Considering the consequences of getting caught lying under oath to Congress, I personally believe it lends credibility to the person’s testimony. However, I understand that others may not feel the same way.
Is there any way to find out what sort of evidence he’s volunteered to present in a SCIF? From what I understood (not native English speaker) there were certain confirmations he’d only be willing to make in a secure location, but I didn’t catch any mentions of actual evidence.
To me it seems the statements he’s only willing to make in a SCIF was of the “Yes I can confirm that we have alien bodies.” type. That’s kinda already implicit.
The evidence Mr. Grusch provided included photographic evidence, documents relating to the programs, names and locations of the programs, as well as the identities of those running them. He also provided a list of names of individuals currently and previously working in these programs.
The only thing that has been publicly confirmed is the formal whistleblower complaint that was sent to the Inspector General. It’s worth noting that the Inspector General conducted their own investigation into the claims Mr. Grusch made. All of the “classified evidence” and witnesses with firsthand knowledge were provided to the Inspector General, along with whistleblowers whose identities are even unknown to David Grusch, but who corroborated his claims. At the end of the investigation, the Inspector General deemed Mr. Grusch’s claims as both “credible and urgent”.
I hope I was able to answer your question. Your English is very good for a non native speaker!
But if the only thing that’s been publicly confirmed is the whistleblower complaint, then how do you know what sort of evidence has been handed over? Without sarcasm, perhaps you or someone you know are an insider?
From my investigations, starting with the article in “The Debrief”, Grusch have provided testimony but no evidence to congress. Many hours of transcribed testimony. But no photographic evidence or documents.
When the Intelligence Community IG commented on the whistleblower complaint - he talked about the reprisals Grusch faced and not the content of the whistleblowing. The DoD IG that treated Grusch’ report in 2019 found the accusations to be not credible.
Unfortunately your reply leave me with more questions than answers. I’d love to be convinced about your claims, but then you’d have to show me how you know some of these things instead of just claiming it be like that.
But if the only thing that’s been publicly confirmed is the whistleblower complaint, then how do you know what sort of evidence has been handed over? Without sarcasm, perhaps you or someone you know are an insider?
I don’t have anything that would satisfy you in regards to this. I’m relying on the reporting by journalists such as Ross Coulthart, Christopher Sharp, Michael Shellenberger, whom I trust and find credible.
From my investigations, starting with the article in “The Debrief”, Grusch have provided testimony but no evidence to congress. Many hours of transcribed testimony. But no photographic evidence or documents.
From my understanding there was roughly 11 hours of closed door hearings with congressional lawyers. The issue was getting people in the room with the right clearances to view the evidence. Again, reported on by the same journalists.
When the Intelligence Community IG commented on the whistleblower complaint - he talked about the reprisals Grusch faced and not the content of the whistleblowing. The DoD IG that treated Grusch’ report in 2019 found the accusations to be not credible.
It has been suggested that the statement “credible and urgent” pertained to the issue of reprisals rather than the content of the whistleblowing. However, this has been refuted by individuals who have spoken with Mr. Grusch. According to him, the phrase was in reference to the entire contents of the whistleblower complaint, not just the reprisals. I’ll need to locate a source for you on this matter. I’m also interested in the 2019 IG statement if you could provide a source. I’d appreciate the opportunity to read that. Thank you.
Unfortunately your reply leave me with more questions than answers. I’d love to be convinced about your claims, but then you’d have to show me how you know some of these things instead of just claiming it be like that.
I apologize in advance. I fully realize that what I say may not be convincing to you or others. Honestly, I’m not trying to persuade you in one way or the other. People’s standards of proof vary widely. I’m relying on the reporting of journalists whom I find reliable. Anything I express on this platform is my own opinion or belief. I strive to cite and relay information as accurately as possible. I’m simply interested in this topic and aim to uncover the truth, whatever that may be.
I don’t have anything that would satisfy you in regards to this.
I respect your approach to our different standards. Only hindsight can tell us who had the best tools for working towards the same goals.
From my understanding there was roughly 11 hours of closed door hearings with congressional lawyers. The issue was getting people in the room with the right clearances to view the evidence. Again, reported on by the same journalists.
While I understand that journalists must protect their sources, there’s also the issue of “Just trust me bro”. In these grey areas I tend to view cases on the basis of lowest common denominator and in layers of confidence: I don’t see how closed door hearings necessarily mean presenting evidence, just that (at least) the topics and claims being discussed potentially have an impact on US national security? Of course this doesn’t exclude any presentation of evidence, up to and including marching out a genuine grey alien.
So I know it’s potentially some very serious stuff, I have reason to believe the validity of Grusch’ claims, it is possible evidence have been presented behind closed door and it is within the realm of possibility that this is the start of a partial and controlled disclosure and I cannot exclude that it straight up is the beginning of Disclosure.
With so many different claims in the UFO/UAP field, how do you find people you trust and find credible? I’m partial to Richard Dolan, as a UFO historian he has an academic approach - I can check his credible claims for myself in publicly available sources and after doing this enough times I have found I trust his information despite not always agreeing with his conclusion.
I’m also interested in the 2019 IG statement
After closer examination it seems the date is wrong. It is July 2021 and regarding “Confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress.” which seems more like actually blowing the whistle rather than complaining about the treatment he got as a whistleblower, described as “a whistleblower reprisal investigation” in the timeline overview linked below.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I must admit that I agree with much of what you are saying here. I agree with you on the point of Richard Dolan. He is another individual I like to follow for the reasons you mentioned.
As for finding journalists I find credible, I’d say that is an ongoing process. I’ll try to take some time and collect my thoughts on this.
I believe he said he would volunteer names and government entities who were behind the spending and coverups. He also mentioned an actual answer to what “non-human biological” meant and where certain UAPs were being housed.
Yes, I heard he’d answer many of those questions you mention as long as it was in a secure facility.
If I told you I could make false claims and provide an example, would you agree that claims, statements and testimonies should not be considered as evidence? Keep in mind that I replied to someone claiming that Grusch had provided evidence.
Watch:
Spiro Agnew is the mastermind behind it all, it’s all done by Park Rangers and accountants residing in a compound three miles south of Disney World are responsible for hiding the spending. Non-human biological entities are cat-people and the UFO’s are all stored in the Denver Airport basements.
Sorry, but I said that “…he said he would volunteer”. I did not say that Grusch had provided evidence. There’s a difference. Have you watched the hearing?
edit: I read that wrong. I thought you were referring to my post as the one you replied to since it was the one you were replying to. carry on :)
He may very well sincerely believe everything he’s saying, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Perhaps he’s been lied to, or perhaps he’s just crazy. Who knows?
Well, he doesn’t act crazy, nor does he present what I see as crazy claims so I’m comfortable to exclude “crazy” from the list.
Still it feels like not enough people here is open to the possibility of Grusch being fed lies and believing it himself, or even that the entire thing being a limited hangout.
Considering the consequences of getting caught lying under oath to Congress, I personally believe it lends credibility to the person’s testimony. However, I understand that others may not feel the same way.
Proving he’s lying would be… difficult.
Or easy considering the evidence he is providing them in a closed door session or SCIF.
Is there any way to find out what sort of evidence he’s volunteered to present in a SCIF? From what I understood (not native English speaker) there were certain confirmations he’d only be willing to make in a secure location, but I didn’t catch any mentions of actual evidence.
To me it seems the statements he’s only willing to make in a SCIF was of the “Yes I can confirm that we have alien bodies.” type. That’s kinda already implicit.
The evidence Mr. Grusch provided included photographic evidence, documents relating to the programs, names and locations of the programs, as well as the identities of those running them. He also provided a list of names of individuals currently and previously working in these programs.
The only thing that has been publicly confirmed is the formal whistleblower complaint that was sent to the Inspector General. It’s worth noting that the Inspector General conducted their own investigation into the claims Mr. Grusch made. All of the “classified evidence” and witnesses with firsthand knowledge were provided to the Inspector General, along with whistleblowers whose identities are even unknown to David Grusch, but who corroborated his claims. At the end of the investigation, the Inspector General deemed Mr. Grusch’s claims as both “credible and urgent”.
I hope I was able to answer your question. Your English is very good for a non native speaker!
But if the only thing that’s been publicly confirmed is the whistleblower complaint, then how do you know what sort of evidence has been handed over? Without sarcasm, perhaps you or someone you know are an insider?
From my investigations, starting with the article in “The Debrief”, Grusch have provided testimony but no evidence to congress. Many hours of transcribed testimony. But no photographic evidence or documents.
When the Intelligence Community IG commented on the whistleblower complaint - he talked about the reprisals Grusch faced and not the content of the whistleblowing. The DoD IG that treated Grusch’ report in 2019 found the accusations to be not credible.
Unfortunately your reply leave me with more questions than answers. I’d love to be convinced about your claims, but then you’d have to show me how you know some of these things instead of just claiming it be like that.
I don’t have anything that would satisfy you in regards to this. I’m relying on the reporting by journalists such as Ross Coulthart, Christopher Sharp, Michael Shellenberger, whom I trust and find credible.
From my understanding there was roughly 11 hours of closed door hearings with congressional lawyers. The issue was getting people in the room with the right clearances to view the evidence. Again, reported on by the same journalists.
It has been suggested that the statement “credible and urgent” pertained to the issue of reprisals rather than the content of the whistleblowing. However, this has been refuted by individuals who have spoken with Mr. Grusch. According to him, the phrase was in reference to the entire contents of the whistleblower complaint, not just the reprisals. I’ll need to locate a source for you on this matter. I’m also interested in the 2019 IG statement if you could provide a source. I’d appreciate the opportunity to read that. Thank you.
I apologize in advance. I fully realize that what I say may not be convincing to you or others. Honestly, I’m not trying to persuade you in one way or the other. People’s standards of proof vary widely. I’m relying on the reporting of journalists whom I find reliable. Anything I express on this platform is my own opinion or belief. I strive to cite and relay information as accurately as possible. I’m simply interested in this topic and aim to uncover the truth, whatever that may be.
I respect your approach to our different standards. Only hindsight can tell us who had the best tools for working towards the same goals.
While I understand that journalists must protect their sources, there’s also the issue of “Just trust me bro”. In these grey areas I tend to view cases on the basis of lowest common denominator and in layers of confidence: I don’t see how closed door hearings necessarily mean presenting evidence, just that (at least) the topics and claims being discussed potentially have an impact on US national security? Of course this doesn’t exclude any presentation of evidence, up to and including marching out a genuine grey alien.
So I know it’s potentially some very serious stuff, I have reason to believe the validity of Grusch’ claims, it is possible evidence have been presented behind closed door and it is within the realm of possibility that this is the start of a partial and controlled disclosure and I cannot exclude that it straight up is the beginning of Disclosure.
With so many different claims in the UFO/UAP field, how do you find people you trust and find credible? I’m partial to Richard Dolan, as a UFO historian he has an academic approach - I can check his credible claims for myself in publicly available sources and after doing this enough times I have found I trust his information despite not always agreeing with his conclusion.
After closer examination it seems the date is wrong. It is July 2021 and regarding “Confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress.” which seems more like actually blowing the whistle rather than complaining about the treatment he got as a whistleblower, described as “a whistleblower reprisal investigation” in the timeline overview linked below.
https://www.papooselake.org/david-grusch-timeline
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I must admit that I agree with much of what you are saying here. I agree with you on the point of Richard Dolan. He is another individual I like to follow for the reasons you mentioned.
As for finding journalists I find credible, I’d say that is an ongoing process. I’ll try to take some time and collect my thoughts on this.
Thank you for the link. I’ll take a look.
I believe he said he would volunteer names and government entities who were behind the spending and coverups. He also mentioned an actual answer to what “non-human biological” meant and where certain UAPs were being housed.
Yes, I heard he’d answer many of those questions you mention as long as it was in a secure facility.
If I told you I could make false claims and provide an example, would you agree that claims, statements and testimonies should not be considered as evidence? Keep in mind that I replied to someone claiming that Grusch had provided evidence.
Watch:
Spiro Agnew is the mastermind behind it all, it’s all done by Park Rangers and accountants residing in a compound three miles south of Disney World are responsible for hiding the spending. Non-human biological entities are cat-people and the UFO’s are all stored in the Denver Airport basements.
Sorry, but I said that “…he said he would volunteer”. I did not say that Grusch had provided evidence. There’s a difference. Have you watched the hearing?
edit: I read that wrong. I thought you were referring to my post as the one you replied to since it was the one you were replying to. carry on :)
Edit:
Seems there’s been some miscommunication.
I still wish you a nice life, prosperity and many revelations in the times ahead.
He may very well sincerely believe everything he’s saying, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Perhaps he’s been lied to, or perhaps he’s just crazy. Who knows?
Well, he doesn’t act crazy, nor does he present what I see as crazy claims so I’m comfortable to exclude “crazy” from the list.
Still it feels like not enough people here is open to the possibility of Grusch being fed lies and believing it himself, or even that the entire thing being a limited hangout.