Jump to content

Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sänger (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 31 July 2023 (→‎Whistleblower?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The 7/26 House Oversight Hearing on UAP

7/20 press conference announcing it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E-hCpZcVD50

The official announcement: "National Security Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" https://oversight.house.gov/release/national-security-subcommittee-to-hold-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena

Note: Grusch and two former Navy pilots will be witnesses. KHarbaugh (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official hearing wrap up from the government:
"Hearing Wrap Up: Lack of Transparency and Reporting Mechanisms Have Eroded Public Trust in Government’s Handling of UAP Encounters"
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-lack-of-transparency-and-reporting-mechanisms-have-eroded-public-trust-on-governments-handling-of-uap-encounters%EF%BF%BC/ KHarbaugh (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the relation between Grusch and the AARO,
there obviously is a huge discrepancy between Grusch's and Kirkpatrick's view of that relation.

See https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/pentagon-ufo-boss-congress-hearing-00108822

It is up to Congress, the IG, and the media to find the truth.
Wikipedia will follow. KHarbaugh (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to two YouTube videos of the complete 7/26 hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY
This video was uploaded by "GOP Oversight".
Comments are not allowed.
https://www.youtube.com/live/SNgoul4vyDM
This is from CBS News.
It does allow comments, which lets commentators timetag specific points in the video.
Each of those videos allows viewers to view a transcript as they watch the video.

Also, links to PDFs of the opening statements of the three witnesses, Ryan Graves, David Grusch, and David Fravor, are in this webpage: https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-implications-on-national-security-public-safety-and-government-transparency/ KHarbaugh (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - should this hearing have its own page? I think there would be interest around it/ to provide more context to people. Just asking as I am not sure if congressional hearings can normally pass needing their own page Jamzze (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, and this article would be a helpful comparison:
2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs Jjhake (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Spectator skeptical reporting

Lots of detail with this highly skeptical reporting. Looks good, but I don’t know much about the source. https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"implied to provide" details "after the hearing"?

"Grusch testified that he could not elaborate publicly on some aspects of his claims, but implied to provide further details to representatives in a secure setting after the hearing." This isn't helpful. According to the coverage, at least two (maybe three) times, he offered to provide details in a more secure setting. The public hearing is not a secure setting, hence -- the only time this could possibly happen is sometime after the hearing. So there is no need to specify "after the hearing" since it is implied. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why create a separate section for such a trivial issue?
There is already a section three sections above dedicated to this hearing.
Your argument properly belongs there.
BTW, I agree with your point. KHarbaugh (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ coverage of the hearing

WSJ coverage here behind a paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-oversight-committee-congress-ufo-hearing-ceeceae6

Details from WSJ related to this article:

Witness David Grusch, a former member of a U.S. Air Force panel on UAP, has said the federal government has withheld information about the recoveries of aircraft of nonhuman origin from Congress and the public. Grusch told lawmakers Wednesday that during the course of his work with a UAP task force, he was informed of a UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering program that had existed for decades. When he tried to learn more about that program, he was denied access, he said. He reported what he learned to his superiors and to multiple inspectors general, he said. Grusch said he believes the U.S. government is in possession of UAP based on interviewing 40 witnesses over four years. The Pentagon’s UAP task force, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, hasn’t been able to substantiate claims that any federal programs have possessed or reverse-engineered extraterrestrial materials, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Defense said. “The Department is fully committed to openness and accountability to the American people, which it must balance with its obligation to protect sensitive information, sources, and methods,” the spokesperson said.

Jjhake (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One hearing, three sections on the talk page?
Seems excessive to me.
How about: one hearing, one section. KHarbaugh (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best source on it that I’ve seen. Simply sharing source for thoughts on inclusion of info. Jjhake (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning your source, just questioning the need for three sections on the same hearing.
Unless they dealt with really separate issues.
E.g.,
1. UAP as threats to aviation or national security
2. UAP retrieval and reverse engineering
3. Secret government programs concealed from Congress
4. Reprisals against whistleblowers re. UAP
All those are separate issues brought up in this hearing,
and might merit sections dedicated to each subject.
But merely issues of phrasing or another general news article on the hearing hardly seem to merit a discrete section. KHarbaugh (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about formal education of David grusch?

During the 2023 congressional hearing I noticed during the time stamp 1:15:52 David Grusch mention he has a physics degree. I could not find any information online about it and I wish to enquire anyone willing to find this information. The link to the video is as follows https://youtube.com/live/SpzJnrwob1A?feature=sharec Geordie.Obrien (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few places, such as in Forbes here, have mentioned Grusch saying that he has a degree in physics, but no details have ever been provided that I have seen regarding what kind of degree or where it is from. Jjhake (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This gets to the larger question of why there is no WP article on Grusch himself, not even a stub. Seems any additional information about his background and associates would be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose bartram (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the creation of an article on Grusch is a good idea. Jusdafax (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just stated a draft here: Draft:David Grusch. Thriley (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This current article started as an article about Grusch and the redirect already exists. It should be a question of renaming again. Please delete the draft and get consensus here. Jjhake (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I should note that I agree that this article should be about Grusch at this point. There are now many news sources about him with more to come. However, there needs to be consensus here before the article name change is done. Jjhake (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s currently a lot of information to document in just one article. Would it not be better to try to break it up a bit so this article can focus on the claims? This may go on for years. Thriley (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in this Grusch article can easily be refocused back to an article about him as it originally was (if there is consensus here). The new article that should be drafted is an account of the 2023 hearing along the lines of the 2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs. Jjhake (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest:
    1. one article about Grusch the man (he certainly seems notable enough!)
    2. one article about his claims:
    Existence of a secret program,
    Existence of recovered material and reverse engineering,
    Retaliation
    Those claims have been made in various locations: websites, video interviews, the hearing.
    3. An article on the hearing.

It included material from the pilots which was distinct from Grusch's claims. KHarbaugh (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are no news stories or sources at all about Grusch that are not about his claims. This entire question about the naming of this article was debated intensely for weeks with many experienced editors. I agree that the ongoing mention of Grusch in news stories warrants reverting this back to an article about him (as it originally was). However, a separate article about his claims would be redundant at this stage. (These claims do relate to multiple other events and existing articles, however, where they can be covered as well. And if any actual secret program is ever actually uncovered, that will also get it's own article, etc.)
    For now, if anything, a new topic on this talk page should be started to re-open the question of re-naming this article back to its original name. Jjhake (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, but can you give a link to where this was previously debated?
    The Talk page archive is now so big it is hard to find things.
    (That is also why I suggested consolidating discussion of the hearing into a single section,)
    Agree that this discussion of organization deserves a section of its own. KHarbaugh (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Brought up briefly in archive 1 and extensively at top of archive 3:
    Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 3 Jjhake (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title from UFO to UAP

David Grusch himself refers it as UAP, which encompasses a broader things. RopeAndLampOil (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talked about at some length already in the archives link at top for this talk page. Most large news sources still start with UFO and note UAP as a newer term. Wikipedia is intentionally a “slow follower” as encyclopedias stay with the majority usage whenever there is a new term. Jjhake (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still angry about the constant renaming, now NHI, and who knows what else next, just to avoid FOIA. At least Schumer hat something in his new law to address this. ... UFO, UAP, NHI, ..., or by any other name ... I believe it says something like that Foerdi (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one. IMHO they are slightly different things, and the commentary on UAP sightings would support this. UAPs have been definitely recorded by US Navy recording equipment, and have slightly different attributes. They aren't defined by being obviously extraterrestrial, (they could possibly be from other nations, though this seems sort of unlikely) - their true nature is unknown, with a general explanation being something onling the lines of "we have no explanation" or there is not enough data". UAPs are commonly sighted by pilots, and the defence forces/US Govt see them as a potential threat because their tech level is much better than anything the US has.There is also concerns about them being a safety issue for pilots, and they travel not just int he air, but also can go into the water. All these things are a slightly different focus to what we traditionally had on UFOs. So while the common term/common name is likely to be UFO and that is easily recognisable, they aren't exactly synonyms. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, UAP is just a more precise term for the same thing. When someone saw an aerial phenomenon in the 1950s and could not identify it, they called it a UFO, jumping to the conclusion that it was an actual object and not, for example, an optical effect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change the article title to UAP in this case? I'll update the lede to at lease include UAP. Other thoughts? Jjhake (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think UFO is still more common. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, expert sources and RS media haven’t rushed to adopt UAP over UFO - even a casual google will show UFO is overwhelmingly the most commonly used term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. UFO remains, by far, the more common and identifiable (uh, just realized what I wrote there) term. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Watching the top sources wrestle with the terminology is interesting, but I agree that the best sources still lead with UFO. Jjhake (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note the full name of AARO is "All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office".
That includes, e.g., t
, things the Navy is hearing underwater: things moving at unexplainable speeds.
And the full title of the hearing was
"Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications in National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency".
The government is clearly moving to "Anomaly" and "Anomalous". KHarbaugh (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable?

Apparently we are to believe that extra-terrestrial aliens possess ultra-sophisticated technology and are capable of interstellar travel to Earth but somehow can’t manage to safely descend through Earth’s atmosphere (the jet stream caught them unawares in a manner that was scarier than the fastest carnival ride?) causing them to crash at just the right speed to kill the occupants but otherwise preserve their bodies as well as their technology for scrutiny by earthlings.

If Wikipedia devoted an article to everyone who believed in un-falsifiable pseudoscientific myths, we’d deplete Earth’s Digital information capacity. This article should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTNEWS. That Grusch A) manages to tie a half-Windsor knot in his necktie, and B) doesn’t claim to have been personally probed by aliens, doesn’t elevate him to anything other than another bug spat on the windshield our lives. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Earth’s Digital information capacity” is a good one. Three NYT opinion pieces and countless mainstream news outlets, including a NYT news story, consider it notable because it’s obviously a part of U.S. history at this point. Jjhake (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except in this case, there's a bunch of RS discussing it, including interviews with US Navy pilots on 60 minutes and sensory data of UAPs off Navy ships, released officially by both the Pentagon and the US Navy. It's not for us as Wikipedians to be debating whether, part of an aliens arm could be left after a crash - we report what the RS says is happening, in an encyclopeadic fashion. Wikipedia has already had an article on this stuff for a while now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with some of that skepticism, but many RSes have reported on this. Also, many of the sources express skepticism too, such as https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/28/opinions/ufo-testimony-aliens-congress-credulous-colavito/index.html Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Own article for Schumer's UAP Disclosure Act?

It seems it passed and becomes law. Probably worth an own article? Because only indirectly related to David Grusch (but anyone can see where Schumer got his motivation from) Ref https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1684735678200909824 Foerdi (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It it's a distinct act that has passed, and it gets substantial RS commentary, then yeah, that's going to qualify for its own article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me these UAP disclosure provisions naturally fall under the part of the article labelled "United States government responses."
The provisions in the NDAA that Dean Johnson discusses address precisely concerns that Grusch raised.
And what else could have motivated them? KHarbaugh (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful to generalize the term "government" here as Executive and Legislative seem to be playing "cat and mouse" according to Grusch's testimony and Congress is just another faction between many (plus private corporations doing government work and potentially making decisions without even the Executive knows (or wants to know) about what's going on in detail. That makes the corporations self-righteous, self-governed and self-funded and therefore in fact a shadow government). And even if Congress has bi-partisan support regarding UAP / NHI disclosure probably there are factions in both parties too. I wouldn't be surprised if Judicative will also join this silly game of hide and seek also in near future. We should put a link to Game theory under "See also" 🤣. Am I exaggerating? If all this unacknowledged and unsupervised SAP stuff and mentality "nobody knows anything (without the correct keywords)" is true then all official three government branches are just empty shells Foerdi (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on this talk page not directly related to improving this particular article are likely to be deleted. Stay focused pleased (or find an more directly relevant article space). Jjhake (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjhake I understand and agree with what you are saying, but I hope Foerdi's comment can be retained. I think these issues are relevant to the article. But I agree the MSM is not (yet) addressing them. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, if the conversation is not about specific content within a reliable and relevant source for the specific article, then the conversation should not be happening on a talk page. Jjhake (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder! KHarbaugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kirkpatrick responds to 7/26 hearings

Sean Kirkpatrick has responded to the hearings. He calls the event insulting to government staff and notes that some details provided to Congress have not been provided to AARO.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/pentagon-ufo-boss-congress-hearing-00108822 Jjhake (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A helpful and fairly neutral report on this situation is here:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/pentagon-ufo-boss-fires-back-at-whistleblower-allegations

We [The Drive] have an official statement from the Pentagon. They confirm that this was from Kirkpatrick, but say he was speaking as a private citizen. This is a very unusual set of circumstances, especially when an active whistleblower is involved.

KHarbaugh (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For another, more detailed, view of the Grusch/Kirkpatrick dispute, dated Friday, 7/28, see
https://thedebrief.org/director-of-pentagons-uap-investigations-challenges-claims-made-in-recent-uap-hearing/

It is unclear whether Kirkpatrick was referring to Grusch refusing to speak with AARO about incidents of reprisal or his previous work with the UAPTF, which reportedly included uncovering programs involved with the retrieval and reverse engineering of “non-human craft.” If the latter, it would directly contradict portions of the testimony provided by Grusch during Wednesday’s hearing.

KHarbaugh (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burchett says that Grusch doesn’t currently have security clearance to discuss the issues in a SCIF

“Lawmakers want to sit down with the former official in a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) to get additional information from him. The group has been blocked, however, by officials that have informed them that Grusch doesn’t currently have security clearance to discuss the issues in a SCIF, according to Burchett.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4126968-ufo-curious-lawmakers-brace-for-a-fight-over-government-secrets/amp/ Jjhake (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblower?

Why is this called whistle-blowing? It's just the usual stuff from conspiracy theorists, that's around for decades, nothing new, and no new facts at all. Whistle-blowing implies something positive, not just the spreading of conspiracy stuff without any proper base besides his pinky swearing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do know what Grusch said is merely a theory? Where's the evidence? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't present any evidence, he just fabulated. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims&oldid=1168049453"