Disclosure Is A Process Not An Event

Associates who vouched for Grusch said his information was highly sensitive, providing evidence that materials from objects of non-human origin are in the possession of highly secret black programs. Although locations, program names, and other specific data remain classified, the Inspector General and intelligence committee staff were provided with these details. Several current members of the recovery program spoke to the Inspector General’s office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint.

Some people seem to be taking issue with the fact that Grusch hasn't actually seen (either in person or in a photo) the craft and bodies that he's claiming exist.

Having done a deep dive on this over the last few days, I'd like to offer some perspective that seems to be getting…

— The UFO Rabbit Hole Podcast (@UFO_Rabbit_Hole) June 8, 2023

I think Grusch was selected for this role. No 36 year old flushes his future down the toilet by making disclosures such as these without significant backing and assurances of a future livelihood. It makes sense to me that some person or persons within aerospace special access programs is gaming the disclosure process. Such a one would have access to classification officers and all the programmatic detail required to game the system.  

I believe he was also chosen for his clean record, lack of skeletons (that we know of), and reputation amongst peers. Same reason Rosa Parks was chosen to be the face of the bus boycotts over the initial candidate who was pregnant out of wedlock. Strategic catalysts are chosen for palatability to for the general public. Grusch is the Rosa Parks of the pro-disclosure camp for now.

Regarding (4): Grusch did not employ the secure reporting system for UAP info, created by the FY23 NDAA. Rather, he filed a complaint under the law governing the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, enacted in 2010 (with some later revisions).https://t.co/9n4WUMgg8W pic.twitter.com/xkynOJzVaQ

— D. Dean Johnson (@ddeanjohnson) June 8, 2023

Grusch was chosen because he is someone who would be be viewed as credible by the public and has all of the requisite clearances. You would tell Grusch a bunch of juicy secrets but be extra careful not to let him directly see anything firsthand. The reason he never saw any of this firsthand is because, by design, he wasn't allowed to see any of it, as it would immediately disqualify him from carrying out this task. The hearsay evidence aspect is vitally important. Certainly some types of hearsay, if it ended up being accurate, could still be blocked from release under the national security criteria. So it seems like either they have determined his claims really don't endanger national security, and/or their accuracy couldn't be determined based on what they know. It doesn't seem possible to tell which is closer to the truth right now.

However, it does seem likely that the DoD could have made an argument for blocking the release, regardless of the truth. Or at least stalled and delayed, etc. So the fact they cleared it does (probably) tell us that, all things equal, they preferred, at this point in time, to let him speak.

But critically, it doesn't seem possible to know WHY DoD cleared it now - their motives. The tweet implies that the DoD wants the story be buried. I don't think we can assume that. The tweet also implies that Grusch was playing 4D chess by only hearing or reading secondhand information so that he could make a whistleblower case. Maybe? 

Unfortunately, another explanation is simply that he was intentionally shown material that was false, misleading, or somehow inaccurate. Or, that he or the people he got the information from drew the wrong conclusions from that material. If that's the case, the DoD could basically conclude: "the guy thinks he's telling the truth about these things, we know that he's probably wrong, but it may serve our interests to let him tell his story here anyway". I won't speculate on why they would want that, but its not hard to come up with plausible reasons.

My point is that its hard to know the motivations of the DoD in allowing Grusch to speak. They could be (1) engaging in a disinformation campaign (people were deliberately feeding him false info to see if he would leak it, or hoping that he would leak it) (2) be taking advantage of a guy who honestly drew incorrect conclusions from secondhand information or (3) finally deciding to tell people about some truly crazy things (either because they were under pressure or genuinely think its the right thing to do). There may even be other reasons. From what I can tell, there isn't a whole lot of evidence weighing disproportionately on any of these.

Legal secret programs are not kept from the White House. That is the whole basis of Grusch's whistleblower complaint. It was his job to deliver reports from secret programs to the White House and he knew that the non-human craft program was not disclosed in those reports. He tried to report it and was retaliated against. By disclosing only hearsay in the context of a whistleblower retaliation complaint, Grusch harnesses a process that will administratively force investigation. That investigation will force the DoD to lie, force the DoD to admit the existence of the special access program(s), or force the DoD to be truthful in that the evidence doesn't exist which will put the issue to bed. End of day it's a win for outsiders like us, it puts enough onus on the DoD that forces them into making a move if the reports of hearings centered around the allegations are believed to be true. 

Finally, a lot of people put too big a premium on the court of public opinion. None of that matters. The court of public opinion ruled a long time ago that the JFK assassination was full of holes, that hasn't meant anything, because the court of public opinion means little. It's not totally irrelevant but damn near.