Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

mention of Grusch in NYT article on Avi Loeb

A mention of the Grusch claims in this NTY story on Avi Loeb. Indirectly critical of Loeb on this point, the story strongly insinuates that Loeb thought the Grusch claims might be taken seriously by the U.S. government. Odd stuff. Jjhake (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

critical new source (though not entirely direct)

This new source definitely has some content with a place in this article. I’m thinking that I’ll have time to try soon, but I wanted to get the ideas moving here as well. Jjhake (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Just gave it a first try. Jjhake (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Added assertion by McCullough (in his BBC interview) that Grusch had "briefed both of the intelligence committees"

Change to main article as stated in section title. Note that Leslie Kean made a similar assertion in her podcast with Ezra Klein. Also this has been quoted by at least two news organizations (but one is The Daily Mail!) KHarbaugh (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is what Kean said to Ezra Klein:

"The specific individuals, the locations of the programs, the names of the programs, all of those things are classified, so he’s not in a position to present any of that information to me.

But he has presented that information to Congress, and he presented about 11 hours of oral testimony to congressional staffers, which was then transcribed into hundreds of pages.

So all that information has been provided, but not to me."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-transcript-leslie-kean.html KHarbaugh (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Another reference:

https://abc7chicago.com/ufo-hearing-uap-david-grusch-whistleblower-claims/13551080/

Grusch "told the committee he could not publicly disclose the names of those with firsthand knowledge and access to the alleged crash retrieval program,

though he said that information was provided to the intelligence committees and the inspector general."

See also

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4134891-a-monumental-ufo-scandal-is-looming/

Grusch: “I know the exact locations [of retrieved UFOs], and those locations were provided to the inspector general and…to the [congressional] intelligence committees.” KHarbaugh (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, BOMBSHELL! He testified to BOTH intelligence committees EXACT locations of ALIEN UFOs! Oh wait...those were claims by Kean and Grusch. Claims that no mainstream journalists verified. Or took notice of. It would be WP:UNDUE to include them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

1. As to UNDUE, what I added was only 75 characters.

Not a lot. (Out of a 79,789 byte article.)

2. As to who made the claim, both Grusch and McCullough made the claim, the latter in the BBC.

3. As to verification of the claim, the claim is that

Grusch transmitted classified information to presumably cleared members of both congressional intelligence committees.

That Grusch actually did that is not something uncleared journalists can "verify", except through leaks, which may or may not happen.

What can be verified is that Grusch made the claim (of transmitting information to the committees)

(remember, the title of the article is "Grusch's ... claims").

Several sources were given for that.

4. I certainly never claimed this was a bombshell, nor did I use all caps.

But what Grusch claims he did with his claims,

within the classified part of the government (i.e., other than going to the public),

is surely significant and deserves mention.

Or do you claim his making claims to the intelligence committees is not significant? KHarbaugh (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

what Grusch claims he did with his claims He and his lawyer claim he testified before "the intelligence committees" and provided names, dates and locations via which the hidden evidence of aliens can be verified, but none of this can be confirmed because it's being kept secret from the public, except through possible "leaks"? Unlike his other extraordinary claims, no mainstream sources have bothered to investigate or comment on this particular claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously an unreliable source, but I hope it's okay simply as info in a talk page:

https://twitter.com/Go_Kick_Rocks88/status/1686121959371710465?s=20

Its claims about to whom Grusch presented his classified claims are plausible.

Where all this went?

That remains to be determined.

The above Twitter link came from this very skeptical article:

https://washingtonspectator.org/ufo-tales-falling-apart-after-hearings/ KHarbaugh (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The OMG-where-is-the-Grusch-secret-testimony-It's-being covered-up-by-the-deep-state narrative pushed by "Go_Kick_Rocks88" and r/ufos isn't plausible: no RS have bothered to indulge it. Interesting washingtonspectator.org article though. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

AARO news

Restructuring AARO as reaction to Grusch and new legislation? Moultrie fired and (automatically) replaced by (his superior) Hicks?

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3513171/the-department-of-defense-launches-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office-web/

https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=8o2nPMb27nw

Foerdi (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve seen this implied or suggested in a few sources. However, none of the sources are very strong, and the suggestions fall short of anything like a supported claim. If supported claims in strong sources exist, I think that there’d be a place in the article for the point. Jjhake (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Would not this (very interesting) Talk announcement, and any resulting content, be better placed over at Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for more macro claims by strong sources (with multiple participants or components to them), that article is more appropriate. This article is focused only on Grusch and his specific claims. Jjhake (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Descrimation - Reporting on past psychiatric treatment received by Grusch

Thread started by a blocked sock. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

how is this relevant? is it not an ad hominem attack? and is it not in violattion of wikipedia discrimination policy? (based on disability and ableism) Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Hello Amirreza-Astro21, I would imagine it's fine to remove that section. I think there is a common problem on Wikipedia where on articles on unfolding events pick up sections as news unfolds. Also, take a look at your recent edits to attribute the quote in the lead. They have made the grammar bogus. Regards, Rjjiii(talk) 05:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Art Levine takedown of all things UFO

[1]

Excellent analysis. Provides some decent framing for our article and includes some choice identifiers that we knew were there but were missing.

jps (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous article. Thanks for the link. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New Grusch interview

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kRO5jOa06Qw Foerdi (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Further descent into pseudoscientific conspiracy-theory ridiculousness. Jesse Michels and American Alchemy best known for credulous UFOLOGY nonsense pushed into basically every video. Deeeeelightful. Obviously, this is not going to be included on this page. jps (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Leslie Kean on Grusch

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uNvGjZYHvc4? Foerdi (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello. Does this page still need to be under protection?