UFOs

2689 readers

1 users here now

This community is for discussion surrounding UFOs and Extraterrestrials.

Rules

Be your own moderator
- Think before you post or comment, and use your common sense about what is acceptable. This is a community space and should ultimately be community-driven. Be the community you want to see here.
- If you are here because you want to make fun of or grandstand over all of the silly people who believe that UFO/UAPs may exist, you are not welcome. Just block the community and go about your day.
Be Civil
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills/agents. If you have some kind of evidence of this, please report instead.
- No hate speech or abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing.
- No summarily dismissive comments (e.g. "Swamp gas.").
Posts must be related to UFO/UAPs
Avoid duplicate posts
Link posts should contain the linked content and a submission statement
- Submission statements should contain a summary of the content, why it is relevant to UFOs, and optionally personal perspectives.
- For short-form content, such as tweets, include the entire text.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world

What UFO Whistleblower David Grusch Told Congress (nymag.com)

submitted 1 year ago by psychothumbs@lemmy.world to c/ufos@lemmy.world

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Throughout the hearing, Grusch said he cannot expand on his bold allegations that the U.S. is in possession of alien technology and the remains of non-human pilots whose UFOs had crashed. Because the majority of the information Grusch alleges he is aware of is classified, most of his answers are brief. “I can’t discuss that in an open session,” he said on several occasions. Because he has filed a whistleblower complaint, he is also unable to provide corroborating information about the cover-up. When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked where the subcommittee could look for more information and whether any other officials could come forward, Grusch said he could not answer.

While Grusch has not yet produced evidence of his allegations, throughout the hearing he encouraged Congress to “hold our government” accountable and to “thoroughly investigate these claims.” He added: “As I stand here under oath now, I am speaking to the facts as I have been told them.”

But members of Congress could soon know more. Grusch said several times that he could further debrief representatives in an SCIF — a sound-proofed room for officials with security clearances used to disclose sensitive information.

It's fairly suspicious that Grusch is claiming he wants to blow the lid off this whole thing, but then refuses to provide any evidence beyond repetition of anonymous hearsay in public. If you have some real information share it! The current situation feels like it was designed to let people think he has secret evidence while providing an excuse for not having to produce it.

That being said, the ball is now in congress's court, for whatever that is worth. Grusch has got to tell them SOMETHING in these SCIF sessions, and that will either be some serious evidence in the form of names and documents and locations, or it will be a bunch of bullshit. Not sure how much I trust our politicians to untangle that, but hopefully they at least will do what Grusch hasn't and publicize the evidence they acquire.

What are your thoughts on what happens next here?

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No. The piece is slanted and that's immediately obvious to anyone who watched the hearing.

Grusch said multiple times that he was ready and willing to share more detailed information in a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) and said he could provide a specific and detailed list of names of departments as well as individuals who have firsthand knowledge, indicating who would be hostile and who would be receptive to the inquiry.

The fact that some organizations choose to omit key details only means they're hostile to the subject matter. CBS News did something similar and led with the anchor and correspondent's smug and thinly-veiled opinions masquerading as credible reporting.

If a senior person in the Pentagon, supported by multiple senior (sometimes very senior) people, is saying under penalty of perjury that there needs to be an investigation into allocation of funds and obstruction of congressional oversight, and he's willing to name names in a way that preserves confidentiality, it seems like that's worth reporting on.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with or saying the piece left out here. Yes as I just said Grusch claimed to have details, but so far we don't have any evidence of that besides his word. Certainly worth looking into, with the rubber hitting the road in this SCIF sessions in terms of whether he has anything real.