Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Main article image

I like the main article image (although I don't really know enough about articles focused on events to know how well it aligns with standard practices in such Wikipedia articles). If it stays, I'm wondering what the source is for AARO as Grusch's employer. I see his work with NGA, NRO and the UAP Task Force, but not AARO. Also, it should say something like "recent employer" or "former employer". Jjhake (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct, he worked at the UAP Task Force, but left before it became its successor organization, AARO. He did not work there when it was called AARO. 4602dAISS (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I should have tagged you with the question above. Was AARO an employer of Grusch (the layers of acronyms are a little much), and should this say something like "past employer"?--Jjhake (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Under "Grusch's credentials" it reads: "From 2019 to 2021, he was the representative of the NRO to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force:

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/aliens-intelligence-official-us-spaceships Marginataen (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Jjhake, MartinNumbers123, Hob Gadling, Steve Quinn, Viriditas

Isn't it so that images by the U.S. government most of the time can be used on Wikipedia? Grusch has worked for the U.S. Air Force, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Especially thinking about the Air Force, shouldn't there exist a image of him in some old Air Force archive that can be used on Wikipedia? Marginataen (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, looks great to me! Jjhake (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Marginataen (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you were asking if there might be any public domain images of Grusch. I'm not sure, but nothing I've seen looks to be such. Jjhake (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no clue about use of images. Please do not ping me, I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: - The agencies you mentioned have information and images that are mostly in the public domain. Some info and images are not because the work is from sub-contractors, private agencies, universities and so on. But any public domain image can be downloaded to Wiki Commons and used on Wikipedia. If you want help determining the status of an image let me know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Grusch owns the copyright to these two:

https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Can you see that status of this one? @Steve Quinn

https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/coulthart-ufo-whistleblower-wants-people-to-see-evidence/ Marginataen (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. News Nation most likely has the copyright to this work. So, it can't be used, without permission from that organization - or actually whatever department that deals with permitting copyrighted material to be used. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This process is one way to invite such an image release:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator Jjhake (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I'm not in favor of any image at the top of this article unless we can find one that is directly relevant. Regardless of how right or wrong he is, the current "Photograph from purported UFO sighting in Passoria, New Jersey, 1952" comes across as childish and disrespectful of a public servant who says repeatedly that he is not talking about ETs and UFOs. Jjhake (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

True. I'll just leave it empty. Marginataen (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I've started a new talk about images further down. Marginataen (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ISP comments

Image should have the David in it. 173.77.232.252 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This would be great. Sure. If anyone can locate something in the public domain, it can be considered. Jjhake (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Lack of description of scientific background of David. 173.77.232.252 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

All we get in the interviews that I've seen so far is not specific enough to note:

• "Air Force scholarship in physics"
• "as somebody who has studied physics"

Having the name of a college and the degree earned would warrant mention I think. Jjhake (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Mick west should be listed as a sceptic or debunker than a science writer. Wording weighs that he is an expert in science when he really raises criticisms of theories. In addition, he does not show testable hypotheses or any alternative explanation of topic and should not be referenced as an expert here. This in combination with with a lack of discussion of the scientific expertise of the David leads me to perception of biased writing. 173.77.232.252 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessary to keep making separate sections for each comment. Please stop doing this. This is similar to spamming this page---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If you seriously think that when it comes to the subject of UFOs, physicists are more competent than people who are familiar with the UFO literature, you should familiarize yourself with the subject first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Added a second source and full designation for Mike West (who I assume was in view with the "Mick" comment above from 173.77.232.252). Jjhake (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Background information:

https://researchomnia. blogspot.com/2017/04/the-truth-about-ufo-in-1933-italy.html?fbclid=IwAR1uxwwmks-184ZcoYtV-2eD63kbOi_sSn_SZACGGX42SXDFl7xUuHLxqZk Marginataen (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As you indicate, not a legit source and well outside current scope of this article. Jjhake (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. I wrote "Background information". Marginataen (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Also just for fun. Some Danish guys have made a podcast about it for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. They mention this article in their shownotes.

https://tallerken.janus.dk/efterretningsofficeren-david-grusch-har-talt-ud-episode-64/ Marginataen (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox person

Since the article has been moved, it should not have an "Infobox person" anymore, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Something like Template:Infobox event applies better. Jjhake (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article has an infobox person, so I think so... Marginataen (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem critical to me either way. And I'm not sure that the current infobox content would display any differently either way in any case. If anyone had specific differences in content or display options in mind between the two templates, it would probably be worth more consideration. Jjhake (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Asperthrow: please note some discussion here related to your recent cleanup edit that included a trimming down of this infobox to including only the most basic "person" content. As some background, this article was move from a person to an event format. I think that the infobox is good as it stands, but wanted to note your edit here for any others. Jjhake (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Vanity Fair reporting about June 5 story by Kean and Blumenthal" should not be "moved to 'Background'"

@Marginataen: I can see why it would clean up the flow of the headings somewhat and make the most legitimate news outlets most prominent. However, I don't think that "Vanity Fair reporting about June 5 story by Kean and Blumenthal" should be "moved to 'Background'". It is helpful on the main "June 2023 interviews" section to see at a glance that Grusch has given interviews to three different news outlets so far:

1. Kean and Blumenthal
2. Ross Coulthart (for NewsNation)
3. Le Parisien

Thoughts on this? Jjhake (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was myself thinking about taking it up here. It could also be split up. Idk Marginataen (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. It's tricky because some of the reporting about the history of where Kean and Blumenthal tried to publish could certainly fall into background content and The Debrief should not be the primary or solo source for anything by Wikipedia standards. Anyway, feel free to try splitting it up or moving it again if you want. My one thought here is that somehow the outline of sections would clearly represent that Grusch has spoken three times with three distinct media teams. Jjhake (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As you'll see, I moved it back for now. I think the entire block as it is works really well to represent that first story, but feel free to split in some way if you wish. Also put in subheadings in the official statements section. Jjhake (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nick Pope

Why is this guy, who has nothing to do with the article, being given so much space on this page. He's some kook indie "journalist" who writes for non-significant outlets and writes sci-fi books. Seems like he's adding himself to this article. Miserlou (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like this whole article has been trashed up in the last two days with over-weighted opinion pieces and huckster "ufoligists". This article should be about the whistleblower complaint and the scope should not creep far beyond that. The whistleblower complaint is a _real_ thing, "ufology" _isn't_. Miserlou (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The commentators used by the secondary sources are helpful to summarize and note tightly on such a contentious event, but plenty of cleanup is warranted. Jjhake (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A few different editors here have been including Pope's commentary. Not him. He's been prominent in coverage by The Guardian, and we're simply seeking to reflect the secondary sources. Certainly, continued adjustment of headings and such is needed. Jjhake (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Miserlou and Marginataen: this looks like the place for the chat about image of Nick Pope and Michael Shermer which I do think add value to the article.--Jjhake (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nick Pope is used twice by a strong source and seems a very clear candidate for an image. What might work for all? What are the objectives?--Jjhake (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

He's a hack, he's the UK's go-to woowoo aliens guy, he has nothing to do with the topic. You don't put pictures of random punters who add blog pieces and opinion columns on Wikipedia articles, they're generally not even included in the article at all, and especially not for breaking news, and especially especially not for stuff this far out. There's one user who keeps adding these quacks, I have no idea why. This whole article needs to be stripped right down, there is way way too much fluff. Anything about aliens brings out a whole army of quacks that don't belong anywhere near Wikipedia, this article should just be about the whistleblower complaint, and _maybe_ the interview, not every random opinion article about the existence of UFOs. Come on. Miserlou (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nick Pope hasn't written a single opinion piece. He's been interviewed twice by The Guardian as someone they considered to have valuable opinions. The key criteria should be quality of the secondary sources available and who is being cited by them. That said, this debate isn't one I've got more time for. Jjhake (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does the picture of Nick Pope say "creditable journalist"? It seems to be trying to settle the above argument about whether or not he is a legitimate journalist but has no place in the article. I am not going to call for removal of the picture, but perhaps remove the word "creditable". --192.147.66.4 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I already deleted the "creditable" once [1], but some editors seem to love PEACOCKs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Article does not appear to seek to inform, but rather to manipulate public opinion.

This comes across as an attack on Mr. Grush's integrity, a hit piece in other words. There has been nothing in the news disputing his integrity, indeed there are many highly placed individuals, such as the intelligence inspector general, who support his integrity in very clear terms. We know that Congress takes him seriously and has received hundreds of pages of classified documentation.Mr. Pope has been quoted entirely out of contxt, his words have been cherry picked. I can state also that the ufo community is entirely supportive of Mr Grush, this is if anything an understatement. This article is disingenuous in my opinion, I believe it is a disingenuous attempt to manipulate public opinion 2603:7080:413F:B700:C1FC:E8AE:454B:6384 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a brief summary of the best sources for the article as it should read? Keep in mind that Wikipedia, by its own functions, considers this event within the category of a conspiracy theory, so that frames the event. Jjhake (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject is extraordinary claims based on flimsy evidence. People fall for those all the time. The same UFO stories come back again and again, as new generations of journalists make the same experience of falling into the same trap as their predecessors. That has been happening since the 1940s. Skeptics, on the other hand, collect and remember the earlier instances of the hype and are familiar with the mistakes people make. Complaining that skepticism is "a hit piece" is just one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Commentators on Grusch's claims" section at end reorganized by the name of each commentator and their publisher

Thoughts on this "Commentators on Grusch's claims" section at end reorganized by the name of each commentator and their publisher? Jjhake (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Is their any logic to which order it's in? Think Sheimer should be higher up. Marginataen (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I had two layers in mind (but not easy to assess):

1. placing "speaking to" before "writing for"
2. giving preference by listing the most well-known publishers first

Very open to adjustments. This is a very difficult section to organize, but I think a helpful one. Jjhake (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I agree that the "Shellenberger claim" is unique in a few ways, but it doesn't make sense to have just one subcategory at the end of a section like that. What if you just leave the paragraph at the end (or near the end)? Shellenberger literally used the phrase "the same sources that have been feeding Mr. Grusch information", so it is connected and shares the same fate. Jjhake (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the "Shellenberger claim" makes the most sense as a short section of its own after "Commentators on Grusch's claims" rather than within it.--Jjhake (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Department of Defense clearance

As far as I understand, DG was cleared to say what he did by the DoD as a result of some new law by President Joe Biden. This is IMO the most important fact not mentioned IF it is tue.--Marginataen (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some sources covering this aspect that can be included? Jjhake (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else had Marginataen (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You are referring to the anti-reprisal clause protection in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act which was drafted by Kirsten Gillibrand and others. This doesn’t really have anything to do with Biden, but it may be related to Grusch in some way, I don’t know. Greenewald talks about it on his podcast. Jjhake, you’ve been here for a while, so you should know not to archive active discussions. Please don’t do it again, and to avoid conflict in the future, use the bot to auto archive. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about not archiving. I should have known better as you said. It was getting extremely long to scroll down and I'm not that savvy... Jjhake (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It was Biden who approved the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act which is the very prerequisite for Grusch was able to say what he did. I don't care about Biden but I think the Act itself is important to mention. Maybe the sources are not there yet but at some point.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3252968/biden-signs-national-defense-authorization-act-into-law/

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/06/08/the-necessity-of-countries-withdrawing-from-the-world-health-organization/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7900

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy23_ndaa_agreement_summary.pdf Marginataen (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas "This doesn’t really have anything to do with Biden, but it may be related to Grusch in some way, I don’t know". The article says, "He assisted in drafting the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023". 78.157.120.208 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Which article? Biden has nothing to do with the Gillibrand amendment. It was her, Rubio, Graham, Heinrich, and Blunt. Two democrats and three republicans. Just because Biden signs a bill doesn’t mean he knows what’s in it or had anything to do with it. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Biden is irrelevant. Focus on the Act itself. Marginataen (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Image of Nick Pope and Michael Shermer

Should images of thoese two be included under "Commentators on Grusch's claims"?--Marginataen (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Michael Shermer is from a relatively weak source and writing his own opinion (rather than being called upon to give his opinion by some other news outlet). However, Michael is a strong skeptical voice, and an image of a skeptic is helpful amid so much excitement. I think Nick Pope is a very balanced voice and one that is called upon by an outside source to give his take. I'm in favor, but I also don't have time to advocate beyond this. Jjhake (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. He is also the one who matters to me. Marginataen (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Miserlou: please engage here regarding an image of Nick Pope. Your comments above about add blog pieces and opinion columns do not apply to him as the primary British reporting on this has interviewed him twice, and he's been skeptical and focused on the need for evidenced. Jjhake (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who "matters to you." It's an opinion piece, since they're literally asking for his opinion and he's giving it. He has no connection to this story other being a professional kook who writes books about aliens. Again, and I don't think I should have to say this over and over - the only thing significant about this story is that he has filed a whistleblower complaint to the government. That's the _only_ thing here that warrants being on Wikipedia at all. The map of the "crash site" in Italy that somebody put up, are you kidding? It's _all_ horseshit that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Even the title is garbage, "UFO claims" don't go on Wikipedia. The first usage of a legal avenue of whistleblowing procedure does, if it gets some proper citations. Guy gives interview about aliens to 3rd tier cable news network and then a bunch of other conmen give their opinion about it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Miserlou (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That all makes sense, but you're obviously raising a larger set of questions than simply an image of a commentator. You will likely want to start a fresh thread about renaming the article and clarifying scope. Jjhake (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

He's opinion is important. Images are nice. (En fryd for øjet). This heading is only about discussing the image. Marginataen (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial again

Grusch did not claim the government was in possession of anything extraterrestrial. He said they had retrieved vehicles (and possibly bodies) of non-human origin. This could mean anything from intra to extra-terrestrials, inter-dimensional to time travelers, or anything else one can imagine, and Grusch in fact said that to Coulthart. The current article assumes that they are extraterrestrial when that is only one possibility that Grusch alludes to in his interview. With that said, I think it’s time to tone down the ET claims and bring the article back on topic to non-human origin and non-human intelligence, which Grusch claims is the technical term that his group used. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any advanced intelligence in our galaxy which is hundreds of millions of years more advanced than us (given what we know about the evolution of the universe) would be biological, visible in space, or would crash with bodies on board, so the notion is somewhat preposterous and unrealistic to begin with. I think it’s best to stick with the original claims and not go overboard with the ET stuff. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That does not change much - so he believes in unicorns but does not specify whether they are plaid unicorns, striped unicorns, or polka-dotted unicorns - but yes, we should give his position accurately. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good segue: according to Kean, Grusch didn't mention anything about the recovered non-human bodies, just recovered craft. She sounds almost surprised that Grusch "went there" in the interview with Coulthart, as that wasn't part of Kean and Blumenthal's original story.[2] I'm not clear on how she is able to rationalize this discrepancy. So, this means Grusch's story fell apart almost immediately after it was published. This is hard to wrap my mind around; I hope people are paying attention to this. Why would an alleged whistleblower try to discredit their own case? In that same linked interview, Kean and Blumenthal describe how they weren't originally going to publish the story (just several days before Trump's indictment), but claim they were pressured by Grusch himself to do so due to so-called threats against him (Kean won't disclose the substance of these threats, but did mention the FBI). I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous. When asked if this story was just straight-out disinformation (like so much of UFO leaks in the past), Blumenthal took offense at the question and talked around it for about a minute or two until finally admitting, very much in protest, that it's entirely within the realm of the possible. I think we are being played, folks. Again. Although others disagree with me, I think the history of disinformation and propaganda shows that its release is dependent on timing, just as PR agencies plant stories in the press to promote a company or product (The US went to war in the Persian Gulf twice due to planted stories in the press). The release of this story on June 5 served a purpose. We may not know what it is, but I refuse to believe based on the above that its release was random, as Kean and Blumenthal did not originally plan to publish on that date and were influenced by Grusch to publish at that time instead. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I head the **** interview! He made a huge point about it not necessarily being extraterrestrial. I could be from a civilisation from Earth hidden form us or something else. He DID NOT say extraterrestrial! He said NON-HUMAN. Marginataen (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

My favorite so far is The Daily Mail, who basically reported that the US has captured a Tardis ("it's bigger on the inside"). I wonder if The Onion has covered this yet? When Grusch says "non-human", I can't help but picture Laika. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Are you quoting someone or saying that you talked to Blumenthal yourself? If you interviewed Blumenthal yourself, as this is a Wikipedia article talk page, your original research should not be shared here but published somewhere else and shared back here by someone if it's a legitimate secondary source (and which I'd be interested to see because your overall story makes a lot of sense to me, incidentally). In any case, for the sake of this Wikipedia article it sounds like we agree that the lead should reflect the specific language and claims about "non-human" that Grusch clearly wanted to distinguish from "alien" (in both the recorded interview and the written story). @Hob Gadling: it sounds like you also support this specificity of language as well in principal. I'm going to change the lead again and hope that other editors will support in getting this language question stabilized. Jjhake (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm quoting the Debrief interview ("Rebelliously Curious") with Kean and Blumenthal that I linked above.[3] Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I should have figured that out. Thank you for clarifying for me. Jjhake (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the name of the interviewer, Chrissy Newton. She does an amazingly good job! She asks great questions and lets the subjects have their say. I was impressed. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As our lead stands, we are saying that Grusch claims that the "highly secretive UFO retrieval program ...is in possession of ...pilot corpses belonging to another intelligent species", but he does not say, from anything I've seen, that "pilot corpses" have been recovered just that they have been seen or encountered. Can we adjust the claims in the lead to be specific to the statements by Grusch? Jjhake (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. This description falls prey to the very forces it uses to discount the information. Given that many accounts occur near water even NASA’s response seems superficial. What, if anything of course, has been ‘recovered’ or ‘discovered’ remains to be seen. 66.191.226.113 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

PPD-19

@ජපස: Knapp and Corbell just published Grusch’s unclassified whistleblower complaint. [4],[5], [6], [7] Why they are doing this isn't clear (but I assume it is explained on the Weaponized podcast). Very odd, however, that this wasn't published in the original Debrief article. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

DISCLOSURE OF URGENT CONCERN(S); COMPLAINT OF REPRISAL

1. We come before you to file this disclosure on behalf of David C. Grusch, who is currently a GS-15 employee at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). He is a veteran of the United States Air Force USAF and has worked directly for or with several IC elements over the course of his lengthy and successful career. He is currently cleared at the TS/SCI level by the NGA and serves as that Agency's Senior Technical Advisor for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) analysis. He is also an Intelligence Officer in the USAF Reserves.

2. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) has jurisdiction to receive a report of Urgent Concern when the disclosure involves, among other things, "a false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity." 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k) (5)(G) (1). Morcover, jurisdiction exists when "an action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a) (92)(A) of title 5, United States Code, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection E(3)(B) in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern ...». 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k) (5) (G) (in).

3. Mr. Grusch previously served as a fully cleared member of the United States (US) Government's UAP Task Force. He has direct knowledge that certain IC elements have purposely and intentionally withheld and/or concealed UAP-related classified information from the US Congress. He has direct knowledge that this classified information has been withheld and/or concealed by the involved IC elements to purposely and intentionally thwart legitimate Congressional oversight of the UAP Program.

4. In July 2021, Mr. Grusch confidentially provided UAP-related classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG). At that time, Mr. Grusch communicated classified information about the improper withholding and/or concealment of classified material from the US Congress by certain IC elements. Mr. Grusch believes that his identity and the fact of his UAP-related communication(s) with the DoD IG have been disclosed to individuals and/or entities outside the DoD IG, and that he has suffered retaliation and reprisal(s) related thereto.

5. Since his protected disclosure(s) to the DoD IG, Mr. Grusch has been subjected to numerous adverse security clearance actions. These actions have unfairly and unjustifiably impugned his integrity, character, judgment, professionalism, and mental health. While he remains security-cleared by the GA, his compartmented accesses at numerous other IC elements have been - mysteriously and apparently without plausible explanation - canceled, delayed, denied, and/or improperly obstructed.

6. Mr. Grusch has reason to believe that the many recent issues with his accesses are directly correlated to his previous UAP-related protected communication(s) with the DoD IG.

7. Consistent with 50 U.S.C § 3033(k)(5(D) (i) (1), Mr. Grusch now wishes to directly communicate the classified specifics of his UAP-related Urgent Concern(s) to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Accordingly, we hereby request that your office facilitate Mr. Grusch's direct communication with the SSCI and HPSCI.

8. Moreover, having suffered months of retaliation and reprisals because of his prior UAP-related protected communication(s) to the DoD IG, we respectfully request that the ICIG initiate, or cause the initiation of, a whistleblower reprisal investigation pursuant to Presidential Policy Directive-19.

Respectfully submitted,

By: Irvin Charles McCullough, III, Esq.

Senior Partner

COMPASS ROSE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

By: Andrew P. Bakaj

Managing Partner

COMPASS ROSE LEGAL GROUP, PLIC

I have read the disclosure drafted by my attorneys, Irvin Charles McCullough, Ill, and Andrew P. Bakaj, and I hereby adopt the statements as if they were my own and do solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing paper are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DAVID C. GRUSCH

[Dated 25 May 2022 according to Knapp and Corbell] --Jjhake (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Knapp and Corbell say that one of the Compass Rose attorneys left the firm in order to continue to represent Grusch personally. Ross Coulthart strongly suggested something similar in his commentary with NewsNation after NewsNation broadcast the longer version of Coulthart's interview with Grusch. Jjhake (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is all dizzying. The problem is, of course, that just because you request whistleblower status does not mean it is necessarily granted. It would be unusual for it not to be granted in situations like this because likely the government does not care one way or another, but indeed the disqualifying factors for establishing someone as a whistleblower include: "Reporting something that the whistleblower knows is untrue is not protected. An unreasonable belief is also unprotected." [8] jps (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's literally why this case is different than all other "UFO" cranks and why it's noteworthy. Skin the game. The article should reflect this but it's being policed by subpar editors. Miserlou (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. It simply reflects the majority voices among the most well-established secondary sources. Jjhake (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you missed my drift. What "skin" is in the game here? It's completely unclear. If a delusional person makes a claim and thinks that they're being retaliated against because of that claim, that is not a whistleblower situation. While we have no way of knowing what's going on here in part because the journalism is so slipshod, what we cannot say is that this case is different than any other of a number of instances where ex-government employees have claimed similar things with similarly hyperbolic warnings about the government using nefarious means to silence the believers. jps (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, for me, the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is how this topic is used by the right wing to "call for more government transparency". This has never made any sense to me, as the right wing in the US are notoriously against government transparency. Eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush, eight years of Dubya, and four years of Trump are some of the most opaque government institutions in US history. This doesn’t mean Democrats are without blame, but they are far more in favor of open society initiatives and transparency in government, both on paper and according to their policy proposals and votes. This collective political history of antagonism towards transparency in government and other reasons makes me think this whole topic is a dead end, used for political purposes, not for getting down to brass tacks. We know there is a history of disinformation and propaganda in this topic area, and it’s hard to see this incident as separate from that pattern. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to this talk page. Marginataen (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I mean it is a little bizarre that there is more synergy between the right-wing media than the left-wing media for this story....but without a source it is hard for us to make the case that this is something we can discuss in articlespace. jps (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s also increased exponentially just within the last 72 hours. Mostly right wing, conservative pundits and politicians using this subject to launch into diatribes about how the federal government is lying—just as I predicted they would when the story first broke. I am reminded of Brian Dunning’s comments regarding Majestic 12, and the theory that it was a disinformation campaign to deflect attention away from secret Air Force projects. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Commentators on Grusch's claims" section in reverse chronological order

Given the continued volatility and lack of consensus and info in this event, I'm proposing that, for now, the "Commentators on Grusch's claims" section in this article be kept in reverse chronological order (as I've just implemented in my last edit). Jjhake (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Arms industry reverse engineering alien technology

This sentence was recently added to the lead: According to Grusch, both the government and companies within the arms industry have been attempting to reverse engineer the technology since the program's inception in 1944 or 1945. Is this what the sources say? I saw nothing about the arms industry in the sources for this article, so this might be SYNTH.

And what program are we talking about when we say "the program's inception?" And has that been since 1944 or 1945 or a different date? Well, there is not enough precision in this sentence, and perhaps some WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. So, I am removing it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who added that in the lead, but keeping the lead simple is helpful as the claims are rather a messy list. However, a copy edit that you just did in the lead suggests that something is claimed that has not been clearly claimed. Grusch has only made the claim that pilots have been seen but not clearly whether or not the government possesses bodies. The language in the lead should reflect this distinction IMO. Jjhake (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

OK I think I fixed it. This should be clearer than it was. Here is the diff: [9]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to change it back to one paragraph feel free to do so, or whatever adjustments you want to make. However, I recommend not reconstructing that long sentence again. I think it was too long to clearly make out what the meaning was. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple redirects

This page seems to have changed its name several times lately, which led to double redirects. For example, David Grusch now redirects to "2023 UFO claims by David Grusch", which redirects to "David Grusch UAP Disclosure".

Someone should fix this I guess. 178.197.239.100 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, I think, but generally the bots will automatically resolve this issue within 48 hours, so not a big deal like it used to be in the past. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know about bots doing this, I'm not too much into wikipedia stuff. Just thought that at least the person's name should redirect to the correct page.

It may have been fixed, but it's already broken again, as the page's name has changed again, lol. Now both David Grusch and David Grusch UAP Disclosure are broken redirects. 178.197.239.100 (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the article's name was just changed again while I wrote above comment, back to how it was before. So right now above redirects work again. You guys really have a hard time figuring out the best title, haha. 178.197.239.100 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Congress-related stuff" & "the interviewer promoting/touting their own work"

@Neutrality: I have two concerns about your recent edits. The first I feel more clearly about. The second is minor but worth noting in my opinion.

1. You moved "Congress-related stuff to appropriate section", but it seems ridiculous to put reporting from any source (in this case Wired magazine) under a section dedicated to official statements. This should remain under reporting and commentary (or perhaps some new section but not official statements).
2. What you said "looks like the interviewer promoting/touting their own work or seeking to bolster it, rather than external 'commentary'" includes commentary by Brian Entin the NewsNation senior national correspondent who is not the interviewer and who should have his reasoning represented (at least at this stage of the unfolding event).

Jjhake (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• On (1), we don't typically isolate "official statements" from sources discussing or contextualizing official statements. It makes far more sense to discuss Congressional reactions together than than separating this content in two different places. Congress is also distinct from NASA or the military, in that there usually is a range of views within Congress. On (2), isn't NewsNation the outlet/publication that came out with the claims in the first place? I take your point that Entin's colleague, rather than Entin himself, did the interview — but it still feels like bolstering to me. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Congress has no official statement as you point out so should be its own section in that case, which would be fine. Or rename the larger section perhaps.

  NewsNation hired Coulthart as a subcontractor to do the interview, and Entin is the employed senior national correspondent for NewsNation. They should be treated separately. Jjhake (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've put Congress under its own section. As for NewsNation, I'll let others weigh in. Neutrality^talk 22:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Full transcript of Grusch interview

You might find this useful:

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/david-grusch-the-ufo-whistleblower-full-newsnation-interview-transcript/ Marginataen (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good find. Note, I believe this is only 41 minutes of something like 7-11 hours of recordings. Not sure of the exact time. My understanding is that there’s a lot more that’s going to trickle out, but who knows if it is even newsworthy or factual. Just mentioning this in case people think Coulthart is finished with the interview. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ross Coulthart book and longstanding work on UFO conspiracies

@Viriditas: Just an FYI that the note about (and extremely negative review of) the Ross Coulthart book that you removed was to make clear the deep and longstanding connections that Coulthart has to UFO conspiracy work. It was not intended as an "advert for book" as you noted in your edit. I'm fine with your deletion, but the longstanding work by Ross Coulthart on UFO conspiracies is obviously relevant to this article to some degree. Jjhake (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m generally known as a liberal inclusionist, but I can’t see how it is relevant. The review was published in 2021 and literally has nothing to do with this article. I’m all for adding sources that mention this topic, however. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with your removal of the book reference, but think that it could be helpful to include somewhere a note regarding the long-standing criticism that Coulthart has faced for his UFO advocacy (as seen in that book review, for example). However, it's pretty obvious point and not something that think is critical. Jjhake (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be possible to do this using current sources. I read the review you posted. The gist of it is that Coulthart is not a scholar of the UFO phenomenon (social or otherwise), and his less than rigorous and credulous approach has not produced any original research on the subject. Can you figure out a way to take this conclusion and use current sources to make the same claims? Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll see what I find (if others don't do so first). Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen and Viriditas: the agreement above was to "use current sources" if we put this book back in place. However, Marginataen, you put the book back in place with two very old sources (including the same one again discussed above) and one very recent video advertisement by the author himself. You also only give the subtitle of the book without noting the actual title in your note. Anyway, I recommend that we get rid of it entirely unless a recent and reasonable review of the book can be found in a solid source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UAP_disclosure#cite_note-14

01.06.2021 Jjhake (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't read the discussion above or even look at the sources - Just copyed them from his own article. Couldn't care less about his book. It's just about finding a way to mention that Coulthart himself is a conspiracy theorist. I trust you in doing that. Marginataen (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a shot at it. Jjhake (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Where is the claim in lead of government having "several pilot corpses belonging to another intelligent species"?

@DolyaIskrina: what I've seen is only a vague claim that bodies have been seen but not that the government has them. Is this claim you put into the article lead substantiated within the article body and cited? Jjhake (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't put in the entire phrasing "corpses belonging to another intelligent species" I prefer "non-human pilot bodies". From the video at 10:26 [10]: Interviewer: "You've said that we have, the United States, has spacecrafts intact craft--" Grusch: "We do." I: "Do we have bodies, do we have specie of non-humans?" G:“Well, naturally, when you recover something that’s either landed or crashed … sometimes you encounter dead pilots and, believe it or not, as fantastical as that sounds. It’s true”. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

“He claims that some of those recovering these crafts have encountered some bodies of non-human pilots.” Something like this would very specifically represent what he said. Jjhake (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

He is directly asked if "we" where "we" is defined in the previous sentence as "United States" have "bodies." "Do we have bodies?" is the question. He answers "It's true." We have bodies. Your proposed language ignores the context in which he said "It's true." Per WP:SKYBLUE we should go with the evidence here. Perhaps if he, not his handlers but he, starts saying he was misrepresented, we can revisit this. But if you watch the video and see how delicately he is phrasing his answers, likely with his lawyer right off camera. I say if he goes to the trouble of making an implication, we should take him at his carefully parsed word. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You made the edit without further discussion! He says we have the crafts, he says the pilots were in the crafts. He says "pilots" plural. You are doing gymnastics to try to imply that while we, the united states, have the crafts we also somehow don't have the bodies that were in the crafts? I'm doing my best to see these as good faith edits, but it is starting to smack of whitewashing. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re doing gymnastics to give the maximum meaning to a sloppy answer. Standard practice is not to place maximized meaning into a lead. It should be minimized in the lead with more detailed discussions in the body of the article as sources have noted the question both ways as well. Jjhake (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

When writing this, we must be very careful about not employing things. "Seen" or "encountered" does not mean "recovered" per se. I support Jjhake Marginataen (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current version of that sentence. Changing it would not be supported by policy. If you think some policy supports a change LMK what it is. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)