Еженедельный информационный бюллетень Guardians на этой неделе был посвящен популярному новостному циклу UAP и Дэвиду Грушу. Хотя новой информации нет, стоит прочитать, чтобы увидеть, как представлена информация.
Похожие записи:
Сеть прослушивания ВМС отследила объекты, разгоняющиеся до «1000 миль в час»
«Нечеловеческие космические корабли» находили США «десятилетиями»
Требовать действий Конгресса в отношении NHI
Видео из Вегаса, где сын снимает.. Мне удалось получить изображение, которое он снимал о
BREAKING: бывший аналитик государственного департамента обороны говорит
Расширение VLA — совпадение или стандартный тариф?
Сферические объекты над горизонтом Милуоки 23/6 20:15
Долгая странная история Америки о разоблачителях НЛО
Компиляция UAP, много UAP в одном видео
Лучшие и наиболее надежные ресурсы для любителей НЛО или тех, кто интересуется НЛО.
This guy just propagates common misconceptions that are often repeated on this sub like that AARO has denied all of the claims made by Grusch, that Grusch himself didn’t see or offer any evidence and that if what he is saying was true, the information would surely be classified. This journalist has done 0 research. He also adds that the faction of congress who is scheduling further hearings is «prone to indulging in conspiracy theories».
While I appreciate The Guardian’s attempt to cover this, it’s deeply frustrating to see such inattention to crucial detail in terms of the facts. The way it’s phrased, and maybe this is intentional, it sounds like Congress is *just now* learning of this and hearing Grusch’s «unsupported» claims for the first time. That’s patently false, as those of us who have followed the story understand.
Funny coincidence, I just watched a lecture by Greg Eghigian at Rice University called «UFOs and Alien Contact in the Shadow of Deception» from the Archives of the Impossible conference:
https://youtu.be/ceQl-Euu_u4
I hadn’t heard of him before, but he’s a great speaker and had some interesting points about the role of deception and misinformation from the beginning of the 1940s.
There are some things very wrong with this article e.g.:
>**A little known website called the Debrief** reported that a former intelligence official named David Grusch said that the US government has possession of “intact and partially intact” alien vehicles.
1. Trying to make the Debrief look like a bunch off amateurs, by framing them like this.
2. How about a link to the actual Debrief article?
>**He simply has said that he has seen some documents.” In short, this story does not quite pass the smell test**.
1. They make it as if Grusch was just blurting some shit out. but they leave out some very important facts e.g.:
>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.**
>
>[https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/#:~:text=several%20current%20members%20of%20the%20recovery%20program%20spoke%20to%20the%20inspector%20general%E2%80%99s%20office%20and%20corroborated%20the%20information%20grusch%20had%20provided%20for%20the%20classified%20complaint](https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/#:~:text=several%20current%20members%20of%20the%20recovery%20program%20spoke%20to%20the%20inspector%20general%E2%80%99s%20office%20and%20corroborated%20the%20information%20grusch%20had%20provided%20for%20the%20classified%20complaint)
The author of this article conveniently leaves out the whole part of:
* David Grusch formally reporting his findings to the ICIG.
* First hand witnesses and, people who have worked on the actual programs to also have been deposed by the IG and have handed over actual EVIDENCE which corroborates David Grusch his findings.
* The ICIG found David Grusch his testimony credible and urgent.
* The ICIG informed the following bodies of David Grusch his findings:
* Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence ([dni.gov](https://dni.gov))
* The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, members: U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
* The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, members: HPSCI Members | Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence ([house.gov](https://house.gov))
Why are all these **FACTS** left out by the writer of the article? These are things the writer should be focusing on.
If there’s nothing to David Grusch his story, why did the ICIG felt so compelled to inform his superiors about this case.
This article by the Guardian is a perfect example how you try to cast doubt and how you burry the truth.
We live in such a fucked up world. A goddamn disinformation campaign is playing out right in front of our eyes and it feels like there’s nothing we can do about it.
EDIT: Spelling.
«the Department of Defence approved the information he would pass on to the press, which is something the department only does if the information is not classified»
Can anyone say if this is actually the case? As I understand it, DoD did give the thumbs up, and he only got away with saying what he did because he avoided classified information like names, program names, locations, people who work there and so on
This article stinks!!!
David Grusch’s claims might be *»resonating with a particular faction of congress that are prone to indulging in conspiracies»*, but what needs to be remembered is Grusch’s reason for opening up this whole can of worms to begin with.
We now know that the ‘All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office’ (AARO) was never read-in to so much of what it needed to acquire to conduct its research. This exceptional blunder on the part of the Pentagon is that agency’s own fault, but might just become the turning point which answers the question: ‘Are we alone in the Universe?’
To many, David Grusch is nothing more than someone who is making claims, and also happens to have some major-league clearances.
I’ll go along with what he has to say. For now.
ALL of NATO countries know the truth. They will all keep hiding this tech.
It’s all worth it though, so long as the world’s billionaires remain in total control of the 99% of the global population. Trillions ‘wasted’ on obsolete tech we use today is good for them because they are the ones on the receiving end; they own oil, gas, big pharma, transport industry (planes, trains and cars will become obsolete once UFO is revealed and reproduced), etc.
Revealing the info on UFO/ET will mean the billionaires will lose control and they do not want that. At all!
The thing about gas and oil is that it doesn’t belong to any single person, it’s simply extracted from right under our feet, yet we have to pay through our nose and our governments allow this. Ask yourself WHY/HOW? Why can’t it be state owned and subsidised for all citizens? You would think that’s what all countries would do right? Nope, think again buster!
>Grusch offered up more interviews in which he continued to make astonishing claims **with no evidence**
Pfft.
Definitely have to agree with the other comments here that this a pathetic excuse for journalism. A significant part of the article presupposes that Grusch «in the week after the initial report, Grusch offered up more interviews,» that his claims have «expanded» since to include more and more fantastical details, and finally, that «[d]espite adding these details, Grusch has failed to show any evidence nor said he has seen any of these things first-hand.» With the exception of one additional interview Grusch did in France, this argument, which clearly attempts to discredit Grusch, is bullshit.
Does the author of this article every wonder for a moment why Grusch and his interviewer fail to change clothes over the course of their supposed week of interviews? The fact that she does not realize the clips published by NewsNation are all from the same interview does not bode well for her credibility.
Grusch very well could be lying or spread disinfo. It’s certainly possible. But the fact that he has emerged from an obvious political faction within the DoD seems to be missed far too often by news outlets. We will find out whether or not he is lying or not based on these upcoming Congressional hearings, along with future whistleblowers.
Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn’t make it false, I think that is something that people need to understand and just because it has been grouped into tinfoil hat and outlandish stereotypes doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be studied. It’s obvious there has been government entities that influence perception and outright use character assassination to keep the public from seeing the truth.
We already know the truth. UFOs aren’t aliens. They’re just UFOs
If Leslie Kean finds it credible than so do I
I was surprised by the comments on the article(I remember the NY times articles getting more interesting responses and people sharing stories) I think we have a way to shift people’s perceptions. I suppose that’s only natural given the consequences.
Can someone explain to me what the counter-argument for the following line of reasoning is?
> Eghigian is also skeptical about the veracity of these claims because it looks like Grusch followed Pentagon protocol in publishing this information, meaning that the Department of Defence approved the information he would pass on to the press, which is something the department only does if the information is not classified. If Grusch is telling the truth, surely this information would be classified, Eghigian says, and the department would not have allowed him to go on the record.
This is an important point that a lot of outlets/people are highlighting, and I’ve seen a lot of people on this subreddit dismissing it. It’s not clear to me as to why many don’t find this suspicious, or why they think pointing it out in an article like OP is “disinformation”.