Я уже сделал один пост о том, что вызвало у меня скептицизм, но на него на самом деле ответил пользователь Reddit, который указал мне на статью «Вопросы и ответы по проверке фактов» в статье The Debrief. Речь шла о том, как я не понимал, как два самых важных члена комитета Палаты представителей по разведке не знали о показаниях Груша, когда в статье говорилось, что он давал показания их сотрудникам. Но в отдельной статье проверки фактов было разъяснено, что только юрисконсульт комитетов по разведке заслушает его показания, а настоящие члены комитета Конгресса не будут знать, пока идет расследование. В любом случае, имейте в виду, что это всего лишь вещи, которые вызывают у меня скептицизм. Это не значит, что я думаю, что это автоматически делает недействительными все его утверждения, и я полностью допускаю, что, возможно, я что-то упускаю из виду. Но я хочу узнать мнение других: В статье Vanity Fair говорится, что самые большие опасения WaPo и NYT в связи с тем, что она не запустилась, заключалась в том, что они на самом деле не знали, что Груш сказал конгрессу. Теоретически он мог сказать что угодно. \- Меллон сказал, что на каждого человека, заявившего о наличии программы восстановления после аварии, приходилось 4 или 5 высокопоставленных чиновников, говорящих, что это неправда (перефразируя). В твиттере было видео, где он это говорит. \- Похоже, Груш даже не видел фотографии того, что другие говорили ему о ремеслах/телах согласно интервью (если я правильно помню). Вся информация из вторых рук. Оставляет открытой возможность того, что его обманывают или, возможно, неправильно истолковывают вещи. \- Груш обращается к какому-то случайному французскому изданию, утверждая, что хочет быть «лидером мнений» с некоммерческим фондом, через несколько дней после своих разоблачений. Предполагает возможную личную заинтересованность в его заявлениях и карьерных устремлениях как мотивацию для разоблачения. Может быть, это означает, что он проигнорирует правдивость своих утверждений ради собственного продвижения. Опять же, я не говорю, что мы можем знать в любом случае, и это может быть ничего. \- Пентагон проясняет все это, как вы думаете, что-то из этого каким-то образом засекречено? Я знаю, что он не сказал подробностей, и люди говорят, что незаконная программа не будет засекречена. Возможно, это ничего, просто трудно поверить, что даже общая манера его речи не раскрывает того, о чем он не может говорить. \- Предположительно был близок с Лу Элизондо и разрабатывал с ним стратегию, по словам Брайана Бендера, политического репортера, который в какой-то момент освещал НЛО (источник [https://twitter.com/BryanDBender/status/1665706317728690185](https://twitter.com/BryanDBender/status/1665706317728690185)) \- Год назад Груш встретился с Корбеллом и Кнаппом. , Корбелл и Кнап в номере отеля год назад. (источник [https://twitter.com/TheUfoJoe/status/1665794435412819968](https://twitter.com/TheUfoJoe/status/1665794435412819968)) Мне показалось, что я слышал, может быть, в статьях о проверке фактов в The Debrief или, может быть, в интервью Росса Култхарта, кто-то сказал, что Груш не увлекался НЛО до того, как он участвовал в Оперативная группа УАП. Это выглядит несколько противоречиво. Но что еще более важно, мне просто не нравится, что всегда одни и те же имена связаны с уфологией, когда все они фанатично вложены в эту тему и раньше рассказывали шаткие истории. И встреча Груша с ними год назад — это тоже давно, тусоваться и все такое… \- То же самое, но в меньшей степени с Култхартом, Кином и Блюменталем, людьми из статьи 2017 года. Просто все обычные имена. Эти трое явно более серьезны и заслуживают доверия, чем вышеупомянутые. Не говорю, что это делает статью недействительной, но было бы неплохо, если бы обычные имена не были задействованы в моих глазах. Я понимаю, что репортеры, изучающие НЛО, с большей вероятностью получат такую историю. Но если это правда, любой репортер хотел бы эту историю. \- Груш говорит почти то же самое, что Гарри Нолан сказал об изотопных соотношениях, являющихся свидетельством ремесел NHI в интервью NewsNation (кстати, Нолан также был включен в статью The Debrief). Если доказательства, которые есть у Груша, сводятся к анализу Гарри Нолана, это будет очень разочаровывающим. Я все еще не видел фактических доказательств предположения Нолана, и это больше похоже на его личное предположение о том, что предполагаемые материалы НЛО, на которые он смотрел, возможно, потусторонние. Если кто-нибудь может показать мне предполагаемую рецензируемую статью, написанную Ноланом, я бы хотел ее увидеть. Нолан — еще одно обычное имя в уфологии, даже несмотря на то, что у него впечатляющие полномочия. И просто сказать то, что Нолан сказал об изотопных соотношениях, конечно, не является доказательством NHI или их промыслов. Помните, что все мы чужаки. Это просто вещи, которые я считаю не обязательно хорошими или многообещающими лично для меня. Не стесняйтесь не соглашаться. В конечном счете, хотя это не имеет значения, потому что, надеюсь, правда выйдет из большего количества отчетов/конгресса. Редактировать: Также не пытаюсь взять на себя ответственность за то, что нашел много этого материала. TheBlackVault, Мик Уэст и другие реддиторы среди прочих, которые мне сразу пришли в голову, определенно указали на многие из этих вещей.
Похожие записи:
Random french publications? That’s one of most popular French news publication. Its like calling MSNBC or The Guardian random publication. I think it was deliberate tactics by Ross Coulthart who was in Paris to get parts of the info in USA, parts in some other country so media can follow.
Another thing to add to the list:
— Kean and Blumenthal have mentioned in at least two interviews now that they were not told about «bodies». This means that «bodies» weren’t mentioned in the unclassified version of the complaint that Kean and Blumenthal read. It’s likely not in the classified version either, otherwise Grusch wouldn’t be allowed to speak about them. So, probably there are other things not included in the complaint. Ultimately this means that the complaint being assessed as urgent and credible cannot be used to support all of the things that Grusch is saying.
My speculation is that Grusch’s complaint could only state what he himself could testify to firsthand, i.e. that he had trouble getting access to information about a program that other officers had told him about (or something along these lines).
If you haven’t read the [3-part Q&A from Debrief,](https://thedebrief.org/fact-check-q-a-with-debrief-co-founder-and-investigator-tim-mcmillan-part-1/) take a look. Gives some great background on their fact-checking of both the story and character of those involved.
>claiming he wants to be a «thought leader» with a non profit foundation, days after his revelations. Suggests possible self interest in his claims and career aspirations as a motivation for whistleblowing.
His success as a «thought leader», will depend on how credible his claims end up being. He hasn’t had decades to build up his «brand».
Nice observations. It is always good to be thinking critically.
>If someone can show me the supposed peer reviewed paper Nolan wrote I’d love to see it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042121000907
Karl Nell and Jonathan Grey (name in agency) are the new names here. They were both checked by the debrief for their credentials.
Also Grusch is represented by Charles McCullough III — original Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
> Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures of what others told him regarding crafts/bodies
I don’t remember this part. He only said he didn’t see them directly or something like that.
I think what we need to know right now is:
1. Determine wether Grusch sent any evidence at all and who exactly did he send it to.
2. If he did that then what is the general content of the evidence and what did they do with that information since then.
Here’s another one I can’t figure out: Leslie Kean said she didn’t hear anything about “bodies” but why not??? How did he not bring up the most important revelation if trying to get his story out?
Also, she claims to have seen his official IG Complaint. No doubt he mentioned “bodies” to the IG. Why did she not see it there?? Does NOT add up.
>Mellon saying for every person who said there was a crash retrieval program, there were 4 or 5 high level officials saying it wasn’t true (paraphrasing). There was some video of him on twitter saying it.
This is odd to me. Is Mellon trying to walk this back? Why is he throwing cold water on it?
>Grusch saying close to the same thing as Garry Nolan said about Isotopic ratios being evidence of NHI crafts in the NewsNation interview (and Nolan was also included in The Debrief article btw).
This is *really* odd. If they have intact craft, up to 12 craft, why are isotopic ratios their only evidence of them being otherworldly? Huh? This just doesn’t make sense. They have craft sitting there, fully intact, and they’re testing the isotopic ratios to prove they’re alien craft? And then presenting only that as the evidence??
The only red flag I see is that he makes astounishing claims without providing evidence.
I agree that the fact he is close to lie, Knapp and co sounds shady and boring.
However, regardless of whether he is telling the truth, has been mislead, or is plainfuly lying, if he is taken seriously by the congress as it seem, then the burden of proof switch camp as someone told in an interview. The congress will push for answers, the Pentagon will have to prove them none of the claim are funded. That’s a good think for the topic.
If nothing comes out of it, despite the alleged details he provided, that would have significant impact on all those involved imo, lue, Knapp, Corbeil, Kean,…
Re Nolan/valee paper, you will find it on Google scholar, scihub, or arxivv. As Nolan said, the chain of custody for the analyzed material is great: few people involved, satisfying credibility, it is most likely really coming from a genuine UFO. But it does not prove anything by itself, it only raises more question. Why would human, or anyone else, enrich that potassium (iirc) isotope? The take is, it’s exotic material in the sense that it does appears manufactured compared to natural compositions in our solar system. Could still be human made.
1. Zero verifiable proof.
There. Saved you some time.
My biggest issue with all you’ve raised is why? Why on earth would people who’ve got significant careers with brilliant credentials want to lie? Are people seriously thinking it’s worth destroying their reputations to earn money in this area? It doesn’t make sense that these people either great scientists or highly credentialed intelligence would throw all that away for the very real risk of being found out. So why would they do this? After great careers they suddenly realise that being a grifter is the east for them?
Unfortunately the only options I see are :
1. Telling the truth as they know it
2. They’re being used
3. They’re party of a psyop —- which again raises so many questions as to why anyone running a psyop would risk lying to Congress?
Prepare for your inbox to be flooded with hate mail. Rip pal
Here’s my thing — if this was true the CIA would have already killed him before he ever got this public.
The fact that he’s running around doing interviews to me means the gov’t doesn’t care about what he’s saying
Thank you OP. I really don’t understand how Nolan nor anyone makes the claim that isotopic ratios = aliens. Even if the ratios are rare and it’s expensive or impractical to make, the scientific conclusion is that the material is rare…..not that alien beings exist.
That is the biggest red flag I have seen. The lack of a proper scientific conclusion. Grusch has revealed the non-human conclusion was based on isotopic ratios.
Another secondary red flag is his claim of alien bodies which not only brings into question why he has repeatedly said he only knew they were aliens until the material science analysis on the metals came back, but also a major red flag when Michael Schellenberger and Leslie Kean both stated Grusch never brought this up in his initial story and they would intentionally leave it out of the story due to lack of credibility.
By the looks of the interview clips it looks like Grusch and Coulthart will be discussing the classic Navy sightings like Gimbal and GoFast — this whole thing looks like another Elizondo 60 minutes. I do not like the smell of this.
Here’s a video by New York post. Good concerns but everything depends on congress’s response.
https://youtu.be/WzrJ1YfS0hA
1.No evidence presented
2.DoD prepublication approved it since it didn’t disclose any classified information
3.Grusch refused a call from New York Post.
4.The authors of the original story have a long history of writing on the UAP topic
5.The story was published in The Debrief which often publishes stories on the UAP. Further, other publications did not publish it quickly enough, apparently because they wanted to fact check it more thoroughly.
To your point about journalism,
«If it bleeds it leads»
Journalism is not about facts, or the truth. It’s about eyeballs and money.
If there is no bleeding juicy cut of meat, an editor can is less likely to run with especially if formulaic proven topics are plentiful.
Just wait as more facts are revealed the story will be picked up more and more.
Everything points to a bigger reveal coming and editors waiting until that drops.
I agree with you, definitely side-eyeing this guy right now.
I don’t like the fact that the same crew that orbits the UFO universe is attached to this (Mellon, Kean, Nolan, etc.). Lue was their «credible» military guy the last few years but he’s gone off the rails a bit, so they need a new front-man.
How much of this is the UFO movements own momentum? Most people alive around Roswell are dead now. We’ve had presidents who claim to see UFO’s. We’ve been making movies for 50+ years with aliens in them. I just watched Transformers and they have lots of little Easter eggs that are based on real UFO/alien stories. How much of this story is moving forward and credible because everyone alive nowadays knows a decent amount of stories or history about UFO’s. There’s shitloads of podcasts out there to learn from. Even the #1 podcaster on earth makes everything about aliens and UFO’s. If we keep circulating all these stories where there’s lots of circumstantial evidence, eventually, say after 30 years of hearing it, people believe!
I am 50/50 on the whistleblower. The little believer in me is loving this and all the attention it’s getting. The little realist in me understands that after one or two newspapers pick up a story, im willing to wager all the other reporting sources didn’t vet all the info as well as the debrief. “Well if they’re printing it they must’ve done a background check.” Kinda thought process.
Another broad point that causes me trepidation is the morphing of the story. I believe I read 9 NHI vehicles. Then it became 9-12. Then I saw descriptions of Metapod UFO. Then I saw descriptions of a 4 story building tall UFO. If they want this to be slow disclosure and highly accurate (lol) they’re not doing a great job in my opinion. Of course, I don’t work in the DoD or on a special access program so who knows. I believe the people covering up either aliens or the psyop campaign are all just people like you or me. Just trying to get home at the end of the day. I can’t imagine a secret like this staying buried for 80 years. Or even the last 5 years after the NYT article. I’m skeptical but I’m very willing to eat my words if I’m proven wrong.
To your «thought leader» point, to me that sounds like he’s angling for a position with a think tank, no? I’m far from the DC crowd, but non-profit «thought leader» screams think tank to me.
Anywho, it seems odd that if he’s trying to ultimately work on the hill in a similar capacity, he could just leverage his existing decade+ of intelligence experience to accomplish that. No need to go on the record with claims that make him liable for criminal prosecution and risk of reputation destruction.
We need to stay objective and level headed. Posts like this allow us to temper our expectations.
Agree Agree Agree. 100% I don’t have much to add here but I’d just like to reiterate my excitement when first reading this headline to immediately after finding out the journalist who broke the story was Leslie Kean went from 110% to 60%. From dark pyramids in Alaska to hollow earth in Antarctica, I want to believe but for me she has the stench of an Ancient Aliens grifter sad to say. Would love to be wrong.
Totally agree. You’d think they’d only get into material science for fragments of craft, surely there are more obvious ways to show the craft is not man-made other than isotopes
I appreciate the post, very well laid out. There’s one point you made that struck me as immediately incorrect. About his prior interest in UAPs. This one:
>I thought I heard either in maybe The Debrief fact checking articles or maybe in a Ross Coulthart interview, someone said that Grusch was not into ufos prior to his involvement in the UAP task force.
This was addressed in the fact checking article, which does say that he had no prior history with UAP.
From the Fact Checking article:
>TM: He had no preexisting interests or real interest in UAP. So it wasn’t any experience with UFOs or any preexisting interest that got him into that to where he is today. It was rather he had come recommended to the director of the task force based on experience and for being known as a sharp analyst with the NGA. And somebody (who) when the task force needed a liaison at NGA was someone who was recommended. But it was based on his reputation in the intelligence community as an analyst, not someone with an interest in UAP.
From the debrief article:
>He served as the reconnaissance office’s representative to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force from 2019-2021.
So he had no prior interest in UAP before he joined the taskforce in 2019. Him hanging out with the UFO crowd anytime after 2019 would not contradict the original article, nor the fact checking article. Grusch hanging out with the UAP crowd in 2022 *definitely* does not contradict them.
Good post, I hope you maintain this sort of list. But:
«Grusch having met with Corbell and Knapp a year ago.»UFOJoe» meeting him at a Star Treck convention and reciting a scene from a Star Treck movie with Grusch, Corbell, and Knap in a hotel room a year ago. (source https://twitter.com/TheUfoJoe/status/1665794435412819968 ) I thought I heard either in maybe The Debrief fact checking articles or maybe in a Ross Coulthart interview, someone said that Grusch was not into ufos prior to his involvement in the UAP task force. This appears somewhat contradictory.»
UAPTF was established [August 2020](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/members-of-pentagon-s-ufo-task-force-briefed-canadian-military-officials-this-year-1.6154618). The convention was August 2022. If Grusch reached out to Knapp and Corbell sometime in 2022, I don’t see why either would contradict that «Grusch was not into ufos prior to his involvement in the UAP task force». I don’t know the date Grusch joined UAPTF, but presumably it would have been prior to 2022.
As an outsider who dabbles in UFOs, it looks like there’s no way he escapes this story without proving it as broadly correct, or removing all credibility in the eyes of normies. Are UFO people so gullible that there’s enough of a market for books, YouTube, and speaking deals from someone who makes such a bombshell claim that is never verified? With «hard» evidence supposedly existing yet never coming to light (months from now)?
> The Vanity Fair article said WaPo and NYT biggest concerns for not running it was they don’t actually know what Grusch said to congress. Theoretically he could have said anything.
This isn’t a red flag knowing that congress will eventually reveal what he said to them. Why would he lie when exposing his lies will happen sooner or later?
> Mellon saying for every person who said there was a crash retrieval program, there were 4 or 5 high level officials saying it wasn’t true (paraphrasing). There was some video of him on twitter saying it.
To be expected from people who either aren’t on the know (and would shatter their egos that the government would hide stuff from them) or people who believe in the mission of secrecy. It’s basically word against word on this one.
> Sounds like Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures of what others told him regarding crafts/bodies according to the interview (if I remember correctly). All secondhand information. Leaves open the possibility he’s being duped or maybe misinterpreting things.
I guess this is a tiny red flag, though he was a government investigator interviewing people who probably came forward. If this government program is as secret as they say, it makes sense none of these individuals would have pictures of this top secret stuff.
> Grusch going to some random French publication
I’ll give u this one, it’s a legitimate red flag.
> Elizondo, Corbell and Knapp, Coulthart, and Kean and Blumenthal, Garry Nolan.
I have no idea who these people are. I’m not a part of this community, but isn’t it circular reasoning to drag Grusch down because he associated with certain individuals that say the same or similar things as he did, simply because they are those individuals?
Shouldn’t Grusch’s claims and willingness to speak under oath to congress under penalty of being thrown in jail for perjury give some credence to these older folks’ stories?
I’m really annoyed and confused by these whistle blowers who act like they’re exposing a huge secret then give zero specifics. «yes, the government has alien bodies. But I cant say where, when, who, or how to find them because they would give away sensitive information». MF you just said there are alien bodies. Isn’t THAT the sensitive info? how much bigger can it get?
Im not sure if him being not directly involved in the claims he made is part of the design of this coming forward or a red flag.
In theory there is more resilience with him being external to the witnesses, he is replaceable. If grusch doesnt pan out they could “try again”
I would add he is young. 36? He started his intel career at 21 and 14 years later he is this IC bigshot? That part is odd to me and it makes me wonder.
Biggest red flag is: why/how would other governments keep this a secret? Why wouldn’t the aliens crash in Africa, or the Middle East or Latin America, where some tinpot dictator shows it to the world?
>Pentagon clearing all this to be said, you would think some of it is classified in some way? I know he hasn’t said specifics and people say an illegal program wouldn’t be classified. It’s possibly nothing, it’s just hard to believe that even the general way he’s speaking isn’t revealing something he can’t talk about.
The explanation that’s been given for this one is that if they denied him the ability to release this information then it would kick off some sort of public process where they have to respond to his allegations and the assumption is that them giving no response is better in the same way saying no comment or I can neither confirm nor deny is used.
No idea if it’s true but that’s what they’ve been saying.
Does anyone have a reply chain from earlier this week (Sun-Wed) arguing about whether these Grusch allegations are true? It started like «how can anyone still be a skeptic after all this» and the response was «I’ll give it a shot» and they went point by point over why Grusch may not be credible. It was really good, with decent points on both sides. I believe it would be in this sub or maybe the r technology post about it.
Yeah the guy is definitely full of shit.
>Sounds like Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures of what others told him regarding crafts/bodies according to the interview (if I remember correctly). All secondhand information. Leaves open the possibility he’s being duped or maybe misinterpreting things.
He said to one of the european papers that he had seen things personally but he wasn’t allowed to talk about it. We’ll see what happens on Sunday.
>And just saying what Nolan has said about isotopic ratios is certainly not proof of NHI or their crafts.
No but nobody is able to explain that. We don’t currently have any use for making large metal pieces with specific isotope ratios. Especially back in the 70s-80s
for me the «thought leader» quote and him wanting to start a non-profit fucked w/ my credibility meter the hardest. but i’ll wait for whatever evidence they have on sunday
thanks for sharing, its important that both sides are discussed. we haven’t seen anything ourselves yet
I’ll go through them one at a time:
>— The Vanity Fair article said WaPo and NYT biggest concerns for not running it was they don’t actually know what Grusch said to congress. Theoretically he could have said anything.
Whatever he said, he did it **under oath**. If he was now running to the newspapers and telling a different story, that would destroy his credibility and he’d be in a world of trouble.
>—Mellon saying for every person who said there was a crash retrieval program, there were 4 or 5 high level officials saying it wasn’t true (paraphrasing). There was some video of him on twitter saying it.
The context is that Mellon was saying that to prove how well hidden the program was. That backs up Grusch’s claims.
>—Sounds like Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures of what others told him regarding crafts/bodies according to the interview (if I remember correctly). All secondhand information. Leaves open the possibility he’s being duped or maybe misinterpreting things.
We don’t know yet what he’s seen. When asked whether he had seen hard evidence he said he can’t talk about it because it’s classified.
>—Grusch going to some random French publication claiming he wants to be a “thought leader” with a non profit foundation, days after his revelations. Suggests possible self interest in his claims and career aspirations as a motivation for whistleblowing. Maybe that means he’d overlook the veracity of his claims for the sake of advancing himself. Again, not saying we can know either way, and it could be nothing.
Establishing your reputation as “that guy who lied about UFOs” is unlikely to help any business project.
>—Pentagon clearing all this to be said, you would think some of it is classified in some way? I know he hasn’t said specifics and people say an illegal program wouldn’t be classified. It’s possibly nothing, it’s just hard to believe that even the general way he’s speaking isn’t revealing something he can’t talk about.
This has been answered and according to the people in the know (ie not me), it actually makes sense based on how it’s unfolding. Read part 3 of the FAQ.
>—Supposedly being close with and strategizing with Lue Elizondo according to Bryan Bender, a politico reporter who covered UFOs at one point (source https://twitter.com/BryanDBender/status/1665706317728690185)
~~I can’t read Bender’s tweet because he blocked me. Bender is a skeptic, so I doubt Grusch is “strategizing” with him.~~ I misread this. Elizondo was the former head of a similar UAP program, it would make sense that they’d communicate. I don’t know what “strategize” means, but it could be as simple as Grusch asking for advice on how to go public, since Lue has done it.
>—Grusch having met with Corbell and Knapp a year ago.“UFOJoe” meeting him at a Star Treck convention and reciting a scene from a Star Treck movie with Grusch, Corbell, and Knap in a hotel room a year ago. (source https://twitter.com/TheUfoJoe/status/1665794435412819968 ) I thought I heard either in maybe The Debrief fact checking articles or maybe in a Ross Coulthart interview, someone said that Grusch was not into ufos prior to his involvement in the UAP task force. This appears somewhat contradictory. But more importantly I just don’t like how it’s always the same names involved from ufology when they are all fanatically invested in this subject and have run shaky stories before. And Grusch meeting them a year ago is a while ago too, hanging out and such
He started being involved in the task force in 2019, so it isn’t contradictory at all.
>—Similar but less so with Coulthart, and Kean and Blumenthal, the people from the 2017 article. Just all the usual names. These 3 people are obviously more serious and credible tho than the aforementioned above. Not saying it invalidates the article, but it would be nice if the usual names weren’t involved in my eyes. I do understand it’s more likely that reporters that look into ufos would be more likely to get a story like this. But if it’s true, any reporter would want this story.
This argument has never made sense to me. “Every time journalists talk about space, they interview Neil DeGrAsse Tyson. I don’t trust that guy.” The people who are most knowledgeable about a subject and who are willing to talk to journalists are always the ones you hear about. Nothing conspiratorial about it.
>—Grusch saying close to the same thing as Garry Nolan said about Isotopic ratios being evidence of NHI crafts in the NewsNation interview (and Nolan was also included in The Debrief article btw). If the evidence Grusch has just amounts to Garry Nolan’s analysis, it will be very disappointing. I still have yet to see actual proof of Nolan’s speculation and it sounds like more of his personal speculation that the supposed UFO materials he’s looked at are possibly otherworldly. If someone can show me the supposed peer reviewed paper Nolan wrote I’d love to see it. Nolan is another of the usual names in ufology, even if he has impressive credentials. And just saying what Nolan has said about isotopic ratios is certainly not proof of NHI or their crafts.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042121000907
The biggest validation of his claims will be another insider turned whistleblower’s testimony that backs up Grusch. Right now it is just one person against the stonewalling of the Pentagon and the mostly negative public opinion
“Random French publication”
Lol my man, that’s Le Parisien. You really need to expand your borders, I stopped reading after that because you made yourself sound reaaallly ignorant
Point by point.
— The Vanity Fair article said WaPo and NYT…
Doesn’t really matter. The particulars are not that important just yet. Keep in mind this man testified hours before congress under oath. It’s not crazy to think he can (or even wants to share) everything for actual reasons of national security pertaining to terrestrial adversaries. This makes total sense if we are actually reverse engineering craft. Think about the consequences if we had unveiled details of the stealth bomber or the nuclear program before they were implemented.
— Mellon saying for every person…
If you went to see 40 doctors and five of them said you had cancer but the other 35 said you didn’t — would you be satisfied? This is the biggest red flag that this shit is true. The fact that not EVERYONE is coming forward is a red flag? The fact that that 1 is, plus we have videos and an admission from the navy, from the former President Obama — it seems like you just want to not believe at this point, and I can empathize with that, for sure.
This is a real phenomenon, and moreover, this is happening within our gov. The fact that they admitted the videos, the fact the admit they have been studying UFOs when they publicly claimed otherwise…
If this is what they are public with — just think for a moment what they’re not forthcoming about.
I know it’s hard to wrap your head around it, but it’s time to start accepting this is happening.
This is the craziest shit ever, and it’s true. The more you look at the credible cases over time (and toss out the loons — if you have trouble distinguishing crazies from what constitutes “credible”, you’ll also have trouble knowing disclosure when you see it, so don’t feel bad.)
— Sounds like Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures…
Even if he did see pictures or artifacts, perhaps there are reasons why it would be wise for him not to mention that.
— Grusch going to some random French publication…
This issue needs to be investigated more. Something was off with that article. The tone of voice did not sound like the same man from the News Nation interview. I suspect something wonky was done in translation. I work in translation. That thought-leader comment could’ve had a totally different tone in native English. We just don’t know yet. We need to wait to hear more from this guy.
— Pentagon clearing all this to be said, you would think some of it is classified in some way?
You already answered you own questions, but imagine this — if I said that the US was developing AI surveillance systems through a formalized whistleblowing procedure, am I really abusing anything? No. I’m doing exactly what that process is intended to.
— Supposedly being close with and strategizing with Lue Elizondo…
Lue mentioned they were colleagues, and so what if they were? Probably Lue learned a lot — don’t forget he was the subject of a confirmed smear campaign attempt. Pentagon tried to deny his work or even his position, but Harry Reid wrote an official letter reaffirming it. If there is a contingent of people with access to informaron and an interest in making it public, good on them for collaborating. A lot of these ordeal surely takes a personal toll. They want to be more ironclad. I respect it.
— Grusch having met with Corbell and Knapp a year ago.»UFOJoe» meeting him at a Star Treck…
Are all Star Wars fans automatically UFO nuts? It’s a hugely popular series in American culture. I see no significant difference with Star Trek. This is a weak point.
— Similar but less so with Coulthart, and Kean and Blumenthal, the people from the 2017 article…
Become a reporter then. Connections take time, working a beat consistently is hard and a privledge. These were the perfect folks to do this. Why? This is a far far out topic for most people and they’ve been previously validated when the 2017 report was confirmed by the navy themselves. That’s a big thing. Same with the watergate guys. People listen when Woodard reports. He built up cred. Someone else would need to start from ground 0. On this topic, that’s an insane demand. Their previous report was a once in a lifetime validation.
— Grusch saying close to the same thing as Garry Nolan…
No relevance to the matter at this time.
Those are my opinions.
>- Mellon saying for every person who said there was a crash retrieval program, there were 4 or 5 high level officials saying it wasn’t true (paraphrasing). There was some video of him on twitter saying it.
Compartmentalized. People with top secret clearances thinking if there was such a program they’d know about it, so they confidently say it doesn’t exist.
>- Sounds like Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures of what others told him regarding crafts/bodies according to the interview (if I remember correctly). All secondhand information. Leaves open the possibility he’s being duped or maybe misinterpreting things.
No way of know that. Longer interview on Sunday would clarify that. I think the bit about him not directly seeing anything was in reference to the actual craft, not the evidence. He hasn’t seen the craft directly. He has seen the evidence: documents, photos, satellite, etc could be whatever
>- Grusch going to some random French publication claiming he wants to be a «thought leader» with a non profit foundation, days after his revelations. Suggests possible self interest in his claims and career aspirations as a motivation for whistleblowing. Maybe that means he’d overlook the veracity of his claims for the sake of advancing himself. Again, not saying we can know either way, and it could be nothing.
You don’t know what the question was. He has sacrificed his career. «You’ve ruined your career, what’s your plan now?»
>- Pentagon clearing all this to be said, you would think some of it is classified in some way? I know he hasn’t said specifics and people say an illegal program wouldn’t be classified. It’s possibly nothing, it’s just hard to believe that even the general way he’s speaking isn’t revealing something he can’t talk about.
It’s a legal question. He was cleared to talk: not revealing any classified details. Here the distinction he is making is that the existence of non human intelligence should not be classified, but he is still respecting other classified details eg the locations, names, us military operations and capabilities etc. Obviously he’s saying watch what I say and if you think it’s a breach, take me to court. He has the best lawyer imaginable in this case.
>- Supposedly being close with and strategizing with Lue Elizondo
So what
>- Grusch having met with Corbell and Knapp a year ago.»UFOJoe» meeting him at a Star Treck convention and reciting a scene from a Star Treck movie with Grusch, Corbell, and Knap in a hotel room a year ago.
And?
>- Similar but less so with Coulthart, and Kean and Blumenthal, the people from the 2017 article. Just all the usual names. These 3 people are obviously more serious and credible tho than the aforementioned above. Not saying it invalidates the article, but it would be nice if the usual names weren’t involved in my eyes. I do understand it’s more likely that reporters that look into ufos would be more likely to get a story like this. But if it’s true, any reporter would want this story.
Do you have any idea how stigmatized this topic still is? You should be grateful these people have dedicated their careers to revealing these truths..
Why? I don’t get why someone would waste precious energy and time speculating on another person’s story. We don’t know a damn thing at this point other than the story. I don’t think 99% here know any more than me. Surely people can make better use of their time rather than writing an op-ed on something they have squat knowledge about.
I will never get accustomed to the mindset of others. I wait to get more info. I read. I listen to interviews and in this case in particular, wait longer to learn more about the 100s of pages turned over to the Senate.
This is one of the reasons I drift off from hair-on-fire believers or naysayers.
I believe there are others besides us because I had an experience. It was/is my reality but speculation or analyzing or picking apart another’s story that I don’t have first-hand knowledge on or haven’t gotten clarity about, please. Spare me.
I didn’t read the OP analysis. Don’t care to. I will watch the interview on Sunday. I am too old for this. Apologise. The title set me off.
If anything you’ve convinced me he’s legitimate if those are your best critiques.
Simple. There’s aliens (true). We don’t know where they’re from or what they want (sus).
Wouldn’t the second bullet point make his testimony just as important in either direction?
Like, why are so many people in high level government position talking about this topic if they’re all serious people? What’s the deal? Like why does it seem like the pentagon is people just making up lies about ufos and shit. That’s pretty concerning if it’s all just folklore.. why the fuck would any of this be happening at all?
Just one note: Nolan is working on a more advanced testing machine with the US govt utilizing SQUID (superconducting quantum) that doesn’t yet exist therefore I’m assuming even the DOD testing has been using the previous technology, thus same isotope results as Gary
This sub is embarrassing.
It’s full of deranged UF-trust-me-bros with the intellectual capacity of the Whitaker family. Appalling stuff.
Random guy with ‘credentials’ makes bold claims with absolutely no tangible evidence to back them up. Just like last time… and the time before that.
Thankfully, the hype has already just about died off and any flicker of believability has all but been stomped out by the chat in this sub reverting back to business as usual: crackpot theories about ‘Nordics’ and a pixelated blob hailed as ‘actual footage’ of an 8 foot frog-man from outerspace.
What a joke.
No wonder no one normal takes this stuff seriously. — The UFO-Tards are too invested in being perpetually mind-gangbanged by an evergrowing list of charletons.
>Sounds like Grusch hasn’t even seen pictures of what others told him regarding crafts/bodies according to the interview (if I remember correctly). All secondhand information. Leaves open the possibility he’s being duped or maybe misinterpreting things
I love that one of these red flags is that one of the most senior US intelligence analysts probably lacks the proper ability to analyse information and gather evidence.
On the «It’s all second hand» part, I’m just going to quote the Debrief article here:
>Associates who vouched for Grusch said his information was highly sensitive, providing evidence that materials from objects of non-human origin are in the possession of highly secret black programs. Although locations, program names, and other specific data remain classified, the Inspector General and intelligence committee staff were provided with these details. Several current members of the recovery program spoke to the Inspector General’s office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint.
Doesn’t sound second-hand at all to me. We may not have access to the first-hand reports but the real story here is that those first-hand reports have *leaked outside the program into a government watchdog office.* That is utterly unprecedented as far as I’m aware of in the history of this subject.