a_robot_kicker
Member
Tbh I don't think there's anything to say about this until or if The Intercept actually publishes this "leaked" info. We can only speculate on what it is Grusch is referring to until then.
Intercept Article on David Grusch's Past - Allegations of a Smear Campaign
- Thread starter Amathia
- Start date
We're not here to armchair psychoanalyse a man's character. In the best possible case scenario of such an analysis, we would be no closer or further from debunking his claims.
The only path worth pursuing to this is to follow him down the rabbit hole and see what these claims end up delivering. Do we get data, evidence, public first hand witnesses, peer reviewed scientific papers, or does it just circle back to the same usual suspects and dubious documents from decades past.
Nothing of value will be settled by speculating on his past mental conditions and sets a dangerous precedent and chilling effect for whistleblowers in general - you know the good ones who help uncover fraud and corruption.
edit: not having a go at you in particular @LilWabbit, just commenting more broadly on this thread.
Edward Current
Senior Member
If someone says without evidence that the U.S. has alien bodies from other dimensions on ice, or that there are wires poking out of their skin, or that Albert Einstein is sending them personal messages, can other psychological factors really reduce their credibility?
Mendel
Senior Member.
I think they would help explain the claims. As would evidence.
Last edited:
tinkertailor
Senior Member.
Hugely agree with this.
Also:
People who have been diagnosed with conditions like depression and PTSD may not consider them to be mental illnesses. Yes, I know that they are mental illnesses under the scientific, DSM-V standardized sense of the term, but after you have lived with them for a long time, you stop thinking of them as mental illnesses and start thinking of them as parts of yourself. The public definition of the term 'mentally ill' usually means something more visible and marginalized, like a mood or personality-based disorder. Depression is the common cold of psychology, lots have it.
Plus, as someone who is a clown car of mental health diagnoses, I lose track of which diagnoses are considered current. If you have government-funded health care in the US, you tend to see a ton of diagnosing professionals as they rotate through your insurance coverage. I'm on my 8th or 9th psychiatrist at this point. Each one asks the "what have you been diagnosed with?" question when they first meet me and each one then goes "Are you kidding me? You don't have that, you have this," leaving me trying to decide which psychs to believe and which disorders to disclose.
I feel like we just need to leave Grusch alone on this. None of these disclosures should affect views on his testimony. I wish him the best and hope he's got a good support system in place right now.
Edward Current
Senior Member
Do we need to explain the claims? Lots of people believe odd stuff.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
I will say this.
If aliens have never visited the earth, ufology is primarily a psychological and sociocultural phenomenon.
But the exact psychology of each believer (including Grusch) and his/her part and path in the overall sociocultural dynamics of ufology is totally beyond our 'debunking' efforts to demonstrate in any scientifically credible way. In addition to being potentially insensitive.
If aliens have never visited the earth, ufology is primarily a psychological and sociocultural phenomenon.
But the exact psychology of each believer (including Grusch) and his/her part and path in the overall sociocultural dynamics of ufology is totally beyond our 'debunking' efforts to demonstrate in any scientifically credible way. In addition to being potentially insensitive.
Didn't work in the past, will not work now.
I think this only shows, in Burchett's words, "we're above the target". I see the support for Grush is only growing due to this.
Article: 51 years ago, whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who broke the Pentagon Papers wide open by giving the documents to news outlets including The Washington Post, had his psychiatrist's office burgled by those who wanted to discredit him and prevent the truth about the Pentagon's Vietnam War cover-up of 30 years from becoming public knowledge.
It didn't work.
Grusch's medical records being leaked in an evident attempt to discredit him during what appears to be one of the most monumental disclosures in history smacks of a repeat of the democracy-challenging events of The Pentagon Papers, and later, Watergate.
I think this only shows, in Burchett's words, "we're above the target". I see the support for Grush is only growing due to this.
Duke
Senior Member.
To my knowledge, Grusch has not broken any laws or been charged with any crimes. We also have no proof or evidence anyone leaked the information to discredit him. Apples and oranges, to this point at least.
Last edited:
Amathia
Senior Member
And in addition to this, even if you could nail down the precise psychological causal chain that leads a person to a certain belief, the use of said psychological explanation to "debunk" the belief would be an instance of the genetic fallacy.
And in addition to that, all beliefs are psychological and sociocultural phenomena, not just Ufology.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Compare:
Article: 1971
June 13 - The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers - the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later that same week.
September 3 - The White House "plumbers" unit - named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration - burglarizes a psychiatrist's office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
Ellsberg published a key classified document, Grusch did not publish any evidence.
Ellsberg's psychiatrist was burglarized; nobody claims that The Intercept burgled anyone. I'm not sure they even have Grusch's medical records; have Coulthard or Grusch claimed that? For all I know, The Intercept is planning to report on two public incidents involving Grusch from 2014 and 2018. [Edit: the Intercept reported on a 2018 law enforcement call involving Grusch making a suicide threat; it published no medical or psychiatric records. See below for more.]
The claim that Grusch is responsible for "one of the most monumental disclosures in history" when he hasn't shown any evidence and basically repeats the Roswell/Area 51 UFO lore seems premature.
Last edited:
Article: Coulthart went on to compare the purported leak to Richard Nixon’s attempts to discredit Daniel Ellsberg, who shared the Pentagon Papers with the New York Times.
“I think there should be an inquiry into the circumstances of how sensitive records pertaining to a decorated combat veteran’s file found their way to a journalist not through the proper channels,” Coulthart said. “This could’ve been requested under FOI, as is normal, but the county sheriff has confirmed that did not happen.”
In an interview Wednesday morning, Burchett repeated the false claim that Grusch’s medical records had been leaked, going as far as to say that “someone needs to lose their job.”
The records were not confidential, medical, nor leaked. They are publicly available law enforcement records obtained under a routine Virginia FOIA request to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office and provided by the office’s FOIA coordinator. Copies of The Intercept’s correspondence with the sheriff’s office are being published with this story.
So, no medial records were leaked. Just a Sheriff report.
[Edit] The report was legally obtained via FOIA, which directly contradicts Coulthart's claims.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, but most are easier to explain.
To debunk "it must be true, he wouldn't have invented that", it helps to be able to explain how the belief came to be. In the case of sightings, we do that by explaining what the witness likely actually saw, and what information you need to interpret the observation correctly.
However, Grusch gave us no evidence. All we can explain is why he thinks what he thinks. And, as usual, we should do that based on evidence. We have, at the top of thread, what Grush revealed about himself, a tale of PTSD, Grief, and Depression. Grusch himself revealed that (though maybe once the Intercept article comes out, we can say his hand was forced).
This thread is about making sense of that revelation.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
In this context "debunk" as in demonstrating through psychological causation that the belief isn't based on observation of or contact with actual aliens or alien crafts. Such "debunking" is beyond us, but not necessarily beyond professionals.
Yes, but belief in the existence of cats is well-founded epistemologically whereas belief in aliens hovering above your living room isn't.
Mendel
Senior Member.
... and that was not "leaked", but lawfully obtained.
if the record is only about ptsd, everyone would assume it would boomerang and make the leaked look bad and add sympathy to grusch, no?
edit: just read that there was no leak
Last edited:
LilWabbit
Senior Member
You beat me to it.
deirdre
Senior Member.
and obtained by FOIA. perhaps the title should be updated to better reflect the claim and debunk. since your post is way down on page 2 .
Mendel
Senior Member.
The gist of the article by The Intercept's Ken Klippenstein:
The rest of the article is reporting around Grusch's claims and how they're unlikely to be true, but contains no new evidence.
The FOIA response including the law enforcement records can be viewed or downloaded with the article.
Article: police records obtained by The Intercept under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act reveal that on October 1, 2018, Grusch was committed to a mental health facility based in part on a report that he “made a suicidal statement” after Grusch’s wife told him he was an alcoholic and suggested that he get help.
Grusch did not respond to a request for comment emailed via his lawyer or to a voicemail left on his phone.
The rest of the article is reporting around Grusch's claims and how they're unlikely to be true, but contains no new evidence.
The FOIA response including the law enforcement records can be viewed or downloaded with the article.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
The full The Intercept article partially cited by @Mick in the foregoing is a little bit slimy and tabloidy despite factual and accurate in terms of the FOIA request (no leaks, no IC involvement in the FOIA request). The intent of the article indeed seems to be to sling mud on Grusch's character although neither of the two incidents mentioned in the article can be used, with any scientific credibility, to cast doubt on Grusch's testimony during the hearing.
Amathia
Senior Member
I'm just sitting here wondering why any of this was deemed worth reporting on. Surely even a skeptical journalist could find something more interesting about the Grusch story to investigate than this.
It seems like muckraking. However it's interesting that Coulthart made such a significant error in reporting what was happening.
Here's the Sherrif's document, basically two reports of responding to reports of a suicidal person.
https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...66/loudon-county-sheriff-request-redacted.pdf
Here's the Sherrif's document, basically two reports of responding to reports of a suicidal person.
https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...66/loudon-county-sheriff-request-redacted.pdf
Mendel
Senior Member.
The angle of the Intercept is this:
"alleged substance abuse issues" translates to "his wife told him he was an alcoholic". They're making it out to be unusual that Grusch kept his clearances under these circumstances. I can see the "it's a PsyOps" crowd having a field day with this.UFO WHISTLEBLOWER KEPT SECURITY CLEARANCE AFTER PSYCHIATRIC DETENTION
The star witness of Congress’s UFO hearings, David Grusch, retained his clearance despite alleged substance abuse issues, FOIA documents reveal.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
If I had a nickel for every drunk officer who kept their clearance...
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Yup, we've covered this already on other threads albeit in less vivid and illustrative phraseology.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The way I'm reading it, there was no law enforcement response on the 2014 call:
The 2018 call drew a law enforcement response that resulted in Grusch being placed in custody.
testchamber1
New Member
I think Coulthart has a way out: he could be referring to how the intercept's journalist got the tip about where and what to look for in order to build his FOIA request.
John J.
Senior Member.
(Edited to add- To clarify, Mendel is quoting a Reddit user, this isn't a claim made by Mendel).
Most psychiatric illnesses don't have a definitive clinical test, e.g. you can't use an EEG (or any other piece of equipment) to diagnose depression, bipolar affective disorder or whatever in the way that an ECG can diagnose heart block or atrial fibrillation.
Context is always important. Psychiatric diagnoses can be contentious, and sometimes just plain wrong.
I'm not sure it's helpful to speculate on someone's mental state unless there is clear, attributable evidence in the public domain which might affect our interpretation of that person's behaviour.
That said, if, a hypothetical person were loosing off a firearm in a manner (and location) that attracted the attention of police, and that person stated (without humour or irony) that they were shooting at aliens, I think it would be a responsible course of action for the police to involve mental health professionals.
In the absence of substantial intoxication, organic illness or evidence supporting the hypothetical person's account of events, it might be concluded that the person's behaviours resulted from an inability to distinguish reality from unreality at that time, a psychotic episode.
This need not mean that the person will have future such episodes (although the risk is increased). However, if such a person subsequently made claims about the reality of the subject of their delusional behaviour, e.g. demons or foreign secret agents, without providing any corroborating evidence, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to be mindful of their earlier troubles.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
To be clear, we don't have any evidence that Grusch did that.
The claim I quoted was just some guy on reddit saying that.
deirdre
Senior Member.
like what? he hasnt actually said anything useful. Maybe reporters and people are getting tired of year after year after year after year of promises and nothing burgers.
(not that i think a worried wife, and a 24 hr or 3 day temp psych hold is a big deal. All i got from it is "at least he's married to a smart woman. she called for help, she hid the key...kudos")
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Please cite the police records to that effect. Maybe I missed that part.
a_robot_kicker
Member
Okay. In summary: a distasteful article questioning why Grusch's security clearance wasn't stripped due to incidents of alcohol abuse and suicidal threats that Grusch says stem from wartime PTSD. Goes on to talk about already reported upon statements by government officials about the hearing.
Whether or not Grusch should have had a clearance seems irrelevant to this case and bringing up past alcohol abuse and suicide attempts seems like a way to tarnish his character without addressing the substance of his claims.
Whether or not Grusch should have had a clearance seems irrelevant to this case and bringing up past alcohol abuse and suicide attempts seems like a way to tarnish his character without addressing the substance of his claims.
John J.
Senior Member.
John J.
Senior Member.
I was speaking hypothetically. Although I was thinking about the unverified claim made on Reddit.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Actually, Grusch's IC IG whistleblower "retaliation" complaint is all about Grusch's access to secrets. This is what Grusch initially went public with, and what got him to Congress.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/david-gruschs-dopsr-cleared-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Well, Grusch did falsely claim the intelligence community has intentionally leaked these past mishaps albeit it was actually a FOIA request by The Intercept which they were quite transparent about.
Article: The current research examines the novel hypothesis that individuals who are biased towards inferring intentional explanations for ambiguous actions are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories, which portray events as the exclusive product of intentional agency.
Until recently, conspiracism has been largely neglected by psychologists. However, a literature is now beginning to emerge pointing towards individual differences and cognitive factors which may be associated with endorsement of conspiracy theories, including such variables as agreeableness, authoritarianism, openness, mild paranoia, confirmation bias, the conjunction fallacy, illusory pattern perception, the proportionality bias, and projection . . .
Last edited:
Amathia
Senior Member
Like this:
https://nypost.com/2023/03/21/ufo-believing-pentagon-bosses-missed-spy-craft-for-years/
If I think this is all a big nothingburger than it's at the very least a very interesting nothingburger and trying to figure out what's going on behind the scenes (like who is telling Grusch these things and why) would be a very worthwhile thing to investigate. The "boring" answer that no aliens actually exist is just as interesting as the alternative. If no such programs really exist then why are so many people like Grusch and Chris Mellon so certain that they do?
We talk about plausible reasons to that all the time here, but it'd be nice to see a good journalist take a crack at it too.
