Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

“The New York Times, Politico and The Washington Post had all declined to publish the story”

This statement leaving out any reason and the stated interest in the story by multiple of these outlets entirely misrepresents what happened. Jjhake (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: You had edited this item in the past to include the key details. It can be done very briefly. I hope that another editor might back me up on a simple presentation of the relevant facts here instead of a statement that gives a false impression. What Vanity Fair clearly reports is that both the Post and Politico were investing and "interested" (Politico spokesperson) but needed more time and specifically were wanting to find out what key members of Congress thought of it all first.--Jjhake (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the VF discussion. In particular, I think this was not strictly a matter of "timing". NYTimes had the piece since April and passed. There is an implication in the piece that these outlets passed because of being unable to verify the story. We have no idea what "interested" means. It could mean as little as "looked into this". I don't think it is fair to infer that they were deferring to Congressional opinions either. In short, I think just about the only thing we agree on from the piece is that mainstream sources passed on the story. That's as far as it goes. jps (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

“The Post had been trying to further report the story that the reporters had brought to the paper, but didn’t think it was ready for publication.” Nothing remotely unclear about that. The one piece of info that the Post want: “what members of Congress made of Grusch’s testimony.” You’ve already made it clear that Congress is not a key part of the Grusch story in your view, but again, the facts.

Politico was “interested in the submission” but need time “to complete our process and meet our standards.” Again, no interpretation needed, but just facts that you won’t note. Jjhake (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You have completely missed my point. It is perfectly consistent to conclude from the piece and the quotes you selected that these outfits looked askance at the story with a level of incredulity. That interpretation should not be downplayed through selective quotation. The only alternative would be to publish the entire piece. What we have in the article is good enough. jps (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If these news outlets are so invested and interested, where are their stories? The New York Times and Washington Post doesn't need Kean and Blumenthal to produce a story about Grusch, they have most excellent investigative journalists on staff. Politico also has a large staff capable of producing its own investigative piece. But no, they apparently do not find it compelling or credible, and they passed on it. For the encyclopedia to frame it as 'missed scheduling' is too generously sympathetic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

More of your own thinking while you insist on keeping facts out of the article. Jjhake (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Selecting certain facts to include while leaving out others is what you have done here, as far as I'm concerned. You seem interested in the timeline aspects of the quote. I'm much more interested in the facts that, for example, The New York Times sat on it since April. I note that this fact did not make it into your selection. Perhaps you can ask yourself why that is? jps (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you all will only accuse me of selective reading and will simply summarize this as “all declined to publish the story,” I have no further recourse. It seems absurdly distorted to me. The large staffs in question have created the three opinion pieces on Grusch in a few weeks, so there is likely to be Congressional coverage from them related to Grusch in coming months. If not, the record is yours as long as I remain alone among the editors seeing this as a sadly selective account. Jjhake (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Here we have two people thinking the other's perspective on a piece is distorted. I am arguing that we pare down to where we agree. You are arguing that I should see it your way. See the problem? jps (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s a great point. I think we could pare down to where we agree without reproducing the source, but you insist that “all declined to publish the story” represents what happened. I say it most obviously doesn’t. Jjhake (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The VF piece literally reports that they shopped it around and they did not publish. If you prefer to say did not publish after given the opportunity instead of decline, it's fine with me. jps (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What would reflect the facts fully is “declined to publish given vetting concerns and the insistence by the authors on a guaranteed timeframe”. Jjhake (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. There is no indication that this is what happened at the NYTimes. jps (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure they are specifically said to have declined comment and sat on it for a while. So break them out. Jjhake (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You see what's happening here? We have a story about three media outlets. You make a statement that doesn't apply to one of them, so now you want to expand the explanation. Let's say what all three had in common instead. Okay? jps (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s worth two sentences. Vanity Fair reports that one author said that the NYT was still vetting. The NYT declined to comment. The story went to press June 5, and even the NYT had it only a few weeks. So say that NYT declined it and the other two cited vetting concerns and too short a timeframe demanded. Jjhake (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's barely worth one sentence. What you are trying to do is shoehorn your preferred interpretation into the article. The answer is to provide no interpretation at all. jps (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

As if “all declined to publish the story” doesn’t lead to a clear and entirely false conclusion on the part of any reader. I’m not interpreting anything but simply asking for a the reported facts to be summarized in two sentences. Jjhake (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me you think that these outfits didn't actually decline to publish the story. Like, they just ran out of time before they could make a decision. I don't know if you've ever worked in journalism, but the editor dragging their feet is exactly how most stories end up declined to be published. jps (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The facts are that one spokesperson said they were interested and the timeframe was unacceptable. An inside source for Vanity Fair said the same for the second, and an author (former long-time employee) said the same for the NYT which publishes in this area regularly and has current staff that have produced three editorials on Grusch in a few weeks. But again, leave all this extra stuff out and say the NYT wouldn’t publish while the others (according to a source and a spokesperson) needed more time to do it right. Jjhake (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Klein asks Kean a good deal about this all as well in his interview, but that’s all just Kean giving her take to Klein. Kean says, as the Politico spokesperson said, that they were interested but needed more time. They came to Politico in a rush after giving up on a long process with the Post. Her account of the Post as having invested substantially before it leaked that the Post was working on the story also lines up with the source from the Post that Vanity Fair cites. Anyway, I’m evidently beating a dead horse in saying that this is worth a two sentence summary. Jjhake (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This is feeling a lot like an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ENEMY scenario. I think I understand where you are coming from. It is disappointing to me that you can't understand where I am coming from. The compromise of going to very short, pithy summary sentences seems reasonable to me and it is disappointing that you are so resistant to that kind of approach especially given the sensitive nature of this subject. jps (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You've been patient with me. I see that if you think it likely that all three others just really weren't working on the story or interested in it, then the best compromise is simply to say that they "all declined to publish the story" and leave it at that. However, I don't find your possible scenario remotely plausible given the published info. It seems clear that the Post and Politico would have liked to have broke this story but couldn't work with the demands that the authors felt they had to make. Anyway, you really have been kind to try to hear me out. And I'm an entirely lone voice here. I do agree that we should move on. Jjhake (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I am amazed that you think Politico and WaPo wanted to run the story. I think they probably didn't, but didn't want to burn bridges to sources, and we're reading the same piece! jps (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this conversation. I would have participated had I realized it was going on. I agree with jps and Lucky Louie. The summation we now have works best. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The article clearly says that Washington post needed more time to fact check. how is that a denial to publish as if insinuating it wasn't credible? H3sam91 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This has already been explained above. Are we good here? I think we're good. jps (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

H3sam91 was blocked yesterday, so I think we're done, yeah. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස where is it explained? Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please check the archives. jps (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

thanks but it would take me a month to find it there. Nevermind. is it too lengthy to explain here? Did they specifically say why they denied it? Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The VF story is all we have on the matter, and the few sentences that discuss it are interpretable in multiple ways. jps (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've read that, it says the following:

"The Washington Post was working to hammer down the facts". it doesn't say they denied to publish as if it was not credible. Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Our article does not say they denied to publish as if it was not credible. You are reading into the text if you think that is the implication. jps (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You tagged me but are responding to jps. I have advocated long on this talk page for a better representation of this particular case and agree with you that the current article language does not represent the simple facts. However, I lost that argument and was thoroughly voted down as noted above. Jjhake (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Amendment Text

"(22) UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA RECORD.—The term ‘‘unidentified anomalous phenomena record’’ means a record that is related to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, or non-human intelligence (and all equivalent subjects by any other name ..."

source: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf in the news: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4101345-non-human-intelligence-schumer-proposes-stunning-new-ufo-legislation/ Foerdi (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I agree that the creation of an article on Grusch is a good idea. Jusdafax (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I just stated a draft here: Draft:David Grusch. Thriley (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Thanks for the reminder! KHarbaugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think UFO is still more common. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Better organization needed under last two main headings

There is a little redundancy showing up in the article, but the subheadings under these last two main headings feel the most sloppy and redundant at this point:

• United States government responses
• Media reporting on Grusch's claims

I'm thinking about a couple of ways to clean up and consolidate both the subheadings and some content. However, before I make any attempts, I thought I'd post here and give it time for some feedback (or for others to take some shots at it). Jjhake (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the redundancy.

The government is one thing, the media another (at least that's the way it's supposed to work!).

Although some call it the "fourth branch of government." KHarbaugh (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I just mean that there is a little sloppiness within the subheadings under each one. I agree that the two main categories are helpful and distinct. Jjhake (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

How do know what Grusch said is merely a theory? Where's the evidence? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

He didn't present any evidence, he just fabulated. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 13:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The article tries to make it clear that he is claiming to be a whistleblower. It is not at all clear from the sources that he was actually granted that status. Hard to know how to make this clearer than just saying "whistleblower claims". One way of reading that is that he claims to be a whistleblower. jps (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This remains a fluid story/claim, with all sorts of folk likely to opine in the media going forward. I suggest that we leave the title as it is, and in a few months revisit the question of whether or not, based upon the available reliable sources, "whistleblower" is an appropriate term. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with you, jps and Jojo Anthrax are correct: Grusch has made the claim, and reliable sources have not settled on whether he is or is not yet. We don't need to rush to change this, and can fix it whenever this kerfuffle fizzles out in a few weeks/months. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

KHarbaugh, you need to brush up on the concept of Russell's teapot. We cannot conclusively prove Grush is wrong, because that would also require proving aliens don't exist (ie. proving a negative); the burden of proof is on Grush, not us, because his claims are extraordinary & require extraordinary evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

“Whistleblower” is the headline term for Grusch in the most recent coverage by The Washington Post, PBS, CBS, The Independent, MSNBC, The Smithsonian, New York magazine, CNN, and more. It is also a term used to describe Grusch within the reports by NPR, Fortune, and more. As noted, this will evolve over time, but it’s pretty standard currently. Jjhake (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful in making general statements about "Grusch's claims". Grusch has made a number of claims. Some extraordinary, some mere extensions of well-established phenomena (e.g., the existence of waived unacknowledged special access programs). In the end, some may turn out to be vindicated, some unproven. KHarbaugh (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

One could describe Majestic 12 as a mere extension of well-established phenomena (special access programs) that might turn out to be vindicated, but that would be an egregious abuse of logic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's be honest: the fixation is on his UFO claims. That's what people are talking about, very few people outside the military/security sphere are interested in his more mundane claims. And his UFO claims are extraordinary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

uap amendment 2023

@The Flying Spaghetti Monster: with the "uap amendment 2023" material that you added just now, there are a few much stronger sources that could be cited such as this one. Also, this might be in the category of some content that is getting past the focus of this article. Consider here or here or a new article perhaps? Jjhake (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake: OK, I'll leave it that for now - no worries. I'll add that source in too, thanks! In some ways I understand, but I feel a lot of people will be looking up Grusch specifically and the information that Senate is following up on his claims is pertinent to the topic. I do agree it could go to far beyond the scope though - so I will look at those articles for future updates on legislation. Thanks for your advice, and good job on getting this page up and running (that was you right?) The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was fool enough to start this article (several article names ago), and dozens of others have corrected thousands of problems form me and from many others at this point. I've not worked on such a messy and contentious article topic before. Jjhake (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I wouldn't say this is exactly "neutral". There is no source that I have seen which has confirmed that Grusch is an "active whistleblower" in the legal sense. jps (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The very (current) title of Wikipedia's article is "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims". KHarbaugh (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Which, as we discuss below, could cast doubt on whether his "claims to be a whistleblower" are at all correct. jps (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Googling the phrase

Grusch whistleblower

shows the extent to which the media, not just The Drive, is describing Grusch as a whistleblower,

irrespective of whether he fits some legal definition. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The only definition that matters is the legal definition. Otherwise, it's all pretend which, to be fair, is a lot of what is going on in this discourse. But Wikipedia should not be pretending that just because everyone says you are this that you are actually this. Instead, we wait for the confirmation from reliable sources which, crucially, has not been forthcoming. The best we can do is say that we know he asked for whistleblower status. We have no evidence that it was granted. jps (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

@ජපස:With The Washington Post calling Grusch a whistleblower in it's headline (among many other such sources), you are still not sure if it's a legitimate descriptor on Wikipedia?

Since when is the WaPo the agency that confers whistleblower status on whistleblowers? jps (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Called a whistleblower by WaPo and other sources" is a long way of putting it, but that sits alongside the "asked for whistleblower status" that you noted above. I've just never thought of the job of Wikipedia article writing to be second-guessing sources like WaPo. Jjhake (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SENSATION. In UFOs, the best sources we have are pretty awful and have been shown to get things wrong routinely and in embarrassing ways. Yeah, you'd think that WaPo would be careful in calling someone a whistleblower especially considering that it is the most read periodical in the beltway. But they probably don't have their best reporters and editors on these stories and, to be fair, there is a colloquial definition of "whistleblower" that people use outside of the normal strictures for actual employment of the "whistleblower designation". So, that's the best we can do. Until I see an IG report identifying Grusch as a whistleblower (or, hell, even have a single source which says that they have such a thing), I remain in the dark as to what his actual status is! jps (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Reporting what the best sources say is where we're at with any of this so far. Jjhake (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Grothman radio interview

"Grothman said he will receive a briefing on classified information in coming months and plans to meet with Grusch "and see what more he has to say." But overall, he used the hearing to push for greater transparency from the military on its observations."

https://www.wpr.org/ufo-hearing-wisconsin-rep-glenn-grothman-calls-declassifying-military-documents

I didn't listen to the radio interview yet. If you want to listen to it: https://www.wpr.org/listen/2118081 Foerdi (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting piece, thanks for the share. I could see a sentence on something said here. @Jjhake what do you think this, as a neutral expert who agrees partly with Grusch's claims, as per your comment above? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, having read further it says he is coming out with a book on UFOs soon, however it does seem to be a balanced interview with someone not previously invested in the subject. --The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lawmakers from both parties called for more government transparency. It doesn't matter if we think one of them is more balanced or neutral. Unless there is some wider discussion in RS, Grothman's viewpoint isn't significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lawmakers interviewed by RS can be relevant with regard to documenting various Congressional actions, but I agree with LuckyLouie above that individual lawmakers are not relevant on the topic of what makes some particular testimony reliable or not. For that, scholarly or legal experts in RS are the main focus in an encyclopedic reference material writing context. Jjhake (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Adam Frank in Big Think 2nd time

Second piece from Adam Frank in Big Think: https://bigthink.com/13-8/uap-ufo-congressional-hearing/ Jjhake (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Grusch called whistleblower by Whistleblower Network News

As there has been some debate about this term on this talk page, Grusch is called a whistleblower in Whistleblower Network News (a source that should use the term with some awareness):

https://whistleblowersblog.org/government-whistleblowers/whistleblower-claims-retaliation-during-testimony-at-house-hearing-on-ufos/amp/ Jjhake (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's only used in the title, not the article. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The headline calling him a whistleblower is followed by a good bit of info about whistleblowers such as: "DOD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations Directorate investigates allegations of whistleblower reprisal made by members of the Armed Forces." And there is no indication that he is not what he is called in the headline. Not mentioned in this source, but his attorney (former Inspector General appointed by Obama) was seated behind Grusch during the 7/26 House Oversight Hearing. I don't know enough to know what this would mean one way or another, but I've not seen a single source that questions Grusch's whistleblower status. The only place I've seen that is on a few (now dated) blogs (and repeatedly on this article talk page). Jjhake (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

At issue is that we have no confirmation that anything he's claimed is accurate. He's being treated as a whistleblower for now by press out of a sense of caution, but chances are absolutely nothing is going to come out of his claims (especially the "non-human biologics" stuff).

This is all very recentist and I am not comfortable with saying in Wikipedia's voice that this man is a bona fide whistleblower based on an article title. And it's WP:SYNTH to draw a conclusion between the article's title and the contents talking about other whistleblowers, or the fact he had an attorney present (which is just fucking smart in any legal proceeding). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Long term, however, I don’t think there is any connection between the truth of any particular claims and his whistleblower status. I’m simply pointing out, as you said, that all media sources (including a long list of the primary media outlets) are currently assuming his whistleblower status. I agree that this, as well as many other details connected to various claims, will change substantially and should not be represented in the article at all as being somehow established. Jjhake (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a connection in the sense that the rules for whistleblowing say that if the person who is claiming to whistlebblow is basing their claims on delusion, it's not actually whistleblowing. You can check the archives for when I quoted that part of the regs. jps (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Grusch and McCullough to speak together on BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm David Grusch and his lawyer Chuck McCullough will go live on BBC between 5 and 5:30 EST, 10 UK time. Jjhake (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Graff interview

Garrett Graff is showing up in several places now as another respected authority on this topic. He is interviewed here on the Grusch claims.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/whats-the-deal-with-ufos-the-historical-context-of-recent-whistleblower-claims Jjhake (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Not enough of a respected authority to get his SETI right:

The last 25 years of science, the last decade of science leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that there is probably not just life out there, but probably intelligent life. The math is really on the side of extraterrestrial civilizations out there. The challenge is, is, any of it close enough that we will ever notice it?

This is just plain wrong. There is no "math" "on the side of extraterrestrial civilizations out there." This is just a canard. We have no evidence one way or another. [1]. jps (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

He’s a Georgetown professor of journalism and a longtime Washington reporter (helped start Politico or something like that). All that to say, he’s a legitimate expert on the legal and historical stuff and doesn’t need to also be an expert on the science. Several kinds of expertise are relevant to the various questions involved with the Grusch claims. Jjhake (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, if you are a good journalist, you would get this right. There are excellent science journalists out there who can manage their way around this point. He cannot. I question whether that makes him reliable for anything. The question here is whether we include him on this page. This embarrassing error means I think he does not deserve to show up in our sources list. jps (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

He was the editor of multiple leading news sources and a professor of journalism with a focus on government and politics. He’s published books with many excellent publishers. Anyone would consider him an expert in his fields. Jjhake (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am anyone and I find his journalism to be atrocious in that paragraph. I don't think I'm incorrect in my analysis. jps (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong on your analysis. Look at the latest potential answers to the Drake Equation. Likelihoood of existence says that "According to this argument, made by scientists such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, it would be improbable for life not to exist somewhere else other than Earth". Noted Grusch sceptic Sean Kirkpatrick of AARO recently co-authored a study that said: "The fraction of all Sun-like stars that host Earth-like planets in their habitable zone is in the range ∼ 3–100% (Zink & Hansen 2019; Hsu et al. 2020; Bryson DRAFT, UNDER REVIEW 4 et al. 2021). This implies that self-replicating probes could reach ∼ 1010 habitable planets around Sun-like stars in less than a billion years. Since most stars formed more than a billion years before the Sun (Madau & Dickinson 2014), it is possible that other technological civilizations predated ours by the amount of time needed for their devices to reach Earth." The widely discussed Fermi Paradox is literally based on the assumption that, according to the data we have on exoplanet habitability and timeframes, we should be seeing advanced alien life out there. If you're going to keep blanket dismissing people who say that there is scientific evidence that favours alien civilizations existing, we're going to have a hard time being balanced on this article. Many, many, credible scientists and experts have studied it and decided it's likely they should exist. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is all idle speculation. You are assuming that we can extrapolate from "habitable zone" (which is based on a lot of assumptions about Earth-like planets to begin with) all the way to "technological civilizations". This is not an empirically based claim. It is a claim based on wishful thinking and extrapolating from our own experience to as-yet unobservable qualities of distant worlds. Look, people can have opinions that they think "advanced civilizations" (whatever the hell that means) may be common or uncommon, but the facts are that we simply do not have enough information to decide who is correct. In spite of pop sci treatments that try to argue for commonality, there just is nothing more than hope to these arguments. That's fine, but it isn't based on empirical data, "science", or judgement about which "side" the "math" is on. ::Rolleyes:: jps (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

To get back on article topic, in this particular instance, I agree with Jjhake. You may disagree with Graff's assertions on the science behind the possibility of alien civilizations, but I would be willing to find more studies to back up his and my position if you wish. Your claim that no science or math has suggested it is possible or even likely alien civilizations exist is irrefutably wrong. Yes, the conclusions are disputed. However, someone pointing out these studies as evidence should not invalidate their status as an expert in the field, otherwise we should also remove Sean M. Kirkpatrick from this article as well. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

His claims of where the ideas are coming from are what are wrong. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions. It's the attempt to attribute them to science or math or some sort of feigned certainty that is the problem. jps (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Rear Admiral (ret.) Tim Gallaudet an expert?

This increasingly off-topic discussion, if it is to be continued, should be moved to an editor's Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This opinion piece looks worthy of a sentence in the “experts” section of the article to me, but I’ll put it here for feedback before making any attempts at an edit. From Rear Admiral (ret.) Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D. (CEO of Ocean STL Consulting, LLC , a research affiliate with Harvard University’s Galileo Project, and a member of the advisory board of Americans for Safe Aerospace. He is a former acting and deputy administrator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4131211-ufos-are-the-story-of-the-century-wake-up-america/amp/ Jjhake (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Came here to suggest this piece, seems legit to me. Names Grusch and calls him credible, and is also primarily a scientist apparently. (Edit: OK so being a rear admiral is also a big deal, shows how much I know). The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, the military and intelligence background and PhD in oceanography for Timothy Gallaudet all look legit. His opinion piece in The Hill has a rather sensational headline and is very "promotional" in tone. However, he lines up in other ways with others listed under experts currently. Jjhake (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Looking at his history a little more, Gallaudet has a long history of UFO advocacy. This alone disqualifies him as an impartial expert voice. His opinion piece reads like sensational advocacy (especially if the headline is his own), so this is not too surprising. Jjhake (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC) As a UFO-enthusiast, I would not describe him as an "expert" as much as a UFO booster. His final paragraph is especially telling as an indication of "non-expert" status: Our tiny planet orbits a relatively medium-sized star, in a galaxy of over 100 billion stars, among a distribution of several hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. How arrogant to believe we are the only species that has developed a means for travel between celestial bodies. Now that we are finding out otherwise, we must demand disclosure of what the government knows. Instead of staying asleep at the wheel, we should wake up as a society for the safety, security, and scientific advantages that can be gained. No sense of the sacle between stars, I note. No real understanding of the implications for what "travel between celestial bodies" entails in a mean physical sense. I also see boosterism for the Galileo Project that is embarrassing if it weren't so transparent (though unacknowledged). No... we don't need more credulity masquerading with credentials. This is classic appeal to authority bullshit that Carl Sagan warned us about in his baloney detection kit lists. jps (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Makes sense (as I noted above). Thanks for the additional details. Jjhake (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) I agree that, given what I have looked into on Gallaudet as well, he isn't suitable. The connections between known wacky paranormal enthusiasts at the hear of U.S. government is worrying for sure and has made me think twice about the whole thing. But, still, I wouldn't dismiss extra terrestrial visitation out of hand because of the scale of the universe. There's plenty of scientific studies that show, even with so many unknowns, that its highly possible a spacefaring species travelling at 20% the speed of light could have spread out among the stars in the huge intervening time since the birth of the first planets and the emergence of human civilization. Space isn't the only think that's vast, time plays a role too and we've been around for so little of it. If you could show me some studies that prove the scale of space is a hard boundary to civilizational expansion over billions of years I'd love to see it! Anyway, I digress, I'll leave it that. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) The key point for your flight-of-fancy is that you need to start with an assumption that a spacefaring species is traveling at 20% the speed of light. That's a number pulled out of thin air. There is no basis for it. As for time, compared to the entire history of the Universe, "we" (depending on how you operationalize "we") have been around for an absolute miniscule amount of it. See Cosmic Calendar. No one needs "studies" to show that this sort of speculation is just that. Keeping it in the realm of speculation with one's assumptions clearly delineated is fine. But even your arguments, for all their problems, are better than the ones Galladet is giving. We could easily accept an assumption that travel between "celestial bodies" (so far, we're confined to our own Solar System, mind you) may be ubiquitous in "intelligent" societies (whatever intelligent means), and we still have to contend with the fact that it is impossible on human society timescales to use present or even wildly extrapolated future technology to allow us to visit other intelligent societies even if they're hiding out on Proxima Cen, for example. This is how incurious Gallaudet is. The simple fact that we don't have the ability to go out and traipse through the stars like some sort of fantastical space opera is enough to make his entire argument silly. jps (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Solar sails, a technology we could build right now, have the potential to reach 5-10% the speed of light if deployed correctly. That's Proxima Centauri in 40 to 80 years. Hardly off the timescales of human society. It's just as much speculation to outright say interstellar travel will not be possible using future technology, as it is to say it will. But that's all by the by to the inclusion of Gallaudet in this article imo, so I'll leave it there. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) What? I know of no solar sail technology proposed that is designed to reach 5% the speed of light. "Have the potential to reach" is just idle speculation. The point is that all of this argumentation is speculation. We have no information one way or another to say that supersocieties will/can achieve such feats. But you are right, we are arguing past the rules of WP:TALK at this point so, fair enough. We agree on Galladet. jps (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Oh, so you don't know of it therefore it doesn't exist? Even though I told you it did? How about asking me for my evidence rather than dismissing it of hand. I suppose Stephen Hawking was involved in idle speculation on the topic as well eh? Breakthrough_Starshot#StarChip The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, Hawking was engaging in idle speculation. I know the people working on StarChip. I see no evidence that this technology scales to transporting humanity to Proxima Cen in 80-year timeframes. Go ahead and show me the published specs. I'll wait. jps (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I don't have to prove they're doing anything other than what they have publicly proposed for the purposes of this argument. I never said humanity could be transported to Proxima A in 80 years. I said there are proposals for a craft that could get there in human timescales, which is true. Gallaudet also never said transporting aliens. He said "means of travel". The point is, you said you don't know of any proposed technology to travel at 20% of the speed of light, and accused me of pulling that figure of thin air I might add, and I showed you a sourced wiki article of said proposal. Your professional opinion on the validity of the project, whether you know people who work on it or not, is irrelevant for encyclopaedic purposes. I will also contest that this continued discussion is now relevant per WP:TALK because I am interested to understand why you think anyone who says anything vaguely in support of the existence of alien civilisations or the possibility of space travel is not a reputable source for this article, regardless of their credentials. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Either you don't understand my point or you're dishonestly moving goalposts. Either way, this just reaffirms my point that the 20% the speed of light assumption is just made up for the sake of wishful thinking. jps (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition of "some" claims under oath?

@DolyaIskrina: the lede should not say "some" claims repeated if the article body does not note which ones were dropped. Do you know which ones were dropped? I've not seen that in sources, and his most recent interview with the BBC (3 August 2023) along with his attorney Charles McCullough, mentioned all the details again, including a mention of Five Eyes again, etc. McCullough does focus, in his one sentence of response aired by the BBC, on the fact that Grusch says that information was being withheld from Congress (without seeming to care about the specifics for his own part), but Grusch continues to repeat all of the same details with no changes that the press (or I) have noted. Jjhake (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the Mussolini alien spaceship Pope story didn't come up in the hearing, but that's a trivial detail that hasn't risen to any level of notability in RS. BTW, I agree with this edit removing "under oath". It would only be notable if he wasn't routinely sworn in. Emphasizing that a storyteller swore "under oath" is typically used to promote belief in whatever extraordinary claim the person is making. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that it's all trivial at this point, and I've not added or defended the addition of the "under oath" detail anyway. So given the most recent removal of this detail again, my question is a mute point (and that's all fine by me). Jjhake (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Grusch college degree removed?

The sentence about the Grusch college degree removed just now seems relevant as the kind of basic background given for every equivalent article that I see on Wikipedia. Seems petty to leave it out. Jjhake (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. What's the point of detailing his college degree and majors? Wikipedia provides background information that is relevant to the content of the article. I see nothing in our article that is better explained by documenting Grusch's college degree, his major in physics, or his minor in German. jps (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally agree with you that it’s irrelevant, but he and others have talked about it as related to all his vaguely pseudoscientific terminology (both pro and con). Jjhake (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If there were text in the article that benefitted from this fact being elucidated, I would be fine with including it. This is why I think his record as a veteran is valuable to the article: it neatly explains his connection to DoD. I don't see much in the article analyzing his use of pseudoscientific terminology. If we do decide to include that sort of thing, I think you would have a point in including the information. But I don't think it is good practice to include this kind of thing on the off-chance that we might someday want to include that material. In the case that this actually does make an appearance in the article, we can add back that detail then. jps (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. The unique terminology is generating a good bit of discussion, so it’s likely to get proposed eventually. Waiting till such time is reasonable, however, given that this is an article about specific claims and not about Grusch with the typical life survey stuff. Jjhake (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"Petty?" No. This article is not a resume or cv. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Basic educational history is ubiquitous in Wikipedia articles even when not biographical, so it will look petty no matter what we say. Jjhake (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Basic educational history is ubiquitous in Wikipedia articles even when not biographical I do not believe that is true, especially when such information is, as you above admit is the case here, "irrelevant." At least at present. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it’s not worth getting into a back and forth with article examples when I agree with you that “not looking petty” isn’t a concern in article writing anyway.

As for the relevance, this news source is one of several that mention his degree in connection to the odd terminology:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/the-ufo-whistleblower-is-back-with-more-crazy-claims.html Jjhake (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the relevant quote is:

Grusch, who received a college scholarship from the Air Force to study physics, did not describe the unusual aircraft as technology from another planet. “I don’t want to necessarily denote origin,” he said. “I don’t think we have all the data to say, Oh, they’re coming from a certain location.” Grusch proposed the vehicles the Pentagon is hiding could have come from a different physical dimension as described in quantum mechanics, saying, “We know there are extra dimensions due to high-energy particle collisions, etc., and there’s a theoretical framework to explain that.”

Ugh. It looks a bit snide to make this argument to me. It's embarrassing that anyone with a physics degree would say what Grusch is saying. But this is going a bit beyond the text of the article (though I suspect the reporter realized exactly the implication they were making). jps (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Charles McCullough seated directly behind Grusch in the hearings

Anyone know of good sources that noted and commented on how Charles McCullough (President Obama’s former Intelligence Community Inspector General who represented Grusch in his Intelligence Community Inspector General complaint) was seated directly behind Grusch in the Congressional hearings? Jjhake (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s obvious in the photos and in a few places online, but no good sources point it out. This one recent news story does refer to Charles McCullough as the acting attorney for Grusch:

https://qz.com/debunking-truth-uap-ufo-allegations-congress-1850682493 Jjhake (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding McCullough, he is identified by name in the caption to a photo from the hearing:

https://thedebrief.org/whistleblowers-testify-under-oath-regarding-craft-of-non-human-origin-and-military-encounters-with-uap/

Of course, some of you don't regard The Debrief as a reliable source. KHarbaugh (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a good source anywhere that identifies who the elderly bald man sitting behind Ryan Graves is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf6y9QHj5S8

If it is not James Clapper, he is his spitting image.

And to get such a prime seat he must have been some kind of VIP.

The line of people waiting to get in started at 2AM. KHarbaugh (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like another top intelligence community member, retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and former Director of National Intelligence. At the very least, there seems to have been some serious interest in this from long-time leadership, but no sources are commenting on this at this point from what I’ve seen. Jjhake (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

https://otter.ai/u/sLa3yVLy-UueWNE0VMF42gEjFLs new BBC radio transcript, posted by sceptic Mick West nonetheless, directly mentioning and speaking to McCullough as Grusch's lawyer. Good enough to add in? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 11:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

And to get such a prime seat he must have been some kind of VIP. In this case, UFO grifters George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell were also in the prime seats directly behind Grusch, so it's more likely preferred seating for whoever the person testifying wants there with them for support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

IG

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4134891-a-monumental-ufo-scandal-is-looming/ Foerdi (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Von Rennenkampff has strong expertise on related intelligence topics and was an Obama appointee in the Pentagon. However, his several opinion pieces on this topic can tend to sound slightly sensationalized and will be of very limited use on Wikipedia. Jjhake (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

As an example, there is

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/581710-in-dramatic-shift-national-intelligence-director-does-not-rule-out/

Sensational? Depends on the reader. Sensationalized? I think not.

MvR quotes current DNI Avril Haines, former director of central intelligence John Brennan, and NASA administrator Bill Nelson.

These are people who actually know something about what the USG has collected regarding UFOs, unlike the university professors who dominate the current Wikipedia page.

Also worth noting that collection may involve sensors whose capabilities, and even existence, are classified.

For what Bill Nelson said, see https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/06/28/nasa-administrator-bill-nelson-classified-ufo-report-newsroom.cnnKHarbaugh (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrative flunkies without scientific chops are not the relevant experts. University Professors on the other hand are generally much more accurate when it comes to WP:ECREE jps (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking to restore comment by Grusch's attorney that Grusch has "briefed both of the intelligence committees"

@ජපස: as you tightened up my language just now and moved it to the bottom of the section (for chronological order I suppose), you cut the statement by Grusch's attorney that he has "briefed both of the intelligence committees". There is a conversation to be had about chronological versus reverse chronological order in this "claims" section, but I don't think it matters much one way or another given how fluid everything still is here anyway. My one request would be that we include the attorney's comment that Grusch has "briefed both of the intelligence committees". This is substantial info for several reasons. Jjhake (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we have some sources that have commented on these supposed briefings? If so, I think I can understand why this is important. If not, I feel a little bit like it is a bit like performative hearsay. (E.g., "He has given this presentation to very powerful people!") jps (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's been suggested indirectly in other places but not directly stated anywhere that I know about. This is why it's the best source. The article should note the fact that the first inspector general of the U.S. told the BBC that these briefings happened. Jjhake (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

But it wasn't in his capacity of inspector general that he was commenting on this, right? This looks a bit like making hay out of something that essentially is only attested to in an interview. Much like taking the witness's (or, in this case, their lawyer's) word for something's import. jps (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say that it was in that capacity in what you deleted from the article. I was very clear that it was in his BBC interview as the attorney for Grusch. Why are we debating the inclusion of this? Jjhake (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I'm debating this because of WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Wikipedia definitely does not document every closed-door briefing that someone says may have happened. jps (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s the heart of the matter with this entire whistleblower article, and the claim by McCullough is the most significant new piece of info since this story first broke on June 5, but you’re saying it’s not important enough? Jjhake (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If it is as important as you are claiming, surely some other source is going to comment on it soon. Then we can include it. If it is, as I suspect, something other sources are not going to be particularly obsessed with, then there won't be any sources and we'll keep it excluded. Is that an okay wait-and-see approach? jps (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

McCullough gives his first interview and gets one question and comment. His brief response should be summarized accurately. Jjhake (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If this article were about McCullough, you'd have a point. But this is not an article about Grusch's lawyer. This is an article about Grusch's whistleblower claims. I get that McCullough, for you, has been one of the most interesting characters in this saga (I'm not sure exactly why, but preferences can be preferences, fine). But I think your own interest is what is motivating this stance rather than the interests that the sources are giving themselves. jps (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I’ve logged my dissent. I can dream that other editors might see my point. Jjhake (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It isn't about seeing your point, which you have made perfectly clearly. Several times. It's about WP:DUE, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

When BBC asks someone who served as the first inelegance inspector general of the U.S. about the legal significance of his client’s whistleblower claims, and that attorney tells the BBC that his client’s whistleblower claims were significant enough for his client to have debriefed both the intelligence committees in Congress, and the article is about that client’s whistleblower claims, this seems like the most obvious case to me of reported info that is WP:DUE, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. But as happens so regularly here, I’m evidently alone in this impression regarding how central this is to the article topic and how legitimate the source is to be cited.

Moreover, the current bit of a quote that was kept from the attorney entirely misrepresents how substantial he considers the claims by Grusch to be. That’s a typical danger when it comes to cherry-picked quotes instead of a simple summary of all the points. Jjhake (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lawyers are subject to WP:MANDY when it comes to defending their clients. It doesn't matter what their previous jobs were. jps (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your point.

Did Grusch present his claims to two committees of Congress?

If so, that is entirely relevant to this article.

jps has a vivid imagination, and can come up with innumerable red herrings to distract from reality.

They should be ignored. KHarbaugh (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see that my thinking makes sense to someone else. I’m certainly not planning to ignore jps, however. I’m sometimes surprised by the questions that jps raises, but I also learn a lot from him and his insightful edits. Currently, any consensus on this question would be divided two to two. Jjhake (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop personalizing. We tolerate you mostly because you are not falling into the same snark and troll traps that previous users have on this page. jps (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And yes, it is interesting as you say, that the attorney "does not emphasize the substance of the claim" by Grusch. There are some lively layerings of motives at play here between the many involved. What exactly all of those are is not that clear yet, but it's certainly a mixed bag.--Jjhake (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Jjhake. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 12:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken a shot at adding it back for now. Jjhake (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you are extracting a quote from a single interview because you feel it's important and other media outlets haven't paid attention to it so Wikipedia should feature it? This issue is often confusing to editors, but it's worth clarifying. The reason why we don't give primary WP:WEIGHT to isolated remarks made during TV or news interviews, especially if they make claims not covered by other RS, is mainly WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE. Interviews with subjects are primary sources because the subjects are providing their own opinions, accounts, or claims. The published story that contains the remarks may be a secondary source, but it can also contain primary sources (the interviewee's remarks). As has been said many times before, Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows. This 'breaking news' addition is not appropriate. Please remove it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. There are others noting this fact but not as directly as McCullough did yesterday. Anyway, I’ve trimmed the fact out again as quested, and I’m glad to wait and see if it’s a point that gets noted by the best sources separately or not. Jjhake (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me again quote from WP: PRIMARY that you cited:

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

I think what jjhake used easily meets the stated criteria.

As to WEIGHT, in no way was jjhake giving excessive weight to what McCullough said in his BBC interview.

Yes, those are Wikipedia's policies.

But they have to be applied with intelligence. KHarbaugh (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

McCullough is getting paid to make these presentations. That's fine, but it means that we need to be careful with representations of his arguments. He is shilling on behalf of his client. He isn't providing additional context. jps (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Mellon

Hey all,

So, was thinking of adding a sentence on Christopher Mellon's support of Grusch's claims (all reported in various media sources of course). However, I wondered where best to put it? I think his opinion qualifies as relevant expert response given his notability and career experience in the intelligence field, but I could see that being controversial.

Any thoughts? Thanks! The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I’d not think it “expert” given his long history of “UFO advocacy” or whatever you’d call it. For my part, a mention elsewhere under media coverage seems relevant given the sources noting it. Jjhake (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds fair. IMO calling someone an expert in a field does include judgement on said field's validity. But I see your point. Might wait for some more feedback anyway. Thanks! The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Check the archives for the discussion of Mellon, but I think that the support from the usual suspects including Kean, Knapp, etc. is of relevance to everyone looking at this. In particular, the fact that Grusch's allies are all ufology wackos (is that the proper term?) is something that needs to be made more clear: [2] jps (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, at some point, some mainstream media is bound to point out the none-too-subtle facts from your Brian Dunning newsletter post. After all, George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell were seated directly behind Grusch as he testified. Jjhake (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The question is: expert on what?

Grusch's claims may be grouped into two areas:

claims about programs within the USG, specifically DoD and the IC, and

claims about what those programs have actually done or "achieved."

Mellon, based on his experience in both the executive and legislative branches, certainly can claim some expertise on what the executive has done in the past.

It seems foolish to deny that.

Further, it is certainly reasonable that that past experience yielded many contacts within even the current compartmented world.

Far more than journalists or university professors would have.

So when Mellon writes in a mainstream publication like POLITICO, I think that can be mentioned in the section on "expert opinion", with the above restriction on his expertise. KHarbaugh (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mellon's expertise is not well-attested to. Like Elizondo, he tends to make claims that have nothing to do with his time in government, at least in terms of actual evidence, when the subject of UFOs comes up. He definitely did try to profit off it by joining To the Stars (company). Didn't go so well, so I guess he's trying to get back on the Bigelow gravy train? [3] jps (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It can be informative to see how someone explains himself.

Here are three videos where Mellon interacts with an interviewer (and yes, those interviewers are sympathetic to the idea of UFOs):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjV-PZyUwlY

8m52s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LjlmAY54yI 14m44s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg0YLxT_Rbg

37m38s

He explains a lot of things.

Agree with it or disagree, you can be your own judge as to his credibility.

On the issue of his finances, certainly his ancestors made a lot of money.

I don't know how much reached his generation. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is undeniable that he is a UFO booster. It is also undeniable that he was part of the Clinton Executive Branch. But those two facts alone aren't enough for me to say that there is something worth including in this page about David Grusch. I would like some better sourcing for, y'know, why we should care. I can name lots of people with fancy former job titles that say all kinds of things about all kinds of subjects. We generally only include them in our articles when they are discussed by prominent independent sources of some repute. I'm not exactly seeing that here. jps (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/03/ufo-crash-materials-intelligence-00100077

count as an example of

"prominent independent sources of some repute" ? KHarbaugh (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No. That's Christopher Mellon given a platform without much regard for context. It is a WP:PRIMARY source at best. jps (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And from the WP:PRIMARY to which you linked:

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

It seems to me that authorizes use of the Mellon piece in POLITICO in our article on Grusch's claims.

If not, why not? KHarbaugh (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Because you've not demonstrated why this is WP:DUE, or how this would be included "with care." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing balanced or neutral about the current section on "relevant experts." It is unbridled skepticism, coming from academics. Nothing balanced about that.

Here, for example, is a point Mellon brings up:

UAP were routinely violating restricted U.S. airspace but these encounters, documented on cockpit videos, weren’t being reported up the military chain of command because of the stigma surrounding this issue.

What that shows is how evidence has been suppressed, by those who seek to stigmatize reporting. This echos much of Ryan Graves' testimony in the hearing.

An issue glaringly omitted in the current article.

There is nothing DUE about it. KHarbaugh (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mellon is an insider to UFO advocacy and no neutral scholars as experts are buying the Grusch claims at this point, so the section can only be critical. That’s what is in all the sources. Jjhake (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that the independent sources are all treating this with the bemused contempt it deserves, but them's the breaks at this WP:MAINSTREAM website. If you don't like it, you need to go convince better sources than Ufology grifters to make your point—or show that they exist already. I haven't seen much edifying in that regard up until now. Just the usual suspects. jps (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

To bridle skepticism would be a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:SENSATIONAL. The consensus in science is that there are no alien visitors here, and never have been. Some military bureaucrat spreading well-known false rumors will not change that.

Everybody who has watched the UFO scene for a few decades can see that this is just "same old, same old". In every new generation of journalists, a few will fall into the same trap their predecessors fell into, and regard silly fairy tales as reliable just because they are told by some type of alpha male. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Check talk page and share ideas in advance if unsure

@Westerosi456H: I don’t recall much on the talk page from you, but you’re doing some lively editing on topics with some history of discussion. I’ll work through them one by one, but just a general fyi here to perhaps ask more talk page questions. Jjhake (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

absolutely. happy to help. Fascinating article. can't wait to learn more. Westerosi456H (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

AP pointing out that "mundane" UFOs not part of the statement.

This article points out that the DoD's statement denying Grusch's claims "did not address UFOs that are not suspected of being extraterrestrial objects." SO WHAT? This is just pointing out that, for example, Chinese balloons and the like are not part of the denial. jps (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

well I think they mean that they may be of UNKNOWN origin, not yet determined to exteratererestrial. Susan Gough has not responded to these claims. I think there's no harm for this to be included if AP has deemed it worthy of inclusion in their article. Westerosi456H (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a reading of the sentence that's absurd... nearly interpreting it in the exact opposite sense of the meaning of the sentence. And it's not as if the AP demanded Susan Gough "respond" to anything. If this is your argument, it is borderline WP:POVPUSH. jps (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

some journalists have specifically asked her that and she has refused to comment. that I suspect is why AP has included that. They probably asked that too. I think it should be included, it's just covering all the scenarios. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Just because you suspect something is going on does not mean we include it at Wikipedia. See WP:OR. People refuse to respond to repeated requests to comment on UFO idiocy all the time. That's hardly worthy of Wikipedia exposition. And we certainly don't include text based on hunches about such. jps (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)