Pentagon releases UFO videos

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cowardly to to one, patriotic to others. Depends who's judging.

Ask yourself - do the whistleblowers who could spill the beans have the same motivation as you? Or anyone else? Do they approach life decisions the same way?

There's a certain hubris to think everyone would use the same YOLO logic as those who would think of them as cowards.

Mark Felt would be spinning in his grave if he thought it was just that easy.

It’s not hubris or “YOLO logic,” I already made this point and you ignored it: the gap between actually showing the evidence and saying you have/know of all this evidence and accusing your bosses of being liars is a very small gap… and you’re saying they’re patriots because they won’t cross the gap when the gap itself is not just incredibly significant information, but the only significant information.

Walk me through why, in your opinion, they would cross the gap if they’re already in danger or have already suffered consequences and aren’t afraid to talk or call out the government.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by jammies

So, the theory is these whistleblowers are just not very good at blowing whistles? "Oh, I know things... all kinds of things... but I can't tell you those things, 'cause that'd be breaking confidentiality agreements. Oh, and by the way, since I'm not breaking the *letter* of those agreements, I'll just continue on merrily in my career, free of consequences, because these shadowy government entities that do almost anything to cover up their secrets are impotent when confronted by legal niceties."

Tell me you know nothing about whistleblower law without telling me you know nothing about whistleblower law.

Grush is leveraging whistleblower protections afforded by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. There are specific ways that individuals can leverage this law to legally disclose classified information to authorized recipients while not contravening security clearances or putting their position or authority at risk. This law prevents any retaliation against the whistleblower in the form of taking actions against them or their position, through termination, demotion, or workplace action meant to harass the employee or create a hostile workplace. So this means that Grush may disclose specifics only to those with standing and clearance to receive such information (an active TSC and authoritative oversight position pertaining to the DNI. Certain members of congress meet that standard.

The information that Grush has come forward with is TS-CI which requires appropriate protocols to protect. It is why Grush has demanded the use of SCIF before he discloses anything as this is the only location in a public building where such information can be shared. This is clearly spelled out in data classification and handing policies that all military and intelligence personnel are expected to comply and acknowledge every year. If Grush were to fail to follow these policies that would be a violation of his acknowledgement and grounds for actions against him, which would include termination, loss of clearance, loss of rank, loss of pension, and depending on who he disclosed information to and what information shared, criminal charges including possible espionage charges.

So yeah, whistleblowers have to be very careful in what information they share as there are still laws and rules in place that they have to follow. Failure to do so places them in peril.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Also, a great thread about David Grusch and the Tic Tac incident:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1686923288050843649

Coles notes for those of use that bailed on the social media platform formerly known as Prince Twitter?

[Ozy_Flame]

It is YOLO logic to suggest "just do it". The Nike approach?

They wouldn't cross the gap. None of Fravor, Grusch or Graves have crossed the line so far. Remember, everything they say publicly is at a level that is already publicly declassified. And there is a LOT of declassified material, even if it's redacted. Just ask John Greenwald.

I'm not saying they're patriots, what I'm saying is they're following the rules so they don't go to jail. And Grusch particularly knows what can be said publicly and what can be shared in a SCIF. He filed an official whistleblower complaint in 2022 with the OICIG. And he also helped draft whistleblower protections in the 2022 NDAA.

If anything, guys like Grusch are probably more informed on the process and classification of sensitive content (and the repercussions) than most.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Coles notes for those of use that bailed on the social media platform formerly known as Prince Twitter?

TLDR: there is a program called SENTIENT that is an LLM and possibly detected the original underwater 'command' structure in the Nimitz 2004 encounter, and Grusch would have been analyzing this data in his position at the National Reconnaissance Office.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

So 4chan guy's underwater facility might have some legs?

[stamps]

Don't know if this is here .... https://youtu.be/McVqKmUaaok

[Ozy_Flame]

It's Nick Pope, but this is nutty if true and this language gets passed:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1686816437455974400

[Fuzz]

That's not really evidence of anything, it's just covering their bases.

[Lanny_McDonald]

It definitely says there are people in the government that believe this a big enough problem to write it into a law. That usually means there is evidence of this somewhere. If they were just covering their bases they would have included inter-dimensional trave, inter-dimensional beings, and time travelers.

[Fuzz]

"any and all technologies of unknown origin" seems to cover it all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It definitely says there are people in the government that believe this a big enough problem to write it into a law. That usually means there is evidence of this somewhere. If they were just covering their bases they would have included inter-dimensional trave, inter-dimensional beings, and time travelers.

I think that’s covered under technologies of unknown origin.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Define "unknown origin".

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Define "unknown origin".

That would be interesting to know. Legislation like this can be concerning if the definition is too broad. It would give the federal government the ability to seize practically anything new and innovative from the private sector.

It makes me wonder if there are ulterior motives going on here.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Define "unknown origin".

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/1...dment/797/text

"18) Technologies of unknown origin.--The term
``technologies of unknown origin'' means any materials or
meta-materials, ejecta, crash debris, mechanisms, machinery,
equipment, assemblies or sub-assemblies, engineering models
or processes, damaged or intact aerospace vehicles, and
damaged or intact ocean-surface and undersea craft associated
with unidentified anomalous phenomena or incorporating
science and technology that lacks prosaic attribution or
known means of human manufacture."

"(14) Prosaic attribution.--The term ``prosaic attribution''
means having a human (either foreign or domestic) origin and
operating according to current, proven, and generally
understood scientific and engineering principles and
established laws-of-nature and not attributable to non-human
intelligence."


" (21) Unidentified anomalous phenomena.--
(A) In general.--The term ``unidentified anomalous
phenomena'' means any object operating or judged capable of
operating in outer-space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces, or
undersea lacking prosaic attribution due to performance
characteristics and properties not previously known to be
achievable"

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

So yeah, whistleblowers have to be very careful in what information they share as there are still laws and rules in place that they have to follow.

That's nice and all, but if *I* were running a cover-up, the security agreements I'd have people bound to would include not talking publicly about the subject at all, ever - be that obliquely, as hear-say from others deeper in, or from first-hand experience. Does it seem credible to you (well, obviously it does, but it shouldn't) that these wildly successful conspiracies concern secrets that are discussed casually with peripheral figures like Grusch (not Grolsh, btw), and the masterminds just shrug and say, "Well, if only we'd thought of closing that loophole after the dozens of other times someone inside the system alluded to the truth."

That is the core of his testimony, isn't it - that people he knows have first-hand experience and knowledge of alien technology, and have discussed it with him, but that he personally hasn't witnessed anything? So where is the evidence he's afraid to give coming from? Either he knows something he shouldn't, and is going to get those who told him this information in the same legal trouble he find so horrifically frightening (very noble!), or he is deluded and nobody important cares what he says because it isn't true, and consequently not secret.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's nice and all, but if *I* were running a cover-up, the security agreements I'd have people bound to would include not talking publicly about the subject at all, ever - be that obliquely, as hear-say from others deeper in, or from first-hand experience. Does it seem credible to you (well, obviously it does, but it shouldn't) that these wildly successful conspiracies concern secrets that are discussed casually with peripheral figures like Grusch (not Grolsh, btw), and the masterminds just shrug and say, "Well, if only we'd thought of closing that loophole after the dozens of other times someone inside the system alluded to the truth."

Whistleblower law is not easy to understand and has been laid over top of existing governance. Whistleblower laws were put into play to deal with possible misdeeds towards employees or departmental behaviors and done so long after many of the compartmentalized programs were established. The new laws provide protections but also poke possible holes into the secrecy firewalls because of those protections to the individual. This is a common problem with creation of new governance structures and must be carefully weighed before putting them into play. The fact this exposed a possible avenue for the possible disclosure of such information is just an accidental outcome, both positive and negative. Frankly, there should never be a program so opaque that the people cannot have oversight of what is going on. The government is supposed to be of the people and for the people.

That is the core of his testimony, isn't it - that people he knows have first-hand experience and knowledge of alien technology, and have discussed it with him, but that he personally hasn't witnessed anything? So where is the evidence he's afraid to give coming from? Either he knows something he shouldn't, and is going to get those who told him this information in the same legal trouble he find so horrifically frightening (very noble!), or he is deluded and nobody important cares what he says because it isn't true, and consequently not secret.

Why are you struggling to follow this? This isn't rocket science. He's a member of AARO and was required to interview and report across a number of specialties to confirm deny claims. He's going to come across a lot of information and interview a lot of people who are in direct contact with the evidence. He's been to locations or has had people let him know of locations where evidence (physical and digital) is held. But he is compartmentalized from having direct contact to that evidence (it helps establish plausible deniability). He's no different than a detective who has assumed a case file and has to rely on reports and interviews to piece together his evidence for a grand jury, except in his case he can't disclose particulars of the case to just anyone. He has to abide by the requirements of his security clearance and the mandatory access controls on the information. He is still compelled to keep information secret and may only disclose those details to someone in an authoritative position with equal or greater clearance.

[Fuzz]

Doesn't it seem entirely ridiculous that the US government has no idea WTF it's departments are up to? The fact elected representatives (by the people, for the people!) have no way of asking questions an getting answers other than this toothless media show should be incredibly embarrassing for all involved. Like, 75 years of this and all any president can even tell us is that they weren't permitted that information either.

[Muta]

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Doesn't it seem entirely ridiculous that the US government has no idea WTF it's departments are up to? The fact elected representatives (by the people, for the people!) have no way of asking questions an getting answers other than this toothless media show should be incredibly embarrassing for all involved. Like, 75 years of this and all any president can even tell us is that they weren't permitted that information either.

Same thing exists in every country, including Canada.