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.
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.