[tptacek]

So far as I'm aware, there are no firsthand witnesses that corroborate Grusch's claims that have been identified, let alone testifying to Congress. The lack of identified firsthand sources is an obvious gaping flaw in Grusch's story. The bigger flaw, of course, is the fact that he's telling it at all; if it were true, it would be one of the most important military secrets in the history of human civilization. The DoD seems to care not one whit about what he has to say.

You'll see a lot of arguments that take the form "x, y, and z numbers of DoD people agree with Grusch". When you read things like that, I'd encourage you to keep in mind that there are over 950,000 employees of the DoD on the civilian side alone, and far more than that if we include former DoD people. It would be weird if you didn't have DoD and former DoD people believing that the Vatican has orchestrated a coverup of extradimensional beings whose bodies and equipment are hidden in a crypt in St. Peter's. At some point the law of large numbers takes over; you should be able to get any belief out of the DoD, even if it manages to be weirder than that one.

[david-gpu]

> So far as I'm aware, there are no firsthand witnesses that corroborate Grusch's claims that have been identified, let alone testifying to Congress

Not in public sessions. According to journalist Ross Coulthart and Sen. Marco Rubio [0], several first-hand witnesses were called to testify in front of the ICIG. It was on this basis that the ICIG directed Grusch's whistleblower complaints to Congress, where he presented further supporting documentation and deposed in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and others.

> The bigger flaw, of course, is the fact that he's telling it at all; if it were true, it would be one of the most important military secrets in the history of human civilization. The DoD seems to care not one whit about what he has to say

His central argument is that the nature of these programs is only known to a handful of people. In order for his DOPSR [1] to prevent him from talking, two conditions must be met:

1- The people performing his DOPSR must know about the existence of these programs; and

2- By law they would have to indicate which specific agencies deny him the right to state specific things, which in turn he would have been able to fight in court.

Regarding first-hand witnesses of these legacy programs, would their testimony sincerely change your opinion on the subject, or would you dismiss anything they claim as well? What is the basis for that difference?

Ultimately we must all ask ourselves what sort of evidence would be sufficient for us to change our mind, then follow that up by wondering what would it take for that evidence to be available to us, and what would it take for that evidence to be hidden from us. Only then we can have reasonable shot at understanding where things are.

So far I haven't seen convincing evidence, but at the same time I can see how such convincing evidence would be very difficult to obtain even if the NHI phenomenon was true.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hmaflNoKU

[1] https://www.esd.whs.mil/DOPSR/

[tptacek]

So far as I'm aware, Ross Coulthart's source is David Grusch, and David Grusch does not say he's witnessed anything firsthand; he says rather that he knows other people who have. But he can't identify any of them. Neither person is credible.

This bit about the legal loophole Grusch is sneaking through here is similar to an argument Leslie Kean tried to make with Ezra Klein; in fact, that argument is the point the interview starts to fall apart, because none of this is how military classification works. If any of this is real, there is no possible way Grusch could be talking about it.

The DOPSR is simply the department in the DoD that performs pre-publication review. It's not a special instrument Grusch signed. Classification is classification, we can just use the normal words.

[david-gpu]

> So far as I'm aware, Ross Coulthart's source is David Grusch, and David Grusch does not say he's witnessed anything firsthand; he says rather that he knows other people who have

And multiple such people have already testified in front of several congressional committees. I have already provided two sources. There are more sources if you look for them.

> But he can't identify any of them.

He is not legally allowed to disclose classified information to the public. He has already provided that information to the ICIG and congressional committees.

> Neither person is credible

What specifically makes then non-credible? Because if the reason you don't find them credible is the fact that they are making statements you find implausible then that suggests that you will not accept any information that clashes with your preexisting beliefs.

> because none of this is how military classification works

Please inform us of how the DOPSR works. Be as specific as you feel may be necessary.

> The DOPSR is simply the department in the DoD that performs pre-publication review. It's not a special instrument Grusch signed.

Did I say he signed anything? I said he submitted a list of subjects he wanted to discuss in public and sent that list to the DOPSR for review, which was granted to him and currently establishes the boundaries of what he is allowed to disclose in public. If your understanding is different, please elaborate.

[tptacek]

I was asked upthread if there were reasons to doubt Grusch. I've provided some. We could add his Vatican conspiracy to the mix, I guess, but I feel like what's on the table is already pretty damning.