This whole interview seems to sign-post that Grusch plans on going the way of Elizondo, becoming a UFO celebrity who will make a career of speculating wildly and rehashing popular UFO mythos on the podcast and convention circuit. When anyone tries to pin him on anything specific, he can always fall back on his DOPSR and claim he's not authorized to speak on it, which is Elizondo's schtick.
It is my belief that Grusch's goal with all of this was ultimately for himself and/or others in the SOL Foundation -- which he's the COO of -- to become part of (or lead) the citizen review board as outlined in Schumer's UAP Amendment (NDAA).
Screenshot from Grusch's public resume (from the House meeting bio):
If you keep reading from that part in the UAP Amendment (linked just above), it continues on the next couple of pages that this review board will be made of (fair paraphrasing incoming): "...impartial citizens... distinguished persons of high national professional reputation in their respective fields... including at least 1 current or former national security official, 1 current or former foreign service official, 1 scientist or engineer..." etc.
If you keep reading from that part in the UAP Amendment (linked just above), it continues on the next couple of pages that this review board will be made of (fair paraphrasing incoming): "...impartial citizens...
That is an almost testable criterion. If the people who are appointed to this board have previor to their appointment made statements expressing a belief in the non-mundane explanations that have been bandied about, then they are not impartial. I like testable criteria; we should revisit this point, perhaps.
... distinguished persons of high national professional reputation in their respective fields... including at least 1 current or former national security official, 1 current or former foreign service official, 1 scientist or engineer..." etc.
But how many sceptics? Given that many sceptics have complained about incompetence from national security officials, foreign service officials, scientists and engineers, those labels on their own mean nothing (it's effectively appeal to authority, perhaps the anonymous variety thereof). If Puthoff's the "scientist", for example, that would decrease the credibility of the board.
It is my belief that Grusch's goal with all of this was ultimately for himself and/or others in the SOL Foundation -- which he's the COO of -- to become part of (or lead) the citizen review board as outlined in Schumer's UAP Amendment (NDAA).
There is at least some precedent with the UAPTF a few years ago. After AASWAP was shut down in 2011, it appears Skinwalker Ranch believer and Naval Intel officer Jay Stratton along with Lue Elizondo continued looking into UFO/UAPs informally, maybe using the name AATIP. Elizondo resigned the military, joined To The Starts with the leaked navy videos, got in the NY Times and generally helped stir the pot, such that congress mandated a UAP task force. And who better to lead a UAPTF then the person that had already been sorta doing it, Jay Stratton.
Thus, a Skinwalker Ranch guy ended up heading the UAPTF and he brought in Ancient Aliens regular and future Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch star Travis Taylor as his "chief scientist". According to Grusch, it was Stratton at the UAPTF that told him to go find all the classified programs involved with UAPs, which led to Grusch discovering all the secret crashed UFOs and aliens.
If they're on the same committees, appear on the same TV shows, guest at the same "con"s, and give the same testimonies at the same hearings, then that's not a conspiracy; nothing's in the shadows, it's as plain as the nose on your face, they're not even ashamed of their connections.
If they're on the same committees, appear on the same TV shows, guest at the same "con"s, and give the same testimonies at the same hearings, then that's not a conspiracy; nothing's in the shadows, it's as plain as the nose on your face, they're not even ashamed of their connections.
He's no longer the COO, but the "Senior Founding Advisor"
Article:
“Dave was instrumental in helping us establish the foundation,” Nolan told The Debrief. “And really he has a lot more to contribute.”
“His coming forward publicly was a game changer for the premise of what the Sol Foundation will accomplish in terms of why a professional foundation like Sol must be there to shape policy and academic goals,” Nolan added.
“His impact, as everybody can see, has been tremendous, and the landscape has moved so quickly that in discussions with him, we’ve decided that he will remain as he was before—a Senior Founding Advisor—as we collectively change and shape the goals of the Foundation and [its] directions.”
Nolan told The Debrief that Grusch’s title of Chief Operating Officer, as reflected on the version of his résumé that appeared on the Congressional website, had been an accurate representation of his involvement at the time the document was created.
“I think you have to understand that at the beginning of setting up any enterprise, everybody wears many hats. And so, to the extent that we had to give him a name or a goal or a purpose, that seemed the right thing at the time.”
I think the goals here are more Nolan's. Grusch may share them, but I don't think he's the prime mover. The re-framing of his role as an advisor allows the foundation to distance themselves from him if his story evaporates.
I think the goals here are more Nolan's. Grusch may share them, but I don't think he's the prime mover. The re-framing of his role as an advisor allows the foundation to distance themselves from him if his story evaporates.
They hung the carrot of "opinion leader" in front of Grusch to make him do what he did, and now that he's served his purpose, they're slowly withdrawing support—that's my take.
They hung the carrot of "opinion leader" in front of Grusch to make him do what he did, and now that he's served his purpose, they're slowly withdrawing support—that's my take.
He's no longer the COO, but the "Senior Founding Advisor"
Article:
“Dave was instrumental in helping us establish the foundation,” Nolan told The Debrief. “And really he has a lot more to contribute.”
“His coming forward publicly was a game changer for the premise of what the Sol Foundation will accomplish in terms of why a professional foundation like Sol must be there to shape policy and academic goals,” Nolan added.
“His impact, as everybody can see, has been tremendous, and the landscape has moved so quickly that in discussions with him, we’ve decided that he will remain as he was before—a Senior Founding Advisor—as we collectively change and shape the goals of the Foundation and [its] directions.”
Nolan told The Debrief that Grusch’s title of Chief Operating Officer, as reflected on the version of his résumé that appeared on the Congressional website, had been an accurate representation of his involvement at the time the document was created.
“I think you have to understand that at the beginning of setting up any enterprise, everybody wears many hats. And so, to the extent that we had to give him a name or a goal or a purpose, that seemed the right thing at the time.”
I think the goals here are more Nolan's. Grusch may share them, but I don't think he's the prime mover. The re-framing of his role as an advisor allows the foundation to distance themselves from him if his story evaporates.
On the day of the hearings I posted on YouTube that Grusch has an open body language. Some people where pointing out the tells for lies he was unconsciously sending out however that might not be the case. I suspected he had higher level autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As such he has difficulty recognizing the meaning and facial expressions and body language of others. He would make a terrible insurance claims assessor or detective interviewing people! In short, he is interacting with people who might be pulling his leg or empire building and he is unable to pick up the visual clues but takes things at face value.
I don't think it's wise to infer the limitations of one's condition based on the simple "autism" diagnosis. It is highly unlikely that he would rise so high in the intelligence services while being predisposed to taking things at face value.
I stand corrected Charlie. I was in a hurry and was really trying to show how they started with 62 and bumped that up to 100 in 40 minutes. I was about to check your blog but got sloppy, my bad.
Have you checked out Charlie's blog on Ariel? Too bad it wasn't around when the Ariel treads were going. She does a bang-up job of listing every available transcript and video of the kids being interviewed from the very start and shows how the investigators picked and chose the various parts to create the story as we now know it.
I was unfamiliar with the case until now. To be honest I'm new to the whole ufo thing, becoming interested it since the Congressional hearing. I was mainly interested in combatting antivax claims as my background is medical. That said, I am a bit unhappy with how both sides of the ufo world operate. I demand evidence from both. As previously stated my area of interest is neuroscience.
So now that should explain my actions here. I just read the blog. I would love an explanation for the following claim:
I just read this. Please provide evidence that Mack "uses questionable techniques". Are you savvy with techniques used for interviewing kids. Long before this case Mack cut his teeth in the field of child psychology amongst other things.
John Mack visits Ariel with his associate Dominique Callimanopulos. He interviews 12 children, and talks to the headmaster and teachers. Using questionable techniques, he elicits "memories" of environmental messages sent telepathically to three of the children.
I just read this. Please provide evidence that Mack "uses questionable techniques". Are you savvy with techniques used for interviewing kids. Long before this case Mack cut his teeth in the field of child psychology amongst other things.
"Harvard then issued a statement stating that the Dean had "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment," concluding "Dr. Mack remains a member in good standing of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine."
The Medical School committee's preliminary report, drafted earlier this year, chastised Dr. Mack for "affirming the delusions" of his many patients who claim to have been abducted by aliens. The committee also found Dr. Mack to be "in violation of the standards of conduct expected of a member of the faculty of Harvard University."
The same article goes on to note earlier controversies involving Dr. Mack: " '...as well as a variety of alternative therapies, including holotropic breathwork' and est." The article sums up the decision NOT to censure him thus:
Furthermore, many viewed the Medical School's review committee as an unacceptable intrusion into Dr. Mack's research. "I would defend to the death John's right to indulge in kooky stuff, in the name of academic freedom," said one psychiatrist.
i think [airquote] 'leading the witness' is the same for adults or kids. Although i didnt see this in the youtube videos of him..which are short and likely highly edited. well..not in the environmental bit anyway.
basically the sketchy bit is that when Hind interviewed the kids a few days later there was no discussion of [airquotes] 'telepathic environmental worries' from the aliens. these assertions only appeared during Mack's interview (2 months later) and Mack was into the concept of aliens trying to warn us about environment from previous adult 'abductees'. So it's pretty suspicious.
Still, 2 months is a long time for other people to feed the kids ideas.
"Harvard then issued a statement stating that the Dean had "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment," concluding "Dr. Mack remains a member in good standing of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine."
You asked for "questionable". This, from the same link, is demonstable proof of "questionable":
In May 1994, the Dean of Harvard Medical School, Daniel C. Tosteson, appointed a committee of peers to confidentially review Mack's clinical care and clinical investigation of the people who had shared their alien encounters with him (some of their cases were written of in Mack's 1994 book Abduction). Angela Hind wrote, "It was the first time in Harvard's history that a tenured professor was subjected to such an investigation."
Not so much that it'd be proof the claims are true, but per the DOPSR process they would have to cite which specific agency objected to which specific claims in the DOPSR form. He then stated that this would be a catch-22 for them, and that he'd then be free to release the actual DOPSR request with the requested ommissions as well as citations from the agencies that objected to them to the public to make of that what they will.
I've heard of this strategy elsewhere, and it is in fact hard to see how it could have such a glaring deficiency, as this would allow former DOD members to essentially "fish" for information by throwing everything they can in their requests and seeing which of the claims are objected to, and by whom.
Though it sounds farfetched to think it'd be this easy to fish for info, I also haven't seen anyone specifically explain if the agencies themselves already account for this and why it doesn't work.
"no, you are forbidden to mention aliens or black ops alien programs"
"hey guys, unfortunately i am not allowed to talk about aliens and our black ops alien programs which is why i am mention them now, which i shouldnt! makes sense?"
I just read this. Please provide evidence that Mack "uses questionable techniques". Are you savvy with techniques used for interviewing kids. Long before this case Mack cut his teeth in the field of child psychology amongst other things.
I don't think it's wise to infer the limitations of one's condition based on the simple "autism" diagnosis. It is highly unlikely that he would rise so high in the intelligence services while being predisposed to taking things at face value.
No, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a man who believes everything he's told would rise so high. You're basing this opinion on your emotions, not reason.
You asked for "questionable". This, from the same link, is demonstable proof of "questionable":
In May 1994, the Dean of Harvard Medical School, Daniel C. Tosteson, appointed a committee of peers to confidentially review Mack's clinical care and clinical investigation of the people who had shared their alien encounters with him (some of their cases were written of in Mack's 1994 book Abduction). Angela Hind wrote, "It was the first time in Harvard's history that a tenured professor was subjected to such an investigation."
I don't think it's wise to infer the limitations of one's condition based on the simple "autism" diagnosis. It is highly unlikely that he would rise so high in the intelligence services while being predisposed to taking things at face value.
Honestly, Grusch's specialty at the NGA is satellite intelligence, and you can very much take everything at face value there.
There's a big difference between dealing with untrusted sources, and trusting the wrong people whom you perceive to be on your side. In the case of Stratton, he was Grusch's superior, and I dare say you're going to have a career problem in the military if you don't trust your superiors.
The question was regarding the statement that he "using questionable techniques, he elicits "memories" of environmental messages sent telepathically to three of the children". That's a very specific accusation.
The question was regarding the statement that he "using questionable techniques, he elicits "memories" of environmental messages sent telepathically to three of the children". That's a very specific accusation.
one just has to show WHERE in the Ariel interviews he uses questionable techniques on the children.
your wiki quote is about his work prior to Ariel and doesnt mention anything regarding how he might be eliciting memories or even if those techniques regarding the interviews are being questioned. (and the investigation concluded that he can continue doing what he is doing)
Read Charlie's link and youll see what she considers the answer.
Last time I looked, science does indeed have a peer review process, yes.
However, you're failing to take into consideration the reasons why such questioning takes place. The investigating that takes place every time for all submissions - peer review - says absolutely nothing about whether a cursory inspection flagged anything troublesome, because it's always done - there are zero bits of data in that signal. Instigating an extraordinary investigation *cannot in any way* be considered quantitatively the same, which is the error you are making - there must have been genuine worries or suspicions in order to go out of their way to instigate an investigation.
according to your quote he was agreeing with patients they were abducted by aliens. and treating them as such. is that not a genuine worry, supporting delusion beliefs?
according to your quote he was agreeing with patients they were abducted by aliens. and treating them as such. is that not a genuine worry, supporting delusion beliefs?
I'm not a doctor or a psychologist ...but it seems likely to me that those who believe strange things should be treated with scrupulous neutrality. A neutral party wouldn't go to that person and say "That's all baloney, there are no aliens around", nor would he say anything that encourages those beliefs in a way that would cause the witness to exaggerate to please the interviewer. Yes, it would have to be a tight-rope walk. Is that what the investigators were trying to ascertain? If he was really trying to do that much-discredited false-memory business, he was not remaining neutral.
according to your quote he was agreeing with patients they were abducted by aliens. and treating them as such. is that not a genuine worry, supporting delusion beliefs?
There's a difference between an open question and a leading question; my understanding is that he relied on the latter, which is contaminating the sample. And because you're not throwing away the samples after testing, I think the campsite rule should apply. (I.e. don't leave them in a worse state than you found them.)
where did you get that understanding? that is what we are trying to ascertain.
Article:
Although Sheehan’s letter does not provide verbatim quotes, he says the Draft Report “finds that it is professionally irresponsible for any academic, scholar or practicing psychiatrist to give any credence whatsoever to any personal report of a direct personal contact between a human being and an Extraterrestrial Being until after the person...has been subjected to every possible available battery of standard psychological tests which might conceivably explain the report as the product of some known form of clinical psychosis....To communicate, in any way whatsoever, to a person who has reported a ‘close encounter’ with an Extraterrestrial life form that this experience might well have been real...is professionally irresponsible.”
Sheehan said: “The Committee makes a specific Finding that such conduct on the part of Dr. John Mack was ‘in violation of the standards of conduct expected of a member of the faculty of Harvard University'.”
where did you get that understanding? that is what we are trying to ascertain.
Article:
Although Sheehan’s letter does not provide verbatim quotes, he says the Draft Report “finds that it is professionally irresponsible for any academic, scholar or practicing psychiatrist to give any credence whatsoever to any personal report of a direct personal contact between a human being and an Extraterrestrial Being until after the person...has been subjected to every possible available battery of standard psychological tests which might conceivably explain the report as the product of some known form of clinical psychosis....To communicate, in any way whatsoever, to a person who has reported a ‘close encounter’ with an Extraterrestrial life form that this experience might well have been real...is professionally irresponsible.”
Sheehan said: “The Committee makes a specific Finding that such conduct on the part of Dr. John Mack was ‘in violation of the standards of conduct expected of a member of the faculty of Harvard University'.”
Hailey’s interview is painful to watch – that child looks terrified. The available footage starts with her saying the flute noise scared her. Mack asks “What were you scared would happen?” – putting the idea in her head that something frightening was about to happen, which she had not mentioned at all (in the available clips). But now she’s required to come up with a frightening scenario, and she does: “I thought the aliens would attack me.” Even though she also says the aliens weren’t unfriendly and didn’t try to attack.
Kayleigh V describes the alien’s eyes and is asked to come up with a feeling when she looked at them. She says the eyes were evil, then has trouble coming up with a reason, settling for: “It looked evil because it was just staring at me.” Not good enough. Mack requires her to explain the alien’s motivation for its evil stare: “Staring at you… as if to do what?” and she finds one: “As if it wanted to come and take us.”
Francis’s interview is almost comical. He draws the alien’s eyes, describing them in matter-of-factly. Mack requires him to produce a feeling. Francis, smiling and having fun, reports shaking, feeling terrified, woozy… “Why did you keep looking?” Mack asks, even though Francis just said he stopped looking.
Rather than contradict the Very Nice and Important American, Francis attempts but fails to find a reason. Mack asks, “What do you imagine is his reason for visiting Earth?” This is a request to speculate ("We never force the child to imagine in the question." - Gilles Fernandez). Francis thinks long and hard before coming up with a half-hearted: “Pollution or something.” Mack’s excited response tells him he got the answer “right”.
Now Mack rephrases the question to turn it into a telepathic message: “And how did he get that idea of pollution across to you?” Remember, Francis was not recounting a message at all. He was imagining – as requested. After all that talk about the alien’s eyes making him woozy, he’s well-primed to give the correct response (though he sounds unsure): “The way he was staring?” Mack again rephrases in a definitive tone, to reinforce: “Somehow there was a message about pollution from the way he was staring?” And with relief, Francis says: “Yes.”
Turns out the idea didn't originate with aliens or with Francis's imagination: "There had been some prior discussion in school about what causes pollution, Francis told me, but this was the first time he had thought about it or spoken of it." [Mack, Passport to the Cosmos (1999), p. 97]
Emma K talks about her emotional reaction to the beings – she’s excited, scared, and happy about seeing something new. The eyes told her: “I want you,” which Mack helpfully suggests means: “I want you to come with me.” Emma reports to Mack (although not previously, in available footage) that she got 3 to 4 yards from the being.
Of course, this is @Charlie Wiser's interpretation of those interviews, but the words quoted do, to me, carry the connotations that Charlie ascribes to them, so I don't see the need to treat that interpretation with suspicion.
