David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint

John J. said:
Can anyone provide a reference for this?
I guess we've all read or heard about people grudgingly "backsliding" to a potentially more tenable position when their initial claims or arguments are shown to be incorrect (or undesirable/ unhelpful).
Click to expand...
That sounds more like just the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy:
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]
Content from External Source
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

I too am suspicious of the original claim, in my experience some of the staunchest members of an idiological group are ex members of an opposing group who want absolutely nothing to do with thar prior group and their prior stances. Examples that come to mind being ex-religious atheists, and ex-smokers.
 
Tezcatlipoca said:
There's also another thing, this I forget the actual term for, I believe there is one that references it, but with a majority of people, if you originally believe something false and come to recognize the reality of it, elements of that original false belief are likely to remain still that don't necessarily negate the new reality based view but influence your behavior and/or attitude.
Click to expand...

John J. said:
Can anyone provide a reference for this?
I guess we've all read or heard about people grudgingly "backsliding" to a potentially more tenable position when their initial claims or arguments are shown to be incorrect (or undesirable/ unhelpful).
Click to expand...
That's not about backsliding, it's a different effect, called continued influence effect.

Article:

Barriers to belief revision​

A tacit assumption of the information deficit model is that false beliefs can easily be corrected by providing relevant facts. However, misinformation can often continue to influence people’s thinking even after they receive a correction and accept it as true. This persistence is known as the continued influence effect (CIE)85,86,87,88.
In the typical CIE laboratory paradigm, participants are presented with a report of an event (for example, a fire) that contains a critical piece of information related to the event’s cause (‘the fire was probably caused by arson’). That information might be subsequently challenged by a correction, which can take the form of a retraction (a simple negation, such as ‘it is not true that arson caused the fire’) or a refutation (a more detailed correction that explains why the misinformation was false). When reasoning about the event later (for example, responding to questions such as ‘what should authorities do now?’), individuals often continue to rely on the critical information even after receiving — and being able to recall — a correction89. [...] The CIE has primarily been conceptualized as a cognitive effect, with social and affective underpinnings.
Source: Ecker, U.K.H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 13–29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
 
Tezcatlipoca said:
Going on what I was talking about prior, the largest set of public interaction we see here now is "fact checking", or basically, what we call debunking. This has taken a form, primarily, where the messaging is not really targeted to the audience the content is for, instead its built based off the interest of the participants in the messaging.
Click to expand...
Evidence for this:
Article:

Debunking in a world of tribes​

Abstract​

Social media aggregate people around common interests eliciting collective framing of narratives and worldviews. However, in such a disintermediated environment misinformation is pervasive and attempts to debunk are often undertaken to contrast this trend. In this work, we examine the effectiveness of debunking on Facebook through a quantitative analysis of 54 million users over a time span of five years (Jan 2010, Dec 2014). In particular, we compare how users usually consuming proven (scientific) and unsubstantiated (conspiracy-like) information on Facebook US interact with specific debunking posts. Our findings confirm the existence of echo chambers where users interact primarily with either conspiracy-like or scientific pages. However, both groups interact similarly with the information within their echo chamber. Then, we measure how users from both echo chambers interacted with 50,220 debunking posts accounting for both users consumption patterns and the sentiment expressed in their comments. Sentiment analysis reveals a dominant negativity in the comments to debunking posts. Furthermore, such posts remain mainly confined to the scientific echo chamber. Only few conspiracy users engage with corrections and their liking and commenting rates on conspiracy posts increases after the interaction.

Zollo F, Bessi A, Del Vicario M, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Shekhtman L, et al. (2017) Debunking in a world of tribes. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0181821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181821
 
Tezcatlipoca said:
This hits on a fantastic lesson the emerging public practice here has not progressed far into yet, and that's embracing the messaging side. I mentioned it in another post, and it's not a bad thing, not suppose to be framed that way, but our audiences do an absolutely horrendous job at communicating with each other. Very rarely are things built to resonate between the groups, they end up being put forward in a way that is adversarial and leads to debates or arguments. For us, these tend to rest on logic and factual processes, the issue is they've reached their conclusion through a different cognitive path and also believe they've come into their view in the same frame. As sad as it is, due to context, the onus on messaging there is on our portions of the larger community, not the "CTists".
Click to expand...
I expect most of us agree with the observation, but would reject the onus.

@Mick West originally set up contrailscience.com because he noticed that similar claims of evidence would be trotted out cyclically, and having a resource where this evidence was "pre-bunked" would be useful when that happened again, to people like journalists or ordinary folks practicing media literacy by looking for other sources on these claims. It's all about reaching "incidentals" still making up their minds. We also get a fair share of readers who are talking to CT friends or family and are looking for ways to address what they're being confronted with.

As such, a Metabunk thread can run in its entirety without CT input: quoting a claim and then debunking it is sufficient to fulfill the posting guidelines.

To change the beliefs of someone you don't have a pre-existing connection to requires affirming their world view, and when that would require affirming unfounded fears and misinformation, we quickly get into ethical hot water. That's a big part of why "messaging to CTists" can't work, unless you're a CTists yourself—or if you are a media outlet unethical enough to mislead their audience so you can monetize them (as has e.g. been alleged of Fox News). (Con men also do this to gain the trust of their marks.)

In the olden days, when the "freedom of the press" was invented, that freedom was moderated as it was exercised by educated people who had also studied the humanities and thus had some grounding in ethics. You could be media illiterate and mostly trust the evening news (and knew the boulevard papers / tabloids were less serious about facts). But today, we have social media, and big media players catering to misinformed audiences, so that people who weren't media literate need to catch up on how they assign trust in a digital media environment. You can't extend the trust in your real-life friends to your facebook "friends" no matter how much Mark Zuckerberg would like you to think so. Instead, it's easy to use a quick Internet search to confirm information before passing it on.

Metabunk is set up to be part of media literacy efforts, as are other fact-checking sites. But we're not the driver of them, except incidentally.
 
Tezcatlipoca said:
This hits on a fantastic lesson the emerging public practice here has not progressed far into yet, and that's embracing the messaging side. I mentioned it in another post, and it's not a bad thing, not suppose to be framed that way, but our audiences do an absolutely horrendous job at communicating with each other. Very rarely are things built to resonate between the groups, they end up being put forward in a way that is adversarial and leads to debates or arguments. For us, these tend to rest on logic and factual processes, the issue is they've reached their conclusion through a different cognitive path and also believe they've come into their view in the same frame. As sad as it is, due to context, the onus on messaging there is on our portions of the larger community, not the "CTists".
Click to expand...

Even in the past, when MB did focus a lot on the messaging side, there were a few members who believed mockery and degrading were the best way to get CTist to shut up (or possibly change their minds, i guess). Apparently if you ridicule and shame people, then 'the people on the fence' ..not wanting to be ridiculed and shamed.. will toe the appropriate party line.

In 10 years i haven't seen any evidence of this working. Although .. we don't really know effects on the silent majorities, because they stay silent. (well except for when they voice their true feelings by voting in Trump or some such)


add: and i agree the onus is primarily on the teacher.
 
Mendel said:
"That information might be subsequently challenged by a correction, which can take the form of a retraction (a simple negation, such as ‘it is not true that arson caused the fire’) or a refutation (a more detailed correction that explains why the misinformation was false)."
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call that "coming to recognize the reality of it", so consider them different scenarios.
 
Last edited:
FatPhil said:
I wouldn't call that "coming to recognize the reality of it", so consider them different scenarios.
Click to expand...
misinformation can often continue to influence people’s thinking even after they receive a correction and accept it as true.
Content from External Source
 
Mendel said:
That's not about backsliding, it's a different effect, called continued influence effect.

Article:

Barriers to belief revision​

A tacit assumption of the information deficit model is that false beliefs can easily be corrected by providing relevant facts. However, misinformation can often continue to influence people’s thinking even after they receive a correction and accept it as true. This persistence is known as the continued influence effect (CIE)85,86,87,88.
In the typical CIE laboratory paradigm, participants are presented with a report of an event (for example, a fire) that contains a critical piece of information related to the event’s cause (‘the fire was probably caused by arson’). That information might be subsequently challenged by a correction, which can take the form of a retraction (a simple negation, such as ‘it is not true that arson caused the fire’) or a refutation (a more detailed correction that explains why the misinformation was false). When reasoning about the event later (for example, responding to questions such as ‘what should authorities do now?’), individuals often continue to rely on the critical information even after receiving — and being able to recall — a correction89. [...] The CIE has primarily been conceptualized as a cognitive effect, with social and affective underpinnings.
Source: Ecker, U.K.H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 13–29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is it.
John, I don't believe "significant" would be necessary in any specific example, but it could have that level impact depending on various factors.
FatPhil said:
That sounds more like just the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy:
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]
Content from External Source
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

I too am suspicious of the original claim, in my experience some of the staunchest members of an idiological group are ex members of an opposing group who want absolutely nothing to do with thar prior group and their prior stances. Examples that come to mind being ex-religious atheists, and ex-smokers.
Click to expand...
This is not exclusive with the above, there's actually been a lot more studies around mitigating factors to it now. Its "level" of impact on any individual to any given grouping of information or beliefs is really hard to say also.
https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00335-9

deirdre said:
Even in the past, when MB did focus a lot on the messaging side, there were a few members who believed mockery and degrading were the best way to get CTist to shut up (or possibly change their minds, i guess). Apparently if you ridicule and shame people, then 'the people on the fence' ..not wanting to be ridiculed and shamed.. will toe the appropriate party line.

In 10 years i haven't seen any evidence of this working. Although .. we don't really know effects on the silent majorities, because they stay silent. (well except for when they voice their true feelings by voting in Trump or some such)


add: and i agree the onus is primarily on the teacher.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. That's not going to work for constructive messaging purposes, but hey, not like those people are actually trying. It's unfortunate though because they create a misalignment that's damaging.

Mendel said:
I expect most of us agree with the observation, but would reject the onus.

@Mick West originally set up contrailscience.com because he noticed that similar claims of evidence would be trotted out cyclically, and having a resource where this evidence was "pre-bunked" would be useful when that happened again, to people like journalists or ordinary folks practicing media literacy by looking for other sources on these claims. It's all about reaching "incidentals" still making up their minds. We also get a fair share of readers who are talking to CT friends or family and are looking for ways to address what they're being confronted with.

As such, a Metabunk thread can run in its entirety without CT input: quoting a claim and then debunking it is sufficient to fulfill the posting guidelines.

To change the beliefs of someone you don't have a pre-existing connection to requires affirming their world view, and when that would require affirming unfounded fears and misinformation, we quickly get into ethical hot water. That's a big part of why "messaging to CTists" can't work, unless you're a CTists yourself—or if you are a media outlet unethical enough to mislead their audience so you can monetize them (as has e.g. been alleged of Fox News). (Con men also do this to gain the trust of their marks.)

In the olden days, when the "freedom of the press" was invented, that freedom was moderated as it was exercised by educated people who had also studied the humanities and thus had some grounding in ethics. You could be media illiterate and mostly trust the evening news (and knew the boulevard papers / tabloids were less serious about facts). But today, we have social media, and big media players catering to misinformed audiences, so that people who weren't media literate need to catch up on how they assign trust in a digital media environment. You can't extend the trust in your real-life friends to your facebook "friends" no matter how much Mark Zuckerberg would like you to think so. Instead, it's easy to use a quick Internet search to confirm information before passing it on.

Metabunk is set up to be part of media literacy efforts, as are other fact-checking sites. But we're not the driver of them, except incidentally.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot in your post, although, my point there was made more towards the commentary that does speak to matters that relate to communicating directly with CT persons/groups/communities, there is quite a lot. On the other hand, and towards your post, communities like this do, do a fantastic job in broader literacy efforts.
 
David Grusch now claims in a TV interview with "Rising the Hill TV" that he indeed has "first hand knowledge" and that he is only allowed to discuss publicly that he "was read read into a UAP related program by the US government". ... If I get that correctly from the transcript (please see below). I cannot turn the speakers on right now to listen to the video's audio. He further claims that he still is preparing a paper in which he describes in depth what he knows.

Grusch_131223_first-hand-in.jpg

Source: https://youtu.be/jz0grTVpBZM?si=DfFm9p6ApQ4ZnBwD
 
Nemon said:
David Grusch now claims in a TV interview with "Rising the Hill TV" that he indeed has "first hand knowledge" and that he is only allowed to discuss publicly that he "was read read into a UAP related program by the US government
Click to expand...
Didn't he earlier say there was only one UAP program, that he was denied a read-in on it (hence the whistleblower complaints) and that he had no first hand knowledge of UAPs and aliens?
 
Nemon said:
that he is only allowed to discuss publicly that he "was read read into a UAP related program by the US government".
Click to expand...
we know he worked for UAPTF, so that one's a given

he still hasn't made his DOPSR returns available, which means he claim what he wants about what he's allowed to say and nobody can check.

2:12 I'm currently drafting an Op-Ed that I'm going to release in a few weeks
Content from External Source
*sigh*
it's the same old "revelation around the corner" string-along.
Also, a Wikipedia quote regarding Op-Eds:
Article:
It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America ... and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts.
 
Last edited:
Mendel said:
it's the same old "revelation around the corner" string-along.
Click to expand...
Assuming that he is a professional in a relevant respect and that he is no stranger to dealing with documents - what could ever take so long to write a draft document on matters that have been the focus of his life now for a long time? One gets the impression that it can only be tactics - unless there are bureaucratic hurdles, which does not seem to be the case for this type of publication
 
Last edited:
Nemon said:
that he indeed has "first hand knowledge" and that he is only allowed to discuss publicly that he "was read read into a UAP related program by the US government".
Click to expand...
obviously he has first hand knowledge around UAP programs. Otherwise he wouldnt need a security clearance level. We all already know the gov has [not necessarily ET] UAP programs.
 
deirdre said:
obviously he has first hand knowledge around UAP programs
Click to expand...
Why is this obvious?

There are many jobs that are not with UAP programs that require security clearances, for example "Senior Geospatial-Intelligence Capabilities Integration Officer for the National Geospatial Intelligence agency (NGA)".
 
Mendel said:
Why is this obvious?
Click to expand...
wasn't his job to gather all the stuff uap related from various programs? and then he filed a complaint because they denied him access and tried to lower his security clearance?

i might be misremembering them denying him access, i concede.

I'm not saying he had first hand knowledge of recovered airships or anything meaningful, I'm saying his wording in that interview could just mean he has first hand info on (for example) WHICH programs are related to uaps. Maybe the lawyers only said "you can't mention that program in connection to uaps because that connection is classified".
 
deirdre said:
wasn't his job to gather all the stuff uap related from various programs? and then he filed a complaint because they denied him access and tried to lower his security clearance?
Click to expand...

If I halfway understand the Grusch timeline that is not clearly spelled out in one place yet, it looked like this give or take:


Pre-2020: worked various military/DOD roles. Reached USAF Major, intel/combat officer Middle East. Transitioned to IC and reached GS-15, which I've read in that IC context is Lt. Colonel proximate equivalent for responsibilities in his organizations/IC departments.

2020 (approximate) to 2021: Had some sort of still unclear role with the NGO and the team of IC staff from multiple agencies that draft and deliver the Presidential Daily Brief (the famous extremely classified one). The implication was that at least three total people who were POTUS have directly engaged with Grusch 1:1 in person, but that is my analysis from a lot of implied things he's said (he IS a professional spy) and that people like Coulthart and other journalists have said, and from remarks by Congressmembers.

My takeaway was that at least once if not more Grusch played a direct role in POTUS IC briefings, and definitely created collateral for the Daily Brief. The implications for timing would be Trump while he was in office. Then, Obama after he left office as ex-Presidents also receive most if not all of the Daily Brief by convention so that the current POTUS can pick their brain or consult with them on past events. I'd assume that Grusch based on this timing worked with Obama and Biden, with Biden either pre-Inauguration, after, or both. I doubt we will ever get full confirmation on that in particular since the POTUS Briefing is like a top-tier state secret, but the implications were that Grusch has been inside the White House.

2021-2022~ (unclear end point): He got asked to take on this UFO related investigation under part of explicit Congressional legal mandates, and got some even higher elevated clearance levels/access. Then he (and implied small team under him) began knocking on doors and conducting interviews with current and former Pentagon, DOD, MIC, elected officials and others. He was apparently denied access to some things in violation of lawful Congressional mandate and had access to a lot more.

Somewhere toward the end of this period, he and others (like the ones he interviewed, but possibly more/others) all began walking into the US Capital to testify to Congressmembers and Congressional counsel/attorneys (the actual institutional career/non-partisan ones) and there was apparently a whole hell of a lot of whistleblowing going on. These things were also relayed lawfully to the IC Inspector General around here, and not just from Grusch, creating multiple concurrent lawful paper trails. I suppose those paper trails are what really made Grusch a target. I got regular "he wants to rally the whistleblowers" vibes from him early on, and now he's pretty much flat out saying whistleblowers need to start whistling more.

This would seem to be the reporting the IC IG deemed "credible" and "urgent" and sent to Congress. My read on the timeline is that the IC IG contact to Congress preceded the Congressional testimony in SCIFs of all these people. Grusch apparently spent 10 hours or so telling Congress what he knows.

It was after this period of multiple whistleblowers that members of Congress suddenly began saying incredible things like Marco Rubio (Senate Intel) with his several rounds of running commentary that boiled down to either "This is all real or half the Pentagon/IC is literally insane and either is a national emergency as Congress has been kept out of the loop" and Andre Carson (House Intel) almost jovially saying (paraphrasing) something like "And the aliens may not even be from this dimension! Stay tuned!" on live TV, which he then promptly shut up about. And now Schumer and Rounds literally calling out the House obstruction crowd, the DOD/Pentagon and the IC right on the Senate floor over all this, and Schumer's curious little almost saying "and if the government panics" bit.

Whatever Grusch and the whistleblowers know, the Gang of 8 knows, and damn sure the House/Senate Intel committees know. Probably not Armed Services, or else Gaetz would be impossible to shut up about it.

This loosely aligns with the remarks I've seen more than once that implied Grusch and Karl Nell had a hand in helping to craft requirements and language for the United States Senate UAPDA. Assuming it's all true, they'd be key people to tell the Congress where to aim their legal wording in the most effective way.

Whatever toothpaste exists, this is where it irrevocably left the tube.

2021-2022 (unclear at all): At some point he began getting retaliation from either/or DOD or IC connected people. This was toward Grusch at minimum but now he says at least one other person. If his clearance, job, or position was illegally attacked in violation of whistleblower law, it was here. This seems to also be when the implied physical threats to Grusch and his wife happened, before they were public figures or known to the public.

The IC IG apparently also (required) notified Congress of this. This (my take) is what really set off Congress leading to the 2022 hearings:

https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114761/documents/HHRG-117-IG05-Transcript-20220517.pdf

2022-2023: Grusch decides he has to resign entirely from government to whistleblow, blowing up his career and what should have been two fat well-earned pensions.

July 2023: Grusch, Fravor, Graves hearing in Congress. Depending on reports another 3~ witnesses refused at the last minute to testify. I've seen it strongly implied one was Latacaski (sp) and another was Colonel Karl Nell. My gut says Admiral Galludet was the other.



Re DOPSR wording, I never could find any clear explanation of how in the hell that works, but Kelleher and Latacaski actually gave a clear simple explanation at one point on that very long Weaponized podcast, when Corbell asked why it seemed like certain details got bumped from their first book to the second book, years later.

It seems like you file whatever it is you want to disclose and the Pentagon starts working through it. You list 1,000 things you want to say that are classified. You file on January 1. By February 1, they say you can reveal items 1-100 and 45-60 and 500-700 and 954, and maybe the say you can only say 600 to 700 up to some point that is different from what you want. By April 1, they amend the request and add another fifty or a hundred things you can say, again maybe with some conditions. In May, you add another +500 things you want to say, and they keep working on it, and over time, the requests are worked through. Latacaski said there were certain items he asked to disclose in the first book that are still open requests after the second book was released, and he hoped they would be cleared for some future disclosure.

That seems to track with Corbells curious "Grusch is about to be unshackled" remark about a month before he recorded Joe Rogan.

It all makes sense then how he's gotten slightly less cagey and more blunt as the past half year has gone forward.
 
Last edited:
Scaramanga said:
Wasn't that denied by Kirkpatrick ? Or rather, he was not 'officially' working for them but a contractor of some sort.
Click to expand...
Kirkpatrick stated that Grusch never worked for him, using the words "reported to him", but Grusch was NGA's AARO liaison and would've sent UAP reports.But that concerns AARO and not UAPTF. Kirkpatrick never had a role in UAPTF, afaik.

Mick West said:
In May 2022 I became the first government official in the history of the United States to file an Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) whistleblower complaint on credible detailed information I gathered as a member of the Unidentified Aerial (now Anomalous) Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) on a publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material that has been waged under the noise-floor for decades.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...
 
I just wanted to update this thread with ongoing developments, as new information has come to light.

Today, 16 members of congress, from both parties, attended a meeting with the ICIG in a secure room known as a SCIF. The meeting started at 9am EST. CNN, Fox, Newsnation, and others were waiting for the conclusion of the meeting. Based on interview and tweets posted after, there are statements that seem to confirm that those present now feel that at least some of Mr. Grusch's claims are confirmed.


]Source: https://twitter.com/JaredEMoskowitz/status/1745852400630456618
Jared Moskowitz
@JaredEMoskowitz
Based on what we heard many of Grusch claims have merit!
Quote
@AskaPol
@ask_a_pol
·
3h
“This is the first real briefing we’ve had,” @JaredEMoskowitz says, adding it’s first time the IG let members know where they land on the merits of Grusch’s claims. All they learned inside from intelligence IG is classified, and he says the info “actually moved the needle.”
Click to expand...

Source: https://youtu.be/CEQNq0HkyFc


"Everyone left there thinking and knowing that Grusch was legit" - Burchett
Click to expand...

Source: https://twitter.com/ask_a_pol/status/1745830738476282246

Burchett says there were 16 lawmakers of all different political stripes in the SCIF at one point.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Alien Chess Fiend said:
What was the new information?
Click to expand...
16 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle met with the IGIC. None of them seem to be stating that there is evidence that Grusch was lying. Jared Moskowitz stated that there is actually merit to the claims.

A fairly big claim to make after coming out of a secure briefing with the IGIC.
 
Curious George said:
I just wanted to update this thread with ongoing developments, as new information has come to light.

Today, 16 members of congress, from both parties, attended a meeting with the ICIG in a secure room known as a SCIF. The meeting started at 9am EST. CNN, Fox, Newsnation, and others were waiting for the conclusion of the meeting. Based on interview and tweets posted after, there are statements that seem to confirm that those present now feel that at least some of Mr. Grusch's claims are confirmed.


Source: https://youtu.be/CEQNq0HkyFc


Source: https://twitter.com/ask_a_pol/status/1745830738476282246
Click to expand...


I'm subscribed to That UFO Podcast but only read the titles, this time though I think it may be interesting hearing what T. Burchett has to say, that video was already put on my "watch later" list. But might watch it ASAP, thanks for the heads-up!
 
Stryer said:
16 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle met with the IGIC. None of them seem to be stating that there is evidence that Grusch was lying. Jared Moskowitz stated that there is actually merit to the claims.

A fairly big claim to make after coming out of a secure briefing with the IGIC.
Click to expand...
Some people didn't accuse Grusch of lying = no information.
One person said there is merit to his claims = no information.
As expected.
 
Stryer said:
16 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle met with the IGIC. None of them seem to be stating that there is evidence that Grusch was lying. Jared Moskowitz stated that there is actually merit to the claims.

A ofairly big claim to make after coming out of a secure briefing with the IGIC.
Click to expand...
Is Rep Moskowitz talking about Grusch's claims of extraterrestrial craft recovery or his claims he was a victim of reprisals within the DoD/IC for being a whistleblower?
 
Last edited:
Alien Chess Fiend said:
It's what you told us. If you now think it's wrong then correct it.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the wordplay quoted below. Congress people have exited a SCIF stating that they have received more information. You also seem to lack an idea about what information is.

Some people didn't accuse Grusch of lying = no information.
One person said there is merit to his claims = no information.
As expected.
Click to expand...
 
Duke said:
Is Rep Moskowitz talking about Grusch's claims of extraterrestrial craft recovery or his claims he was a victim of reprisals within the DoD/IC for whistleblower?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. The ICIG is mandated by law to investigate claims of fraud, amongst other things, and that would form the substance of Mr. Grusch's complaint. However, Mr Moskowitz used the phrase "many of Grusch claims have merit!". Clearly, many is more than one. If we list only the most prosaic of Grusch's claims, based on his public testimony under oath to congress on July 26, 2023, we must accept that Moskowitz has confirmed at least, some of: 1) Grusch had reprisals 2) a secret program was fraudulently spending government money 3) a secret program was operating without proper oversight.
There was already evidence of this, as previously the ICIG made a statement that his original complaint was credible and urgent, which under their policy, required them to inform congress, and that first-hand knowledge was part of the complaint.
So, you could say this is further confirming what (some) of us should have already believed.
However, if you believe that "many" means "more than 3", it could imply some of his more esoteric claims as well.
 
Last edited:
Curious George said:
I just wanted to update this thread with ongoing developments, as new information has come to light.


That's a good question. The ICIG is mandated by law to investigate claims of fraud, amongst other things, and that would form the substance of Mr. Grusch's complaint. However, Mr Moskowitz used the phrase "many of Grusch claims have merit!". Clearly, many is more than one. If we list only the most prosaic of Grusch's claims, based on his public testimony under oath to congress on July 26, 2023, we must accept that Moskowitz has confirmed at least, some of: 1) Grusch had reprisals 2) a secret program was fraudulently spending government money 3) a secret program was operating without proper oversight.
There was already evidence of this, as previously the ICIG made a statement that his original complaint was credible and urgent, which under their policy, required them to inform congress, and that first-hand knowledge was part of the complaint.
So, you could say this is further confirming what (some) of us should have already believed.
However, if you believe that "many" means "more than 3", it could imply some of his more esoteric claims as well.
Click to expand...
Yes Jared seems to imply six claims. None of the people who left that room seemed to suggest that Grusch was found to be lying about any claim. Which would be an easy thing to do if you think about it.
 
My bet is that Grusch is that at the very least Grusch uncovered some corporate fraud and reprisal activity against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
  • Locked
David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin
11 12 13
Replies
490
Views
86K
Mick West
Mick West
Amathia
On David Grusch's "whistleblowing" and other apparent (but not quite) nothing burgers
2 3 4
Replies
126
Views
14K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
18K
Don Kielty
D
K
George Knapp - Statement to Congress
Replies
17
Views
3K
nathan13
nathan13
Mick West
The "Chandelier" UFO
2
Replies
69
Views
12K
FatPhil
FatPhil

Latest posts

Back
Top