• @SignullGoneOPM
    link
    English
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think it’s also important to note the specific words used by Dr. Kirkpatrick, AARO, Susan Gough, and others. They are extremely careful about their choice of words and how they convey their message. I’m using Susan Gough as a specific example due to her choice of attributing knowledge (or lack thereof) about these programs to AARO rather than the Pentagon. She also prefers terms like ‘extraterrestrial’ or ‘alien’ over ‘Non-Human Intelligence,’ which Mr. Grusch has used.

    It appears to me that they are cautious with their statements, striving to avoid outright falsehoods while still withholding full disclosure. You can interpret this as you wish.

    Edit: I would also like to highlight that, if we are to believe Ross Coulthart and other journalists, many whistleblowers are refusing to liaise with AARO due to a lack of trust. Therefore, when Dr. Kirkpatrick asserts that he hasn’t been made aware of certain allegations, he may not be lying. However, David Grusch has repeatedly stated that he provided Dr. Kirkpatrick with all the information he had given to the Inspector General.

    • @QHC
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      This is a good point, because I think the same thing is likely happening with Grusch, but in the opposite direction. For example, he will say something like “non-human biologics”, which people are going to interpret as alien. But that could also just be plants or some fungus. The charitable interpretation is that he’s trying to stay within legal and classification boundaries, but he could also be phrasing things to maximize his future earning potential (dude is definitely going to be writing a book, at minimum, in the future).

      • @SignullGoneOPM
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        You raised an interesting point regarding Mr. Grusch’s choice of words at the hearing. I chalked it up to ‘off the cuff’ responses, rather than carefully thought out word choices, but I recognize I could be mistaken. I’m trying to withhold any judgments one way or the other until more information is revealed.

        In my opinion, this topic has crossed the Rubicon, and I’m presuming we won’t have to wait too long for answers or clarity one way or the other.

        • @QHC
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          In my opinion, this topic has crossed the Rubicon, and I’m presuming we won’t have to wait too long for answers or clarity one way or the other.

          Unless there is no “there, there”, which is still my betting position. Anything that can or has been revealed in a SCIF to members of Congress is probably already known by other people in government, specifically in the Pentagon and Executive Branch, or as Grusch mentioned (IIRC, could have been one of the other two guys) the Gang of Four may know more than the rest of Congress.

          Unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, the most likely and plausible explanation is that we’re just seeing a repeat of history. Which means we probably won’t actually know whatever cool tech is being occasionally glimpsed is for another few decades.

          • @SignullGoneOPM
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            Yeah, I’m interested in the whistleblower protections. I’m hopeful we’ll get some information through them. I have my doubts in getting unclassified evidence of anything.

            Whatever it is, if anything, Congress doesn’t appear to be letting this go. We’ll just have to see what happens.