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

[knobby]

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.

He first disclosed to the DOD IG in 2021 and the IC IG in 2022. The full detail of his claims has been available within government for 2 years and there isn't a single sign or tell from gang of 8 members like Schumer or Rubio that they are aware of anything.

We also know that Grusch associates with Knapp, Stratton, Taylor as there are photos of them together. We know for a fact that 3 of the 4 in that group believe that UFOs encounters are a paranormal event. So what's the likelihood that Grusch's evidence was full of talk about space ghosts and poltergeists that no sensible politician wants to be associated with.

 

[tobigtofool]

I would say not zero but that sounds unlike what I expect anyone in his position to fall victim to.

 

[Duke]

He first disclosed to the DOD IG in 2021 and the IC IG in 2022. The full detail of his claims has been available within government for 2 years and there isn't a single sign or tell from gang of 8 members like Schumer or Rubio that they are aware of anything.

We also know that Grusch associates with Knapp, Stratton, Taylor as there are photos of them together. We know for a fact that 3 of the 4 in that group believe that UFOs encounters are a paranormal event. So what's the likelihood that Grusch's evidence was full of talk about space ghosts and poltergeists that no sensible politician wants to be associated with.

Entirely possible. Since I don't know what he provided to either Congress (in closed session) or the Inspectors General, I won't speculate. I do know an IG complaint filed without supporting documentation is a nonstarter.

 

[Landru]

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 like anecdotal evidence as in, "he says the evidence was provided." Until we see otherwise that is what we have.

 

[tobigtofool]

That sounds like anecdotal evidence as in, "he says the evidence was provided." Until we see otherwise that is what we have.

The issue is that it's classified, so unless we want it to be anything more than anecdotal it's up to us to want to peruse it. Which makes it a bit more than anecdotal.

It's not simply, "I heard a people say"

It's "People who currently work in the program, and there is documentation"

It is only anecdotal if we chose not to verify it, but it is verifiable.

 

[NorCal Dave]

It is only anecdotal if we chose not to verify it, but it is verifiable.

But it's not. We don't know who told him what or what "documentation" was provided or by who. All we have is his 2nd hand account of anecdotes and his claim that he saw photos and documents. All we have it was he says. We can't "verify" any of it.

 

[JMartJr]

It is only anecdotal if we chose not to verify it, but it is verifiable.

If you know of a way we can verify it, please pass it along. Sincerely, I'll be up to helping if I can.

 

[tobigtofool]

But it's not. We don't know who told him what or what "documentation" was provided or by who. All we have is his 2nd hand account of anecdotes and his claim that he saw photos and documents. All we have it was he says. We can't "verify" any of it.

He said this stuff under oath, if he cant point them out in a serious investigation then arrest him.

What is the point of being under oath if you can say "there are illegal goverment programs that are in operation right now" under oath if nobody can verify that?

My understanding is he is asking for an investigation or something?

If you know of a way we can verify it, please pass it along. Sincerely, I'll be up to helping if I can.

I am not an investigator but I assume if someone is doing something illegal under the guise of confidentiality, as he claims, then I just assume there is a way to get to the bottom of it.

Can someone rather instead explain to me how finding out who the people are exactly that he says are currently employed and working in these programs, and the classified info he was shown can't be seen or verified? It seems to me that he can just point to the office they work in based off what he said.

 

[Ann K]

Can someone rather instead explain to me how finding out who the people are exactly that he says are currently employed and working in these programs, and the classified info he was shown can't be seen or verified? It seems to me that he can just point to the office they work in based off what he said.

Do you have the requisite security clearance? If not, you're sort of stuck, aren't you? It may be "verifiable" by the right people with the right clearance, but that's not us and that doesn't mean it will be ever revealed in public. He says he is telling us the stuff that he is permitted to tell us, so going further than that is likely to end up with him facing charges. And the ones who did speak in public said that there is no verifiable evidence of alien craft or bodies.

 

[tobigtofool]

It may be "verifiable" by the right people with the right clearance

Yes.

that doesn't mean it will be ever revealed in public.

If it's true, and we had a real investigation into it, it would be.

He says he is telling us the stuff that he is permitted to tell us, so going further than that is likely to end up with him facing charges.

Yes.

He said this stuff under oath, if he cant point them out in a serious investigation then arrest him.

 

[captancourgette]

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.

By "so huge" I'm talking about the "believers" and people on the next couple of rungs outward WRT interest in UFOs. Sure the average person on the street don't give a monkeys, but thats true with just about anything non celeb related.
You compare the general response to this compared to the Scotland Calvine UFO photo from a few months ago, where we actually had a piece of evidence and not just 2nd hand anecdotes, the response in the UFO community is so much bigger. OK I get it this guy was in the Military, though not specially high up from what I gather but isn't this just a variation of the appeal to authority fallacy.
I predict in a years / a decades time we will be around the same place we are now with full disclosure just over the horizon, tantalizingly close, and so the round about keeps going round.

Spoiler

My hats off to these (*)grifters I personally couldn't do it, it must be exhausting always having to keep up the charade when you actually have nothing concrete to show
(*)Though I'm sure theres a fair chunk that actually believe what they're preaching

 

[Mendel]

I would say not zero but that sounds unlike what I expect anyone in his position to fall victim to.

Elizondo was in a similar position. Mellon was in a similar position. Adjust your expectations.

Elizondo and Mellon genuinely believed the white blobs in the Navy videos were evidence of UFOs.

 

[FatPhil]

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 know it's technically completely wrong, but I do like the idea of it being "hearsaw" rather than "hearsay". Edit: "Seesaw"?

 

[LambMaster]

Can you point to the evidence that is not anecdotal?

Speculating on the contents of classified evidence doesn't get us anywhere. I was going along with another poster that if we are going to take Grusch's word for it then along with witness testimony, he also mentioned documentation, locations and program names(per original Debrief article). That is not anecdotal but tangible evidence in legal parlance. This is a legal matter not a scientific one. The claims should be looked at through that lens.

 

[Duke]

Speculating on the contents of classified evidence doesn't get us anywhere. I was going along with another poster that if we are going to take Grusch's word for it then along with witness testimony, he also mentioned documentation, locations and program names(per original Debrief article). That is not anecdotal but tangible evidence in legal parlance. This is a legal matter not a scientific one. The claims should be looked at through that lens.

I wish I had made that specific point in my earlier post.

 

[tobigtofool]

Elizondo was in a similar position. Mellon was in a similar position. Adjust your expectations.

Elizondo and Mellon genuinely believed the white blobs in the Navy videos were evidence of UFOs.

I never considered Elizondo to be anything more than a ufo believer, where as Grusch I believed in his credentials, and his approach making him more credible to me.

Did Elizondo hold the same intelligence clearance?

What are their career/positions/rankings like side by side?

David Grusch doesn't even have a Wikipedia devoted to him, weird (just one on his whistleblower claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims)

I do not know military or pentagon job descriptions so this will take me all day, unless someone can help clear it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo

Elizondo worked with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon.
(The under secretary of defense for intelligence and security or USD(I&S) is a high-ranking civilian position in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)

Im assuming David Grusch had a higher something or other that makes him more credible. But without help I wouldn't know what I was even reading.

 

[Mendel]

What are their career/positions/rankings like side by side?

Both Elizondo and Grusch held a rank of GS15.

 

[Mendel]

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…

They were not cleared for release, but they were unclassified, after all. So you couldn't easily argue that national security was at stake etc.

 

[Mendel]

The quote at the top is from John Greenewald. (Does he have a Metabunk account?)


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15nx558/comment/jvqtlp4/

"All [Coulthart] did was cause people to get emotional/angry and gave the story way more legs than it even needed to."

 

[Mendel]

Surprisingly not a lot of trying to cash in on this in the last few months.

in addition to my earlier post (#221):

Article:

Coulthart will discuss his new edition of In Plain Sight, and share the chain of events that lead to his explosive News Nation interview with US Air Force veteran and whistleblower, Dave Grusch. This will be followed by a Q&A session, and an opportunity for attendees to obtain a signed copy of Ross's book.

Source: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/in-plain-sight-ross-coulthart-tickets-662750593867

 

[Angatar]

My impression of The Intercept article is that Ken Klippenstein went looking for background information on David Grusch, and in the process naturally asked people who would have known him (coworkers, members of his community, etc.) and finds some information pointing towards a couple interactions with the police. Klippenstein FOIA's the records for those interactions and asks Grusch to comment on it before publishing his article. Grusch doesn't respond to Klippenstein. Then, Grusch and Ross Coulthart make a public announcement that "Grusch's medical records have been leaked" - which is not true. I believe that their announcement was an attempt to get ahead of the story and shift the narrative from being about Grusch's background, to being about a supposed conspiracy against Grusch. Personally, it seems like they knew this information was FOIA-able, if not knew that it *was* FOIA'd from Klippenstein, and chose to misrepresent it in public.

 

[knobby]

I believe that their announcement was an attempt to get ahead of the story and shift the narrative from being about Grusch's background, to being about a supposed conspiracy against Grusch

Or it might be an indication of how their minds work - jump to conclusion (IC leaked medical records) without evidence (actually a police report) using poor investigative skills (convinced it wasn't police when in fact it was) and fueling a compelling conspiracy narrative (intelligence community trying to silence a whistleblower).

Imagine how many of the other claims from Grusch and Coulthart might fit that same pattern.

 

[Edward Current]

Or it might be an indication of how their minds work - jump to conclusion (IC leaked medical records) without evidence (actually a police report) using poor investigative skills (convinced it wasn't police when in fact it was) and fueling a compelling conspiracy narrative (intelligence community trying to silence a whistleblower).

It's speculation, but it certainly does match the believer–zealot M.O.: Heavily interpret limited information and fill in the gaps to create a fanciful picture that appeals to them.

It's the mindset Carl Sagan brilliantly captured on Cosmos in the episode about Venus: "Observation, they couldn't see a thing. Conclusion, dinosaurs!"

 

[Angatar]

Or it might be an indication of how their minds work - jump to conclusion (IC leaked medical records) without evidence (actually a police report) using poor investigative skills (convinced it wasn't police when in fact it was) and fueling a compelling conspiracy narrative (intelligence community trying to silence a whistleblower).

Imagine how many of the other claims from Grusch and Coulthart might fit that same pattern.

This is definitely something that was going through my mind looking at this story. The cops being called on Grusch a couple times doesn't really affect his credibility in my eyes. Grusch's misunderstanding, if not misrepresentation, of what the sheriff said does affect his credibility. If Grusch can't understand or accurately convey what this sheriff said, Grusch might not be understanding or conveying what his unnamed sources are saying. If they exist at all.

 

[Mendel]

Or it might be an indication of how their minds work - jump to conclusion (IC leaked medical records) without evidence (actually a police report) using poor investigative skills (convinced it wasn't police when in fact it was) and fueling a compelling conspiracy narrative (intelligence community trying to silence a whistleblower).

Imagine how many of the other claims from Grusch and Coulthart might fit that same pattern.

They thought they had evidence after they'd asked the Sheriff. And Klippenstein probably made it seem he had more information than he did. I just think that if Klippenstein really had access to Grusch's medical record, he could've broken a bigger story than he did, and that's what Coulthart and Grusch were anticipating.

I believe it's very rare (can't think of a single case) that someone's medical files are published without their consent. The fact that Coulthart and Grusch thought it could happen to Grusch shows how highly they estimate Grusch's importance—which is directly at odds with what he has been cleared to say, and has been claiming.

 

[Duke]

Of the nearly 5.4 million security clearances that DCSA has adjudicated since 2012, just 1.8% involved psychological conditions, according to the agency.

And officials have denied or revoked DOD security clearances based solely on psychological conditions in just 68 cases since 2012, or 0.00115% of the time, according to DCSA.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...Toverlay=342f5a58-c37b-4142-b049-1f737335b507

I saw this article in today's "Early Bird," seemed apropos to our discussion from this past summer about Grusch's security clearance relative to his mental health issues.

The key to this, as I mentioned somewhere in the thread, is self reporting. Trying to conceal or outright lying about such issues or even youthful indiscretions will not go well for the investigatee if discovered in a background investigation.