Вот краткое изложение истории Дэвида Груша, представляющее пост, основанный на ФАКТАХ, которым вы можете поделиться со всеми скептически настроенными. Эта подпрограмма в настоящее время УТОНА в дезинформации и беспочвенных спекуляциях, не позволяйте этому случиться!

The case needs the bolstering of at least some of the people who actually directly worked on the UAP programs Grusch refers to in his case.

Genuine question: what has he personally seen or witnessed? Because from the initial interview clips he states that he never saw any retrieved objects, wasn’t involved in said programs, and only has at best secondary accounts.

Thanks for summarizing that, I can’t stop thinking about the implications of all the things he claimed. Does anybody know how the UAPs were found? Were there any archeological finds? This is where our childhood ends as species.

Thank you, OP. That was well-written.

thank you i translate you text in french with your source

This was a pretty damn huge interview. Shit..

Huge claims. Huge problems if true, and it sounds like it. America has some answering they need to do!!

The biggest thing I took from it is they’re not aliens. Forget everything else. This is HUGE

That this is even necessary is a huge indictment of something. Not entirely sure what to call that something though. Our entire discourse, maybe? Can’t really blame the media here for the fundamental misunderstandings a significant amount of people have here. It’s more just the lazy media consumption. People won’t spend 5 minutes reading a landmark piece of print journalism? All the common antagonistic talking points were addressed in the original article. But apparently this is all hearsay.

Thanks for the writeup dude. That it’s necessary at all makes me sad.

Did he bring the cold hard facts and irrefutable evidence that unquestionably backs up every one of his claims?

The problem here is that he _claims_ he gave evidence to congress. We haven’t heard from congress as to whether this is true, whether they received anything at all

I see a lot of people misinterpreting that him not being able to talk about things on TV being the same information he gave congress. It sounds like the congressional hearing is where all the classified details are going to be discussed and ruled on whether they can become public or not.

Thank you for providing just the facts no more no less.

/u/Lumy1 Just a suggestion, adding explanations in parentheses for all the acronyms would help with disseminating this information to a broader audience.

People outside of the United States are equally invested in this topic and some may not be familiar with the meanings behind all of the different acronyms. Even simple ones like DoD (**D**epartment **o**f **D**efense) could sound like completely gibberish buzzwords to some.

Personally, I’m completely lost on what NGA and NRO stand for.

If anything, this solidified my doubt. I’ll check in on this sub in a few years.

My only question is where is the 7hour review as promised? Is that still coming? Has it happened? What am I missing?

Great write up. Thanks.

Great summary. Also, he has no proof. End of conversation. Felt, Snowden, Manning, all had considerable proof. Not Grusch.

He is deep into the intelligence community and the new face of the operation. Obvious to anyone with critical thinking.

At least its entertaining.

We respectfully maintain divergent viewpoints on key matters, recognizing the importance of embracing constructive dialogue to foster intellectual growth and mutual understanding.

While it is true that certain compelling photos and videos related to classified cases may not be publicly disclosed, it is important to consider that the disclosure of such material depends on various factors and circumstances. Government agencies and organizations involved in classified projects have strict protocols and criteria for releasing information to the public.

In cases where sensitive visual evidence exists, the decision to disclose or withhold such material is typically based on national security concerns, potential impact on ongoing operations, and the need to protect classified technologies or methodologies. These considerations often take precedence over public curiosity or general interest.

It is worth noting that internal disclosure within appropriate channels is a common practice in classified projects. Classified information may be shared among authorized individuals within the government or specific agencies to ensure effective collaboration, analysis, and decision-making. This internal sharing of information allows for a controlled and secure dissemination of classified material among those with the proper security clearances and a demonstrated need-to-know.

While the general public may have a legitimate interest in compelling visual evidence related to classified cases, it is important to respect the complex nature of national security concerns and the imperative to safeguard sensitive information. The disclosure or non-disclosure of such evidence is guided by a balance between transparency and the protection of classified assets, and is ultimately determined by the appropriate authorities responsible for overseeing and managing classified programs.

In certain situations involving classified projects, limited verbal disclosure to the public may occur through authorized channels. This typically takes the form of carefully crafted statements or briefings delivered by government officials or spokespersons who have been granted the authority to provide information to the public.

Verbal disclosure is often subject to strict guidelines and vetting processes to ensure that any information shared does not compromise national security or reveal sensitive details. These disclosures are usually tailored to strike a balance between transparency and the protection of classified information.

When it comes to discussing classified projects, officials may choose to provide general context, broad objectives, or outline the significance of the program without divulging specific details that could compromise operational security. The goal is to provide a level of transparency that addresses public curiosity while safeguarding the integrity of the classified project.

It is important to understand that the extent of verbal disclosure to the public varies depending on the nature of the project, its level of classification, and the specific authorization granted by the relevant government agencies. The decision to disclose information verbally is carefully evaluated and guided by the need to protect national security interests and maintain the integrity of ongoing operations.

Well said. Please keep making updates and collecting the facts to share out.

Thanks for making this !!

Part of me dies whenever someone parrots the term disinformation. It’s PR for censorship

Your post is already wrong in paragraph 1. He himself claims he has NOT SEEN the videos, photos, or documents, that he HEARD about them through other contacts, so how could he provide said photos and videos to congress? Lol the sub is drowning in misinformation, for sure, a lot of it provided by believers.

A lot of what you put in your post is pure speculation and guesses