Misleading: Josh Hawley on UFO and David Grusch

Or he is sincere but wrong. Or he's a liar who is also sane. Or...

We cant have liars or people that are capable of sincerely believing in space vampires passing our military intelligence and pentagon psychological vetting, we have nukes.

Not to mention the origin of all these conspiracy theories is from misinformation from our own national security agencies.

It makes us less safe, not more.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the origin of all these conspiracy theories is from misinformation from our own national security agencies.
That's a claim that I don't think you can support.

If you couldn't vet liars for intelligence, that would make undercover work rather difficult.
 
That's a claim that I don't think you can support.

We're talking about the claims made by David Gursche, which he directly has said multiple times came from our national security agencies.

If you couldn't vet liars for intelligence, that would make undercover work rather difficult.

Well we did let a liar (or mentally ill person) slip through, or everything David Gursche said is true.

So there is no scenario where we shouldn't approach this with a full on investigation IMO
 
We cant have liars or people that are capable of sincerely believing in space vampires passing our military intelligence and pentagon psychological vetting, we have nukes.
That's argument from incredulity. And, it's not true in at least one case — here's a woman who made waves a couple of years ago by giving a press conference at the Lincoln Memorial. She's a former intelligence officer, and she has spoken to "the beings." (She has also written openly about having been hospitalized for a mental-health crisis some years ago.)

Screen Shot 2023-06-20 at 5.05.07 PM.png
 
That there are people in our intelligence community that pass psychological vetting, but clearly belong in a mental hospital.

Either that's a fact - or aliens are real.
Or people are simply wrong; their sincere beliefs are mistaken, or they've been misquoted or misunderstood. It happens. Haven't you ever just been wrong about anything? Calling every mistake a lie or a mental illness is counterproductive, and a very good way NOT to get any clarification or cooperation from them. Your assumption that they were "misinformed" just pushes back the point at which the information was mistaken to another person in the chain, but you don't have any evidence that was deliberate either.
 
Last edited:
Or people are simply wrong; their sincere beliefs are mistaken, or they've been misquoted or misunderstood. It happens. Haven't you ever just been wrong about anything? Calling every mistake a lie or a mental illness is counterproductive, and a very good way NOT to get any clarification or cooperation from them. Your assumption that they were "misinformed" just pushes back the point at which the information was mistaken to another person in the chain, but you don't have any evidence that was deliberate either.

What are we arguing here?

He was a high ranking intelligence officer - and people are arguing that its ok he was wrong, or held incorrect but sincere beliefs?

Being capable of believing this crap is enough that any sane individual should know you should not be eligible for military clearance. I am sorry.

His mere exitance is proof there are massive failures in our military intelligence and security agencies.
 
We're talking about the claims made by David Gursche, which he directly has said multiple times came from our national security agencies.
Your claim was, "Not to mention the origin of all these conspiracy theories is from misinformation from our own national security agencies." Grusch (whose name you keep misspelling) lost his job with his agency, and was never an official spokesperson for them. The agency is not the origin of that misinformation, an ex-employee is. We do not know why he no longer holds this job.
So there is no scenario where we shouldn't approach this with a full on investigation IMO
The scenario where Grusch's leadership took appropriate action is the one that doesn't warrant wasting time and resources on his outlandish TV claims.
His whistleblower complaint needed to be investigated, and has been.
 
Hyperbole, and a completely unwarranted conclusion on your part.

Did he or did he not have high levels of sercuity clearnce?

Does he or does he not believe in interdimensional beings and a Vatican conspiracy to ship a UFO around the globe?

It's not hyperbole to say that we cant have people capable of believing that stuff in positions like that.

The scenario where Grusch's leadership took appropriate action is the one that doesn't warrant wasting time and resources on his claims.

It's fair for you to say that, but it's equally fair for me to say the opposite! That's truly just your opinion. I don't agree that people capable of believing in space aliens should be able to pass military intelligence clearance, and I don't think that's a strange thing to say.

Why even have military intelligence if we dont even believe one that is a whistleblower anyway? Like, clearly we're all in the state of mind that they all make mistakes, and have incorrect, but sincere beliefs.

How can we believe anything if that's the case?
 
His mere exitance is proof there are massive failures in our military intelligence and security agencies.
He is neither the first nor likely to be the last example of people within the intelligence community who may not be living up to your standard. Think of the young man who was leaking classified documents to his friends on a gaming channel. Or a ex-President who steals classified documents and refuses to give them back to the government. I'm sure there are many more examples if you look into it.
 
He is neither the first nor likely to be the last example of people within the intelligence community who may not be living up to your standard. Think of the young man who was leaking classified documents to his friends on a gaming channel. Or a President who steals classified documents and refuses to give them back to the government. I'm sure there are many more examples if you look into it.

Exactly why we need to find out how out of control this dangerous war machine is!

"The whole system is totally fubar" is not winning you any points with me!

It's the thesis to my rant!

(sarcastic quote btw not accurate one!) But my point still stands!
 
It's fair for you to say that, but it's equally fair for me to say the opposite!
So, to be clear, the scenario where Grudch's superiors say "this guy has gone off the deep end end, let's get rid of him" needs investigation? Why?

It's not hyperbole to say that we cant have people capable of believing that stuff in positions like that.
There aren't, Grusch lost his job.
Do you want to extend that to "people capable of believing the 2020 election was stolen"?
 
What are we arguing here?

He was a high ranking intelligence officer - and people are arguing that its ok he was wrong, or held incorrect but sincere beliefs?

His mere exitance is proof there are massive failures in our military intelligence.
There's 3 things (I see) wrong with this:

1. People aren't infallible. People can be mistaken.
2. You shouldn't expect every individual in the gov't to be perfect. That's not practical. There are hundreds of thousands of people in gov't, do you really expect there to not be some bad apples? Or people who are just mistaken?
3. This is not proof of massive failures in our intelligence. It's ONE dude.

It could be that this is a misinformation ploy BY THE GOV'T and he is knowingly part of it. We don't know until more evidence comes out.
 
Does he or does he not believe in interdimensional beings and a Vatican conspiracy to ship a UFO around the globe?
Neither you nor I know what he "believes". We know what he says, but as yet we don't know the motivation for saying it. It may be belief, it may be ego, it may be a search for attention, it may be retaliation for what he perceived as an unjust downgrading of his security clearance, it may be simply a profit motive. You've taken a hair-on-fire giant leap to things for which we have no definitive answer, and used that to denigrate everyone from the US congress to the military to the security services. Take a deep breath, and let the matter unfold with a little more factual content.
 
Exactly why we need to find out how out of control this dangerous war machine is!

"The whole system is totally fubar" is not winning you any points with me!

It's the thesis to my rant!

(sarcastic quote btw not accurate one!) But my point still stands!
I’m not trying to “win points”. Any organization populated by humans will have susceptibility to human weaknesses.

You are imagining there is some process by which the human element can be judged that is immune to those very same weaknesses. It’s not clear to me that such a process exists.
 
Our exceptionally large military industrial complex has people in it that believe there are and that terrifies me - not because I believe in aliens, but because I believe in a delusional individuals ability to do very damaging things
To a degree I think I agree with you. If Grusch is not telling the truth, whether that be due to a misunderstanding on his part (or a chain of rumour and misunderstanding), or delusion, or (for the sake of argument- sorry Mr Grusch) deliberate deception, then it is a matter of concern that he was where he was.

People flying planes with tactical nukes on them are saying they truly believe in aliens.
Well, a minority of airmen who fly aircraft which could carry nuclear weapons might believe the Earth is being visited by aliens.
But if we "weed out" irrational beliefs- or at least, beliefs that have little physical evidence for their factual accuracy-
where do we draw the line? Lots of "mainstream" religious beliefs might fall into this category.

The US armed forces are large and diverse; there will be many servicemen and women who hold "unusual" views or non-mainstream beliefs. As long as their beliefs don't impede their operational efficiency or compromise security, I'm sure their service is welcome.

The Royal Navy (of the UK) allows practising Satanists to serve :eek::D

External Quote:
The British Armed Forces pride themselves on welcoming people from all backgrounds.

The message: If you're prepared to accept what the forces are all about, then whatever your gender, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or religious belief - there's a place for you.
But it may still come as a surprise to hear that a registered Satanist has served in the Royal Navy.
In 2004, it emerged that 24-year-old Naval Technician Chris Cranmer, 24, had been allowed to register by the captain of the now-decommissioned HMS Cumberland - and even to perform Satanic rituals on board.
"Satanism In The Royal Navy", Forces Net 17 March 2016 https://www.forces.net/services/tri-service/satanism-royal-navy
 
Our exceptionally large military industrial complex has people in it that believe there are and that terrifies me - not because I believe in aliens, but because I believe in a delusional individuals ability to do very damaging things, and if we're giving access to very powerful weapons apparently very delusional people, we need oversight.

On this I will agree a bit. We have several threads here at Metabunk concerning the various people and groups that have had an undue influence in the US governments response to UFO/UAPs. We try to keep track of them and look into their various claims. It may be that Gursch is one of them or has been heavily influenced by them, it's hard to tell at this point.

Bigger picture, I think this a byproduct of a representative Democracy. Our government institutions from the military to the National Park service and the government itself is made up of the citizens of the state. More or less. So, there are going to be some UFO enthusiasts either working for the government or in the government. It's just the way it is, unless we want to have very severe restrictions on who can serve or work in government, which is great if all the restrictions align with my personal beliefs.

It seems that in the end, evidence wins out in general. Not always, but if the government UAP program is full of people that believe all kinds of nonsense that supposedly goes on at Skinwalker Ranch, at some point the continual lack of evidence for such claims comes to bear. Most interested people move on.

Maybe even bigger picture, most people don't care. They're living their lives not becoming overly concerned with whatever Grusch and others are saying. It's only a big deal to the hardcore UFOlogist and us that are skeptical of such claims. We play in a fairly small sandbox that occasionally attracts the interest of others, but they soon move on. I enjoy it, but that's me.
 
The Royal Navy (of the UK) allows practising Satanists to serve :eek::D
Why is that remarkable? Is that inherently any different from other religious beliefs? As you say, "As long as their beliefs don't impede their operational efficiency or compromise security, I'm sure their service is welcome."
 
What are we arguing here?

He was a high ranking intelligence officer - and people are arguing that its ok he was wrong, or held incorrect but sincere beliefs?

Being capable of believing this crap is enough that any sane individual should know you should not be eligible for military clearance. I am sorry.

His mere exitance is proof there are massive failures in our military intelligence and security agencies.

You have a point albeit a tad overdramatic one.

The personal beliefs of servicemen are (and should be) of no consequence in modern democracies as long as they don't impinge on the successful discharge of their assigned duties under law, the legal mandate of an agency protected by law (such as the mandate of 'national security' of the DoD) or violate any other law such as the penal code or fundamental civil rights.

Most ufological beliefs are unproblematic in the above sense. Except in cases where the attendant strong personal mission or calling to uncover alien secrets leads the ufologist serviceman to dig and snoop around secret programs that are well outside his need-to-know security clearance.

Hence, this whole Grusch drama, the restrictions on his security clearance, his IG complaints, and his resignation.

One could even say that, despite all the bad publicity for the DoD in some fringe circles, the system works. The bad seeds end up being thrown out and are barred from compromising national secuity.
 
His mere exitance is proof there are massive failures in our military intelligence and security agencies.
Wait until you find out the last commander in chief (The highest position in the USA land) was/is a pathological liar. :D

In my opinion anyone who has mainstream religious beliefs is clearly less rational than believing in the US government has aliens locked away in area 51 (Why is it only the US government?) for at least that has the tiny possibility of being true, if we followed your pruning suggestion then huge swathes of the populace would be barred from holding various jobs.
Surely you're not advocating for most people to be ineligible for various jobs? And who gets to decide what is rational beliefs.

I just thought of a counterpoint to my argument, doctors who are anti-vax etc
 
That's argument from incredulity. And, it's not true in at least one case — here's a woman ...
You've misunderstood his modal. Given that he's not even getting Grusch's name correct, you can't expect 100% precision in communication, but still, it's a far from incorrect use of the auxiliary. I suspect "X can't happen" is a sloppy degrading of "We can't let X happen", which probably no-one would bat an eyelid at, and if you accept that intermediate construct, then you've already accepted that that "can't" is used where "shouldn't"/"oughtn't" would be better.
 
One could even say that, despite all the bad publicity for the DoD in some fringe circles, the system works. The bad seeds end up being thrown out and are barred from compromising national secuity.
However, the "fix" has the side effect of reinforcing the strength of conspiratorial beliefs, perhaps even the number of people who hold such beliefs at all. It's the old "If we kill him, we create a martyr" situation - and they killed him. Everything's an equilibrium, and the more you push things out, the more the outside will push back.
 
However, the "fix" has the side effect of reinforcing the strength of conspiratorial beliefs, perhaps even the number of people who hold such beliefs at all. It's the old "If we kill him, we create a martyr" situation - and they killed him. Everything's an equilibrium, and the more you push things out, the more the outside will push back.

Yup, it's an in-built vicious circle in the system. But the broader flaps tend to die down back into fringe noise when epic evidence keeps on eluding promises of imminent disclosure. The fringe noise, in turn, is a constant feature as a background noise within the system, and calls for toleration and annoyance-resilience. Good skills overall in an increasingly intolerant world.
 
It's the old "If we kill him, we create a martyr" situation - and they killed him.
Grusch is alive. Grusch was not fired.
Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness.
Grusch presented his case to Congress. The DoD cleared him to speak with the press.
He's planning to set up a ufology non-profit.

You're going to have a hard time finding a dissident who's less of a martyr than Grusch. He's doing well.

Manning, Snowdon or Daphne Caruana Galizia are martyrs. David Grusch is not.
 
Last edited:
Grusch is alive. Grusch was not fired.

I believe @FatPhil referred to a proverbial 'killing' which fuelled a conspiratorial backlash.

Also, 'firing' is not an entirely inappropriate term if DoD indeed wanted him gone, but hoped he'd make the first move by tendering his resignation on his own volition.
 
Grusch is alive. Grusch was not fired.
Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness.
Grusch presented his case to Congress. The DoD cleared him to speak with the press.
He's planning to set up a ufology non-profit.

You'rd going to have a hard time finding a dissident who's less of a martyr than Grusch. He's doing well.

Manning, Snowdon or Daphne Caruana Galizia are martyrs. David Grusch is not.
But the "reprisal or threat of reprisal" predated him leaving his job, no? Didn't he have his security clearance reduced? They may not have booted him out of the door, but they certainly held the door open for him and encouraged him to leave. However, most importantly, your or my perspective (which are almost certainly in almost complete alignment) on what went on - or any actual facts - are irrelevant, all that matters is the *perception* of those whom Grusch and Grusch's popular in-crowd, has influence over; that's what's behind the force that is doing the resisting. All that matters is the playing of the victim card, not whether you actually are a victim.
 
Didn't he have his security clearance reduced?
Yes and no.
SmartSelect_20230621-113146_Samsung Internet.jpg

It's not really clear that this constitutes a reprisal (it's not by merit board rules). It's not even clear how much there is to the claims.
We're assuming that Grusch consulted a lawyer because of the perceived reprisal. But given Grusch's penchant for publicity, maybe he consulted the lawyer because he wanted a way to be heard by Congress, and that whistleblower complaint was Compass Rose's answer to their client's desire. If they couldn't find (and prove) any worse "retaliation" than "some of Grusch's clearances were canceled", that says something.

all that matters is the *perception* of those whom Grusch and Grusch's popular in-crowd, has influence over; that's what's behind the force that is doing the resisting. All that matters is the playing of the victim card, not whether you actually are a victim.
What is the perception, though? The reporting and Grusch himself didn't really play up that angle, using the ICIG complaint mostly to establish Grusch's credentials as a bona fide whistleblower, with the "gave evidence under oath" line.
 
...they certainly held the door open for him and encouraged him to leave...
Just as a clarification, "they" is deliberately ambiguous. There is a positive incentive for his in-group to enable his victim narrative and help set him up. As @Mendel correctly points out, it doesn't seem to have done him any harm, they might have done him a favour if they were involved. Alas, we'll probably never (thanks Mendel for the PM correction!) know the machinations behind what happened.
 
Last edited:
FYI -- The last mention of Mr. Hawley in this thread about "Josh Hawley on UFO and David Grusch"
was up in post #38. This will be post # 75, unless somebody sneaks in another post while I am typing.


 
The primary issue here is if Grusch's accusations have any merit. An investigation should focus on that.

If they do not, then Grusch's competence is another minor issue. We should NOT be speculating about mental illness in an individual. There are many reasons, at varying levels, as to why someone could say something that is incorrect.

At a broader level, the military draws its member from the general population, and so members of the military share many of the unusual and unfounded beliefs that the general population does. This perhaps is a good reminder, and way of focussing attention on the problem, but it should not be a surprise.

Back to Hawley, he's an opposition politician. His interest here is in finding things that he can criticise. Basically his tack seems to be "why did Biden drop the ball on all these UFOs?" Maybe he will pivot to "how is Biden's DoD/IC so dysfunctional as to allow people to believe in aliens."

But he's certainly not a neutral arbiter or seeker of truth.
 
Back to Hawley, he's an opposition politician. His interest here is in finding things that he can criticise. Basically his tack seems to be "why did Biden drop the ball on all these UFOs?" Maybe he will pivot to "how is Biden's DoD/IC so dysfunctional as to allow people to believe in aliens."

But he's certainly not a neutral arbiter or seeker of truth.

Agreed. Another simpler pivot, closer to a typical party line, might be "see how much of the taxpayers' money the Democrats again wasted frivolously on these investigations that yielded nothing", but I suspect whatever's available at the time will be his target for the reasons you state.
 
His interest here is in finding things that he can criticise.
Regarding a number of members of congress, Hawley among them, their interest is also to distract from the prosecution of Trump AND their own possible complicity in the events surrounding the election shenanigans and the Jan 6 riots. Hawley was notable among the vocal Trump supporters who objected to the election results.
External Quote:
After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, Hawley announced his intention to object to the Senate's certification of the Electoral College vote count on January 6, 2021.[7] He was the first senator to do so.[8]Trump had refused to concede and made frequent baseless claims of fraud in the election. Hawley said that his attempt to reverse the election result was on behalf of those "concerned about election integrity."[7][117] He made numerous statements suggesting that Trump could possibly remain in office.[14] The New York Timeswrote that Hawley was elevating false claims that President-elect Joe Biden stole the election.[7] His maneuver prompted bipartisan condemnation of his action as undemocratic.[118][119]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley
 
Senator Hawley clarifies in an interview clip (which NewsNation also appears to be trying to make say more than it does with how they have embedded the interview clip in the segment):

External Quote:
He's saying the government knows more about this than they have previously let on. That doesn't really surprise me. Because it looks to me like the government has been tracking these UAPs for a long time now, and has not been saying much about it.

Source: https://youtu.be/5OUQaHrZL_c?t=127
 
Senator Hawley clarifies in an interview clip (which NewsNation also appears to be trying to make say more than it does with how they have embedded the interview clip in the segment):

External Quote:
He's saying the government knows more about this than they have previously let on. That doesn't really surprise me. Because it looks to me like the government has been tracking these UAPs for a long time now, and has not been saying much about it.

Source: https://youtu.be/5OUQaHrZL_c?t=127


Very much anti-Biden-establishment rhetoric rather than ufologist rhetoric. Thanks for sharing. This is all political shenanigans partly to attract a demographic of believers to go against Biden/Democrats.
 
Back
Top