On David Grusch's "whistleblowing" and other apparent (but not quite) nothing burgers

[Amathia]

In an earlier post of mine I expressed a desire to hear people's "big-picture" views of what they think is going on with whistleblowers like David Grusch and other current and formerly high ranking officials coming forward and making the kinds of claims we've been hearing in the news lately. In this tweet, Eric Weinstein expresses a similar confusion and desire to figure out what the best explanation might be for this whole thing. The explanations he mentions are:

I stand by my statement: Something is wildly off. Either: A) Our pilots are crazy and/or liars.
B) There is a psy-op gaslighting our own people.
C) We are too incompetent to call our own people.
D) There is secret long-standing involvement of top scientists.
E) There are some crazy seagull and Mylar balloon effects.
F) A cult of UFOs has infected the pentagon.
G) China and others are taking over our airspace and we are using UFOs as an excuse rather than dealing with the problem.

I came across an article that I think provides a pretty compelling hypothesis that I haven't seen elsewhere and wanted to share it here in the hopes of discussing it. The thesis is the following:

I don't personally get the impression that Grusch or involved in any shady business (after all, he "seems sincere", to paraphrase Shellenberger). That, of course, doesn't mean that we need credit any of the stories he's conveying. We should also question why, if the stories are not true, they're being funneled to Grusch in the first place. Is this part of a psychological operation? A counter-intelligence effort using UFOs as a cover? A grift? Or a bizarre mix of these? Is this really a giant cosplay? A straight up hoax? A prank for the hell of it? Who's to say? In one sense it doesn't matter, given that there are no aliens littering the Earth with their technology, but of course the reasons why these stories are being amplified and why they find traction among intrigued audiences is most surely of social and political significance.

I'd like to offer another possibility to the above litany. Could the people feeding Grusch their stories have heard enough UFO yarns to cause them to get the impression that something they'd genuinely caught sight of or worked on could be related to such stories? I'll call it the "periphery hypothesis": when people with technical or intelligence credentials hear just enough while being denied key details, leading them to think that something must be going on whose nature defies everyday explanation. These people, working in an environment of secrecy and censorship, hear rumors of what might be, assimilate these with tropes from ufology that are already doing the rounds, and then these same individuals themselves start feeding ideas and embellishments into the circuit - ideas and embellishments that eventually come full circle and reach back to the self-same people as "confirmation", told to them now by "independent parties".

It's easy to see that the wildest speculations can seem to take on a sort of objective reality of their own when they are being conveyed by people drinking from the same fountain and the fountain is obscured. I would argue that most of ufology, at least if we understand that term to mean the subculture around UFO belief and alien visitation/abduction/tech recovery tropes, works along these lines, with circuits of feedback amplifying narratives and stories, but it is perhaps especially the case that such stories might find especial resonance in the intelligence community. If so, this may speak to the need for reform in the American intelligence apparatus, as Jason Colavito and Jack Brewer, among others, have intimated. An affirmative answer to the question, "Does the IC environment produce people who become receptive to the UFO message?" is not mutually exclusive to affirmative answer to the reciprocal "Do people who are receptive to the UFO message find the IC environment appealing?" I would suspect that some of these people reach for the UFO out of frustration, though, and if they are attracted to the "IC environment" it is not in this regard, which they naturally find stymieing and suffocating.

I think there's something to this and am curious if folks here find it plausible, and if so, are there features of this account that don't quite fit, or things they'd *add* to this explanation to account for some other features of the phenomenon we're observing? In the philosophy of science there are generally certain features that good explanations/theories should possess. Good explanations tend to be judged on the basis of empirical adequacy, logical consistency, conceptual clarity, comprehensiveness, parsimony, falsifiability, generativity, openness to revision, practical utility, and causal explanations. Where would you rank this explanation if judged by those set of criteria?

 

[Mendel]

Could you please use EX tags when quoting external content? It's impossible to quote and discuss when you insert it as quotes. (The link policy explains this as well.)

 

[Mendel]

Source: https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1683143690498236418

A) Our pilots are crazy and/or liars.
B) There is a psyop gaslighting our own people.
C) We are too incompetent to call our own people.
D) There is secret long-standing involvement of top scientists.
E) There are some crazy seagull and Mylar balloon effects.
F) A cult of UFOs has infected the pentagon.
G) China and others are taking over our airspace and we are using UFOs as Ana excuse rather than dealing with the problem.

Note that these are all scary options. He leaves out the harmless ones.

A) Pilots see unusual things and can't identify them. It is not expected of them.
B) The Russians are waging information warfare, and CTs are part of that.
C) ??
D) Straight-up conspiracy theory.
E) parallax effects, but yes.
F) Parts of Congress. The Pentagon seems mostly sane (so far).
G) No, they don't.

Sensors have a "low information zone", see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/ . That leads to unidentified sightings, called UAP, of normal objects. UFO believers see extraterrestrials in these unidentified/unidentifiable reports, and through political pressure via Congress the DoD is forced to investigate them.

 

[deirdre]

I came across an article that I think provides a pretty compelling hypothesis that I haven't seen elsewhere and wanted to share it here in the hopes of discussing it.

are you hiding the link in a hyperlink because you're embarrassed by the name of the website you are quoting?

 

[Mendel]

I think there's something to this and am curious if folks here find it plausible, and if so, are there features of this account that don't quite fit, or things they'd *add* to this explanation to account for some other features of the phenomenon we're observing?

There is no evidence for this (yet?), it's all speculation.

As such, this speculation (as well as Weinstein's list) conform to the QAnon technique of fielding a bunch of ideas and see which ones gain traction. The result is not truth, but rather "social truth", i.e. what most people in the in-group like to believe. Metabunk typically does not engage in this kind of evidence-less speculation.

 

[Amathia]

are you hiding the link in a hyperlink because you're embarrassed by the name of the website you are quoting?

No. I thought that's the way to link to something rather than just pasting the URL. But it is semi embarrassing regardless.

 

[Itsme]

It seems the person who wrote the article is himself a victim of the mechanism described...

I must preface this with a warning that disturbing themes will be explored on this website, including child sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of people under hypnosis, misogyny, racism and fascism. The "field" of "UFOlogy", like so many other paranormal and supernatural scenes, is rife with corruption, fraud and exploitation. This site is dedicated to helping to uproot, expose and destroy this malfeasance.

https://www.ufologyiscorrupt.com/

 

[Mendel]

No. I thought that's the way to link to something rather than just pasting the URL. But it is semi embarrassing regardless.

Perfectly fine way to do links, if you ask me. I'm just too lazy most of the time to do it like that.

 

[Itsme]

The result is not truth, but rather "social truth", i.e. what most people in the in-group like to believe. Metabunk typically does not engage in this kind of evidence-less speculation.

Evidence-less speculation on what might motivate and drive Grush and others is all I see here, lately. So no, I don't think the MB members here are immune to this.

 

[LilWabbit]

I came across an article that I think provides a pretty compelling hypothesis that I haven't seen elsewhere and wanted to share it here in the hopes of discussing it. The thesis is the following:

The author of the article is overthinking it imo.

It's plausible Grusch has been in touch with Lou Elizondo at least since the 2017 NYT article by Kean (which according to Grusch piqued his interest in UFOs) whilst Lou and Grusch were both serving under the DoD. Lou, the more senior of the two, would have fed him a lot of convincing sounding stuff despite Grusch claiming he agreed to join the UAPTF to basically debunk UFOs as misidentifications.

It's a common trope for a firebrand believer of any persuasion to accentuate they were skeptics before. This allows them to cast themselves as sensible scientifically-minded people merely following the evidence wherever it leads, and to highlight the credibility of the body of evidence that allegedly exists.

Snooping around classified programs within the DoD with a mission to uncover epic secrets (i.e. the UAPTF's unofficial but true purpose) is bound not only to raise eyebrows but to be deemed as posing a legitimate national security risk, entirely irrespective of whether these programs involve aliens or not. Elizondo faced the same suspicion which troubled him greatly.

Upon becoming privy to Grusch's personal quest, the DoD IG has a legitimate reason to alert the DoD on a resolute digger and potential leaker of classified information beyond his need-to-know despite Grusch approaching the DoD IG confidentially as a self-styled whistleblower. The subsequent turn of events is unfortunate since the DoD IG's dutiful discharge of his over-arching mandate to act in the interest of national security (to alert the DoD of an information security risk) was bound to be taken as a personal betrayal by Grusch who approached him in confidence.

Such risky DoD personnel are destined to have their security clearances restricted, which in turn only further emboldens them in their belief in a cover-up, which then leads to a 'resignation' and finally to going public and lobbying the Congress to pressure DoD disclosures.

It's a bit of a vicious circle really.

 

[Amathia]

Evidence-less speculation on what might motivate and drive Grush and others is all I see here, lately. So no, I don't think the MB members here are immune to this.

It's inevitable that some speculation has to happen when the most common question skeptics get regarding Grusch is "But why would he lie?"

At least with UAP sightings you can easily respond to the question by reminding the person that the third and likeliest explanation is that the person is simply mistaken and may have misperceived what they saw, something no one, even pilots, are immune to.

With Grusch it's not really a case of assessing the things he claims to have seen but rather the things he claims to have learned and been told about by other intelligence officials.

We can rightfully point out that at this point they're all just claims without evidence or documentation, but that still leaves a big explanatory gap of "if none of this turns out to be true, then what the hell explains this?"

It'd be useful to have at least some kind of working model for what's going on. It's speculative but it's not like we have much of a choice given the lack of information.

 

[JMartJr]

Can somebody explain what this one means:

C) We are too incompetent to call our own people.

 

[Amathia]

The author of the article is overthinking it imo.

It's plausible Grusch has been in touch with Lou Elizondo at least since the 2017 NYT article by Kean (which according to Grusch piqued his interest in UFOs) whilst Lou and Grusch were both serving under the DoD. Lou, the more senior of the two, would have fed him a lot of convincing sounding stuff despite Grusch claiming he agreed to join the UAPTF to basically debunk UFOs as misidentifications.

It's a common trope for a firebrand believer of any persuasion to accentuate they were skeptics before. This allows them to cast themselves as sensible scientifically-minded people merely following the evidence wherever it leads, and to highlight the credibility of the body of evidence that allegedly exists.

Snooping around classified programs within the DoD with a mission to uncover epic secrets (i.e. the UAPTF's unofficial but true purpose) is bound not only to raise eyebrows but to be deemed as posing a legitimate national security risk, entirely irrespective of whether these programs involve aliens or not. Elizondo faced the same suspicion which troubled him greatly.

Upon becoming privy to Grusch's personal quest, the DoD IG has a legitimate reason to alert the DoD on a resolute digger and potential leaker of classified information beyond his need-to-know despite Grusch approaching the DoD IG confidentially as a self-styled whistleblower. The subsequent turn of events is unfortunate since the DoD IG's dutiful discharge of his over-arching mandate to act in the interest of national security (to alert the DoD of an information security risk) was bound to be taken as a personal betrayal by Grusch who approached him in confidence.

Such risky DoD personnel are destined to have their security clearances restricted, which in turn only further emboldens them in their belief in a cover-up, which then leads to a 'resignation' and finally to going public and lobbying the Congress to pressure DoD disclosures.

It's a bit of a vicious circle really.

There's some plausibility here considering Elizondo himself has said he's known him for years on Twitter.

The one part of this account that may not fit is assuming that it was Grusch who started snooping around and asking about programs he had no access to. Obviously we only have his word to go on this, but in the Coulthardt interview Grusch is pretty adamant that people were coming to and approaching *him* with this information rather than him seeking it out, some of them people he's known for a long time.

The obvious question in my mind is "why on earth were people coming to you with this? Not to be offensive here but, what makes you so special?"

Obviously that's just the story *he's* given us, but if we go with that, the being punished for snooping around part wouldn't be as good of a fit to explain what happened.

 

[Mendel]

the most common question skeptics get regarding Grusch is "But why would he lie?"

Maybe he didn't.
Most of his claims, as far as he has publicly stated them, come down to hearsay. Grusch is open about that. The fact that he may be honest doesn't mean that what he says is true, only that he believes it is.

 

[Mendel]

The obvious question in my mind is "why on earth were people coming to you with this? Not to be offensive here but, what makes you so special?"

Him talking to aquaintances about his role with UAPTF may have prompted corresponding stories from them.

I don't think you can assume he didn't try to verify these stories via the access he had been given (aka "snooping").

 

[Amathia]

Can somebody explain what this one means:

C) We are too incompetent to call our own people.

Can somebody explain what this one means:

C) We are too incompetent to call our own people.

I think it means if these sightings are just black projects we don't know about, presumably someone would be able to call congress and tell them "hey, no need for hearings, what these pilots are seeing is our own shit, we don't talk about it."

Or people Like Grusch and the UAP task force presumably should be in a position to ask the relevant agencies "hey, we've got this on video, is this one of yours?" and they could presumably just tell them "yes, you can close that file now".

If it's our own top secret technology basically there ought to be some way that the various branches can just tell each other that without revealing more details than necessary.

 

[deirdre]

I thought that's the way to link to something rather than just pasting the URL

pasting the full URL lets people instantly know if it is a reputable source or one theyve never heard of (as well as giving people a heads up whether they are about to enter a possible malware domain)

 

[LilWabbit]

We can rightfully point out that at this point they're all just claims without evidence or documentation, but that still leaves a big explanatory gap of "if none of this turns out to be true, then what the hell explains this?"

It'd be useful to have at least some kind of working model for what's going on. It's speculative but it's not like we have much of a choice given the lack of information.

For the longest time there's been minority of congressmen / government officials / millionaires / celebrities / general public believing in UFOs and calling for inquiries into alleged secret programs, as well as a bigger group in each domain laughing it off. What else is really new? The overall demographic of believers is big enough for for politicians to also cynically exploit this constituency for other political motives.

Again, at the risk of recycling earlier posts, most lay folks mistake all this UAP ruckus for an essentially scientific dilemma (i.e. let's find out what are all these blurry observations about stuff happening in our skies) or a military dilemma (i.e. let's find out about the potentially threatening stuff flying around in our skies). However, all this recent UFO curiosity resurged ever since Lou leaked the three initial videos.

But on a deeper societal level, the whole flap seems to me, systemically, as just another example of:

(1) The inherent vulnerability of certain representative democracies to powerful political lobbies supported by money and a zealous constituency;

(2) A culture where critical, independent and scientific thought isn't promoted across the board ranging from homes to schools and even to universities and the political arena.

(3) A lazy entertainment culture-inspired epistemology whereby any idea/ideology that is propagated by seemingly credentialed/smart people, covered by seemingly respectable publications and outlets, that is personally appealing, fun, thrilling, validating, shocking, epic, secret-exposing, personally empowering or sometimes even selfishly useful, means it must be true.

(4) The vulnerability of lay folks to leadership-seeking, attention-seeking or ideologically fanatical charismatic individuals specifically targeting impressionable audiences.

Due to the ingrained systemic nature of the above societal and cultural challenges, there's no quick fix to ensure such flaps (and a host of other more serious problems and forms of fanaticism) won't keep resurging every decade or so.

As far as ufology goes, I'd rather have such benign delusions sticking around than the violent and abusive fanatical ideologies, both religious and political, that continue to wreak havoc to this world.

 

[LilWabbit]

Or people Like Grusch and the UAP task force presumably should be in a position to ask the relevant agencies "hey, we've got this on video, is this one of yours?" and they could presumably just tell them "yes, you can close that file now"..

But there's a big caveat here: A true believer suspects all such responses to be a cover-up.

These 'true believers' are not trustworthy individuals to serve a legally mandated government agency. Full stop. Their fanatical infatuation with ufology, and their consequent (at least partially sincere) sense of a higher calling to alert humanity of a conspiracy to withhold knowledge of epic import from them, renders them willing to bypass lawful chains of command and to leak classified information when these stand in conflict with said higher calling. Ulimately the DoD has to let them 'quietly' go without pressing charges even if they legally could. Why quietly? Because of the political sensitivities involved which risk a bigger crisis than the relative harmlessness of the leaks.

When Luis Elizondo served under the AASWAP/AATIP/UAPTF he appeared to have very actively used direct personal contacts with other believers or otherwise useful 'idiots' serving at lower ranks within the DoD and thereby bypass official chains for data-collection. These personal contacts would have enabled him to gain access to some of the footage directly and to leak them to the public. Lou for one doesn't come across as 'follow the red tape' type of guy. Grusch appears to have been doing something similar. It appears he's been part of somewhat unhinged in-house gossip corners whereby he hears about many classified projects from third parties who are not actually part of these projects.

Since some of the footage and gossip may concern classified US tech and programs, obtaining them outside official chains and leaking them (or leaking even knowledge of them) to the public constitutes an unlawful act and a national security breach. The risk doesn't necessarily lie in the low-information footage / low-information gossip of classified programs as much as the reckless way they've been obtained, communicated and leaked. This may well be one of the reasons why both Lou and Grusch were ultimately forced to 'resign', why as a consequence now-'former' DoD officials Lou and others got all worked up to lobby their case with a vengeance under the impressive veneer of 'whistleblower' 'former intelligence officers', and why the DoD has been forced to respond to the demands of the public/the Congress to account for the grainy contents of the leaked videos. Without Lou's leaks there would have been none of these congressional hearings, no Taylor/Grusch 'resignations', no need for a successor entity to the UAPTF (i.e. the AARO), no call for a separate NASA entity, and none of these public UAP reports and media charades.

The classified information that, say, Grusch and Elizondo may have illegitimately obtained and/or have subsequently released may not compromise national security anywhere near as seriously as the data leaks by the likes of Airman Jack Teixeira, Chelsea (formerly known as 'Bradley') Manning and Edward Snowden previously. They needed to be criminally reined in and in a public manner. Due to the influential lobby, money and political supporters of the ufologists, a big fight with them would just amount to an unnecessary public drama between the DoD and the Usual Suspects which is disproportionate to the real dangers posed by their illegally obtained/released information.

It's just more benign stuff. But I'm only speculating.

 

[deirdre]

There's some plausibility here considering Elizondo himself has said he's known him for years on Twitter.

Did he? Mellon said that. i know elizondo said he knew him "personally", but looking at his twitter i dont see a timeframe mentioned. Not a big difference maybe, but..

 

[Mendel]

pasting the full URL lets people instantly know if it is a reputable source or one theyve never heard of (as well as giving people a heads up whether they are about to enter a possible malware domain)

Hover your cursor over the link (or tap and hold) to examine the target URL.
This is basic browser functionality that works on most websites, not just here.
It also works on malicious sites where the text looks like one URL but links to another—which means you should also examine those "obvious URLs" as well (e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/ ).

Your "lets people know" is bad advice.

 

[deirdre]

Your "lets people know" is bad advice.

i was a moderator for 6 years (before you arrived) and checked all links. that has never happened here in that time frame. But thanks for the heads up i need to be wary now.

 

[JMartJr]

For the longest time there's been minority of congressmen / government officials / millionaires / celebrities / general public believing in UFOs and calling for inquiries into alleged secret programs, as well as a bigger group in each domain laughing it off. What else is really new? The overall demographic of believers is big enough for for politicians to also cynically exploit this constituency for other political motives.

Indeed.

In a poll of 1,500 eligible U.S. voters carried out by Redfield & Wilton Strategies exclusively for Newsweek, 57% of respondents believed that the government has more information about UFOs and alien life than it has publicly revealed.

and

40%, supported or strongly supported lawmakers looking into Grusch's claims.

Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/poll-government-hiding-what-it-knows-ufos/

It begins to look like the minority position may be us.

 

[Ann K]

It's easy to see that the wildest speculations can seem to take on a sort of objective reality of their own when they are being conveyed by people drinking from the same fountain and the fountain is obscured.

(From your quoted article).
Earlier you expressed discomfort from people (over here! **waving hand**) quoting from articles about individuals rather than addressing their findings directly. The subject was remote viewing rather than UFOs, but I think the same picturesque description applies: "people drinking from the same fountain". We find a quasi-incestuous relationship among a number of the same people on both topics, again and again, which makes it difficult to distinguish the originator of a concept from the person who just repeats it later. That's one of the reasons for the questions like "Did Grusch (or others) have prior interactions with X, Y, and Z?" It isn't an attempt to dodge the question of the veracity of the hearsay report, but an honest attempt to find out if the originator of the information is indeed a person who is likely to have had access to the data or to the physical entities that are claimed; an attempt to ascertain provenance, as it were.

 

[Ann K]

I think it means if these sightings are just black projects we don't know about, presumably someone would be able to call congress and tell them "hey, no need for hearings, what these pilots are seeing is our own shit, we don't talk about it."

"Congress" means "a whole bunch of individual members, each with his/her own agenda". Some want to know, some want to know but mistrust facts from others in the government, and some want publicity for themselves. There is no message from an official bureau that would convince all of them.

 

[tintintintin]

I think there's something to this and am curious if folks here find it plausible, and if so, are there features of this account that don't quite fit, or things they'd *add* to this explanation to account for some other features of the phenomenon we're observing?

I think the idea of periphery hypothesis / classified gossip that's brought forth has merit. Mick was mentioning this view in his commentary to the NN interview (see below). I would think such gossip could be dispelled before it got to this point, so the higher level the politicians involved the less plausible I find it. I don't know how the upper echelons of classification works, obviously.

 

[Mendel]

I think it means if these sightings are just black projects we don't know about, presumably someone would be able to call congress and tell them "hey, no need for hearings, what these pilots are seeing is our own shit, we don't talk about it."

You mean, like someone from AARO saying, "we have access to everything, there's no evidence"?

One addition (I think) was a response from AARO via Susan Gough.
View attachment 59661
View attachment 59662

Contrary to Mr. Coulthart's claim, AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick gave a recent interview indicating that they have still no evidence to support such claims despite interviewing 30 individuals.

Article:

Sixty-five percent of Americans believe intelligent life exists beyond earth, according to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey. A majority -- 51% -- also said then that UAPs under investigation by the government are likely proof of contact.

"I can't rule it out, but I don't have any evidence," Kirkpatrick said.

The House Oversight Committee announced earlier this week that it will hold a hearing on the phenomena on Wednesday as Republican lawmakers pursue unproven whistleblower allegations that the government is secretly in possession of "intact and partially intact" alien spacecraft, which the Pentagon has said is unsubstantiated.

Two former government intelligence analysts came forward last month alleging that details of the alleged craft are being illegally withheld from Congress and the American people. Neither has publicly provided any evidence to substantiate their claims.

"We've interviewed almost 30 individuals who have come in to provide their testimony. And out of all of those, none of it has yet led to any verifiable information that substantiates the claim that the U.S. government has those ships or has a reverse engineering program either in the past or currently," Kirkpatrick said when asked about the allegations.

He downplayed the possible existence of a secret program that he is not privy to, saying, "Nothing has been denied us."

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/extraterrestrial-technical-supremacy-top-concern-pentagon-ufo-investigator/story?id=101218299

 

[Duke]

You mean, like someone from AARO saying, "we have access to everything, there's no evidence"?

Just because AARO says it, doesn't make it so. No way an ad hoc group like that has been read into all black programs, even if only defensively.

 

[Mendel]

Just because AARO says it, doesn't make it so. No way an ad hoc group like that has been read into all black programs, even if only defensively.

The theory I'm responding to is that the black program people tell someone, "this was one of ours". This someone would be AARO, who then tells Congress.

Remember, these black programs would be concerned with novel weapon systems, not with UAP, and therefore there's no legal mandate for them to follow the UAP reporting requirements that Congress has set.

 

[Duke]

The theory I'm responding to is that the black program people tell someone, "this was one of ours". This someone would be AARO, who then tells Congress.

They can't tell Congress what they don't know. Too many rice bowls involved at that level of secrecy. In a world where knowledge of such programs is power, those with that knowledge/power are not going to access any one/group who isn't value added. AARO would be seen as interlopers, more apt to leak information than help facilitate the program. No need for them to know from the perspective of black program director/leadership.

Remember, these black programs would be concerned with novel weapon systems, not with UAP, and therefore there's no legal mandate for them to follow the UAP reporting requirements that Congress has set.

Yes

 

[LilWabbit]

They can't tell Congress what they don't know. Too many rice bowls involved at that level of secrecy. In a world where knowledge of such programs is power, those with that knowledge/power are not going to access any one/group who isn't value added. AARO would be seen as interlopers, more apt to leak information than help facilitate the program. No need for them to know from the perspective of black program director/leadership.

Yes

I remember Lou mentioning in one interview UAPTF was mandated only to deal with unclassified information obtained from DoD departments based on information requests and voluntary collaboration. Which would anyway be the only type of collab the DoD would reasonably agree to under pressure from the Congress to loosely integrate a new entity of UAP investigations within the Pentagon.

Only DoD's internal investigative or direct oversight functions (including the top chain of command) have a special legal mandate under which their information requests to any DoD units are legally binding the failure to comply which forthwith would have legal consequences.

 

[Mendel]

AARO would be seen as interlopers, more apt to leak information than help facilitate the program. No need for them to know from the perspective of black program director/leadership.

Yes and no. Telling AARO, "these UAP sightings were caused by a program under our purview" might prevent video of it being leaked to the NYT.

 

[Itsme]

It's inevitable that some speculation has to happen when the most common question skeptics get regarding Grusch is "But why would he lie?"

[...]

We can rightfully point out that at this point they're all just claims without evidence or documentation, but that still leaves a big explanatory gap of "if none of this turns out to be true, then what the hell explains this?"

It'd be useful to have at least some kind of working model for what's going on. It's speculative but it's not like we have much of a choice given the lack of information.

Instead of speculating you could also try to dig a little deeper.

The late Dr Eric Walker was executive secretary of the Research and Development Board in the Defense Department in 1950 (source: https://www.nae.edu/188470/ERIC-A-WALKER-1910195).
The purpose of the Research and Development Board was to assist the Secretary of Defense in building the strength of the country through military research and development. The Board directed its efforts toward the best application of science and technology to achieve the most effective weapons and counter-measures, as well as equipment and techniques. Specifically, it guided the research programs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (source: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16006145.pdf).

Here's are excerpts from a telephone interview conducted with Dr Eric Walker in 1987:

Steinman: Hello... this is William Steinman of Los Angeles, California. I am calling in reference to the meetings that you attended at WPAFB in/around 1949/50, concerning the military recovery of Flying Saucers and the bodies of occupants. Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher related this to me. You and Sarbacher were both consultants to R&D Board in 1950; and you were secretary in 1950-51.

Walker: Yes, I attended the meeting concerning that subject matter; why do you want to know about that?

Steinman: I believe it is a very important subject. After all... we are talking about the actual recovery of a flying saucer not built or constructed on this earth! And furthermore, we are talking about bodies of occupants from the craft who were analyzed (to be) human being not of this world!

Walker: So ... what's there to get all excited about? Why all the concern?

[...]

Walker: You are delving into an area that you can do absolutely nothing about. So why get involved with it or concerned about it? Why don't you just leave it alone and drop it? Forget about it!!

Steinman: I am not going to drop it. I am going all the way with this!!

Walker: Then...when you find out everything about it, what are you going to do?

Steinman: I believe that the entire matter has to be brought to the public's attention. The people should know the truth!!

Walker: It's not worth it!! Leave it alone!!

Steinman: Can you remember any of the details pertaining to the recovery operations and subsequent analysis of the saucers and bodies?

Walker: I am sure that I have notes of those meetings at WPAFB. I would have to dig them out and read them over in order to jog my memory.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110107151601/http://presidentialufo.com/old_site/august_30,_1987.htm

And another telephone interview from 1990:

Dr Walker: How good is your mathematics?

Azadehdel: As good as it could be for a doctor in physics, but why?

Dr Walker: Because only a couple people are capable of handling this issue. Unless your mind ability is like Einstein's or likewise, I do not think you can achieve anything.

Azadehdel: well, Doctor, for years I have been trying. But, are there government scientists?

Dr Walker: Everyone mistakes this issue. I gather by that you mean whether they work for the Defense establishments of the military.

Azadehdel: Yes, Doctor, that is what I meant.

Dr Walker: Well, that is where you are wrong. They are a Handful Of Elite. When you are invited into that group I would know.

[…]

Azadehdel: Doctor, have we mastered the knowledge? Are we working together with the entities?

Dr Walker: No. We have learned so much, and no we are not working with them...only contact.

Azadehdel: Have we captured any saucers.. any material from the discs to study?

DrWalker: The technology is far behind what is known in ordinary terms of physics that you take the measure and obtain measurements. You are pushing for answers aren't you?

[…]

Azadehdel: Is the concept on the Electromagnetic or Gravity?

Dr Walker: As I said. It is far ahead of the known level of physics. Avery few have knowledge of it.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110107151551/http://presidentialufo.com/old_site/january_26,_90.htm

So I guess the correct option in Eric Weinstein's list is D)

 

[Mendel]

Here's are excerpts from a telephone interview conducted with Dr Eric Walker in 1987:

Why would he comment on secrets like that over the phone?
This doesn't pass the smell test for me.

 

[Empiricist]

I think there's something to this and am curious if folks here find it plausible, and if so, are there features of this account that don't quite fit, or things they'd *add* to this explanation to account for some other features of the phenomenon we're observing?

I think this "periphery hypothesis" is one of the strongest hypotheses amongst the set of prosaic hypotheses. That being said, I do think there is evidence that does not fit this hypothesis. Specifically, the claims made not by rank-and-file employees like Grusch, but those made by people like John Brennan (former CIA director)

But I think some of the phenomena we're going to be seeing continues to be unexplained and might, in fact, be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that we don't yet understand and that could involve some type of activity that some might say constitutes a different form of life.

Or by Obama:

What is true, and I'm actually being serious here, is that there are, uh, there's footage of and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are, we can't explain how they move, their trajectory, they did not have an easily explainable path.

Or John Ratcliffe:

Frankly, there's a lot more sightings than have been made public... When we talk about sightings, we're talking about objects that have been seen my Navy or Air force pilots, or have been picked up by satellite imagery, that um, frankly engage in actions that are difficult to explain, that um, movements that are hard to replicate, that we don't have the technology for, are traveling at speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom.

These quotes, at least as I read them, suggest the existence of actual hard evidence for the existence of a (currently) unexplainable phenomena and not just a "credulity cascade". Examples include "footage of", "records of", and "satellite imagery".

In order for the "periphery hypothesis" to be correct and people this high in the government to make such claims, all of these folks must have either:

1. Heard from someone they trusted that actual hard evidence existed - when it didn't.
2. Seen such hard evidence themselves.
3. Already been prone to UFO belief, and happily interpreted weak evidence to be strong evidence.

If it's #1, this implies that somewhere the claims elevated from "I heard a rumor from someone else that I find credible" to "There is hard evidence of such claims". Is this just the biggest and most impactful playing of the game of "telephone" in history? It's hard for me to imagine people like Obama and Brennan suddenly finding this all credulous without themselves being privy to some "actual evidence", but it's certainly possible. One explanation is that people like Obama have seen the Navy videos presented in a medium where they were not skeptically analyzed, and came to believe they represented something they didn't. It's just hard for me to believe that so many folks are so credulous, especially when this has historically been such a stigmatized topic. I would expect comments like "the videos I've seen are odd, but don't unambiguously show anything unexplainable" rather than things like "I can't imagine that what has been described or shown in some of the videos belongs to any government that I'm aware of." (Martin Heinrich)

#3 could easily explain people like Burchett, but I personally don't think it explains the sheer number of people who have made credulous claims recently.

One other argument is the seeming lack of a skeptical take on this whole situation from anyone with a higher level clearance - especially someone from the Congress or Senate intelligence committees. Why hasn't anyone on such committees said, "I've seen the same evidence as my colleagues, and I don't personally find it to be strong evidence. At the current time the only evidence I've been presented is still weak/anecdotal."

The only things I can think of are comments like the following by Sue Gough:

To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently

But this is very clearly lawyer-like speak: "AARO has not discovered"/"verifiable information" versus just saying "no such programs exist" or even "no credible evidence of such programs has been found".

You may find this older thread containing similar discussion to be interesting (and it also has the sources for the quotes here).

 

[Landru]

I think this "periphery hypothesis" is one of the strongest hypotheses amongst the set of prosaic hypotheses. That being said, I do think there is evidence that does not fit this hypothesis. Specifically, the claims made not by rank-and-file employees like Grusch, but those made by people like John Brennan (former CIA director)

Or by Obama:

Or John Ratcliffe:


These quotes, at least as I read them, suggest the existence of actual hard evidence for the existence of a (currently) unexplainable phenomena and not just a "credulity cascade". Examples include "footage of", "records of", and "satellite imagery".

In order for the "periphery hypothesis" to be correct and people this high in the government to make such claims, all of these folks must have either:

1. Heard from someone they trusted that actual hard evidence existed - when it didn't.
2. Seen such hard evidence themselves.
3. Already been prone to UFO belief, and happily interpreted weak evidence to be strong evidence.

If it's #1, this implies that somewhere the claims elevated from "I heard a rumor from someone else that I find credible" to "There is hard evidence of such claims". Is this just the biggest and most impactful playing of the game of "telephone" in history? It's hard for me to imagine people like Obama and Brennan suddenly finding this all credulous without themselves being privy to some "actual evidence", but it's certainly possible. One explanation is that people like Obama have seen the Navy videos presented in a medium where they were not skeptically analyzed, and came to believe they represented something they didn't. It's just hard for me to believe that so many folks are so credulous, especially when this has historically been such a stigmatized topic. I would expect comments like "the videos I've seen are odd, but don't unambiguously show anything unexplainable" rather than things like "I can't imagine that what has been described or shown in some of the videos belongs to any government that I'm aware of." (Martin Heinrich)

#3 could easily explain people like Burchett, but I personally don't think it explains the sheer number of people who have made credulous claims recently.

One other argument is the seeming lack of a skeptical take on this whole situation from anyone with a higher level clearance - especially someone from the Congress or Senate intelligence committees. Why hasn't anyone on such committees said, "I've seen the same evidence as my colleagues, and I don't personally find it to be strong evidence. At the current time the only evidence I've been presented is still weak/anecdotal."

The only things I can think of are comments like the following by Sue Gough:


But this is very clearly lawyer-like speak: "AARO has not discovered"/"verifiable information" versus just saying "no such programs exist" or even "no credible evidence of such programs has been found".

You may find this older thread containing similar discussion to be interesting (and it also has the sources for the quotes here).

Don't post quotes from people without links to where those quotes are published.

 

[Itsme]

Why would he comment on secrets like that over the phone?

Because he was 77 years old at the time, and already holding on to this secret for at least 37 years. He probably lost contact with his peers who shared this information. You tend to get an itch to spill the beans in such a situation. But he got more and more evasive later, so he probably regretted it.
He may have become frustrated with it himself. Note how he recommends to leave the subject alone, because nothing can be done about it anyway; "when you find out everything about it, what are you going to do?".

 

[Scaramanga]

I think there's something to this and am curious if folks here find it plausible

I find it entirely plausible. The entire UFO scene is a hall of mirrors in which disparate threads are sewn together to create a 'phenomenon', even though there is no actual connection between individual events other than in the minds of UFOlogists. The trick to creating a 'phenomenon' is to artificially conflate contrived similarities into a cornerstone of belief. For example, never mind that any 3 lights in the sky will form a triangle....we now have a wave of 'triangular shaped UFOs'. The profusion of these supposed sightings is then fed back into the mix to bootstrap the whole triangular UFO meme in the first place. It all becomes self generating after a while.......like bigfoot hunters knocking on trees and thinking the echoes from 2 miles away are bigfoot 'responses'. No aliens or bigfoot actually required at all, just human psychology.

 

[Scaramanga]

I think this "periphery hypothesis" is one of the strongest hypotheses amongst the set of prosaic hypotheses. That being said, I do think there is evidence that does not fit this hypothesis. Specifically, the claims made not by rank-and-file employees like Grusch, but those made by people like John Brennan (former CIA director)
Or by Obama:
Or John Ratcliffe:

These quotes, at least as I read them, suggest the existence of actual hard evidence for the existence of a (currently) unexplainable phenomena and not just a "credulity cascade". Examples include "footage of", "records of", and "satellite imagery".

I disagree. For all we know, all of those people may simply have seen the Gimbal video or the Go-Fast video and based their judgement on material that has since been largely explained away. We really need to know exactly what material anyone is referring to when they claim evidence for UFOs, and that people are not simply regurgitating debunked UFOs from the past, batman balloons, and so on.

 

[Duke]

Because he was 77 years old at the time, and already holding on to this secret for at least 37 years. He probably lost contact with his peers who shared this information. You tend to get an itch to spill the beans in such a situation. But he got more and more evasive later, so he probably regretted it.
He may have become frustrated with it himself. Note how he recommends to leave the subject alone, because nothing can be done about it anyway; "when you find out everything about it, what are you going to do?".

I'm not quite 77 years old yet, but I've never gotten "an itch to spill the beans" on the multiple classified programs I worked during my career. I'm willing to talk about those days, but only within the confines of what I know is unclassified. I gave my word. I feel confident in saying my former colleagues would tell you the same thing.