Ex-top defense official expects bombshell details of Pentagon UFO recovery

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120902012#Comment_120902012

I looked up this guy. He's a video games programmer that repeatedly contradicts the pilots on even established military aviation facts.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120902055#Comment_120902055

No it's not a surprise. We all should be but skeptical doesn't mean dismissive.

Str8outtaWuhan

You'd be amazed what governments can do. The Chinese government managed convince a billion of its citizens to forget anything happened on 4th June 1989. The russian government has convinced 200million of its own people their are nazi's in the Ukraine. The US government has convinced an entire generation of Americans that men can have periods and get pregnant and that women can get testicular cancer.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903569#Comment_120903569

At this stage yes it is just stories. There is nothing here that can convince someone of anything.

When \ If these witnesses are called and can provide actual evidence, then there might be something.

At this stage it is all smoke and mirrors and reading between the lines.

And there seem to be some bad faith actors in terms of misrepresenting the import of some of this - see bold below.

Compass Rose Legal Group said a bit more than that didn't they:

“Compass Rose Legal Group has successfully concluded its representation of former client David Grusch on matters limited to his reasonable belief that elements of the Intelligence Community improperly withheld or concealed alleged classified information from the U.S. Congress. The firm filed a narrowly-scoped whistleblower disclosure with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (“ICIG”) and associated personnel matters – and had represented Mr. Grusch since February 2022. Recent media articles misstate the scope of the firm’s representation and include material misstatements of fact pertaining to our representation, which we have requested be corrected."

https://thedebrief.org/compass-rose-attorneys-formally-end-association-with-uap-whistleblower-david-grusch/

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120902160#Comment_120902160

Actually that's untrue. Throughout the hearing the pilots stipulated that there exists radar data that can establish Kinemetrics of the objects seen in the videos, heard in the testimonies. They're asking for these to be declassified.

That's what people are missing. They're not simply saying "I seen this, believe me", they're saying that they want the evidence released to the public.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903659#Comment_120903659

I think you're mixing up the law firm's statements with my claim from the inspector general. Can you espouse your opinion on the shared article and why it contradicts mine.

And actually, Grusch has apparently provided evidence to the appropriate channels, IGIC ect. This means that while there's not yet proof, we're at a stage were we can quickly determine if this is all bullsh1t. This is an outcome I would not be against by the way. I want these claims to be verified by Congress or called out as BS by Congress.

steddyeddy

By the way I'm not stating that we have proof that there is a non human intelligence in our airspace. We certainly have evidence that there's something as of yet unexplained going on but not proof of that.

I'm saying we're closer than before to verifying, one way or the other claims by pilots and whistleblowers. That is something we should all be happy with.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903693#Comment_120903693

I find the presentation of the information here strangely second hand and vague.

It seems like there is smoke and mirrors going on.

We don't know exactly what information is being referred to by Compass Rose or ICIG and how it pertains to the wider claims.

Has he provided any actual first hand evidence? We don't know that. Or is it just the same claims and anonymous sources and smoke and mirrors. Or one very specific claim distinct to the wider claims.

You included an excerpt from the law firm's statement, but didn't think the parts in bold I excerpted were worth mentioning?

“The whistleblower disclosure did not speak to the specifics of the alleged classified information that Mr. Grusch has now publicly characterized, and the substance of that information has always been outside of the scope of Compass Rose’s representation. Compass Rose took no position and takes no position on the contents of the withheld information."

My main point stands, what has been presented so far is not going to convince anyone of anything, other than that further investigation is needed.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903785#Comment_120903785

No, we do know that the whistleblower complaint can only be investigated on two things and those are the allegation that there were reprisals and the allegation that special access programs were hidden from Congressional oversight. These are infringements that can be investigated. The IGIC (inspector general of the intelligence community) found these complaints urgent and credible.

The UAP content of the complaint was played out under oath yesterday in front of Congress. The veracity or otherwise of these claims have not been commented on by the IGIC. Grusch has provided evidence to Congressional Sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs) and the IGIC in the forms of names of those on the program, documentation and locations. This was over a year ago and already other witnesses have testified in SCIFs to the veracity of Grusch's complaints.

This is far from proof but why I'm happy is that it's exactly the mechanism by which we establish the veracity of these claims. This can be determined to be all lies, in which case Grusch goes to jail as he testified, in public and under oath to Congress yesterday or have some elements of truth. Either way it's fascinating.

steddyeddy

So I think there's a lot more agreement here than disagreement. There's no evidence yet and we all want evidence produced.

What I disagree on is the emotional dismissal of allegations prior to assessment. I think these claims should be investigated. What is also interesting is the fact that this has bipartisan support.

Now Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has recently put forward an amendment which legally requires disclosure of evidence for these allegations if true.

The bill aims to:The Schumer-Rounds amendment would give the federal government eminent domain over any recovered technologies of unknown origin or biological evidence of nonhuman intelligence now held by private individuals or organizations. 

And yes, I agree it sounds crazy. You see either way this is interesting and Schumer is usually quite reserved in what he supports.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903921#Comment_120903921

My instinct is that Grusch is playing a bait and switch game between what he has given to the IGIC and what he is saying to Congress. That the urgent \ credible finding doesn't necessarily relate to them directly.

Either he or his champions have played a misprepresentation game between the two, hence the comments from the legal reps disassociating themselves from them.

But we shall see who is proved right by solid evidence.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903974#Comment_120903974

Maybe so but I don't think so. Have you watched the hearing? Grusch asked that the IGIC to Congress and that the Congress seek that information. He is encouraging them to exchange information. Also don't forget he testified under oath about his interactions with the ICIG. Even if that is found to be a lie he goes to jail.

But we don't disagree. It needs to be investigated.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903974#Comment_120903974

Sorry, I reread what you wrote. You're mistaken in your ideas about why the legal firm stopped representing him. They concluded their representation because Grusch is no longer an active service man. The legal firm only represent active service men. The partner at the firm, former Inspector General Charles McCullough actually left the firm to continue representing Grusch.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904013#Comment_120904013

That explains why they are no longer representing him. But there seems to be more than that going on.

It seems strange to me so many articles would get it wrong the legal firm would have to disassociate themselves from them.

This suggests to me either Grusch or a 'champion' \ insider source of his is misrepresenting things to the media.

"Recent media articles misstate the scope of the firm’s representation and include material misstatements of fact pertaining to our representation, which we have requested be corrected."

The legal firm have clarified that the case they represented Grusch on:

did not speak to the specifics of the alleged classified information that Mr. Grusch has now publicly characterized, and the substance of that information has always been outside of the scope of Compass Rose’s representation

Therefore it should not be presented as directly affirming any of his public statements.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904033#Comment_120904033

Yes we're in agreement. The actual complaint is a safeguarding procedure to ensure his safety. His public statements were echoed, and expanded upon in when he testified under oath, to the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The (amazingly bipartisan) Congressional representatives are putting into place mechanisms by which they can investigate these claims such as private hearings (has to be due to the classified nature of some of the details), subpoenaing witnesses and releasing the classified videos and radar data for peer review analysis. This is doing it properly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpzJnrwob1A

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903974#Comment_120903974

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Skinwalker/Luis Elizondo are the whistleblowers, and that this is their latest shot at publicity.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904178#Comment_120904178

Based on this and previous statements I'm quite sure you have little idea how the US government works. Have you any idea why what you say would be unlikely?

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903676#Comment_120903676

If the evidence exists, as they describe it, and it really is classified, then surely blabbing about it all over the place would be a breach of national security.

As of now, they're making completely unsubstantiated claims. All of the publically available video and photographic evidence is woefully unconvincing, and the fact that 'experts' such as they, have described that kind of 'evidence' as compelling leads me to conclude that their threshold for convincing evidence is a lot lower than it should be for the level of expertise they are claiming.

lmao10

Grusch is now famous and probably earned quite a bit of money from this whole thing. Plenty enough motive for him to be making it all up. Bob Lazar is clearly a lying fraud.

Sesshoumaru

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeSpA3e56A&t

Just thought I'd share this video as it covers what the two ex military witnesses at the hearing spoke about. Might help clear up what they both were talking about.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904335#Comment_120904335

😅😅😅

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904636#Comment_120904636

Could you provide evidence as to the money he has received vs the career progression losses he would lose by speaking out about UAP?

lmao10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120909554#Comment_120909554

Do you want me to provide you with his bank statements?

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910913#Comment_120910913

The nature of the evidence to be provided is typically decided by those who are making the claim. It's not me making it.

Hamsterchops

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903190#Comment_120903190

Not a joke at all, but a landmark for Congress to actually have a hearing on this decades old mystery.

Dave Grusch's claims are mostly fantastical & unfathomable, and yet his testimony was given under oath!

In answer to several questions by Congress questioners his answers pointed to revealing details in a secure "SCIF" which will surely happen, so whatever people's opinions are, we're bound to get some feedback in the coming months after several of these SCIF meetings.

Mullaghteelin

I want to address the point about unsubstantiated claims.

Congress has decided, with bipartisan agreement, to treat the Whistleblowers seriously. Therefore it's now up to the murky web of organisations and private corporations to refute their claims.

The ball is in their court. The air force hasn't cooperated at all for a start. The politicians want answers. Billions of dollars unaccounted for without explanation due to the age old excuse of "national security."

Until the accused parties start providing the politicians with answers they demand, the politicians have effectively sided with the Whistleblowers.

silliussoddius

What answer will be good enough for this current iteration of UFOligists? If the Pentagon deny it, then it’s proof of a cover up.

Most likely they like the smoke screen of UFOs as it takes the focus away from developing technology, monitoring adversaries capabilities etc.

This recent publicity of the topic needs to be taken in context. It started with the 2017 New York Times story about how the Pentagon spent millions on a secret study, but when you dig deeper the money went to someone called Robert Bigelow to research Skinwalker Ranch. There is a lot of stuff out there on it, and frankly it’s nuttier than a squirrel’s porta potty.

These people are not going to break the biggest story in human history.