4 ms·

it's all people who heard something who heard something People with direct access to such classified materials would not legally be able to divulge details and

it's all people who heard something who heard something People with direct access to such classified materials would not legally be able to divulge details and especially not publicly. It would be a fairly quick trip to prison. This doesn't directly prove the claims of Grusch or anybody else, of course. But it is a decently persausive explanation for why it's always "people who heard something who heard something" and not direct sources. "if Grusch is right about any of this, why did the DoD allow him to say it publicly" I don't know anything about Kean so I have no opinion on her. One thing you have to say about Grusch is that he is really putting it all on the line. He is going through the official whistleblower channel and is triggering a major investigation. If he is telling the truth, the DoD would more or less be admitting guilt by going after him. (There is also a third possibility. Grusch is being truthful, but he and/or others have been deceived. I think wrapping a secret program under the cover of some UFO nonsense could be pretty effective camouflage, since UFO-related claims usually are instantly deemed noncredible in the eyes of many) "she has a particularly harebrained theory that DoD classification rules allow Grusch to describe this stuff in generalities as long as he doesn't cross a line of specificity, which, just, no" I honestly don't know how this works. Surely there is some line of specificity? I mean, you and I can talk about this and it's legal. At what point are you close enough to something classified to make it illegal?

revscat 3y ago
> People with direct access to such classified materials would not legally be able to divulge details and especially not publicly. It would be a fairly quick trip to prison. I believe this is no longer strictly true for UAP-related information [1]. Congress has gotten much more serious about offering legal protections to those who have knowledge about UAP programs. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-would-get-protection-under-new-amendment https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-wou...
- tptacek 3y ago
  Whatever else those protections might mean, they apply only to disclosures made through official DoD channels, not to interviews given to book authors.
  - revscat 3y ago
    > In accordance with protocols, Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on-the-record statements were all “cleared for open publication” on April 4 and 6, 2023, in documents provided to us. Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/ https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-re...
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Yes: we all agree that what he's saying is cleared for publication. Because it's nonsense and the DoD doesn't care.
tptacek 3y ago
It's absolutely true that, if the USG were in possession of extraterrestrial technologic artifacts (ETA's, must credit me for this coinage), it would be illegal for people with firsthand knowledge to disclose them. But lack of firsthand evidence of ETA's does not constitute evidence of the existence of ETA's. It would be illegal for me to disclose the existence of a +4 Wand of Magic Missile, too, if such a thing existed. But regardless of what I say I've heard about DoD custody of D&D items, we both know they don't exist. The rest of this: I don't care, except that you have to work yourself into contortions to simultaneously argue that all firsthand reporting of ETA's has been stymied by legal threats from DoD, but Grusch's claims are true because they haven't been.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  But lack of firsthand evidence of ETA's does not constitute evidence of the existence of ETA's I said this. So... yeah, agreed. The rest of this: I don't care, except that you have to work yourself into contortions to simultaneously argue that all firsthand reporting of ETA's has been stymied by legal threats from DoD Your logic is incorrect. First, the whistleblower protection is new. It hasn't been around very long. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-would-get-protection-under-new-amendment https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-wou... It would definitely be illegal for anybody with firsthand knowledge via their security clearance to go public with classified stuff. That is 100% clear; probably the only 100% solid fact in this whole circus. They could, presumably, take it to the whistleblower channel in a non-public way, but I don't know the details there. What Grusch has done is more of a legal limbo area. We can't say how legal or illegal it is without knowing exactly what the classified info is. What's also clear is that there is a heavy price to pay in terms of career even when going through the whistleblower channel. There are all sorts of incentives to not do it. Just because others in his position does not necessarily mean he is lying. Personally I don't believe it's aliens. I find it incredibly unlikely that alien races would send crewed ships here and then be clumsy enough to crash them or get shot down. I think it is far more likely to be some kind of camouflage for another more mundane program.
  - midoridensha 3y ago

revscat 3y ago

> People with direct access to such classified materials would not legally be able to divulge details and especially not publicly. It would be a fairly quick trip to prison. I believe this is no longer strictly true for UAP-related information [1]. Congress has gotten much more serious about offering legal protections to those who have knowledge about UAP programs. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-would-get-protection-under-new-amendment https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-wou...

tptacek 3y ago
Whatever else those protections might mean, they apply only to disclosures made through official DoD channels, not to interviews given to book authors.
- revscat 3y ago
  > In accordance with protocols, Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on-the-record statements were all “cleared for open publication” on April 4 and 6, 2023, in documents provided to us. Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/ https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-re...
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Yes: we all agree that what he's saying is cleared for publication. Because it's nonsense and the DoD doesn't care.

tptacek 3y ago

It's absolutely true that, if the USG were in possession of extraterrestrial technologic artifacts (ETA's, must credit me for this coinage), it would be illegal for people with firsthand knowledge to disclose them. But lack of firsthand evidence of ETA's does not constitute evidence of the existence of ETA's. It would be illegal for me to disclose the existence of a +4 Wand of Magic Missile, too, if such a thing existed. But regardless of what I say I've heard about DoD custody of D&D items, we both know they don't exist. The rest of this: I don't care, except that you have to work yourself into contortions to simultaneously argue that all firsthand reporting of ETA's has been stymied by legal threats from DoD, but Grusch's claims are true because they haven't been.

JohnBooty 3y ago
But lack of firsthand evidence of ETA's does not constitute evidence of the existence of ETA's I said this. So... yeah, agreed. The rest of this: I don't care, except that you have to work yourself into contortions to simultaneously argue that all firsthand reporting of ETA's has been stymied by legal threats from DoD Your logic is incorrect. First, the whistleblower protection is new. It hasn't been around very long. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-would-get-protection-under-new-amendment https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ufo-whistleblowers-wou... It would definitely be illegal for anybody with firsthand knowledge via their security clearance to go public with classified stuff. That is 100% clear; probably the only 100% solid fact in this whole circus. They could, presumably, take it to the whistleblower channel in a non-public way, but I don't know the details there. What Grusch has done is more of a legal limbo area. We can't say how legal or illegal it is without knowing exactly what the classified info is. What's also clear is that there is a heavy price to pay in terms of career even when going through the whistleblower channel. There are all sorts of incentives to not do it. Just because others in his position does not necessarily mean he is lying. Personally I don't believe it's aliens. I find it incredibly unlikely that alien races would send crewed ships here and then be clumsy enough to crash them or get shot down. I think it is far more likely to be some kind of camouflage for another more mundane program.
- midoridensha 3y ago