You're viewing a single thread.
Grusch claimed early on that he had tried to reach out to
AAROspecifically Kirkpatrick, before AARO existed, for years before the whistleblower hotline came available. He also claims he tried repeatedly leading up to his tapping the hotline, and he was routinely ignored. This unfortunately tracks withAARO’s public faceKirkpatrick; they have expressed more than once that they do not follow up on the majority of tips they receive as they discount them as “not credible.”It’s his word against Kirkpatrick, in this case, and Kirkpatrick has not shown a great deal of willing, or even interest, in this regard.
EDIT: Since this is a repost on this new instance, I'm reposting this comment. Also, in the other instance, someone pointed out some flaws in my remembering, and I have amended them here. AARO didn't exist at the time Grusch claims he was reaching out to Kirkpatrick.
I think it's also important to note the specific words used by Dr. Kirkpatrick, AARO, Susan Gough, and others. They are extremely careful about their choice of words and how they convey their message. I'm using Susan Gough as a specific example due to her choice of attributing knowledge (or lack thereof) about these programs to AARO rather than the Pentagon. She also prefers terms like 'extraterrestrial' or 'alien' over 'Non-Human Intelligence,' which Mr. Grusch has used.
It appears to me that they are cautious with their statements, striving to avoid outright falsehoods while still withholding full disclosure. You can interpret this as you wish.
Edit: I would also like to highlight that, if we are to believe Ross Coulthart and other journalists, many whistleblowers are refusing to liaise with AARO due to a lack of trust. Therefore, when Dr. Kirkpatrick asserts that he hasn't been made aware of certain allegations, he may not be lying. However, David Grusch has repeatedly stated that he provided Dr. Kirkpatrick with all the information he had given to the Inspector General.
This is a good point, because I think the same thing is likely happening with Grusch, but in the opposite direction. For example, he will say something like "non-human biologics", which people are going to interpret as alien. But that could also just be plants or some fungus. The charitable interpretation is that he's trying to stay within legal and classification boundaries, but he could also be phrasing things to maximize his future earning potential (dude is definitely going to be writing a book, at minimum, in the future).
You raised an interesting point regarding Mr. Grusch's choice of words at the hearing. I chalked it up to 'off the cuff' responses, rather than carefully thought out word choices, but I recognize I could be mistaken. I'm trying to withhold any judgments one way or the other until more information is revealed.
In my opinion, this topic has crossed the Rubicon, and I'm presuming we won't have to wait too long for answers or clarity one way or the other.
In my opinion, this topic has crossed the Rubicon, and I’m presuming we won’t have to wait too long for answers or clarity one way or the other.
Unless there is no "there, there", which is still my betting position. Anything that can or has been revealed in a SCIF to members of Congress is probably already known by other people in government, specifically in the Pentagon and Executive Branch, or as Grusch mentioned (IIRC, could have been one of the other two guys) the Gang of Four may know more than the rest of Congress.
Unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, the most likely and plausible explanation is that we're just seeing a repeat of history. Which means we probably won't actually know whatever cool tech is being occasionally glimpsed is for another few decades.
Yeah, I'm interested in the whistleblower protections. I'm hopeful we'll get some information through them. I have my doubts in getting unclassified evidence of anything.
Whatever it is, if anything, Congress doesn't appear to be letting this go. We'll just have to see what happens.