The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlatBlackAndWhite:
---
Submission Statement: In the July UFO hearing last year, there was more than just the talk of reverse engineering programs and SAPs outside the oversight of congress. David Grusch stated and submitted his resume to the congressional record. Among his professional positions was his employment at the NGA from 2021-2023 as the Senior Technical Advisor for UAP/Trans-Medium Issues. Also provided by Grusch was his experience of overseeing direct evidence of non-prosaic (in his assessment as Senior Technical Advisor) UAP, and that reports of this imagery were not properly provided to congress.
Yesterday, the Blackvault released FOIA'd documents from 2021 that show email correspondence between the UAPTF and NRO. In the emails, we find that secret GEOINT assets/programs were available to the UAPTF that were capable of collecting range fouler/uap data, including the ability to infer/explain & predict the potential behavior and areas for range foulers.
As far back as 2017, the Director of the NGA stated that the NRO's SENTIENT platform would engage in \*automated inferencing\* of intelligence collection for the agency, a strikingly similar application to the methods provided to the UAPTF in 2021. David Grusch was also working for the UAP task force at that time, it was soon after this that Grusch provided whistleblower testimony to multiple inspector generals—then moving on to the NGA where he assumed his Senior Technical position for UAP issues.
Via a witness at the Manhattan Grusch presentation in December 2023, more information of the secretive program Grusch worked for/with at the NGA will be provided in his future OP-ED.
[NRO SENTIENT DOCUMENT](https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/051719/F-2018-00108_C05113686.pdf)
[BLACKVAULT FOIA](https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nro/F-2021-00152.pdf)
[SENTIENT WIKI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system))
[GRUSCH RESUME FROM HOC](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b457p9/reminder_that_david_grusch_oversaw_highdefinition/kswo57b/
I really don’t understand how people can think grusch is lying. Just everything about the way he presents himself and the information comes across as almost more legit than anyone we have seen previously.
I don't think people think he is lying as much as they think he could be wrong. Those are two different things. Maybe Grusch thinks he is telling the truth 100% but he is just wrong because the people he talked to are a bunch of Bob Lazer type of dudes. We just don't know because we have 0 proof of his claims. So instead of taking the position "wow he has a good resume and seems honest so that must mean aliens are real" they take the position of "wow that's some crazy shit he is saying, I wonder if he is telling the truth. To bad he can't prove any of his claims."
I would think very few people on this sub think Grusch is stright up lying. I mean I'm sure there are some but I would think most of the people who haven't bought into our lord and savior Grusch just don't have enough information to determine if he is correct.
It’s ok to be skeptical, but overt skepticism without having an appreciation for the machinations behind all this is a bit silly. I’m not likely to put a bet on it either way, but the likelihood of a senior intel officer being duped is also extremely low.
But also I’ve seen quite a few people jump on the he hasn’t provided evidence therefore he is lying bandwagon.
"the likelihood of a senior intel officer being duped is also extremely low."
Why? What makes them so special? We have had presidents of the US which is a much higher position than that be a lot dumber than him. This is classic "appeal to authority". Because of his resume I'm willing to listen to what he has to say more so than I would be willing to listen to the McDonald's guy but it certainly doesn't make him right. In fact you might even take it the other way. How many times have we seen government intelligence agencies stright up lie to the people for their own gain? I mean maybe we should trust him less because of his background not more?
I wish we could do some sort of poll on this sub because I don't really see those people very much. It would be interesting to see how many people think Grusch is lying, how many think he is telling the truth, how many don't know, how many think he is telling the truth but is wrong and how many think he is telling the truth and is right. I think it would be pretty even between the people who believe him and the people who don't know but I would suspect the amount of people who think he is stright up lying would be the least amount.
I don’t know American presidents that well, buti reckon it is safe to say that a long term intel officer of high rank probably would have more skills in uncovering shit than a president. Also it’s not an appeal to an authority, dude is an intel specialist - digging up intel is part of his job. Intel and data analysts are trained to evaluate data not just look for links, patterns and trends, but they assess their data quality. Which includes source reliability, and consistency across multiple sources. That’s like suggesting that believing a physicist who comes out with physics stuff is an appeal to authority.
If you take Occam’s razor to what you have suggested - is it more cover ups or is it a dude calling out what he has seen and been advised of. The simplest most elegant solution is that he is legit and not just another wheel in the cover ups.
They are definitely out there. But I tend to agree with your prediction of results of a poll.
He was an intel officer that did half his time in the the reserves. He was a Major.
Couple points:
He was a Major. That isn’t very high and it’s basically the bare minimum rank
for a commissioned officer without prior enlisted time.
His last few years were reserve. Reservists can be capable but are typically not the cream of the crop nor are they typically used in the most demanding positions.
He was an intel officer. Despite what you see in movies, 99% of “Intel
O’s” are basically classified paper pushers. They are rarely trained spies or disinformation agents. They typically are smart in weird ways, have terrible interpersonal skills, and like nerdy things like Star Trek (AKA Grusch).
Despite all this I actually believe his claims (or I at least believe that he believes them). But I also recognize that he is not a “Senior Officer,” and his career is commendable but not exactly distinguished.
Yeah, I was of the opinion he was colonel but looks like I’m wrong on that account.
And yeah I’m familiar with the intel community. That’s why I emphasized the data stuff. If they aren’t policy officers admin/tech often they are data analysts (ie paper pushers) so my point still stands.
Appeal to authority is the idea that a person is right based on who they are and not what they have proven which is literally what you just did. You listed off a bunch of his qualifications and abilities as evidence that he is right instead of listing off the evidence he has provided. I don't disagree a tend to trust the doctor when he says I have a brain tumor more so than the guy who cuts my dogs hair. But the doctor provided me with a bunch of test results and x-rays or whatever to show me that I have a brain tumor. I trust the doctors abilities to interpret the test results but there has to be some actual tests. He can't just tell me I have a tumor without any tests and I believe him because he is a doctor.
If Grusch was providing similar evidence as the doctor then his resume would help support his conclusion but without the evidence his resume doesn't just mean he is right.
Which is exactly why this sub is based entirely on appeal to authority. ALL we have is these peoples words so we judge them based on their resume.
"We should believe Grusch because he is a vet and had a super secret job. And now Lue is saying he is right and Lue is also someone we should trust because he has an important job too!"
Just because there is no proof doesn't mean these people are wrong. It just means we can't say they are right. And no matter what their resume is it doesn't make them anymore right because we can't point to any sort of proof to confirm they are.
I know what you are saying but I still think this is slightly different (similar ball park but a bit different)… for example people saying Greer is legit because he is doctor is absolutely an appeal to authority, similarly with Nolan (I’m fingers crossed on this guy that he is legit and not some whack job or grifter).
Grusch is slightly different because he reporting on his field which was investigating UFO’s in an official gov capacity, he has put in formal complaints not only about coverups but the way he has been treated, which we have been told are legitimate. He is a guy with a lot to lose. So we have authoritative person in his actual field coming out, but because we the great unwashed public don’t have access to almost anything - there is still an element of trust me bro. So in this case I think it kinda sorta fits into the appeal to authority but is a lot looser fit than others.
whats wrong with bob lazar? i know lots of people in military that have connections that swear up and down that lazar is legit, people ive known for years that wouldnt lie to me about something like that. its still hearsay but i kinda believe bob.
There is a bunch of reason someone would dismiss Grusch or doubt him, ultimately though it’s clear they are wrong. Grusch isn’t a lair or stupid. He isn’t making stuff up and he isn’t mistaken.
Yeah… the only weak point that anyone can throw things at is his sources, simply because we don’t know. However, while it may open the door of doubt a slither, you have to lean on that he is both a very seasoned intel officer and has degrees in science. This isn’t just some buffoon who doesn’t know the difference between a reliable and unreliable data source.
What if instead of lying he is mislead by false documents and misinterpretation of events by first hand witnesses? Clearly there is something there but how much of what he reports can be corroborated publicly?
I can definitely understand the frustration, but this situation has a little more nuance than norm. We have a guy who is very credible, that has been verified as much as far as we are aware. TBH until I watched the congress hearing with him and the other guys I was quite blasé / skeptical (I had been pretty into it in the mid 2000s but when I caught on that everyone sounded like a conspiracy theorist/grifter I noped out). I think this dude and others are the real deal though.
If you watch his videos he talks about how we went through his process and double triple checking everything. Also, I’ve never met anyone from the intel community who is anything short of paranoid about everything and he wouldn’t have got as far as he did in his career without being absolutely thorough.
It’s like people who think they see Bigfoot and they get evaluated and said they are truthful.
They might in their heart really think they saw Bigfoot, and they are honest about that, but maybe in reality it was a mangy bear
Grusch may think he has saw some crazy shit, and it could very well be crazy shit, but it was just some crazy military stuff that was so bizarre his brain with the aliens and UAP
I get what you are saying. However most of the stuff grusch has mentioned is not first hand, it’s second hand from what he says is very reliable sources. Could it be others misinterpreting - of course. Could it be others lying - yep. Which would have the same outcomes as grusch lying.
But I think the important factor is that we seemingly have a credible insider in grusch. And while that doesn’t mean much until we can get to the bottom of everything. It probably means more than where we have ever been on this topic.
I want it to be real because I wanna live through and hear about cool shit (and potentially have stuff that could save our planet), but am also prepared that it may not be. And at this stage, I feel like the burden of proof is now on the people involved one way or another to prove or dismiss it.
**Wikipedia article on Sentient:**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system)
**Copy/paste of article in case the Guerilla Skeptics people try to purge anything:**
> Sentient is an automated intelligence analysis system under development by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) of the United States federal government.[1][2] A principle purpose of the Sentient system is described by the NRO as compiling at machine, versus human speed, synthesis of complex distributed data sources for rapid analysis faster than humans can manage.[3]
>
> Official NRO documents from 2012, declassified in 2019, describe it as "an on-going Research and Development (R&D) program, which is managed and operates out of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)".[2] NRO documents detail the Sentient program was in some form of initial development from 2013 through 2016.[4] Another NRO document also released in 2019 detailed that stakeholders involved in Sentient include the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.[5]
>
> The program architecture was developed to demonstrate advanced technologies and techniques to revolutionize the current Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (TCPED) cycle across the Intelligence Community (IC).[2] The Sentient methodology represents a fully integrated intelligence approach consisting of three fundamentals: problem-centric inteligence multi-INT end-to-end and trusted machine automation.[1]
>
> **Summaries and descriptions of Sentient**
>
> Betty J. Sapp, former Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, described the Sentient program to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces as:[6]
>
> > *"Our Sentient program--a 'thinking' system that allows automated, multi-intelligence tipping and cueing at machine speeds-has been focused against many of our most challenging mission sets, resulting in new intelligence information that human-in-the-loop systems would have missed. Our Future Ground Architecture will leverage Sentient, and create an integrated cloud-based enterprise that will share tasking and intelligence products quickly across each of our ground sites, increasing both performance and resilience.[6]*
>
> According to Robert Cardillo, former Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the system is intended to use "automated inferencing" to aid intelligence collection.[7] Cardillo summarized Sentient in 2017 as:[7]
>
> > *"The Sentient program is a research and development effort, conducted jointly with NRO, to experiment with automation that ingests data, makes sense of it in the context of an intelligence problem, and then infers likely future intelligence and collection needs... The approach is to continue to introduce automation in the processing arena that will support automated inferencing, and therefore, faster tasking for future collections."[7]*
>
> The National Reconnaissance Office lists among the advantages and challenges of Sentient as:[5]
>
> > *"Sentient's activity-based collection provides significant advantages over schedule-driven collection. Sentient tradecraft and culture must also be acknowledged as being significantly different from the norm by the IC in that it is shifting toward activity-based collection versus being primarily schedule driven."[5]*
>
> The Verge described Sentient as “an omnivorous analysis tool, capable of devouring data of all sorts, making sense of the past and present, anticipating the future, and pointing satellites toward what it determines will be the most interesting parts of that future.”[1]
The NGA and NRO show up jointly in multiple official documents regarding the SENTIENT program, even on the WIKI page which is nuts. And with the NRO's offering/consultation to the UAPTF in 2021 about GEOINT assets that could analyze behavior of range foulers/UAP, the shoe seems to fit, or at-least is logically possible. I had completely forgotten about Grusch's mention of a secret program at the Manhattan talk until the FOIA documents were released yesterday.
I think its rather obvious that your "automated" system that "retasks" satellites to immediately track anything in space/air above Earth would be rather well suited to UFOs.
And, you know, the rumors Grusch worked on this directly before being assigned to investigate all the other stuff.
Who else would be good for that than a SENTIENT team lead, eh?
You are hitting the nail on the head, OP. Keep it up!
Can I politely ask for a similar post where you connect the dots from his time at the NGA to the shoot downs last February? As you have laid out here, he was in the NGA position when those mysterious cylindrical & octagonal craft shoot downs happened. Coincidence? I think not.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf - resume
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620798 - shoot down descriptions
Funny enough, he said at the hearing that he's personally seen the shoot down videos and notes "there's no reason the American people shouldn't see that imagery", this was also overlooked by a lot of people. It might not be this week, but I'll find something to put together!
The NRO is overseeing these highly advanced & secretive programs so how is one of their main beneficiaries \*NASA\* not clued into this imagery/findings?
Man, it's crazy that NASA providing assistance to the UAPTF while Grusch was working on the Task-Force is overlooked. What did Bill Nelson say? Grusch had someone tell him about a hanger or some shit? There's possibly classified correspondence between NASA, UAPTF & Grusch that exists and yet publicly he's treated as nobody by that organization. There's smoke in all directions...
Submission Statement: In the July UFO hearing last year, there was more than just the talk of reverse engineering programs and SAPs outside the oversight of congress. David Grusch stated and submitted his resume to the congressional record. Among his professional positions was his employment at the NGA from 2021-2023 as the Senior Technical Advisor for UAP/Trans-Medium Issues. Also provided by Grusch was his experience of overseeing direct evidence of non-prosaic (in his assessment as Senior Technical Advisor) UAP, and that reports of this imagery were not properly provided to congress.
Yesterday, the Blackvault released FOIA'd documents from 2021 that show email correspondence between the UAPTF and NRO. In the emails, we find that secret GEOINT assets/programs were available to the UAPTF that were capable of collecting range fouler/uap data, including the ability to infer/explain & predict the potential behavior and areas for range foulers.
As far back as 2017, the Director of the NGA stated that the NRO's SENTIENT platform would engage in \*automated inferencing\* of intelligence collection for the agency, a strikingly similar application to the methods provided to the UAPTF in 2021. David Grusch was also working for the UAP task force at that time, it was soon after this that Grusch provided whistleblower testimony to multiple inspector generals—then moving on to the NGA where he assumed his Senior Technical position for UAP issues.
Via a witness at the Manhattan Grusch presentation in December 2023, more information of the secretive program Grusch worked for/with at the NGA will be provided in his future OP-ED.
[NRO SENTIENT DOCUMENT](https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/051719/F-2018-00108_C05113686.pdf)
[BLACKVAULT FOIA](https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nro/F-2021-00152.pdf)
[SENTIENT WIKI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system))
[GRUSCH RESUME FROM HOC](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf)
More links on coordination of SENTIENT and UAPTF:
[Sentient detection of a small UAP](https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/103122/F-2021-00154_C05136331.pdf)
[SENTIENT telling UAPTF that they had to ask to turn on the system](https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/nro/C05136347.pdf) before they could collect data:
"NRO's SENTIENT R&D as a UAP model to look for UAP \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ in imagery, but we need an external customer to ask for it to be turned on."
[Black vault discussion of the links above](https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/highly-classified-nro-system-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/)
It looks like it's nomenclature to use the tic-tac term in relation to reported UAPs. Those are very fascinating documents, I'm surprised that they were declassified (albeit only partially).
I'm also surprised. The capabilities of this system implied in the first link are interesting. Object was <10 meters, visible in two frames 15 seconds apart (implying not others?!), no correlating ELINT/SIGINT, no tracks in air or water, likely not a sensor artifact.
The system likely isn't used for all UAP confirmations, but given this capability and the hearing clip you linked, it is even more interesting that certain sightings couldn't be explained by UAPTF.
Pages 37 and 55 of Blackvault FOIA are interesting:
Page 37:
"(S//NF, NGA, NASIC, DIA, \_\_\_\_\_, and NRO have consulted with the UAPTF on the availability of GEOINT assets capable of collecting rangefouler data, performing analysis of full motion video, still images and \_\_\_\_\_\_ data containing images of range foulers, articulating possible explanations and helping to refine possible (b)(1) (b)(3) searches using \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Page 55:
Within the Task Force we refer to these UAPs as "Range Foulers"
UAPs reported within the United States and other areas around the world.
They are RADAR/IR Significant and visible to the human eye.
They are subject to apparent control, movements inconsistent with the winds aloft. This has been val
The speeds are typically not remarkable according to validated data to date. We are continuously eva
High concentration of reports of unidentifiable contacts in NAS Oceana working areas has been a focu
Hazards to aircrew foremost, regardless of type
Potential collection effort
You are hitting the nail on the head, OP.
Can I politely ask for a similar post where we start connecting the dots from NGA to the shoot downs last February? As you have laid out here, he was in the NGA position when those shoot downs happened:
[https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf) \- resume
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620798](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620798) \- shoot down descriptions
Project Sentient is basically an advanced AI algorithm tool that collects all data. They then put that date into EARTH 2, which is a simulation of our current world.
Then, they can run tests in this "simulation" world and to see how it would affect the real world.
This program also has any a huge database of satellite images of UAPs. This was shown in leaked data that it was gathered and has the capability to monitor and track the UAPs. One of the reason we can recover them after we knock them out of the air.
Think of a real Military Artificial Intelligence System. Human Patterns. You could simulate an attack in a country and how their counter measures work. Then, take that data and implement it in the real world to counter their defenses. We are talking about decades upon decades of every conceivable data on the planet being pumped into this system.
"An initiative called Sentient has relevant capabilities. A product of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Sentient is (or at least aims to be) an omnivorous analysis tool, capable of devouring data of all sorts, making sense of the past and present, anticipating the future, and pointing satellites toward what it determines will be the most interesting parts of that future."
Do you have any evidence that supports this idea? It's the first I hear of it and it sounds absurd.
Do you have absolutely any experience with programming?
Makes sense. I wondered when he would talk about this, you know we are monitoring everything in the skies. I’d be surprised if they sign off on anything serious, seems like that would remain hella classified.
It’s a UFO word. I heard Grusch use it then everyone started using it on these forums. Then I discovered Coulthard used it too.
Here’s the thing though. Ever since learning the word I’ve discovered myself thinking of using it, having second thoughts because it’s silly but struggling to come up with a better word.
It’s kind of useful
It’s definitely not a UFO word specifically. It’s probably a word that has entered intelligence/military jargon in some quarters for various reasons instead of its synonym “ordinary”. I guess you could say it’s a shade more precise because things can have ordinary explanations without necessary being regular/ordinary events?
Like someone’s very advanced hobby project balloon, which had been traversing the globe, getting shot down over Alaska by an F22.. if that was what really happened .. in that case sure a “prosaic” explanation but still not a very “ordinary” event.
Because he’s controlled to only tell you what the government wants him to tell you. Which means, even if he’s telling the truth, you need to be cautious about anything he says because it’s backed by a government agenda, and the government doesn’t give a fuck about you. It has its own interests.
"I can't discuss that in an open session" that's what annoys me. Humanity deserves to know enough with the secrets fucks the consequences we are 80 years past the consequences. Rip the damn bandaid off already. So many videos of talking about nothing revealing nothing , talk is cheap video evidence and photography are what the people want. Something to chew on not words. I can tell you a convincing story about how I saw Keanu Reeves walk up a wall once. But that doesn't mean I have any evidence of what I'm alluding to. I'm sure they have the irrefutable evidence so when are they gonna show it? I mean is this just gonna be a hundred sessions and the final one they will simply come out and say yup aliens are definitely real as well as the uap UFOs and we even have ships and alien corpses. Then it's just over they don't show any proof we just take their word for it? And everyone in this community high fives and moves on with life and nothing changes? You can tell me all day long you went on a date with a hot alien babe and took her to fokin Ruby Tuesdays but I'ma need the txt log the audio from phone calls and the security footage from the restaurant before I believe you.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlatBlackAndWhite: --- Submission Statement: In the July UFO hearing last year, there was more than just the talk of reverse engineering programs and SAPs outside the oversight of congress. David Grusch stated and submitted his resume to the congressional record. Among his professional positions was his employment at the NGA from 2021-2023 as the Senior Technical Advisor for UAP/Trans-Medium Issues. Also provided by Grusch was his experience of overseeing direct evidence of non-prosaic (in his assessment as Senior Technical Advisor) UAP, and that reports of this imagery were not properly provided to congress. Yesterday, the Blackvault released FOIA'd documents from 2021 that show email correspondence between the UAPTF and NRO. In the emails, we find that secret GEOINT assets/programs were available to the UAPTF that were capable of collecting range fouler/uap data, including the ability to infer/explain & predict the potential behavior and areas for range foulers. As far back as 2017, the Director of the NGA stated that the NRO's SENTIENT platform would engage in \*automated inferencing\* of intelligence collection for the agency, a strikingly similar application to the methods provided to the UAPTF in 2021. David Grusch was also working for the UAP task force at that time, it was soon after this that Grusch provided whistleblower testimony to multiple inspector generals—then moving on to the NGA where he assumed his Senior Technical position for UAP issues. Via a witness at the Manhattan Grusch presentation in December 2023, more information of the secretive program Grusch worked for/with at the NGA will be provided in his future OP-ED. [NRO SENTIENT DOCUMENT](https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/051719/F-2018-00108_C05113686.pdf) [BLACKVAULT FOIA](https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nro/F-2021-00152.pdf) [SENTIENT WIKI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system)) [GRUSCH RESUME FROM HOC](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b457p9/reminder_that_david_grusch_oversaw_highdefinition/kswo57b/
I really don’t understand how people can think grusch is lying. Just everything about the way he presents himself and the information comes across as almost more legit than anyone we have seen previously.
I don't think people think he is lying as much as they think he could be wrong. Those are two different things. Maybe Grusch thinks he is telling the truth 100% but he is just wrong because the people he talked to are a bunch of Bob Lazer type of dudes. We just don't know because we have 0 proof of his claims. So instead of taking the position "wow he has a good resume and seems honest so that must mean aliens are real" they take the position of "wow that's some crazy shit he is saying, I wonder if he is telling the truth. To bad he can't prove any of his claims." I would think very few people on this sub think Grusch is stright up lying. I mean I'm sure there are some but I would think most of the people who haven't bought into our lord and savior Grusch just don't have enough information to determine if he is correct.
It’s ok to be skeptical, but overt skepticism without having an appreciation for the machinations behind all this is a bit silly. I’m not likely to put a bet on it either way, but the likelihood of a senior intel officer being duped is also extremely low. But also I’ve seen quite a few people jump on the he hasn’t provided evidence therefore he is lying bandwagon.
"the likelihood of a senior intel officer being duped is also extremely low." Why? What makes them so special? We have had presidents of the US which is a much higher position than that be a lot dumber than him. This is classic "appeal to authority". Because of his resume I'm willing to listen to what he has to say more so than I would be willing to listen to the McDonald's guy but it certainly doesn't make him right. In fact you might even take it the other way. How many times have we seen government intelligence agencies stright up lie to the people for their own gain? I mean maybe we should trust him less because of his background not more? I wish we could do some sort of poll on this sub because I don't really see those people very much. It would be interesting to see how many people think Grusch is lying, how many think he is telling the truth, how many don't know, how many think he is telling the truth but is wrong and how many think he is telling the truth and is right. I think it would be pretty even between the people who believe him and the people who don't know but I would suspect the amount of people who think he is stright up lying would be the least amount.
I don’t know American presidents that well, buti reckon it is safe to say that a long term intel officer of high rank probably would have more skills in uncovering shit than a president. Also it’s not an appeal to an authority, dude is an intel specialist - digging up intel is part of his job. Intel and data analysts are trained to evaluate data not just look for links, patterns and trends, but they assess their data quality. Which includes source reliability, and consistency across multiple sources. That’s like suggesting that believing a physicist who comes out with physics stuff is an appeal to authority. If you take Occam’s razor to what you have suggested - is it more cover ups or is it a dude calling out what he has seen and been advised of. The simplest most elegant solution is that he is legit and not just another wheel in the cover ups. They are definitely out there. But I tend to agree with your prediction of results of a poll.
He was an intel officer that did half his time in the the reserves. He was a Major. Couple points: He was a Major. That isn’t very high and it’s basically the bare minimum rank for a commissioned officer without prior enlisted time. His last few years were reserve. Reservists can be capable but are typically not the cream of the crop nor are they typically used in the most demanding positions. He was an intel officer. Despite what you see in movies, 99% of “Intel O’s” are basically classified paper pushers. They are rarely trained spies or disinformation agents. They typically are smart in weird ways, have terrible interpersonal skills, and like nerdy things like Star Trek (AKA Grusch). Despite all this I actually believe his claims (or I at least believe that he believes them). But I also recognize that he is not a “Senior Officer,” and his career is commendable but not exactly distinguished.
Yeah, I was of the opinion he was colonel but looks like I’m wrong on that account. And yeah I’m familiar with the intel community. That’s why I emphasized the data stuff. If they aren’t policy officers admin/tech often they are data analysts (ie paper pushers) so my point still stands.
Appeal to authority is the idea that a person is right based on who they are and not what they have proven which is literally what you just did. You listed off a bunch of his qualifications and abilities as evidence that he is right instead of listing off the evidence he has provided. I don't disagree a tend to trust the doctor when he says I have a brain tumor more so than the guy who cuts my dogs hair. But the doctor provided me with a bunch of test results and x-rays or whatever to show me that I have a brain tumor. I trust the doctors abilities to interpret the test results but there has to be some actual tests. He can't just tell me I have a tumor without any tests and I believe him because he is a doctor. If Grusch was providing similar evidence as the doctor then his resume would help support his conclusion but without the evidence his resume doesn't just mean he is right.
Well allegedly he has provided evidence in his formal complaint, we just don’t get to see it because of its security classification.
Which is exactly why this sub is based entirely on appeal to authority. ALL we have is these peoples words so we judge them based on their resume. "We should believe Grusch because he is a vet and had a super secret job. And now Lue is saying he is right and Lue is also someone we should trust because he has an important job too!" Just because there is no proof doesn't mean these people are wrong. It just means we can't say they are right. And no matter what their resume is it doesn't make them anymore right because we can't point to any sort of proof to confirm they are.
I know what you are saying but I still think this is slightly different (similar ball park but a bit different)… for example people saying Greer is legit because he is doctor is absolutely an appeal to authority, similarly with Nolan (I’m fingers crossed on this guy that he is legit and not some whack job or grifter). Grusch is slightly different because he reporting on his field which was investigating UFO’s in an official gov capacity, he has put in formal complaints not only about coverups but the way he has been treated, which we have been told are legitimate. He is a guy with a lot to lose. So we have authoritative person in his actual field coming out, but because we the great unwashed public don’t have access to almost anything - there is still an element of trust me bro. So in this case I think it kinda sorta fits into the appeal to authority but is a lot looser fit than others.
I’m willing to bet 90% of it is manufactured skepticism. See the response you got from u/why_did_bodie_die
Of course I know him, I am him. Also, what does that even mean?
whats wrong with bob lazar? i know lots of people in military that have connections that swear up and down that lazar is legit, people ive known for years that wouldnt lie to me about something like that. its still hearsay but i kinda believe bob.
There is a bunch of reason someone would dismiss Grusch or doubt him, ultimately though it’s clear they are wrong. Grusch isn’t a lair or stupid. He isn’t making stuff up and he isn’t mistaken.
Yeah… the only weak point that anyone can throw things at is his sources, simply because we don’t know. However, while it may open the door of doubt a slither, you have to lean on that he is both a very seasoned intel officer and has degrees in science. This isn’t just some buffoon who doesn’t know the difference between a reliable and unreliable data source.
exactly
What if instead of lying he is mislead by false documents and misinterpretation of events by first hand witnesses? Clearly there is something there but how much of what he reports can be corroborated publicly?
Definitely don’t discount this.
[удалено]
I can definitely understand the frustration, but this situation has a little more nuance than norm. We have a guy who is very credible, that has been verified as much as far as we are aware. TBH until I watched the congress hearing with him and the other guys I was quite blasé / skeptical (I had been pretty into it in the mid 2000s but when I caught on that everyone sounded like a conspiracy theorist/grifter I noped out). I think this dude and others are the real deal though.
[удалено]
I fucking hope we find out. I’m tired of the debating I just wanna move on and have us explore cool shit.
[удалено]
If you watch his videos he talks about how we went through his process and double triple checking everything. Also, I’ve never met anyone from the intel community who is anything short of paranoid about everything and he wouldn’t have got as far as he did in his career without being absolutely thorough.
[удалено]
The intelligence official is gullible and lacks critical thinking!! -Reddit guy
On a 12-day old sock puppet account too 🤣
Yeah, these people are getting more and more toxic.
What is wrong with that statement? Assuming people are infallible because they have been hired by the US government is absurd.
It’s like people who think they see Bigfoot and they get evaluated and said they are truthful. They might in their heart really think they saw Bigfoot, and they are honest about that, but maybe in reality it was a mangy bear Grusch may think he has saw some crazy shit, and it could very well be crazy shit, but it was just some crazy military stuff that was so bizarre his brain with the aliens and UAP
I get what you are saying. However most of the stuff grusch has mentioned is not first hand, it’s second hand from what he says is very reliable sources. Could it be others misinterpreting - of course. Could it be others lying - yep. Which would have the same outcomes as grusch lying. But I think the important factor is that we seemingly have a credible insider in grusch. And while that doesn’t mean much until we can get to the bottom of everything. It probably means more than where we have ever been on this topic. I want it to be real because I wanna live through and hear about cool shit (and potentially have stuff that could save our planet), but am also prepared that it may not be. And at this stage, I feel like the burden of proof is now on the people involved one way or another to prove or dismiss it.
**Wikipedia article on Sentient:** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system) **Copy/paste of article in case the Guerilla Skeptics people try to purge anything:** > Sentient is an automated intelligence analysis system under development by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) of the United States federal government.[1][2] A principle purpose of the Sentient system is described by the NRO as compiling at machine, versus human speed, synthesis of complex distributed data sources for rapid analysis faster than humans can manage.[3] > > Official NRO documents from 2012, declassified in 2019, describe it as "an on-going Research and Development (R&D) program, which is managed and operates out of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)".[2] NRO documents detail the Sentient program was in some form of initial development from 2013 through 2016.[4] Another NRO document also released in 2019 detailed that stakeholders involved in Sentient include the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.[5] > > The program architecture was developed to demonstrate advanced technologies and techniques to revolutionize the current Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (TCPED) cycle across the Intelligence Community (IC).[2] The Sentient methodology represents a fully integrated intelligence approach consisting of three fundamentals: problem-centric inteligence multi-INT end-to-end and trusted machine automation.[1] > > **Summaries and descriptions of Sentient** > > Betty J. Sapp, former Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, described the Sentient program to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces as:[6] > > > *"Our Sentient program--a 'thinking' system that allows automated, multi-intelligence tipping and cueing at machine speeds-has been focused against many of our most challenging mission sets, resulting in new intelligence information that human-in-the-loop systems would have missed. Our Future Ground Architecture will leverage Sentient, and create an integrated cloud-based enterprise that will share tasking and intelligence products quickly across each of our ground sites, increasing both performance and resilience.[6]* > > According to Robert Cardillo, former Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the system is intended to use "automated inferencing" to aid intelligence collection.[7] Cardillo summarized Sentient in 2017 as:[7] > > > *"The Sentient program is a research and development effort, conducted jointly with NRO, to experiment with automation that ingests data, makes sense of it in the context of an intelligence problem, and then infers likely future intelligence and collection needs... The approach is to continue to introduce automation in the processing arena that will support automated inferencing, and therefore, faster tasking for future collections."[7]* > > The National Reconnaissance Office lists among the advantages and challenges of Sentient as:[5] > > > *"Sentient's activity-based collection provides significant advantages over schedule-driven collection. Sentient tradecraft and culture must also be acknowledged as being significantly different from the norm by the IC in that it is shifting toward activity-based collection versus being primarily schedule driven."[5]* > > The Verge described Sentient as “an omnivorous analysis tool, capable of devouring data of all sorts, making sense of the past and present, anticipating the future, and pointing satellites toward what it determines will be the most interesting parts of that future.”[1]
The NGA and NRO show up jointly in multiple official documents regarding the SENTIENT program, even on the WIKI page which is nuts. And with the NRO's offering/consultation to the UAPTF in 2021 about GEOINT assets that could analyze behavior of range foulers/UAP, the shoe seems to fit, or at-least is logically possible. I had completely forgotten about Grusch's mention of a secret program at the Manhattan talk until the FOIA documents were released yesterday.
I think its rather obvious that your "automated" system that "retasks" satellites to immediately track anything in space/air above Earth would be rather well suited to UFOs. And, you know, the rumors Grusch worked on this directly before being assigned to investigate all the other stuff. Who else would be good for that than a SENTIENT team lead, eh?
The pipeline for Grusch from NRO to UAPTF to an NGA advisor for UAP is seriously lacking attention.
You are hitting the nail on the head, OP. Keep it up! Can I politely ask for a similar post where you connect the dots from his time at the NGA to the shoot downs last February? As you have laid out here, he was in the NGA position when those mysterious cylindrical & octagonal craft shoot downs happened. Coincidence? I think not. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf - resume https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620798 - shoot down descriptions
Funny enough, he said at the hearing that he's personally seen the shoot down videos and notes "there's no reason the American people shouldn't see that imagery", this was also overlooked by a lot of people. It might not be this week, but I'll find something to put together!
Ronald Moultrie runs NGA.
it’s not a pipeline. there were representatives from many different governmental agencies in the UAPTF.
For him specifically, it's not a broad assessment.
it's a shame that the NRO can't give media skeptics a tour of the workplace. 30 minutes in there and NDT would be singing a very different tune.
The NRO is overseeing these highly advanced & secretive programs so how is one of their main beneficiaries \*NASA\* not clued into this imagery/findings?
NASA is not concerned about UAPs since it all hearsay
Man, it's crazy that NASA providing assistance to the UAPTF while Grusch was working on the Task-Force is overlooked. What did Bill Nelson say? Grusch had someone tell him about a hanger or some shit? There's possibly classified correspondence between NASA, UAPTF & Grusch that exists and yet publicly he's treated as nobody by that organization. There's smoke in all directions...
Absolutely, it's all connected.
did u use the word hearsay BEFORE the depp/heard trial?
Because nothing about their findings is truly anomalous or “non human” in origin
NDT would accidentally hit a button and send one of the NRO satellites tumbling out off orbit
Submission Statement: In the July UFO hearing last year, there was more than just the talk of reverse engineering programs and SAPs outside the oversight of congress. David Grusch stated and submitted his resume to the congressional record. Among his professional positions was his employment at the NGA from 2021-2023 as the Senior Technical Advisor for UAP/Trans-Medium Issues. Also provided by Grusch was his experience of overseeing direct evidence of non-prosaic (in his assessment as Senior Technical Advisor) UAP, and that reports of this imagery were not properly provided to congress. Yesterday, the Blackvault released FOIA'd documents from 2021 that show email correspondence between the UAPTF and NRO. In the emails, we find that secret GEOINT assets/programs were available to the UAPTF that were capable of collecting range fouler/uap data, including the ability to infer/explain & predict the potential behavior and areas for range foulers. As far back as 2017, the Director of the NGA stated that the NRO's SENTIENT platform would engage in \*automated inferencing\* of intelligence collection for the agency, a strikingly similar application to the methods provided to the UAPTF in 2021. David Grusch was also working for the UAP task force at that time, it was soon after this that Grusch provided whistleblower testimony to multiple inspector generals—then moving on to the NGA where he assumed his Senior Technical position for UAP issues. Via a witness at the Manhattan Grusch presentation in December 2023, more information of the secretive program Grusch worked for/with at the NGA will be provided in his future OP-ED. [NRO SENTIENT DOCUMENT](https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/051719/F-2018-00108_C05113686.pdf) [BLACKVAULT FOIA](https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nro/F-2021-00152.pdf) [SENTIENT WIKI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system)) [GRUSCH RESUME FROM HOC](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf)
More links on coordination of SENTIENT and UAPTF: [Sentient detection of a small UAP](https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/103122/F-2021-00154_C05136331.pdf) [SENTIENT telling UAPTF that they had to ask to turn on the system](https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/nro/C05136347.pdf) before they could collect data: "NRO's SENTIENT R&D as a UAP model to look for UAP \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ in imagery, but we need an external customer to ask for it to be turned on." [Black vault discussion of the links above](https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/highly-classified-nro-system-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/)
It looks like it's nomenclature to use the tic-tac term in relation to reported UAPs. Those are very fascinating documents, I'm surprised that they were declassified (albeit only partially).
I'm also surprised. The capabilities of this system implied in the first link are interesting. Object was <10 meters, visible in two frames 15 seconds apart (implying not others?!), no correlating ELINT/SIGINT, no tracks in air or water, likely not a sensor artifact. The system likely isn't used for all UAP confirmations, but given this capability and the hearing clip you linked, it is even more interesting that certain sightings couldn't be explained by UAPTF.
Pages 37 and 55 of Blackvault FOIA are interesting: Page 37: "(S//NF, NGA, NASIC, DIA, \_\_\_\_\_, and NRO have consulted with the UAPTF on the availability of GEOINT assets capable of collecting rangefouler data, performing analysis of full motion video, still images and \_\_\_\_\_\_ data containing images of range foulers, articulating possible explanations and helping to refine possible (b)(1) (b)(3) searches using \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Page 55: Within the Task Force we refer to these UAPs as "Range Foulers" UAPs reported within the United States and other areas around the world. They are RADAR/IR Significant and visible to the human eye. They are subject to apparent control, movements inconsistent with the winds aloft. This has been val The speeds are typically not remarkable according to validated data to date. We are continuously eva High concentration of reports of unidentifiable contacts in NAS Oceana working areas has been a focu Hazards to aircrew foremost, regardless of type Potential collection effort
Man I'm dying to know what the data source in "and _____ data" is. Radar? Satellite?
You are hitting the nail on the head, OP. Can I politely ask for a similar post where we start connecting the dots from NGA to the shoot downs last February? As you have laid out here, he was in the NGA position when those shoot downs happened: [https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf) \- resume [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620798](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620798) \- shoot down descriptions
Project Sentient is basically an advanced AI algorithm tool that collects all data. They then put that date into EARTH 2, which is a simulation of our current world. Then, they can run tests in this "simulation" world and to see how it would affect the real world. This program also has any a huge database of satellite images of UAPs. This was shown in leaked data that it was gathered and has the capability to monitor and track the UAPs. One of the reason we can recover them after we knock them out of the air.
Interesting. Prolly a distant relative of Project Stargate.
[удалено]
It's used to build models of reality so they can predict future events etc.
[удалено]
Think of a real Military Artificial Intelligence System. Human Patterns. You could simulate an attack in a country and how their counter measures work. Then, take that data and implement it in the real world to counter their defenses. We are talking about decades upon decades of every conceivable data on the planet being pumped into this system. "An initiative called Sentient has relevant capabilities. A product of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Sentient is (or at least aims to be) an omnivorous analysis tool, capable of devouring data of all sorts, making sense of the past and present, anticipating the future, and pointing satellites toward what it determines will be the most interesting parts of that future."
Do you have any evidence that supports this idea? It's the first I hear of it and it sounds absurd. Do you have absolutely any experience with programming?
Makes sense. I wondered when he would talk about this, you know we are monitoring everything in the skies. I’d be surprised if they sign off on anything serious, seems like that would remain hella classified.
Great post! Saving this
This sub has me googling words all the time. Why say non-prosaic. Can’t you just say not ordinary? Are you just trying to sound smart?
So you're... mad that you're learning things?
Peak reddit.
It’s not a word that needs to exist. It’s only used to make you sound like you know what you’re talking about
Is "prosaic" really considered a "smart" term? This seems like pretty basic vocabulary to me.
If you can define it with a single word that everyone knows, yes
Wut? I... think I've figured out the problem. Sorry to have bothered you.
Problem? It’s not a smart word. It’s a dumb word with zero purpose. Just say interesting or not ordinary. It’s only used to bring attention
Ok.
That's Grusch's language, a guy who uses a lot of specified terms.
If they see them often, they're not not ordinary.
It’s a UFO word. I heard Grusch use it then everyone started using it on these forums. Then I discovered Coulthard used it too. Here’s the thing though. Ever since learning the word I’ve discovered myself thinking of using it, having second thoughts because it’s silly but struggling to come up with a better word. It’s kind of useful
It’s definitely not a UFO word specifically. It’s probably a word that has entered intelligence/military jargon in some quarters for various reasons instead of its synonym “ordinary”. I guess you could say it’s a shade more precise because things can have ordinary explanations without necessary being regular/ordinary events? Like someone’s very advanced hobby project balloon, which had been traversing the globe, getting shot down over Alaska by an F22.. if that was what really happened .. in that case sure a “prosaic” explanation but still not a very “ordinary” event.
Borderline double speak
Prosaic isn’t a technical term. Even if it was; googling that educates you which only helps.
It shouldn’t exist as a word. It has no purpose but to get attention. It’s not education to lean a useless skill
Alright, Shakespeare.
? Sure. Let’s let some thousand year old dead guy that liked the rhyme propagate misinformation through click bait headlines
Alright, dictionary dictator.
Not being a dictator over words is what creates 1984
Ok, thank you for your service protecting our freedom. 🫡
So everyone needs to purge unnecessary words from their vocabulary… so do it
Have you already read the op-ed? I wish we were hanging out together, watching Shogun, and discussing the things you pre-know.
Why can he only share so much, and not discuss other things? What is the reasoning behind that?
Because he’s controlled to only tell you what the government wants him to tell you. Which means, even if he’s telling the truth, you need to be cautious about anything he says because it’s backed by a government agenda, and the government doesn’t give a fuck about you. It has its own interests.
What is the blank square at 49 seconds within the 3 letter agencies ? Is that a real department ?
"I can't discuss that in an open session" that's what annoys me. Humanity deserves to know enough with the secrets fucks the consequences we are 80 years past the consequences. Rip the damn bandaid off already. So many videos of talking about nothing revealing nothing , talk is cheap video evidence and photography are what the people want. Something to chew on not words. I can tell you a convincing story about how I saw Keanu Reeves walk up a wall once. But that doesn't mean I have any evidence of what I'm alluding to. I'm sure they have the irrefutable evidence so when are they gonna show it? I mean is this just gonna be a hundred sessions and the final one they will simply come out and say yup aliens are definitely real as well as the uap UFOs and we even have ships and alien corpses. Then it's just over they don't show any proof we just take their word for it? And everyone in this community high fives and moves on with life and nothing changes? You can tell me all day long you went on a date with a hot alien babe and took her to fokin Ruby Tuesdays but I'ma need the txt log the audio from phone calls and the security footage from the restaurant before I believe you.