In WWII, Congressman Andrew J May accidentally disclosed some secrets to the Japanese Navy, just by careless talk. This accidental disclosure probably sank 10 submarines and killed 800 men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May#The_May_Incident
Reminds me of the BBC announcing a UK ground force was on its way to Goose Green during the Falklands War. They also revealed Argentine bombs were hitting RN warships but no exploding. The Argentine pilots were releasing their bombs from too low an altitude and they weren't having time to arm before hitting their targets.
A hypothetical example might be someone like Grusch having personally seen or even been told about data gathered from a classified source such a some new sensor system. Just describeing the nature of the data could "out" a new capability. Potential adversaries would be far more interested in learning a capability to obtain that data existed than they are our whistleblower's dubious conclusions.
Intel people make a living collecting bits and pieces of relevant information, both classified and unclassified, to put together a bigger picture "mosaic" of a potential adversary's capabilities or intentions. So in my hypothetical scenario, our whistleblower could either alert adversaries to existence of a capability, or corroborate information they already have.
I'd have to go through the Congressional hearings again, but my recollection is that some of the things for which he gave the NDA or classified response were straightforward yes or no type questions. I don't recall any questions where he'd have gotten into any great technical detail that might have outed intel gathering techniques.
I'd have to go through the Congressional hearings again, but my recollection is that some of the things for which he gave the NDA or classified response were straightforward yes or no type questions. I don't recall any questions where he'd have gotten into any great technical detail that might have outed intel gathering techniques.
Agreed, didn't say he did. Having both watched the UAP hearing and read its transcript multiple times, my recollection is Grusch was extremely conservative in what he revealed in that public setting. The bottom line was to point out in response to @MapperGuy that someone could get into trouble even for "spilling the beans" on a nonexistent program/project if in doing so they revealed classified data/information in the process.
Well, no.....this is an issue I have myself raised numerous times. If someone...Elizondo, Grusch, other whistleblowers...claims that their NDA covers illegal activities then the NDA itself is surely illegal. These people can't have it both ways. They cannot hide behind the legality of NDAs or security classification for activities that they are claiming were never legal in the first place.
I mean...someone tell me that one can have a legally binding NDA for an illegal project. This I have to hear.
It does not make sense. I worked for on contracts funded by DARPA. If I stated tomorrow that there is an illegal bigfoot program but in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA I would be in trouble.
Well, no.....this is an issue I have myself raised numerous times. If someone...Elizondo, Grusch, other whistleblowers...claims that their NDA covers illegal activities then the NDA itself is surely illegal. These people can't have it both ways. They cannot hide behind the legality of NDAs or security classification for activities that they are claiming were never legal in the first place.
I mean...someone tell me that one can have a legally binding NDA for an illegal project. This I have to hear.
It does not make sense. I worked for on contracts funded by DARPA. If I stated tomorrow that there is an illegal bigfoot program but in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA I would be in trouble.
It does not make sense. I worked for on contracts funded by DARPA. If I stated tomorrow that there is an illegal bigfoot program but in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA I would be in trouble.
But if you said you'd seen a bigfoot in a cage at Wright Patterson air force base and the bigfoot capture program was itself illegal, then you could mention the illegal bit without ever having to refer to aspects that were not illegal. I don't see how the two legalities could ever be so conflated as to be unable to be dis-entangled to the extent that the legal aspects covered all the illegal ones. By definition if something is illegal then you cannot use some Russian doll type over-arching legality to make it covered by legality. People would obviously have to be careful what they actually said....but then Grusch's lawyer was right behind him.
I will point out one gaping hole in the NDA excuse, about two dozen countries do not currently have extradition treaties with the US. A person(s) with actual knowledge of alien tech/beings or better yet physical evidence in their possession need only pick one with decent weather, relocate, and begin shopping his info/materials for the book and movie rights to the highest bidder. That would simultaneously expose the "conspiracy(ies)", inform the public, and make the "whistleblower" a good bit of cash.
The only downside is that you must be able to show your prospective publisher/producer the actual evidence in order to get the ball rolling. Can't believe one of these PhD whistleblowers has not thought of that.
I will point out one gaping hole in the NDA excuse, about two dozen countries do not currently have extradition treaties with the US. A person(s) with actual knowledge of alien tech/beings or better yet physical evidence in their possession need only pick one with decent weather, relocate, and begin shopping his info/materials for the book and movie rights to the highest bidder. That would simultaneously expose the "conspiracy(ies)", inform the public, and make the "whistleblower" a good bit of cash.
The only downside is that you must be able to show your prospective publisher/producer the actual evidence in order to get the ball rolling. Can't believe one of these PhD whistleblowers has not thought of that.
Had never really thought of that. I'm pretty sure I can name many of the nations with which the US have no extradition treaty. Those that would offer anything approaching a Western standard/style of living would probably be beholding to the US, and therefore subject to pressure from the US to deport or otherwise silence anyone attempting to release highly classified information of any kind. Conversely, countries where such an individual would be beyond the reach of the US government would be nations the whistleblowers wouldn't want to go to.
Just because you have an extradition treaty doesn't mean you automatically extrodite. We refused to send some alleged criminals to the US just last week.
Just because you have an extradition treaty doesn't mean you automatically extrodite. We refused to send some alleged criminals to the US just last week.
Conversely, countries where such an individual would be beyond the reach of the US government would be nations the whistleblowers wouldn't want to go to.
Way off topic. Either he discloses or doesn’t. This disclosure has been just around the corner for decades. That is all. He promises disclosure. Does the publicity circuit. Never discloses. No polite way to state my opinion of him.
But if you said you'd seen a bigfoot in a cage at Wright Patterson air force base and the bigfoot capture program was itself illegal, then you could mention the illegal bit without ever having to refer to aspects that were not illegal. I don't see how the two legalities could ever be so conflated as to be unable to be dis-entangled to the extent that the legal aspects covered all the illegal ones. By definition if something is illegal then you cannot use some Russian doll type over-arching legality to make it covered by legality. People would obviously have to be careful what they actually said....but then Grusch's lawyer was right behind him.
That's a simplistic view of this. A crash retrieval program might not be illegal in itself but elements in the operation and oversight of that program could well be illegal and/or against the spirit or wording of the constitution.
In regards to Grusch's lawyer, it's fair to say Charles McCullough, previous Inspector General of the Intelligence Community knows what Grusch can and cannot mention.
The thing is Grusch isn't telling people that they should take him at face value he seems to be actually calling for the release of this information. That is in line with scientific investigation.
That doesn't make sense. It's ok to break your NDA because Charles McCullough, previous Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is your lawyer? Actually I'm sure the aforementioned lawyer advised him against this. No offence meant but on this topic you seem to disagree in advance and form your logic after that decision. That's the only explanation for what you said.
As I'm sure we all know, Elizondo isn't the first whistle blower in history. Often these people circumvented their NDA's thereby allowing them to give enough information to spur on government investigation.
They don't just "disclose or don't". I think we all deserve a more complex analysis of this.
It does not make sense. I worked for on contracts funded by DARPA. If I stated tomorrow that there is an illegal bigfoot program but in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA I would be in trouble.
That doesn't make sense. It's ok to break your NDA because Charles McCullough, previous Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is your lawyer? Actually I'm sure the aforementioned lawyer advised him against this. No offence meant but on this topic you seem to disagree in advance and form your logic after that decision. That's the only explanation for what you said.
Mr McCullogh should be able to draft a release in such a way that the illegal program is characterized without revealing facts legally covered by the NDA. This lawyer is definitely able to craft statements that are both meaningful and legal, if that is at all possible.
Consulting with him avoids your "in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA".
Or do you claim that this is unavoidable?
As I'm sure we all know, Elizondo isn't the first whistle blower in history. Often these people circumvented their NDA's thereby allowing them to give enough information to spur on government investigation.
They don't just "disclose or don't". I think we all deserve a more complex analysis of this.
So today Elizondo made a big, exciting deal over the NSA "releasing" a 57 year old article speculating about ETI, that was released via FOIA 27 years ago. More proof of impending Disclosure!
He must be really hard up for something to get us excited about "Disclosure."
I am sorry... But the way he reacted when he was asked about the date was just... Very transparent to me.
This is a direct quote, word for word
"Uuuuh, my gosh.... Well id have to go through this whole thing here, uuummm... Let me take a look here..... Doo doo doo doo doo... You have to give me a moment uum.... Lets see here... Uuuh *mumbling something incoherent to himself*... Doo doo doo doo... I WILL HAVE to find it for you, unless you want me to spend the next 5 minutes combing through it."
Sure I do speculate, but I do not believe for a second Lue didn't know the answer to that question he was asked, i think he just knew the answer would look worse than the date he would be supplying answer he gave (quoted above).
I also dont believe he was really "looking through" something, I think he was demonstrating what the "5 minutes of combing through it" would be like for him, boring + dead-air.
EDIT NOTE: I made a mistake, I did a strike-through the mistake and corrected myself
So today Elizondo made a big, exciting deal over the NSA "releasing" a 57 year old article speculating about ETI, that was released via FOIA 27 years ago. More proof of impending Disclosure!
He must be really hard up for something to get us excited about "Disclosure."
I think the most disturbing revelation here is that Elizondo reads The Sun.
After doing some digging, this situation might actually be more embarrassing for Elizondo than it first appears. Elizondo refers to The Sun reporting the NSA declassifed this document with the following PDF on NSA.gov. However, I noticed that the linked document includes a paragraph starting
The growing presumption that life exists in other worlds led, in 1971, to a six-nation multidisciplinary conference held in Soviet Armenia on Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
So I realized Greenstreet's 1966 publishing date must have been incorrect. The funny part is that there is a 1966 version of the article but it was published in IEEE Spectrum, a public journal! You can follow this link to the original paper to confirm it's the same article as the later version, the difference being the NSA version had some extra paragraphs referring to those 1971 meetings. (Scroll down to the section written by Lambros D. Callimahos, the author named in the NSA version).
So Elizondo is touting something that was never classified and the content of which is just a basic intro to how scientists expect it would be possible to communicate with distant civilizations. LOL
@sgreenstreet and others please fact check me to make sure I'm not mixing anything up!
So today Elizondo made a big, exciting deal over the NSA "releasing" a 57 year old article speculating about ETI, that was released via FOIA 27 years ago. More proof of impending Disclosure!
He must be really hard up for something to get us excited about "Disclosure."
[0:45] I am certain because we're now having this conversation publicly, it has been declassified.
The SUN article shown is dated February 2022.
Even if Elizondo didn't know when the report was originally released, his use of "now" is deceptive. The conversation "now" is Grusch, and even that news article predates that, as well as last year's UAPTF hearings!
[1:03] Why would the NSA write a report titled, "Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence"?
That's an easy answer. The report was written in 1966, when SETI just about got started:
Article:
Soviet astronomer Iosif Shklovsky wrote the pioneering book in the field, Universe, Life, Intelligence (1962), which was expanded upon by American astronomer Carl Sagan as the best-selling book Intelligent Life in the Universe (1966).[17]
The author, Lambros D. Callimahos, was a true polymath, who debuted as a flute player in Nazi Germany, and joined the NSA when it was founded, teaching cryptography to generations of students. If he saw Sagan's book, I'm not surprised he'd publish his opinion on it in the journal he edited.
The conspiracy theorist's penchant to look at organisations instead of people prevents them from actually understanding why things happen, and that is the case here. (Look up Callimahos's bio, it's wild.)
Sure I do speculate, but I do not believe for a second Lue didn't know the answer to that question he was asked, i think he just knew the answer would look worse than the date he would be supplying answer he gave (quoted above).
Lue Elizondo is consciously keeping that date from his audience, because even the date of the SUN publication would disprove his own point, much less the fact that the author of that report died in 1977. We've talked above on whether Elizondo is trustworthy, and this is just one more example why he isn't: he has consciously decided to keep information from his audience in order to mislead them into agreeing with his opinion.
If his ideas require these sorts of shenanigans to gain support, maybe he should rethink them. Or does Elizondo have ulterior motives?
Even if Elizondo didn't know when the report was originally released, his use of "now" is deceptive. The conversation "now" is Grusch, and even that news article predates that, as well as last year's UAPTF hearings!
Greenewald reported on this 2 days after the article released by the Sun. Greenstreet is just rehashing an old story.
Article:
1:12
called the sun, but also the entire story got very much a big boost in exposure on fade to black
with jimmy church the other night when he was interviewing luis elizondo
now i was surprised to hear that mr elizonda would bring up such a document
....
4:45
i know mr alizondo was asked by jimmy church
for a chronological context when was this document written. it was not stated in either the article or on Fade to Black
5:01
because it's not recent, although the
5:03
article [in The Sun] absolutely makes it seem like it's recent
Interesting. Apparently this document (as well as a few others written shortly after by different authors) were fun training exercises for code breakers. Even Open Minds (the pro ufo site) wrote about it in 2011
So today Elizondo made a big, exciting deal over the NSA "releasing" a 57 year old article speculating about ETI, that was released via FOIA 27 years ago. More proof of impending Disclosure!
[0:45] I am certain because we're now having this conversation publicly, it has been declassified.
The SUN article shown is dated February 2022. Even if Elizondo didn't know when the report was originally released, his use of "now" is deceptive. The conversation "now" is Grusch, and even that news article predates that, as well as last year's UAPTF hearings!
Mr McCullogh should be able to draft a release in such a way that the illegal program is characterized without revealing facts legally covered by the NDA. This lawyer is definitely able to craft statements that are both meaningful and legal, if that is at all possible.
Consulting with him avoids your "in telling about it described things that were not illegal but covered in my NDA".
Or do you claim that this is unavoidable?
Have you got evidence that McCullogh should be able to draft a release that doesn't reveal anything in contravention to the NDA but reveals enough evidence of the "secret" program to warrant congressional investigation?
You previously asked for evidence that studies detailing the anti vax autism claim make an impact, now you seem to be asking for claims that other whistleblowers have previously come forward and circumvented their NDA to provide information. This isn't debunking at this stage, it's contrarianism. I disagree with you about some things and because of that you seem to question things accepted in mainstream science and history.
I wouldn't want this sort of logic on my side when I debate anti-vaxxers. It seems more about appearing to be right than supporting facts.
You previously asked for evidence that studies detailing the anti vax autism claim make an impact, now you seem to be asking for claims that other whistleblowers have previously come forward and circumvented their NDA to provide information. This isn't debunking at this stage, it's contrarianism. I disagree with you about some things and because of that you seem to question things accepted in mainstream science and history.
I wouldn't want this sort of logic on my side when I debate anti-vaxxers. It seems more about appearing to be right than supporting facts.
Indeed which one? It is not realistic to provide evidence as to a precise metric by which a paper refuting anti vax claims has "made an impact". This isn't a question which makes sense in relation to to a scientific article. It actually arose from my simply describing my involvement in scientific debunking.
I stated this:
I was actually part of the study which showed that the evidence presented didn't point towards being causative of autism.
The poster asked about the impact of the study but this is no related to claims about my ascertains.
As regards to my claims about whistleblowers, my claim is an established fact. Do we need to provide evidence for all assertions? For example if say autism is real do I need to provide evidence?
The second point in my post is indeed something that an evidence question makes sense for but again something demonstrably true and like the autism evidence analogy, is an established fact.
I stated
As I'm sure we all know, Elizondo isn't the first whistle blower in history.
Again, this is self evident as history is replete with examples of whistleblowers who either found ways to leak information, i.e. Mark Felt (Deep Throat) circumvented the legal barriers by leaking anomalously to journalists. The converse to that is Frank Snepp, who wrote a book detailing the CIA's lack of preparedness for the fall of Saigon. Frank left out names, sources ect but still was prosecuted by the CIA director for breach of his NDA.
Again, this is self evident as history is replete with examples of whistleblowers who either found ways to leak information, i.e. Mark Felt (Deep Throat) circumvented the legal barriers by leaking anomalously to journalists. The converse to that is Frank Snepp, who wrote a book detailing the CIA's lack of preparedness for the fall of Saigon. Frank left out names, sources ect but still was prosecuted by the CIA director for breach of his NDA.
So your two examples are Felt who did it anonymously and Snepp who was not prosecuted as you claim but lost a lawsuit which means he didnot circumvent the consequences.
After the book was published, CIA Director Stansfield Turner pushed for Snepp to be sued and, despite the objections of some Department of Justice officials, Turner prevailed. Since publication of the book could not be stopped under the constitutional law forbidding prior restraint of the press, the CIA sued Snepp for breach of contract.
So your two examples are Felt who did it anonymously and Snepp who was not prosecuted as you claim but lost a lawsuit which means he didnot circumvent the consequences.
I think you're misunderstanding. Where did I say they circumvented the consequences? I stated that they circumvented their NDA in such a way (anonymous reporting ect) that the government was spurred on to investigate.
I am the one stating that the people shouting just "disclose" are looking at this from a point of simplicity, and not in line with the reality of whistleblowing. Mr Elizondo may be attempting the circumvent the NDA in order to provide information or hints to Congress by which they may investigate.
I believe that's what the aim of this legislation was.
I think you're misunderstanding. Where did I say they circumvented the consequences? I stated that they circumvented their NDA in such a way (anonymous reporting ect) that the government was spurred on to investigate.
I am the one stating that the people shouting just "disclose" are looking at this from a point of simplicity, and not in line with the reality of whistleblowing. Mr Elizondo may be attempting the circumvent the NDA in order to provide information or hints to Congress by which they may investigate.
I believe that's what the aim of this legislation was.
Most, if not all, NDAs (all the ones I have signed) include a section outlining consequences for non compliant.disclosure. You cannot circumvent the NDA without circumventing the consequences.
I was actually part of the study which showed that the evidence presented didn't point towards being causative of autism. Some people complained that that was a waste of money. At the time people complained that this study was a waste of money because we "know the answer". Actually the conspiracies are a unlikely in my humble opinion but we couldn't say for definite and a study would have helped sway public opinion.
The context is of course whether a UFO study would be a waste of money or not.
Your claim is that the autism study was no waste of money, so my questions were regarding any evidence that the autism study had an effect on 1) the anti-vax population, 2) medical practice. You were not able to support your claim that the autism study was worth the effort.
So the question, whether a new UFO study would be a waste of money, is still very much open. [Edit:] Your statement did not help because you failed to support it with evidence.
The converse to that is Frank Snepp, who wrote a book detailing the CIA's lack of preparedness for the fall of Saigon. Frank left out names, sources ect but still was prosecuted by the CIA director for breach of his NDA.
Yes. However, we have been discussing blowing the whistle on illegal operations. The Saigon evacuation may have been incompetent, but it was not illegal, and writing about it did not exempt Snepp from his NDA.
Grusch, on the other hand, claims illegal operations. These are not covered by the NDA, and thus do not require "circumventing" it.
However, Grusch should defer to McCullough's judgment as whether the operations are in fact illegal, and how to word his statement such that it only contains NDA-exempt matter (or how to get the necessary non-exempt matter past the DOPSR).
A better example: Dr David MacMichael testified before Congress on an illegal CIA operation. His bio makes no mention of him being prosecuted for it.
Article:
Second witness: Dr. David MacMichael
David MacMichael was an expert on counter-insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and Latin American affairs, he was also a witness because he was closely involved with U.S. intelligence activities as a contract employee from March 1981 – April 1983.
I do not understand why Grusch or Elizondo did not follow that example.
Most, if not all, NDAs (all the ones I have signed) include a section outlining consequences for non compliant.disclosure. You cannot circumvent the NDA without circumventing the consequences.
Well, again you're mentioning consequences. However, we're agreeing that disclosure is not a painless process. We also seem to be agreeing that the posters just stating "disclose or don't" are looking at this from a simplistic viewpoint.
Also one can circumvent the NDA through other methods other than disclosing what might be in it. Historically people have hinted to journalists that "there might be something worth while to a certain topic" or they have resigned from their post in the CIA, FBI ect in order to campaign for transparency.
So to my mind Elizondo and Grusch fit the perfect whisteblower criteria.
The context is of course whether a UFO study would be a waste of money or not.
Your claim is that the autism study was no waste of money, so my questions were regarding any evidence that the autism study had an effect on 1) the anti-vax population, 2) medical practice. You were not able to support your claim that the autism study was worth the effort.
So the question, whether a new UFO study would be a waste of money, is still very much open. [Edit:] Your statement did not help because you failed to support it with evidence.
It's not that I was unable to support a claim that science is worth the effort because frankly I think it goes against the spirit of a debunking site to argue that research is "worth the effort".
This has to be the most anti science questioning I have heard in a while.
A better example: Dr David MacMichael testified before Congress on an illegal CIA operation. His bio makes no mention of him being prosecuted for it.
Article:
Second witness: Dr. David MacMichael
David MacMichael was an expert on counter-insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and Latin American affairs, he was also a witness because he was closely involved with U.S. intelligence activities as a contract employee from March 1981 – April 1983.
I do not understand why Grusch or Elizondo did not follow that example.
I have a BS in General Biology with a focus on microbiology. I also have a Masters of Public health with a focus on toxicology and drinking water treatment.
