LIVE: Congress holds UFO hearing.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Come to think of it…..Elizondo excuse for not revealing was because of jeopardizing his NDA’s because he’s still working as a government contractor.

But, then what about Grusch? He’s not employed to any government contractors that I know off.

What’s stopping him from spilling ALL of the beans? Besides maybe Death….

Even though Grusch is no longer in active government service, the information he's privy to remains classified. This isn't just about his employment status, it's about legal obligations and national security considerations. Revealing classified information outside of authorized channels, even as a civilian, can lead to criminal prosecution under the U.S. Espionage Act.

www.law.cornell.edu...
§ 793(d)

"Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

How could he have not known that?

If he would have…..he would not have mentioned going into a SCIF to get the full details of all the things he kept saying he couldn’t reveal unless it was in a SCIF.

He might have believed that, with the backing of Congress, special allowances could be made for him to present the information in a SCIF despite his current lack of clearance. An exception might be possible if deemed necessary for national security, or in the interest of public transparency and accountability.

Authorization: High-ranking officials, such as members of Congress, might make a case for the individual's need to access a SCIF. They would need to present compelling reasons why this exception should be made.

Temporary Clearance: In some instances, a temporary security clearance could be granted. This would involve a quick (but thorough) assessment of the individual's background and trustworthiness.

Non-Disclosure Agreements: Even with temporary clearance, the individual would likely have to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) stating that they will not leak or improperly handle the information they come into contact with.

Supervision: The individual might be allowed into the SCIF under the strict supervision of cleared personnel.

Debriefing: After the session in the SCIF, the individual would be debriefed and reminded of their obligations under the NDAs.

a reply to: andre18

See my previous post to include Grusch’s wife….take a gander

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


My point is that if there was real danger in this affair, bringing his wife into it may be a commentary on the condition of his marriage.

Or it's dangerous to name her.

Having nothing to do with calling her as a witness. Though calling her a witness can expose her to danger.

... That's IF the danger HE claims is around is legit.

As a firm believer in UFOs for god knows how long I'm actually coming around the idea that the whole thing could be a massive Psychological operation on a scale we've never seen before.

From abductions to first hand UfO witnesses, from UFOs caught on radar to the shutting down of Nuclear capabilities to crash retrieval. Video, pictures the lot.

The whole damn thing is the greatest trick ever pulled on mankind and the sole reason is to make their enemies believe they have weapons that are simply out of this world.

This all started at the tail end of WW2. In 47 it was reported that the US had retrieved A crashed saucer. Before that Arnold and others set the bait with stories of flying discs and the like.

The Russians, the US's only threat at the time would have been watching very closely and sweating at the possibility that their main adversary has just jumped light years ahead in the arms race.

Since then other nations have the ability to defend themselves quite well against conventional weapons, He'll the US couldn't beat the Vietcong or more recently the Taliban conclusively.

Yeah the US is still decades ahead tech wise but others like China, Russia and India are catching up and a few others now have the capability to launch intercontinental Nukes. What better way to keep the enemy guessing as to how long they would last if they ever used one if in fact they even got off the ground after all these damn aliens appear to have the ability to telepathically read minds from a great distance.

Apparently, they also have the ability to shut down nukes in their hiding places, turn off engines, interfere with advanced fighter plane tech ...or so they say.

Now what about this guy Grusch who suddenly crawls out of the woodwork two weeks ago and gets front and center in front of the house?

I hope i'm wrong.

a reply to: andre18

All of what you’re saying seems strange in light of the simple reason Grusch claims and the Congressman, BTW, too, that there still is an active gov coverup, then why should they give him any temporary clearance?

And why does the Congressman say it’s a bs excuse? It's Not a bs excuse in light of their legitimate( to them) security concerns.

You see, all this classified secret stuff and NDAs, according to the government regarding ufo disclosure, has to do with the tech the gov has that will be exposed, NOT the ufo secrets.

Now that’s what they say; that doesn’t make that true.

What I'm saying, and I think others too, is that all this amounts to is a bogus " disclosure" movement being peddled for reasons not having anything to do with disclosure.

It's like a circular firing squad of facts and limitations, all amounting to the impossibility of any real disclosure coming about.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: introufo

Why don’t we just ask Grusch’s wife what she knows at the next hearing.…..maybe behind closed doors of his home…he revealed to her things.

I’m almost sure NDA’s and clearances don’t extend to family and friends.

It’s Grusch that signed the papers…..not them.

Jus sayin

As a matter of fact…..spouses of whistleblower’s, witnesses……should be fair game.

Look at Jesse Marcels wife (and son)she sung like a canary describing wreckage debris…in interviews…..meanwhile Jesse had clearances….hmmmmm

👽

It's not exactly practical or ethical. Here's why:

First off, privacy matters. David Grusch's wife, just like anyone else, deserves her privacy. We can't just decide to pull her into this unless she willingly wants to be involved.

Second, handling classified information isn't something just anyone can do. It requires specific security clearances, which she might not have. If she doesn't have clearance, she's not allowed to handle or share sensitive info, even if she's heard about it.

Third, her info hasn't been checked properly. If she doesn't have the right clearances, her information wouldn't have gone through the right channels. We could end up spreading wrong info, which isn't helpful for anyone.

Fourth, there's a legal aspect. In many legal systems, you can't force a spouse to testify against the other. This is called spousal privilege, and it's a key part of protecting the marital relationship.

Finally, there's an ethical side. Even if she wanted to share information, it wouldn't be right to use a family member to get around the official way of doing things.

a reply to: andre18

That is my point. Why would he mention her?

I figure Ohpi was being facetious.

Now Grusch may have just been inadvertently saying something off the cuff he should not have regarding his wife.

But if not, then it's strange to me he would bring her in this and at the same time portray such a sinister environment.

a reply to: introufo

It could be that he was trying to stress the personal impact of the information he holds. He might have simply mentioned his wife to emphasize the gravity of the situation and the potential risks involved.

So here’s dialogue verbatim….

Burlison: I think there's been a lot of things that have been said in the public, Mr. Grush, and so I want to get down to, if we can, some specifics, right? So at one point you had said that there has been harmful activity or aggressive activity. Has any of the activity been aggressive, been hostile in your reports?

Grusch: I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured, and the activity..

Burlison: By UAPs or by people within the…Okay, so there has been activity by alien or non-human technology and or beings that is…

Grusch: I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed, and I have to be very careful here because you don't, you know, they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right? So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing.

Why would his wife be exposed to any activity in which his wife also, apparently, witnessed?

What he says here to include his wife…..is odd to say the least…

He says it with confidence……I didn’t see the “OH $HIT! what did I just say” look in his eyes.

Unless of course his wife was part of a program….I doubt she is military, because of military fraternization policy…but I could be wrong….

Nevertheless if she witnessed what he witnessed….then some how she might have been in the mix…….versus Grusch coming home one day and saying to his wife “hey babe…..guess what I saw today”.

True…they could have been married while both worked for the government or after one or both left.

Surprisingly….no one questioned Grusch’s slip of the tongue(?)….about his wife…….hmmmm

Ref timestamp approximately 01:52:30

👽

I'm just hoping that David Grusch isn't out on a mission to falsely demonize my precious space aliens.

originally posted by: andre18
To MrInquisitive's point about a non-human biologic possibly referring to an animal or plant, blood etc, that's valid if we're discussing biological materials in a broad sense. But, you should understand the question was specifically about the bodies of the pilots. If a craft had indeed fallen on a farm and killed a cow, the cow wouldn't be logically referred to as a pilot. Grusch's use of the term "biologics" in response to a question about the craft's pilots suggests an implicit link between the two.

I didn't forget that, that's why I said I wouldn't accept an answer like that.

While it's true that Grusch didn't confirm the "biologics" were extraterrestrial, he did assert they were non-human. In the context that the crashed craft are believed to be of alien origin, his statement can clearly be read as a guarded confirmation of the existence of alien entities.
The problem with all that is that the way things were said they really mean nothing.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
Why the congresswoman didn't ask the follow-up question of "what do you mean by 'biologics'?" shows the ineptitude of that congresswoman and all the congress folk who asked questions after or it shows that this was a dog an pony show no meant to get to the heart of the matter.

Either that or she didn't want a real answer...

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
So here’s dialogue verbatim….

Burlison: I think there's been a lot of things that have been said in the public, Mr. Grush, and so I want to get down to, if we can, some specifics, right? So at one point you had said that there has been harmful activity or aggressive activity. Has any of the activity been aggressive, been hostile in your reports?

Grusch: I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured, and the activity..

Burlison: By UAPs or by people within the…Okay, so there has been activity by alien or non-human technology and or beings that is…

Grusch: I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed, and I have to be very careful here because you don't, you know, they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right? So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing.

Why would his wife be exposed to any activity in which his wife also, apparently, witnessed?

What he says here to include his wife…..is odd to say the least…

He says it with confidence……I didn’t see the “OH $HIT! what did I just say” look in his eyes.

Unless of course his wife was part of a program….I doubt she is military, because of military fraternization policy…but I could be wrong….

Nevertheless if she witnessed what he witnessed….then some how she might have been in the mix…….versus Grusch coming home one day and saying to his wife “hey babe…..guess what I saw today”.

True…they could have been married while both worked for the government or after one or both left.

Surprisingly….no one questioned Grusch’s slip of the tongue(?)….about his wife…….hmmmm

Ref timestamp approximately 01:52:30

👽

It does seem like Grusch's wife was somehow involved in the incident(s) he mentioned. While it is unusual for a spouse to be involved in classified or sensitive incidents, unless they are in a similar line of work, it's not entirely impossible.

It could be that they both witnessed an event that wasn't strictly tied to his work but was related to the phenomena he was investigating. Or it could be an event that happened in their personal lives that he felt was connected.

However, it is also possible, as you suggested, that his wife had some degree of involvement in his work or in related projects. This could be a result of a wide range of circumstances, from her own professional background to mere happenstance.

Until more information becomes available, we can only make educated guesses about the circumstances.

a reply to: andre18

As soon as he said “my wife” …..that was an open door for a Congress person to have asked….”your wife? What do you mean ….how is she associated to what happened to you”

And then it just snowballs from there….if he’s willing to follow up with an answer.

If not…it leaves minds questioning…..welllllll like us here.

But No Congress person asked…about his wife

👽

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: andre18

As soon as he said “my wife” …..that was an open door for a Congress person to have asked….”your wife? What do you mean ….how is she associated to what happened to you”

👽

Maybe she was abducted.

a reply to: ArMaP
To MrInquisitive's point about a non-human biologic possibly referring to an animal or plant, blood etc, that's valid if we're discussing biological materials in a broad sense. But, you should understand the question was specifically about the bodies of the pilots. If a craft had indeed fallen on a farm and killed a cow, the cow wouldn't be logically referred to as a pilot. Grusch's use of the term "biologics" in response to a question about the craft's pilots suggests an implicit link between the two.

I didn't forget that, that's why I said I wouldn't accept an answer like that.

Understood, but it's important to remember that this isn't about individual preferences or what one would or wouldn't accept. This isn't a stage for projecting what one would or wouldn't do if given control of the situation.

While it's true that Grusch didn't confirm the "biologics" were extraterrestrial, he did assert they were non-human. In the context that the crashed craft are believed to be of alien origin, his statement can clearly be read as a guarded confirmation of the existence of alien entities.

The problem with all that is that the way things were said they really mean nothing.

I hear your frustration, but dismissing statements because they're not spelled out plainly can be a mistake. We're dealing with a sensitive issue here - it's like trying to read between the lines of a coded message. Sure, Grusch didn't lay out a clear cut 'yes, these are aliens' but the context of his words implies much more than you're giving credit for.

It's not about reading into things too deeply, it's about understanding the nuanced language often used in complex, sensitive, or classified discussions. This isn't a children's book, it's real-life potential disclosure. And in such scenarios, indirect confirmations like 'non-human biologics' can be as close to an 'admission' as you get.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: introufo

It could be that he was trying to stress the personal impact of the information he holds. He might have simply mentioned his wife to emphasize the gravity of the situation and the potential risks involved.

That’s very well possible.
Then if all of this is secret and classified, how’d his wife get involved anyway? It's possible they threatened them.

Then why not say they were threatened rather than I think I recall him suggesting he and his wife saw something strangely ufo related?



Thank God for the edit

So here it is; Ophi shows it...good.

Grusch: I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed, and I have to be very careful here because you don't, you know, they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right? So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing.

I think what he says is NOT something he should have said simply because, number one, it may jeopardize his wife, and number two, it's too mysterious, vague, and very unprofessional sounding...the whole statement. Saying things like this are just emotionally provocative...

It may be chalked up to his immaturity as an agent or the pressure of it all on the young man...

Or worse.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


I’d like to know about the threats they’ve supposedly received. Grusch just seems like he’s grandstanding to me. THEY picked HIM for a reason. They saw something about his personality that was advantageous for the psyop. They have purpose behind every minute detail.

a reply to: KKLOCO

I think his betters picked him for a few reasonable reasons. They figured the operative would need to be cocky and therefore thick-skinned enough to be grilled and hold his own.

His former position(s) make him "credible" and he's obviously bright enough.

I think the problem is he knows the details he was given are ufological weak-sauce and therefore he's not able to psychologically sell it.

He's probably smarter than his handlers but had to go along with their stupid plan anyway.

a reply to: The GUT

He's probably smarter than his handlers but had to go along with their stupid plan anyway.

I absolutely agree with everything in your post, except for the statement above.

I’ll also concede that you’re much more educated than me on this topic.

If Grusch is the first domino to ‘disclosure’ (whether true or not), I believe that his handlers are representatives of higher ups. They would have meticulously picked their ‘whistleblower’.