind boggling and fascinating. Am I alone here? Haha...
 
Last edited:
Lacatski also has never met David Grusch, dispelling a theory promoted by Mr. Greenstreet that Grusch was influenced by true believers. Lacatski is criticized for mentioned in his previous book, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, a story of "dino beavers" appearing to a witness near Skinwalker Ranch.
<external>
Source: https://youtu.be/ow7FqiegixQ?t=1890
<external>
"I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him."
 
Lacatski also has never met David Grusch, dispelling a theory promoted by Mr. Greenstreet that Grusch was influenced by true believers.
That's an interesting data point, but it doesn't "dispel the theory". It's highly likely that Grusch met Stratton in 2018, who is a believer.
 
Lacatski also has never met David Grusch, dispelling a theory promoted by Mr. Greenstreet that Grusch was influenced by true believers. Lacatski is criticized for mentioned in his previous book, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, a story of "dino beavers" appearing to a witness near Skinwalker Ranch.
<external>

Largely irrelevant, as Grusch worked for Straton as noted by @Mendel, Straton appears in Lacatski/Knapp/Kelleher's book as "Axelrod" and claims that "entities" from Skinwalker Ranch followed him home to Virginia. Stratton/Axelrod is a true believer and was Grusch's boss of a sort at the UAPTF. So, yes, he was in contact by true believers.
 
Largely irrelevant, as Grusch worked for Straton as noted by @Mendel, Straton appears in Lacatski/Knapp/Kelleher's book as "Axelrod" and claims that "entities" from Skinwalker Ranch followed him home to Virginia. Stratton/Axelrod is a true believer and was Grusch's boss of a sort at the UAPTF. So, yes, he was in contact by true believers.
According to Grusch in his 2nd documentary, the defining moment when he started to believe in UFO's was not due to anything told to him by "the usual crowd" or grooming etc.
I remember interviewing a guy and I have a background in
psychological analysis and other stuff to assess people and for like three hours.
And it was a certain very senior Navy individual that said he was going to
work at a certain facility in the morning, you know, not drunk, not high.
And a 300 foot triangular craft hovered over his car
for a couple minutes.
And it like, he couldn't even process what he was seeing,
but then he took pictures of his car after the incident and all the Zenith
upper facing decks of his car were all got hit with ionizing radiation
ultraviolet. Cause the paint became milky. His headlights totally went,
they were totally clear. His car was perfect before the incident.
And I'm like, Holy crap. You have physical artifacts.
The guy we assessed, you know, he had a normal psychological composition, no weird belief system.
He's just a dude that was going to work at a Navy base. And you know,
he had a freaking huge craft, at least the physical proof he provided.
He drew what he saw, no sound, these weird omni-directional lights,
kind of that classic, you know, triangle-like, Holy shit.
I didn't believe in UFOs, but these guys are like,
they can't be lying to me. Cause they certainly, um, are credible guys that have a lot to lose.
He was super scared to come forward.
He didn't tell his wife for five years.
That was I think an inflection point for me where I'm like, okay,
there's something going on.
That's not adversarial tech talking to these people that were literally in
tears telling me this stuff.
Cause it was an emotional thing that they could not process analytically what
they were saying. It was like totally beyond their comprehension.
So for what it's worth, I've never seen anything believe or not. So I came in as non-believers.
And this is coming as somebody who's a bit of a skeptic.

Source: https://youtu.be/kwsWAQ9sJZE?t=1427
This seems to be some of the evidence he gathered and presumably supplied to the ICIG as part of his "hundreds" of pages of evidence which were described as "photographs, official documents, and testimony of 40+ witnesses". So the evidence here would be photographs of a car with damaged paint and headlights, a drawing of a UFO, and a story of how it occurred. The photos themselves tell a story independently. Can paint turn milky white due to UV radiation? I have personally ordered and tested a 100W UV light at work. It didn't affect the paint. As a first guess, it would have to be extremely powerful, and this would be hard to hoax.
 
According to Grusch in his 2nd documentary, the defining moment when he started to believe in UFO's was not due to anything told to him by "the usual crowd" or grooming etc.


Source: https://youtu.be/kwsWAQ9sJZE?t=1427
This seems to be some of the evidence he gathered and presumably supplied to the ICIG as part of his "hundreds" of pages of evidence which were described as "photographs, official documents, and testimony of 40+ witnesses". So the evidence here would be photographs of a car with damaged paint and headlights, a drawing of a UFO, and a story of how it occurred. The photos themselves tell a story independently. Can paint turn milky white due to UV radiation? I have personally ordered and tested a 100W UV light at work. It didn't affect the paint. As a first guess, it would have to be extremely powerful, and this would be hard to hoax.

"....I have a background in
psychological analysis and other stuff to assess people...."
Content from External Source
Source:
Source: https://youtu.be/kwsWAQ9sJZE?t=1427


Would be interested to hear more about this "background" Grusch claims in that video.
 
It does depend on the colour of the car. Red pigment in automobile paint has historically been prone to damage from UV radiation, although this does tend to require a few years of exposure rather than a few minutes.
 
Can paint turn milky white due to UV radiation? I have personally ordered and tested a 100W UV light at work. It didn't affect the paint. As a first guess, it would have to be extremely powerful, and this would be hard to hoax.
Ours did ...but it spent two and a half years in the blazing New Mexico desert sunshine to do so.
(@Eburacum: it was a red car.)

It does strain credulity to claim he never told his wife, because I can't imagine that she never asked him what happened to the car. The story does not make it clear whether Grusch ever saw the photos, or if that was just another uncorroborated tale he was told. If Grusch, as reported elsewhere, has some degree of autism, could he reliably perform any kind of proper psychological assessment? We are told to trust the man who said he trusted the other man, which is a couple of steps away from evidence.
 
Last edited:
According to Grusch in his 2nd documentary, the defining moment when he started to believe in UFO's was not due to anything told to him by "the usual crowd" or grooming etc.

Not necessarily, the quote you provided recounts a 2nd hand anecdote from a Navy guy that is at least 5 years old:

He didn't tell his wife for five years.
Content from External Source
His claim is that after hearing this story, it was an inflection point:

That was I think an inflection point for me where I'm like, okay,
there's something going on.
Content from External Source
He's previously claimed that it was after Jay Stratton of the UAPTF sent him to find SAPs that were related to UAPs that he began to believe. And who's to say this Navy guy he's talking to isn't Jay Stratton himself?

We know Grusch worked with Stratton. We know Stratton is the person known as Axelrod in Skinwalkers at the Pentagon who had a number of strange stories. We know Stratton and Elizondo had a plan for Stratton to stay in the DoD and carry on their AATIP side gig while Elizondo retired and went public. We know that when Stratton headed up the UAPTF, the same program Grusch worked at, he hired Travis Taylor as "chief scientist". Taylor has been involved in UFOlogy and the media since the late '90s, including such scientifically grounded shows as Ancient Aliens, regularly sees UFOs and wormholes at Skinwalker Ranch and misidentified camera reflections and drones as UFOs while at the UAPTF.

This seems to be some of the evidence he gathered and presumably supplied to the ICIG as part of his "hundreds" of pages of evidence which were described as "photographs, official documents, and testimony of 40+ witnesses". So the evidence here would be photographs of a car with damaged paint and headlights, a drawing of a UFO, and a story of how it occurred. The photos themselves tell a story independently. Can paint turn milky white due to UV radiation? I have personally ordered and tested a 100W UV light at work. It didn't affect the paint. As a first guess, it would have to be extremely powerful, and this would be hard to hoax.

Let's go back and read the story as told by Grusch before assuming he has provided the ICIG with photos of a car damaged by a UFO.

We have a Navy guy saying a UFO hovered over his car on the way to work:

And it was a certain very senior Navy individual that said he was going to
work at a certain facility in the morning, you know, not drunk, not high.
And a 300 foot triangular craft hovered over his car
for a couple minutes.
Content from External Source
I assume this guy works at some sort of remote facility, as he is the only one to see this or be affected by it, so he's not sitting in traffic. As is often the case, the details are missing. Next his car gets fried with "ionizing radiation":

And it like, he couldn't even process what he was seeing,
but then he took pictures of his car after the incident and all the Zenith
upper facing decks of his car were all got hit with ionizing radiation
ultraviolet. Cause the paint became milky. His headlights totally went,
they were totally clear. His car was perfect before the incident.
Content from External Source
How does he know this:

Ionizing radiation is not immediately detectable by human senses, so instruments such as Geiger counters are used to detect and measure it. However, very high energy particles can produce visible effects on both organic and inorganic matter (e.g. water lighting in Cherenkov radiation) or humans (e.g. acute radiation syndrome).[4]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Presumably, he associates the faded or milky paint with UV radiation. But then he says, "his headlights went, they were totally clear". I'm not sure what this means as it sounds like his previously faded or milky headlights became clear as a result of the encounter. But if that's the case, it means his car was old enough to have milky/faded headlights which we're all familiar with, meaning the car is sufficiently old enough to have faded milky paint as well. This could be especially true for certain makes for certain years. Maybe the paint was bad before the encounter?

Next Grush tells us the Navy guy has evidence (bold by me):

And I'm like, Holy crap. You have physical artifacts.
The guy we assessed, you know, he had a normal psychological composition, no weird belief system.
He's just a dude that was going to work at a Navy base. And you know,
he had a freaking huge craft, at least the physical proof he provided.
He drew what he saw, no sound, these weird omni-directional lights,
kind of that classic, you know, triangle-like, Holy shit.
Content from External Source
It's not clear at all that Grusch ever saw the photo let alone that he has a copy of it and turned that over to the IG. The "physical proof he provided" is followed up by "he drew what he saw". As noted above this story was at least 5 years old when Grusch heard it if we assume the guy told his wife about it at around the same time he told Grusch, but it could be a much older story.

So, what do we have? The usual 2nd hand anecdote from years before with maybe a drawing of a standard Black Triangle UFO and maybe a photo of a car with bad paint. Maybe.

In the end, aside from a few anecdotes like the one above, Grusch has not revealed any new or original stories in all his media appearances. Most of his claims are old UFO stories that have been circulating for decades and he has so far provided zero evidence for any of the stories he's regurgitating.
 
"....I have a background in
psychological analysis and other stuff to assess people...."

Would be interested to hear more about this "background" Grusch claims in that video.
Ditto!

If Grusch, as reported elsewhere, has some degree of autism, could he reliably perform any kind of proper psychological assessment?
That's an interesting question. I suppose if he was found to perform adequately there's no reason why not.
Hypothetically, giving WAIS questionnaires to recruits and tallying the results might be a "psychological assessment".

But the US forces are well-funded and (usually) make good use of appropriate specialists; I'd guess that if a service required formal psychological assessments to be done, they'd use a psychologist.
Service personnel in some specialisms develop a detailed knowledge of psychology relevant to their role, e.g. dive medicine, air accident investigation, tactical questioners, but I think Grusch is implying something different.


We know Mr Grusch has a physics degree from his resumé submitted to Congress (PDF attached below)

2009 Bachelor of Science Degree, Physics, Minor in German, University of Pittsburgh
Content from External Source
...which is consistent with his later USAF work.

Some of the findings of psychology are used by military intelligence organisations, but most of the material in Grusch's resumé indicates that he was involved with technical intelligence- "nuts and bolts" stuff.

It's a fair guess that as part of his career development and for some of his posts in USAF Intelligence, Grusch would have been obliged to learn some material drawn from relevant areas of psychology

EDUCATION
2012 Master of Arts Degree with Honors, Intelligence Studies, American Military University
Content from External Source
...and amongst "Professional Certifications", he lists


2016 Facility Security Officer (FSO), Center for Development & Security Excellence (CDSE)
2019 HUMINT Intelligence Reporting Program Control Officer Training, McLean, VA
Content from External Source
(Above quotes from Grusch's resumé).

HUMINT:

Human intelligence (abbreviated HUMINT and pronounced as hyoo-mint) is intelligence gathered by means of human sources and interpersonal contact. It is distinct from more technical means of intelligence gathering such as signal interception. HUMINT can be conducted in a variety of ways, including via espionage, reconnaissance, interrogation, or witness interviews.
Content from External Source
Wikipedia, Human intelligence (intelligence gathering)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence_(intelligence_gathering)

However, Grusch's USAF career arc appears to be primarily based on involvement with satellite technologies.

According to Grusch in his 2nd documentary...
...I have a background in psychological analysis...
Content from External Source
The term "psychological analysis" isn't problematic in itself, but it might be seen as odd phrasing by someone with a background in psychology, unless they had gone on to practice psychoanalysis, precisely because "psychological analysis" might be confused with "psychoanalysis" (the theories and techniques founded by Freud: although important in the history of psychology many modern psychologists regard psychoanalysis as a pseudo-science) ;
Wikipedia, Psychoanalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis

If he were familiar with the literature on the subject, I think Grusch would know that psychology (as a science) cannot provide definitive indications as to whether a specific individual is telling the truth or not; nor can any other technique (that we know of at present)- -otherwise those techniques would be in widespread use in police interviews and military interrogations.
Or perhaps in Congressional hearings!

There are examples of traitors/ covert agents operating in nations on both sides of the Cold War despite their being "positively vetted" and psychologically profiled by the organisations that they infiltrated/ betrayed.

There's no evidence that Grusch has a special talent for determining the truth of UFO reports AFAIK.

Attached below, David Grusch's CV
 

Attachments

  • HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf
    151.6 KB · Views: 32
If he were familiar with the literature on the subject, I think Grusch would know that psychology (as a science) cannot provide definitive indications as to whether a specific individual is telling the truth or not; nor can any other technique (that we know of at present)- -otherwise those techniques would be in widespread use in police interviews and military interrogations.

My question about his autism was prompted by my curiosity in whether he would be expected to "read" a person's affect or reliability in the course of a psychological assessment. This description would call his ability to do so into question:

Autism spectrum disorder is a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others, causing problems in social interaction and communication.
Content from External Source
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20352928

But you're right, if it were a matter of depending upon written questionnaires, he might well have performed that task as part of management duties.
 
Ours did ...but it spent two and a half years in the blazing New Mexico desert sunshine to do so.
(@Eburacum: it was a red car.)

Yes, good point that I missed when looking at Grusch's story of the Navy guy. IF the insinuation is that the car was perfectly normal on the drive to work and after a few moments of exposure to the UFO the paint was sufficiently deteriorated to cause him to photograph it as completely damaged, then that would have been a pretty heavy blast of UV radiation. A blast big enough to be shinning in the windows of the car and affecting the driver.

At the very least he would have had a sever sun burn, think Richard Dreifus from CE3K. More likely he would have had his DNA scrambled and the idea that he was alive 5+ years latter doubtful.

It does strain credulity to claim he never told his wife, because I can't imagine that she never asked him what happened to the car.
Yes again. He shows up after work and the formerly pristine car now has damaged paint all over it, but the wife doesn't notice or ask about it for 5 years?

It's just another 2nd hand anecdote with dubious details and no evidence.
 
I assume this guy works at some sort of remote facility, as he is the only one to see this or be affected by it, so he's not sitting in traffic. As is often the case, the details are missing.
Isn't it possible the incident was at night?
Next his car gets fried with "ionizing radiation":
I believe his misspoke; UV radiation in not ionizing. However, it can cause photochemical reactions, he may have been thinking of that.
Presumably, he associates the faded or milky paint with UV radiation. But then he says, "his headlights went, they were totally clear". I'm not sure what this means as it sounds like his previously faded or milky headlights became clear as a result of the encounter.
Oh, what a difference punctuation makes! This was from an AI generated script. Consider it written this way:
His headlights totally went - they were totally clear, his car was perfect before the incident.
If you watch the video, it becomes clear. In any case, he directly says the car was perfect before the incident. The light "went" after the event.
It's not clear at all that Grusch ever saw the photo let alone that he has a copy of it and turned that over to the IG. The "physical proof he provided" is followed up by "he drew what he saw".
Couldn't physical proof include scrapings of paint, or indeed the actual old headlights?
Also, he gave a detailed description of what parts of the car were affected, the "zenith", and in the video he makes hand gestures in an attempt to illustrate his point.

Also notice he said:
The guy we assessed, you know, he had a normal psychological composition, no weird belief system.
Combined with a 3 hour interview, this sounds like more than one person was involved and the other person was involved in psychological assessment. This may involve filling out questionnaires for various psychological aspects. Also reinforced by the technical terms used, "normal psychological composition". You don't assess that without tests.
Given that there was more than one person involved, that it was a 3 hours debrief, that likely there were psychological assessments, I don't think it's stretch to say the photos and some physical objects were turned in.
 
IF the insinuation is that the car was perfectly normal on the drive to work and after a few moments of exposure to the UFO the paint was sufficiently deteriorated to cause him to photograph it as completely damaged, then that would have been a pretty heavy blast of UV radiation. A blast big enough to be shinning in the windows of the car and affecting the driver.

At the very least he would have had a sever sun burn, think Richard Dreifus from CE3K. More likely he would have had his DNA scrambled and the idea that he was alive 5+ years latter doubtful.
As I mentioned, I've worked with UV at work and UV light below 200nm is largely blocked by air. It's also difficult to reflect. Steel is a poor reflector of UV-C. Aluminum would be better, but the paint obviously absorbs it. Glass is also opaque below 300nm. So a person inside a car is largely protected. You could deep dive this and make all the calculations. If it were daytime and the person were wearing sunglasses or the window was tinted, that would protect them further. A windshield can block 99% of UV light.
Yes again. He shows up after work and the formerly pristine car now has damaged paint all over it, but the wife doesn't notice or ask about it for 5 years?
This is simple - say my car got keyed and I had to leave it in the shop. Being upset about it could also be a cover for his change in mood. She could have also been away visiting family or something.
 
Ditto!


That's an interesting question. I suppose if he was found to perform adequately there's no reason why not.
Hypothetically, giving WAIS questionnaires to recruits and tallying the results might be a "psychological assessment".

But the US forces are well-funded and (usually) make good use of appropriate specialists; I'd guess that if a service required formal psychological assessments to be done, they'd use a psychologist.
Service personnel in some specialisms develop a detailed knowledge of psychology relevant to their role, e.g. dive medicine, air accident investigation, tactical questioners, but I think Grusch is implying something different.


We know Mr Grusch has a physics degree from his resumé submitted to Congress (PDF attached below)

2009 Bachelor of Science Degree, Physics, Minor in German, University of Pittsburgh
Content from External Source
...which is consistent with his later USAF work.

Some of the findings of psychology are used by military intelligence organisations, but most of the material in Grusch's resumé indicates that he was involved with technical intelligence- "nuts and bolts" stuff.

It's a fair guess that as part of his career development and for some of his posts in USAF Intelligence, Grusch would have been obliged to learn some material drawn from relevant areas of psychology

EDUCATION
2012 Master of Arts Degree with Honors, Intelligence Studies, American Military University
Content from External Source
...and amongst "Professional Certifications", he lists


2016 Facility Security Officer (FSO), Center for Development & Security Excellence (CDSE)
2019 HUMINT Intelligence Reporting Program Control Officer Training, McLean, VA
Content from External Source
(Above quotes from Grusch's resumé).

HUMINT:

Human intelligence (abbreviated HUMINT and pronounced as hyoo-mint) is intelligence gathered by means of human sources and interpersonal contact. It is distinct from more technical means of intelligence gathering such as signal interception. HUMINT can be conducted in a variety of ways, including via espionage, reconnaissance, interrogation, or witness interviews.
Content from External Source
Wikipedia, Human intelligence (intelligence gathering)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence_(intelligence_gathering)

However, Grusch's USAF career arc appears to be primarily based on involvement with satellite technologies.


...I have a background in psychological analysis...
Content from External Source
The term "psychological analysis" isn't problematic in itself, but it might be seen as odd phrasing by someone with a background in psychology, unless they had gone on to practice psychoanalysis, precisely because "psychological analysis" might be confused with "psychoanalysis" (the theories and techniques founded by Freud: although important in the history of psychology many modern psychologists regard psychoanalysis as a pseudo-science) ;
Wikipedia, Psychoanalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis

If he were familiar with the literature on the subject, I think Grusch would know that psychology (as a science) cannot provide definitive indications as to whether a specific individual is telling the truth or not; nor can any other technique (that we know of at present)- -otherwise those techniques would be in widespread use in police interviews and military interrogations.
Or perhaps in Congressional hearings!

There are examples of traitors/ covert agents operating in nations on both sides of the Cold War despite their being "positively vetted" and psychologically profiled by the organisations that they infiltrated/ betrayed.

There's no evidence that Grusch has a special talent for determining the truth of UFO reports AFAIK.

Attached below, David Grusch's CV
Small note with this in relation to his past, the courses aren't that much psychology related either.

The FSO course largely covers clearance of persons to access facilities and has a lot to do with industrial security, not so much intelligence matters outside the context of countering collection and exploitation.

The HUMINT Reporting Program Control Officer Training is an interesting one, never heard of that and 0 results on it outside Grusch. Seems like it may be cycle management training related to Intelligence Reports Officers/managing them. This has little to do with psychology, it's about compiling already-made products, preparing reports based off them, and briefing/presenting them to customers. This is the disseminations part of the cycle, not Collection or Analysis. Pretty much any of the psychology learned here will be self-related (cognitive biases, tools to help recognize and prevent burnout, etc) or customer-related (figuring out how to best talk to/present to the customer).
 
You could deep dive this and make all the calculations. If it were daytime and the person were wearing sunglasses or the window was tinted, that would protect them further. A windshield can block 99% of UV light.
Well, anecdotally (thanks to @Ann K ) we have some indication that it takes two and a half years of strong sunlight to turn a car milky. That is about six hundred thousand minutes of daylight. This encounter lasted just a couple of minutes, so the UV component of the light must have been very strong.

That suggests that the UV intensity emitted by this object was very approximately three hundred thousand times as bright as sunlight, and even if 99% of the light were blocked by the glass windshield, the person inside the car would have been exposed to about 3000 times as much UV as present in normal sunlight for a couple of minutes.

Yes, he would have had a Richard Dreyfus sunburn.
 
Well, anecdotally (thanks to @Ann K ) we have some indication that it takes two and a half years of strong sunlight to turn a car milky. That is about six hundred thousand minutes of daylight. This encounter lasted just a couple of minutes, so the UV component of the light must have been very strong.

That suggests that the UV intensity emitted by this object was very approximately three hundred thousand times as bright as sunlight, and even if 99% of the light were blocked by the glass windshield, the person inside the car would have been exposed to about 3000 times as much UV as present in normal sunlight for a couple of minutes.

Yes, he would have had a Richard Dreyfus sunburn.
Also, everything outside the car was unprotected and would have probably suffered from the high 'radiation': grasses, trees, animals.. there should have been plenty of evidence around if the 'encounter' really happened...
 
Upper decks with chalky paint sounds like a large fraction of Hondas sold in the US and Canada from 2006 through 2013 that had defective paint/clearcoat. The paint didn't fail in minutes but the paint failures were fast enough, on the time scale of months in some cases, and affected enough vehicles that Honda eventually had to knuckle-under and repaint a lot of cars and SUVs.121020_001.jpg
 
Isn't it possible the incident was at night?

Not if you're going by what Grusch says. Clearly at 24:02 in the video he describes the Navy guy going to work "in the morning". Now we could start speculating that maybe it was very early in the morning before the usual rush hour, or he just happened to be on a deserted side road or whatever.

My point is that a 300' UFO is the size of an American football field and by comparison is bigger than the largest passenger aircraft ever built, the A380. The Airbus is nearly 62' shorter than the UFO.

Specifications (A380-800, Trent engines)​

Side view of an Emirates A380

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2 (cockpit)
  • Capacity: Passengers: 575 typical, 853 max[435]
    Cargo: 175.2 m3 (6,190 cu ft)
    Maximum payload 84 t (185,000 lb)
  • Length: 72.72 m (238 ft 7 in)
  • Wingspan: 79.75 m (261 ft 8 in)
  • Width: 7.14 m (23 ft 5 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

So, one is left to infer that this must have happened in a secluded and remote area and not someplace like the Loop in DC on the way to the Pentagon. Somebody would have noticed a craft that big hovering over the morning traffic.

But again, I'm forced to speculate just as you do here:

This is simple - say my car got keyed and I had to leave it in the shop. Being upset about it could also be a cover for his change in mood. She could have also been away visiting family or something.
And here:
Couldn't physical proof include scrapings of paint, or indeed the actual old headlights?
And here:
Also reinforced by the technical terms used, "normal psychological composition". You don't assess that without tests.
And here:
Given that there was more than one person involved, that it was a 3 hours debrief, that likely there were psychological assessments, I don't think it's stretch to say the photos and some physical objects were turned in.

Actually, this above quote is almost a non-sequitur. Recall, the Navy guy told Grusch about his encounter and said he hadn't told his wife about it for 5 years. If this is the start of Grusch believing in UFOs it's while he's at the UAP Task Force, which was set up in 2020 in response to the 2017 NYT article and leak of the Navy videos. So, that would put the alleged encounter 5 years previously in 2015 at a minimum. It's just as likely he told his wife about the encounter 5 years after it occurred, but that could have been years before he told the story to Grusch, but lets go with 2015.

So, you're speculating that in ~2020 Grusch and whoever is working with him get photos, paint scrapings and maybe even a headlight from the car that was damaged in 2015 and then keeps these bits of evidence so that in 2022 he can provide them to the ICIG? If Grusch had all this evidence and he collected it while working for the UAPTF, why wasn't any of it presented by the UAPTF? Grusch just kept it, so that if he ever needed to file a complaint with the IG he would have? That makes no sense.

As for the rest of it, maybe his wife was away. Maybe Grusch turned over paint and a headlight from years ago to the IG. Maybe there was another person giving tests.

Maybe the other person administering the battery of phycological assessments was Dr. Travis Taylor of Ancient Aliens and Skinwalker Ranch. He was the "chief scientist" at the UAP Task Force when Grusch worked there.

The real problem here is that the video in question is poor evidence of anything and has a silly title. Grusch is NOT under oath in this thing. The story in question about the Navy guy is told in what appears to be someone's kitchen as the host and his buddy just nod along in agreement. NO ONE ever asks a single question to clarify anything. Even simple follow ups like "where did this happen?" "when did this happen?" "did anyone else see a 300' UFO?" "what phycological training did you receive, it's not in your CV?" "who was conducting this interview with you?"

They don't even ask important questions like "did you actually see the photo of the damaged paint?" "did you get a copy of the photo?" "did you get paint scrapings or an actual headlight?". Nothing. We're left with a rambling 2nd hand story that forces us to speculate about all kinds of details.

This is to be expected, as Grusch seems to choose media outlets that don't question him, from Russ Coulthart to this guy. This video is a bit out of the host's wheelhouse. He seems to specialize in extreme travel, thrill seeking and uncomfortable stunts, though he does have a video about a guy claiming to have proof of aliens, but it's not his normal content.

1697733324622.png

https://www.youtube.com/@YesTheory/videos

It's just the same old UFOlogy playbook. Here is a 2nd hand story about a UFO. The details are vague, the protagonist is a reliable witness, but remains anonymous. Maybe there's some photos of bad paint on a car that proves little more than a car had bad paint. And of course, we don't get to see even the questionable photos. Were just supposed to take Grusch's word for all of this because he was DoD Intel officer. Personally, I'd prefer a bit more than a title.
 
Were just supposed to take Grusch's word for all of this because he was DoD Intel officer. Personally, I'd prefer a bit more than a title.
I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. Most of them misidentify what they see. Anything that's just lights can almost be dismissed out of hand. But when it comes to up close craft in plain sight with physical evidence, that is not easily explained.
I don't see why people dismiss such evidence. Several of my friends have seen UFOs, and some of them are in the unmistakable category. I believe them of course. We could convict for murder on less.
One more thing I will say about Grusch. Maintaining his level of clearance requires active monitoring, which means regular polygraph and investigations. This is not someone who just randomly starts telling false UFO stories.
Also, of the 40+ witnesses who have talked to the IG, some of them had polygraphs as well. They have seen significant evidence at this point. If there were nothing to it, the investigation would be shut down after 2 years. We may find out more from the reaction of the HOC after October 26, when they get in a SCIF to view some of the evidence from Grusch and many others.
 
I understand the desire for hard evidence, but for the ufo field in general, there are many reliable witnesses. Most of them misidentify what they see. Anything that's just lights can almost be dismissed out of hand. But when it comes to up close craft in plain sight with physical evidence, that is not easily explained.
I don't see why people dismiss such evidence. Several of my friends have seen UFOs, and some of them are in the unmistakable category. I believe them of course. We could convict for murder on less.
One more thing I will say about Grusch. Maintaining his level of clearance requires active monitoring, which means regular polygraph and investigations. This is not someone who just randomly starts telling false UFO stories.
Also, of the 40+ witnesses who have talked to the IG, some of them had polygraphs as well. They have seen significant evidence at this point. If there were nothing to it, the investigation would be shut down after 2 years. We may find out more from the reaction of the HOC after October 26, when they get in a SCIF to view some of the evidence from Grusch and many others.
All anecdotal.
 
Back
Top