Intercept Article on David Grusch's Past - Allegations of a Smear Campaign

Maybe not the best hypothetical example but here's a new portion of an interview with Michael Shellenberger which once again boils down to what his sources are telling him:


Source: https://twitter.com/MikeColangelo/status/1689732977020784641/mediaviewer


"Very very senior people with high security clearances who were afraid of talking to me."

I mean, it's like a broken record at this point. At least north of a dozen retrieved non human craft. Some other sources say up to 30. All post world war 2.

I mean, unless Shellenberger is lying to us, it sounds like someone or several someones out there with credentials good enough for him to verify are lying to him and are just outright bullshitting him pretending to be afraid of telling him what they're telling him in an effort to, what, exactly?

I mean, a common thread I see is that it seems like there are quite a number of seemingly credible people behind the scenes who seem to be spreading claims about alien craft being in our possession. Whoever is making these claims seem to prima facie have credentials good enough to impress people like Coulthart, Shellenberger, Leslie Kean, Ralph Blumenthal, and David Grusch to the point that they genuinely believe what these people are telling them and put their reputations on the line to repeat what they've been told.

Who the fuck are these people behind the scenes and what on earth are they up to?

I just stumbled on this documentary from watching Steven Cambian’s YouTube channel “Truthseekers”. It’s called The Aviary: Disturbing Truth of UFO’s. It categorically details virtually every aspect of the UFO landscape past, present and probably what we will continue to see in the future.

The level of detail of this documentary is remarkable and includes all the major players (Putoff, Mellon, Alizondo, DeLong, Knapp, Corbell, Fravor etc.). It highlights the connection with current and former DoD officials infiltrating the ufo community by spreading false stories and disinformation starting with Paul Benowitz which ultimately lead to him killing himself.

I highly recommend watching it and will probably answer some of your questions. Also Mick West is mentioned in the documentary.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5165.png
    IMG_5165.png
    414.4 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:
This made sense in the past but I'm finding it increasingly unlikely in the current situation. This thing has spiraled to the point of where it's attracting far too much attention on black programs. DoD doesn't want congressman and senators talking about investigating and auditing. They also don't want to have to disclose more than the absolute minimum regarding sensory capabilities. Maybe this has spiraled out of control regardless of the initial intention.

I had a similar hypothesis earlier on that there could be some kind of illegality going on that had aliens attached to it to discredit an investigation. These are conspiratorial speculations in themselves. I think the UFO college(?) hypothesis I read on here seems to fit best for now. That we just have a lot of believers in high places.

I think the main thrust of my post was that there is a lot of *private sector* money on the table, and then a bunch of motivations in-between that are used on individuals to help plant the seeds of credibility to the investments that have already been made and continue to progress.

Investors are just as susceptible to propaganda as anyone else.

I'm not saying it's all cover for black projects. Like all complex political and financial eco-systems, you have a large number of competing interests that cannot answer "why would anyone do this?" succinctly.

The answer is: as many reasons as there are humans involved basically.
 
People seem surprisingly hung up on Grusch's claim of "40+ witnesses", thinking erroneously they're all currently employed by the DoD. Even if we go naively by Grusch's word, these witnesses 'have direct knowledge of' classified DoD programs "some" of whom are "currently" involved in said programs. Many of Grusch's statements on many issues have an air of hyping up his or other peoples' credentials in order that his narrative be taken more seriously. This, by the way, is a common ufologist trope tracing back decades, and is simply the function of lacking any hard evidence.

Be as it may, this type of wording could easily mean that "many" if not "most" of Grusch's 40+ sources are "no longer" working with the DoD or at least not directly with any alleged crash-retrieval program. Such wording could also easily hide the fact that those that are currently involved with classified programs have only a marginal or a support role which doesn't concern the highly classified core of the program. The exact wording of Grusch matters.

In other words, a sizeable chunk of these 40+ 'witnesses' could just be the usual suspects since many of them are technically former DoD insiders (Stratton, Elizondo, Mellon, Taylor, Lacatski) or loosely affiliated former DoD flirtations such as Lazar or former consultants such as Puthoff and Davis (AASWAP). Basically, they can quote each other till the cows come home and still be technically correct in claiming to have witness testimonies from current and former DoD insiders that have worked with classified programs. Are people so naive as to think this college can't be so shamelessly calculating in pursuing their higher calling which, ultimately, justifies all means? That's how many cult-like communities of diehard believers have acted for millennia. The real question is, why would the diehard ufologists be any different?

Against this backdrop, is it any wonder why some of Grusch's sources steered clear from talking to Kirkpatrick and AARO who basically replaced them? Ever since Lou's video leaks, his departure from the DoD and the UAPTF coming to light through Kean's 2017 NYT article, there's apparently been a deliberate DoD purge of the UAPTF and its successor entity of 'believers' in order that it may conduct more objective investigations. And if so, doesn't that really explain quite satisfactorily this current backlash and resentfulness by all the former 'investigators' against AARO and the DoD? Doesn't it also quite satisfactorily explain why they've gone public and started TV shows to demonstrate the veracity of their questionable brand of UFO investigations?

I'm puzzled why people keep ignoring the broader and historical context of a loosely organized college of diehard UFO believers that cuts across the American society, including government agencies, just like Mormons do. I'm surprised why in their argument they keep making it just about Grusch or other individuals acting in isolation and without any belief-based bias.

P.S. Has anyone else taken notice that Luis Elizondo has been oddly quiet throughout this whole charade?
 
Last edited:
People seem surprisingly hung up on Grusch's claim of "40+ witnesses", thinking erroneously they're all currently employed by the DoD. Even if we go naively by Grusch's word, these witnesses 'have direct knowledge of' classified DoD programs "some" of whom are "currently" involved in said programs. Many of Grusch's statements on many issues have an air of hyping up his or other peoples' credentials in order that his narrative be taken more seriously. This, by the way, is a common ufologist trope tracing back decades, and is simply the function of lacking any hard evidence.

Be as it may, this type of wording could easily mean that "many" if not "most" of Grusch's 40+ sources are "no longer" working with the DoD or at least not directly with any alleged crash-retrieval program. Such wording could also easily hide the fact that those that are currently involved with classified programs have only a marginal or a support role which doesn't concern the highly classified core of the program. The exact wording of Grusch matters.

In other words, a sizeable chunk of these 40+ 'witnesses' could just be the usual suspects since many of them are technically former DoD insiders (Stratton, Elizondo, Mellon, Taylor, Lacatski) or loosely affiliated former DoD flirtations such as Lazar or former consultants such as Puthoff and Davis (AASWAP). Basically, they can quote each other till the cows come home and still be technically correct in claiming to have witness testimonies from current and former DoD insiders that have worked with classified programs. Are people so naive as to think this college can't be so shamelessly calculating in pursuing their higher calling which, ultimately, justifies all means? That's how many cult-like communities of diehard believers have acted for millennia. The real question is, why would the diehard ufologists be any different?

Against this backdrop, is it any wonder why some of Grusch's sources steered clear from talking to Kirkpatrick and AARO who basically replaced them? Ever since Lou's video leaks, his departure from the DoD and the UAPTF coming to light through Kean's 2017 NYT article, there's apparently been a deliberate DoD purge of the UAPTF and its successor entity of 'believers' in order that it may conduct more objective investigations. And if so, doesn't that really explain quite satisfactorily this current backlash and resentfulness by all the former 'investigators' against AARO and the DoD? Doesn't it also quite satisfactorily explain why they've gone public and started TV shows to demonstrate the veracity of their questionable brand of UFO investigations?

I'm puzzled why people keep ignoring the broader and historical context of a loosely organized college of diehard UFO believers that cuts across the American society, including government agencies, just like Mormons do. I'm surprised why in their argument they keep making it just about Grusch or other individuals acting in isolation and without any belief-based bias.

P.S. Has anyone else taken notice that Luis Elizondo has been oddly quiet throughout this whole charade?
Speaking of video leaks, why wasn’t Lue Elizondo and Christopher Mellon ever arrested for the leak of the 3 videos. My understanding is that those videos weren’t cleared for release and the pentagon only verified them after they had already been released. Seems fishy…
 
Speaking of video leaks, why wasn’t Lue Elizondo and Christopher Mellon ever arrested for the leak of the 3 videos. My understanding is that those videos weren’t cleared for release and the pentagon only verified them after they had already been released. Seems fishy…

My personal take: Maybe the fact that Lou 'resigned' was good enough and they didn't want to further tarnish the man's otherwise decent service record. The DoD was being kind. The legal consequences and public roasting for Lou and the DoD would have been disproportionate to the advantage gained. The videos were far more benign than the leaks of Snowden et al.
 
My personal take: Maybe the fact that Lou 'resigned' was good enough and they didn't want to further tarnish the man's otherwise decent service record. The DoD was being kind. The legal consequences and public roasting for Lou and the DoD would have been disproportionate to the advantage gained. The videos were far more benign than the leaks of Snowden et al.
I guess that’s reasonable and plausible. What’s your thoughts on Corbell releasing classified videos and pictures? How is he able to get away with these things? I can’t help but feel something is going on with him.
 
Against this backdrop, is it any wonder why some of Grusch's sources steered clear from talking to Kirkpatrick and AARO who basically replaced them? Ever since Lou's video leaks, his departure from the DoD and the UAPTF coming to light through Kean's 2017 NYT article, there's apparently been a deliberate DoD purge of the UAPTF and its successor entity of 'believers' in order that it may conduct more objective investigations. And if so, doesn't that really explain quite satisfactorily this current backlash and resentfulness by all the former 'investigators' against AARO and the DoD? Doesn't it also quite satisfactorily explain why they've gone public and started TV shows to demonstrate the veracity of their questionable brand of UFO investigations?
UAPTF did not exist until 2020 (source). Do you mean AAWSAP? I think the only person we know to be on both AAWSAP and UAPTF is Stratton. I suspect your theory on why AARO replaced UAPTF is correct, but I have not not been able to track anything down beyond Greenstreet's ‘Crazy’ UFO-believing Pentagon bosses missed spy craft for years to confirm it. Do you have any sources about the transition between UAPTF and AARO?
 
In other words, a sizeable chunk of these 40+ 'witnesses' could just be the usual suspects since many of them are technically former DoD insiders (Stratton, Elizondo, Mellon, Taylor, Lacatski) or loosely affiliated former DoD flirtations such as Lazar or former consultants such as Puthoff and Davis (AASWAP).

Weren't there about 40 people working on the AAWSAP program? Most, if not all, of the names we know from that program are believers in paranormal so it's a fair assumption that the hiring and vetting process leaned towards hiring fellow paranormal / ufologist types. I think the old AAWSAP crew with Lazar, Mellon, Puthoff, Davis, etc are very likely to be the sources that Grusch claims.
 
When it comes to Coulthart and Kean though, were they believers before or after their alleged sources started feeding them this kind of information? If you have several high ranking people with security clearances telling you all sorts of stuff off the record about alien crash retrieval projects being real, can anyone really blame them for believing it?
When Leslie Kean broke the AATIP story in 2017, she had the leaked Navy videos to go with it, which is why it made the NYT. And she had Elizondo, who was actually on the program (or so he claimed).

Grusch isn't on the programs his claims are about, and he has no evidence. And we're now at "let's not distrust the guy, he's had it rough".
 
And we're now at "let's not distrust the guy, he's had it rough".

hmm Im at, lets have some serious investigations and crack open this nut we call the pentagon. I'm tired of the he said she said stuff.

We've got everything from they shot the president to they have alien babies.

Let's start using facts and logic and stop using fear and paranoia about the military threats from countries I want to visit as a reason not to.
 
UAPTF did not exist until 2020 (source). Do you mean AAWSAP? I think the only person we know to be on both AAWSAP and UAPTF is Stratton. I suspect your theory on why AARO replaced UAPTF is correct, but I have not not been able to track anything down beyond Greenstreet's ‘Crazy’ UFO-believing Pentagon bosses missed spy craft for years to confirm it. Do you have any sources about the transition between UAPTF and AARO?

On this DoD website you'll find the founding documents (2021) of AARO which was a successor entity to the UAPTF and initially named AOIMSG.

As to the full history of how Skinwalker Ranch affiliated individuals have lobbied through Congress successive UFO investigation entities to be affiliated with the Pentagon, and hiring fellow-believers, I strongly recommend starting by studying this excellent thread by @NorCal Dave:

Are All US Government Projects Linked to the Skinwalker Ranch?: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ar...fo-projects-linked-to-skinwalker-ranch.12490/

Before the UAPTF it was a less formal part-time arrangement under Lou that some called "AATIP", and before AATIP was the AASWAP 22 million USD contract under Lacatski.

As to @Cogg84 's query on Corbell, I really haven't figured that guy out. But I think it's safe to say that whoever from within the DoD continues to leak footage to him will surely face oversight which obviously the rest of us aren't privy to. The same principle of proportionality may apply to Corbell whereby the DoD doesn't see the value of pursuing him legally as yet.
 
Grusch isn't on the programs his claims are about, and he has no evidence. And we're now at "let's not distrust the guy, he's had it rough".

This is an important point.

There's a victim narrative being deliberately portrayed whereby the perceived underdog fighting against the evil machine generally wins hearts and minds. It's an old but powerful trope.
 
This is an important point.

There's a victim narrative being deliberately portrayed whereby the perceived underdog fighting against the evil machine generally wins hearts and minds. It's an old but powerful trope.
Yeah I've been away from internet somewhat for the last month and so haven't been following that closely. But AFAIKS this Grusch's guy evidence is non existent, along the lines of 'I heard someone mention something they saw around the water cooler some time'
Surely Hitchen's razor applies here 'what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
How the hell this story got so huge is mind boggling, esp when theres so many real stories ignored by the media that actually have evidence
 
It's job done right? The UFO narrative has shifted to skip all that pesky (flawed) evidence stuff, now the US military has to prove to the politicians that it is accountable to that it doesn't have any alien spacecraft and bodies hidden away in the next castle air base.
 
someone is.

annunaki gold thieves! :p (hehe jk)

You'd think this would be a strike while the iron is hot type hustle though.

Look at James Corbel, that guy was like, "THIS IS IT! we have PROOF here's the video of the triangle! It's finally real"

And within 24 hours his video was debunked..

and he still is out there hustling.

So "black marks" on your resume means nothing to a huxster.

The fact we're not getting a bunch of people trying to get money out of this is at least a small indication that there is less of a reason to do this for monetary gain for some of these folks.

Seeing Jamse Corbell behind Grusch, IMO was a sign he was trying to strike while the iron was hot, and attach himself to this. But that's just my 2 cents. He seems to be making a lot of appearances and idk why he has his hat in the ring on this one.

I know steven green is like a bad word and he likely is a huxter, but I find it fascinating he is keeping his own distance from Grusch, maybe because he knows how humiliated he'd be in the same room with him?
 
Last edited:
Surprisingly not a lot of trying to cash in on this in the last few months.
Enough media are using Grusch to boost their audience numbers.

The newly founded "Americans for Safe Aerospace" had its executive director (Graves) and a member of its council (Fravor) on a widely publicized Congress hearing. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uaps-bigelow-and-the-invisible-college.11850/post-291787 . They're shaping up to become the ae911truth of ufology, i.e. a steady source of income from believers for a select few.

Grusch himself has mentioned that he'd like to start a UFO organisation, but afaik has not yet taken any steps towards that end.
 
Last edited:
Grusch himself has mentioned that he'd like to start a UFO organisation, but afaik has not yet taken any steps towards that end.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15g2lqe/david_grusch_is_now_coo_of_a_new_nonprofit_sol/


https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf

External Quote:
May 2023-Present, Chief Operating Officer (COO), The Sol Foundation• Managing day-to-day operations for a 501c3 federally recognized non-profit.The premier center for research in the natural and social sciences, engineering, andthe humanities, but also extends activities to advisory and policy work for the U.S.government/public outreach.
 
P.S. Has anyone else taken notice that Luis Elizondo has been oddly quiet throughout this whole charade?

Apologies for the slight off-topic question, but as a relative newcomer to the UFO flap discussions I've been confused on something. Is there only one "Elizondo" person involved in all this? Because I've seen ostensibly the same guy called "Lou", "Lue", "Luis", and maybe even others. It's no wonder he's tied up with the Skinwalker Ranch stuff, even his name is a shapeshifter!
 
How the hell this story got so huge is mind boggling
Burchett and Luna were running this circus in the House. Their reasons may include one or several of these motivations :
* A desire for their own publicity
* A need for a distraction
* Their own belief in UFOs and/or aliens

But I don't think the story is "so huge" for most people. It is for us, tying together a number of topics. As for the population as a whole, the "believers" existed before Grusch and we are probably stuck with them until long after these hearings are forgotten.
 
This thread seems to have gone off topic from the actual intercept article.

One of the common issues being brought up again and again is the "40" witnesses, especially with the addition of Shellenbergers claims.
In other words, a sizeable chunk of these 40+ 'witnesses' could just be the usual suspects since many of them are technically former DoD insiders (Stratton, Elizondo, Mellon, Taylor, Lacatski) or loosely affiliated former DoD flirtations such as Lazar or former consultants such as Puthoff and Davis (AASWAP).

Would it make sense to create a separate discussion to try to collect all the public information about these 40 witnesses, the 12 - 30 UAPs, and the NHI biologics? It seems that multiple people - Grusch, Shellenberger, Coulthart, Cahill, have made reference to these sources.

Years back, I think even public figures like Eric Weinstein, and Sam Harris mentioned insiders that reached out to them with claims of such a program. These could even be the same insiders that made contact with Tom Delonge.

It seems hard to deny that there has been a concerted effort by these sources to release certain information to the public. This group of insiders really holds the key to this recent UFO saga. Can we start putting names to this list of 40 witnesses, or at least assemble a possible list of candidates? Psyop or UFO cult, they ultimately hold the key to answering this.

I am not as deep into the debunking and UFO lore as many here so I don't feel I would do justice to kicking off such a discussion, but it seems the best route forward at this point. Also apologies if this has already happened somewhere.
 
Yeah I've been away from internet somewhat for the last month and so haven't been following that closely. But AFAIKS this Grusch's guy evidence is non existent, along the lines of 'I heard someone mention something they saw around the water cooler some time'
Surely Hitchen's razor applies here 'what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
How the hell this story got so huge is mind boggling, esp when theres so many real stories ignored by the media that actually have evidence
I think this is underselling it. He has submitted evidence to certain authorities. The trouble is we don't know the quality or exact contents of that evidence but we do know that everything that has precipitated has been based on what those authorities felt was appropriate. Therefore the trajectory of this is kind of out of Grusch's hands.

Though I will add a caveat: Some of the people in government who are leading these investigations haven't seen much of that evidence themselves. At least as far as we know.
 
I think this is underselling it. He has submitted evidence to certain authorities. The trouble is we don't know the quality or exact contents of that evidence

Incorrect with respect to the bolded bit. If Grusch is to be believed, we know the evidence is primarily anecdotal. That is to say, people's statements on what they saw or heard.
 
He has submitted evidence to certain authorities.
What evidence? Certainly not evidence about alien artefacts, as that was never in his posession, he's been quite clear about that. The only evidence I've heard him refer to being in posession of is evidence of administrivialities and dysfunctionality within the intelligence community. He may also have mentioned that other people have talked to him about evidence that they have seen, but that's not evidence, that's just hearsay. What particular non-job-related evidence are you referring to?
 
What evidence? Certainly not evidence about alien artefacts, as that was never in his posession, he's been quite clear about that. The only evidence I've heard him refer to being in posession of is evidence of administrivialities and dysfunctionality within the intelligence community. He may also have mentioned that other people have talked to him about evidence that they have seen, but that's not evidence, that's just hearsay. What particular non-job-related evidence are you referring to?
In fairness to Grusch, he has presented "evidence" in both closed door meetings with Congress and to two Inspectors General. Whether he has presented credible or actionable evidence is another question. And "evidence" isn't "proof," despite many people tending to use those terms interchangeably.
 
In fairness to Grusch, he has presented "evidence" in both closed door meetings with Congress and to two Inspectors General. Whether he has presented credible or actionable evidence is another question. And "evidence" isn't "proof," despite many people tending to use those terms interchangeably.
The only things that come to mind are "evidence of projects". But that's meta. Evidence of teams whose job it would be to study putative things doesn't make those things real. 100 research teams in universities around the world working on cold fusion didn't make cold fusion real. So yes, you can probably add "DoD wasting money" to the administrivialities and dysfunctionalities I listed earlier. But it's still not evidence of the interesting stuff.

Of course, he may have presented already-debunked non-stuff, or LIZ non-stuff as evidence. But as we all know here, that's still not evidence of stuff. And definitely not evidence of the stuff he was so unambiguously talking about in his interviews. (NHI, biologics, materials, craft, etc.)
 
The only things that come to mind are "evidence of projects". But that's meta. Evidence of teams whose job it would be to study putative things doesn't make those things real. 100 research teams in universities around the world working on cold fusion didn't make cold fusion real. So yes, you can probably add "DoD wasting money" to the administrivialities and dysfunctionalities I listed earlier. But it's still not evidence of the interesting stuff.

Of course, he may have presented already-debunked non-stuff, or LIZ non-stuff as evidence. But as we all know here, that's still not evidence of stuff. And definitely not evidence of the stuff he was so unambiguously talking about in his interviews. (NHI, biologics, materials, craft, etc.)
Would serve no purpose to get into a semantics discussion on what is and what isn't evidence. It would be like arguing Graves and Grusch shouldn't have been referred to as "witnesees" in the recent Congressional hearing since neither of them actually saw what they were there to testify about.
 
And "evidence" isn't "proof," despite many people tending to use those terms interchangeably.
And "anecdotes", which is all he has publicly claimed, don't even add up to "evidence". Add to that the unknown number of people in the chain between seeing (let alone testing) any of the claimed material and "I was told that ___", and I'd hesitate to use the word "evidence" in connection with Grusch.
 
Incorrect with respect to the bolded bit. If Grusch is to be believed, we know the evidence is primarily anecdotal. That is to say, people's statements on what they saw or heard.
Primarily but he also been clear that it is not the entirety. You also added, "If he is to be believed" but we don't really know. It's not public. Statements about its contents or veracity are needless speculation. It's in the hands of decision makers. What they do with it is up to them. The public(including skeptics and believers) are over-analyzing this because "aliens" but classified data is examined and acted upon without transparency all the time.
 
Primarily but he also been clear that it is not the entirety. You also added, "If he is to be believed" but we don't really know. It's not public. Statements about its contents or veracity are needless speculation. It's in the hands of decision makers. What they do with it is up to them. The public(including skeptics and believers) are over-analyzing this because "aliens" but classified data is examined and acted upon without transparency all the time.
Can you point to the evidence that is not anecdotal?
 
I'm more interested in your "lack of journalist integrity" comment. I'm not a journalist, nor have I gone to "J School." From a layman's perspective however, I know Klippenstein found knowledgeable sources who gave him factual information that he used to legally obtain official documents that he reproduced for his readers to prove his story. That story didn't paint a pretty picture, but it's truthful and supported by documentation.

Contrasting that, we have Knapp, an "award winning investigative journalist," who has reported the claims of Grusch with no supporting evidence based entirely on what he's been told by a guy who admits everything he claims was based on what he claims he was told. Those claims include people having been murdered. Proof? Evidence? Documentation? Nada. Journalist integrity? You tell me.

I find Klippenstein's article about Grusch to be sad and even somewhat distasteful. Some of the comments attributed to him from the podcast cited above I find reprehensible. (I have a sibling who's an alcoholic.) But it was Grusch who made the decision to become a public figure, opening himself to public scrutiny. You'd think his "award winning investigative journalist" colleague would/should have warned him what he potentially had in store. Or did Knapp even know the sadder aspects of Grusch's life? I submit if he didn't, he should have.

Finally, someone here claimed the "intel guys" used Klippenstein to get Grusch. I can make the same claim about Knapp and Corbell havinb used Grusch to their own personal gain. No accident those guys were sitting directly behind the witnesses at the hearing. They hung a troubled man who had honorably served his country out to dry in front of the world. Integrity my ass.
I don't know how to answer each paragraph separately without breaking formatting, sorry.

In this particular case, seems to me (also not a journo) the article Ken wrote is an opinion piece, not a news article. Passing the former for the latter gives the impression Ken is being impartial and reporting the facts as they are.

As you said, the article is sad and distasteful. Transforming into a public figure can bring that type of flack, but I personally dislike this brand of "they catcalled you because your skirt is too short" or "what did you do for them to hit you?". If your sibling was the target of Kens article, what would you say to Ken?

Finally, since you are mainly interested in the journalistic integrity comment: There is a reason I mention Greenewald as an example and not george "lazarnumbaone" knapp and jeremy "I have a long name so it means I'm intelligent" corbell. I don't care what they have to say, they are grifters. Also I feel the "integrity my ass" that crowns your message sounds more directed to me than to the mentioned grifters. Hope you understand a bit better what I think of journalistic integrity.
 
I don't know how to answer each paragraph separately without breaking formatting, sorry.
After clicking Reply, just create a hard return inside the quote you're replying to, and type your response. The previous post will continue, like this:
In this particular case, seems to me (also not a journo) the article Ken wrote is an opinion piece, not a news article. Passing the former for the latter gives the impression Ken is being impartial and reporting the facts as they are.
 
He said he saw documentation from people currently in these programs, that sounds easily provable if we just listened to the guy and looked.
That sounds a lot like "written anecdotes" rather than "verbal anecdotes". It's still second hand (third, fourth, etc), so perhaps it's a distinction without a difference.
 
I don't know how to answer each paragraph separately without breaking formatting, sorry.

In this particular case, seems to me (also not a journo) the article Ken wrote is an opinion piece, not a news article. Passing the former for the latter gives the impression Ken is being impartial and reporting the facts as they are.
We can agree to disagree.

As you said, the article is sad and distasteful. Transforming into a public figure can bring that type of flack, but I personally dislike this brand of "they catcalled you because your skirt is too short" or "what did you do for them to hit you?". If your sibling was the target of Kens article, what would you say to Ken?
I wouldn't say anything.
Finally, since you are mainly interested in the journalistic integrity comment: There is a reason I mention Greenewald as an example and not george "lazarnumbaone" knapp and jeremy "I have a long name so it means I'm intelligent" corbell. I don't care what they have to say, they are grifters. Also I feel the "integrity my ass" that crowns your message sounds more directed to me than to the mentioned grifters. Hope you understand a bit better what I think of journalistic integrity.
I agree with you about Greenewald. I have corresponded with him and support him/Black Vault financially. I don't always agree with some of his analysis/conclusions, but as someone who had to deal with/respond to FOIA requests, I respect his understanding of the process.

My closing comment was not directed at you. It was noting what I consider the irony of a system/career field that recognizes a huxter like Knapp. (And yes, I realize those awards are usually given for individual stories, like those he's done on wild horses and the Bureau of Land Management.)

External Quote:
Knapp has won five regional and two national Edward R. Murrow Awards, twenty-four Pacific Southwest Regional Emmy Awards, and nine Associated Press Mark Twain Awards.[9] He has also won a DuPont Award from Columbia University and two Peabody Awards.[9]

Knapp and photojournalist Matt Adams were recognized for their work on the investigative series Crossfire: Water, Power, and Politics that received a 2008 Peabody Award.[14]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Knapp_(television_journalist)
 
Back
Top