Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

Mark Milley's statement on the Grusch claims

@Westerosi456H and LuckyLouie: there is a second little write up online now about chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley's denial of the Grusch claims, and I'd like to add his comments back into the article. While doing a copy edit, LuckyLouie noted that "WaTimes is 'marginally reliable source' per WP:RSP so may be better to remove entirely" and then Westerosi456H removed the couple of sentences entirely "as as Washington times is marginally reliable and not reliable for fringe articles". However, the WaTimes is not deprecated as a Wikipedia source, and this is the first of several interviews that they are publishing with General Milley as he finishes up his four years as CJCS in October 2023. Quoting General Milley directly is an entirely appropriate use of the WaTimes and now we have two sources we could note if helpful (here and here). General Milley's direct comments on Grusch provide very helpful context regarding the wider world from which the Grusch claims flow, and I think that they should go back into the article. Jjhake (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Milley's denial, I think, is relevant as a WP:PRIMARY source. I don't think Washington Times generally misquotes people. As long as we are relying on quotes from Milley, it should be fine to use it. We should not rely on the editorial analysis of the paper to make any claims as they have a piss poor track record in the reality-representation department. jps (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Unless anyone else gets to it first (or others make a case against it again), I'll take a shot within the next couple of days of getting this back in place within the U.S. government response section (citing both current sources). Jjhake (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

General Milley explicitly avoided denying Grusch's claims.

According to the WT article, Milley said

I’m not going to doubt his testimony or anything like that, ... I can tell you, though, that as the chairman, I have been briefed on several different occasions by the [Pentagon’s] UAP office. And I have not seen anything that indicates to me about quote-unquote ‘aliens’ or that there’s some sort of cover-up program. I just haven’t seen it.

The article continues

Gen. Milley said, he would not “second-guess” Mr. Grusch’s public testimony.... He said “a lot of people have different perspectives” on various issues in an organization as large as the Defense Department.

So General Milley said he would not "second-guess" or doubt Grusch's testimony. General Milley is definitely avoiding claiming Grusch was incorrect.

Not being briefed on Program X, say, does not mean "Program X does not exist". KHarbaugh (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Crucially, there is the testimony that Grusch gave before Congress which avoided any and all claims of aliens (or interdimensional beings) and the statements he has been giving in interviews. Milley's denial of aliens is in direct contradiction of many of the points highlighted in the interviews Grusch gave. jps (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Milley's denial of aliens".

No, what Milley said was he hadn't been briefed on aliens.

Can't you see the difference? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to infer double meanings from Milley's statements that beg the question. Even the author of the story offers a straightforward editorial analysis: Gen. Milley didn’t address the credibility of Mr. Grusch’s testimony but made clear he has seen no evidence backing up the extraordinary claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as LuckyLouie points out, we get a simple message from both Milley's own words and the words of those in the WaTimes (that Milley is happy to have represent him). Milley has never seen or heard of any evidence that would backup the claims from Grusch, but Milley is also not that surprised that such ideas would circulate and be believed by some within an organization as large as the U.S. military. Finally (and not relevant to this Grusch article), Milley makes it clear that the potential security risks posed by UAPs is a separate and legitimate question in the minds of others. --Jjhake (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an issue underlying this:

Who has the need to know?

There are compartmented programs within the USG, information about which is restricted to "Those with a need to know."

I really don't know how, or by whom, that "need" is established. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And we can't speculate on that here, so it's all pointless to debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept reporting past psychiatric treatment received by Grusch

Not sure where to put this report at this point, I've added it under a new heading in the "Media reporting on Grusch's claims" section for now. Jjhake (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Time for Grusch to get his own Wikipedia page, separate from his UFO claims, IMO. KHarbaugh (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s how this article started out, and it might make the most sense to return to that form at some point. His claims would still be covered in the article about him (and treatment of his claims in relation to UFO history easily fits into several other existing articles involving UFOs to which this article can continue to point). Jjhake (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should separate Grusch the man from his claims. That's just my opinion KHarbaugh (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

His claims have been around for a long time with articles already existing about them. However, if the moment ever comes when his claims have any concrete content attached to them, then there will be material for new articles. Jjhake (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Grusch is still only notable for one thing, and that's these claims. When reliable sources start reporting on him doing something else (like starting a podcast, or hosting a game show or something), he can have his own article. -Jordgette [talk] 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Precisely where is the Wikipedia requirement that a person having his own Wikipedia page be notable for multiple things?

Grusch is reported in multiple RS for his claims.

That makes him notable. KHarbaugh (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT. We don't need two articles on Grusch. Until there is a separate claim-to-fame there is absolutely nothing gained by having two articles. jps (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Quite apart from the sheriff record, there are some excellent connect-the-dots quotes included in that article which point out similarities and relationships that we have discussed on this talkpage before but have not had made explicit in many sources prior to this one. This includes a nice comparison to Roswell dust-ups and a military official pointing out that all manner of conspiracy theories are rampant beliefs among veterans. jps (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Grusch should have a separate page. If anything, the July 26th Sub Committee Hearing should have its own page. But more importantly, I think we should move slowly on these reports of psychiatric holds. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we aren't supposed to do breaking news, and the odds of something being wrong in the reporting are very high, so out of respect for WP:BLP and just not wanting to act like a tabloid, let's hold off until the dust settles.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree. Racing to keep up with the daily churn isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing here. There is a conspiracy theory narrative emerging from proponents claiming any negative information about Grusch is part of a disinformation campaign by the CIA in order to keep The Truth Of The Coverup from coming to light. Facts need to be separated from various claims, conspiracy theorizing and sensationalized drama, which must be investigated and put into perspective by reliable independent sources, and I don't mean NewsNation or The Debrief. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

To emphasize the problem with sources in this area, NewsNation guilelessly reported on a tweet by the author of this piece who said that "After 3 years, The Intercept has let me go..." and then followed by a tweet that said "... and do a newsletter occassionally which you can subscribe to here ". Of course, the reply tweet was not noticed(?) by the TV station and they went on rather breathlessly about how being fired from The Intercept was justice for Grusch. jps (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Debrief and NewsNation - Deprecated?

Some editors seem opposed to explicitly linking to articles published in The Debrief and NewsNation. I am no expert on Wikipedia, but a cursory look at Wikipedia's page for "Deprecated Sources" didn't turn up either of those.

Is there some place in Wikipedia which either 1. states Wikipedia's official policy towards those, or at least 2. discusses whatever issues Wikipedia may have with them?

I know some editors think belief in what Grusch has claimed is "wacky", or worse. As to myself, I am reserving judgment. The evidence, on either side, is not in at this time. But if those sources mentioned above present and even promote Grusch's claims, is that in and of itself reason to not link to them, simply so people can know that side of the argument? It can be made clear that Wikipedia is not agreeing with what they are saying, but simply informing people of what Grusch actually said, without filtering it.

In particular, rather than linking to Grusch's initial June 5 appearance in The Debrief, the current page links to a June 7 article in The Atlantic. Precisely what policy, if any, required that level of indirection? - KHarbaugh (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's some discussion in the archives to get you started: Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_5#Background_using_The_Debrief. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I see this had been previously discussed at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_5#Background_using_The_Debrief

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_5#The_Debrief_fringe_science_citation_question

But I think my questions above are still valid. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecation is for sources that somehow came into wide usage even though they shouldn't have been. At one time there were many, many cites to the Daily Mail. Deprecation was a step in getting rid of them. Sources that are obviously bad (The Debrief would seem to qualify as such) don't need this formal process. Consider - we don't use people's self published blogs as sources, either. But we don't need to add every blog on the internet to deprecation lists, nor do we need to hold some kind of formal discussion for each one. MrOllie (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The key place to start in looking for answers is WP:RS and not the list of depreciated sources. Jjhake (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical commentary by James Meigs

Critical commentary here by James Meigs, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former editor of Popular Mechanics. -- Jjhake (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This has Joseph N. Welch vibes. I wouldn't trust Meigs's judgement on empirical matters on most days, but apparently this circus got to be too much for him. jps (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Shellenberger?

We include the thoughts of Michael Shellenberger among "news stories", but now that he's giving Glenn Beck interviews promoting claims of large scale UFO conspiracy [1], [2] it may be time to pull him out as too WP:FRINGE to give WP:DUE weight to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. Yeah, I think it's time to move away from citing him for anything, or else make it clear we're only citing his opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed what was there. The New York Sun's conservative spin that "the Biden administration" is hiding nonhuman extraterrestrial vehicles wasn't getting any traction in mainstream sources anyway. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'd never heard of Shellenberger before naively starting this Grusch article. In one early NewsNation interview about Grusch, Shellenberger made it clear that he was not sure what he himself thought of these sources that he reportedly had who were making similar claims to Grusch. However, Shellenberger's more recent stuff does seem to just get more and more sensational and to sound like he himself is sold on it all. It's been odd to watch. Anyway, I certainly agree that he's not showing up in any reliable sources of late. Jjhake (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Washington Post on media coverage connected to Grusch

Nothing new on Grusch here, but lively stuff from Washington Post regarding the nature of media coverage connected to Grusch:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/18/newsnation-ufo-david-grusch-intercept-coulthart/ Jjhake (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)