David C. Grusch
SECURITY CLEARANCE: Active TOP SECRET//SCI with CI & LS Polygraph
Additional Language Abilities: German (Business, Non-Technical)
EXPERIENCE May 2023-Present, Chief Operating Officer (COO), The Sol Foundation
- Managing day-to-day operations for a 501c3 federally recognized non-profit. The premier center for research in the natural and social sciences, engineering, and the humanities, but also extends activities to advisory and policy work for the U.S. government/public outreach.
I understand the viewpoints that people hold in these cases. However, he walked away from what was likely a successful and long-term military career, thereby losing his pension. Consequently, he now has to find some means of making a living to support his family.
Personally, I don’t believe this detracts from his credibility or the weight of his statements in any way. While I’m aware that this line of reasoning might represent some kind of logical fallacy, the involvement of Garry Nolan only serves to reinforce my belief.
I would like to pose a question to those who take issue with how David Grusch and Lue Elizondo have chosen to earn a living after leaving their careers to speak out: What alternative do you suggest they pursue, given their careers with very specific job experiences?
If my memory serves me right, there were three key components to TTSA: entertainment, research and development, and disclosure. Tom Delonge conveyed that TTSA needed a viable income source to maintain the business. Consequently, they capitalized on the entertainment sector, placing more emphasis on it.
As the focus shifted, Lue Elizondo and Christopher Mellon decided to step away to concentrate more on government disclosure. Despite this reshuffling, all parties parted ways amicably, and there was nothing unusual about the situation.
Lue Elizondo has corroborated this narrative from his perspective.
Granted, none of us are privy to all that transpires behind the scenes, so you are free to interpret the situation as you wish.
Perhaps it’s down to cultural differences, but “he” having to make a living to support his family? Isn’t there a “she” or another “he” involved in this family? It’s a bit too speculative to talk about how the Grusch family shares their responsibilities, but if I was trying to expose one of the biggest secrets in history… I wouldn’t find it unreasonable that my spouse secured the household income while I secured the future of humanity.
Supporting his family? Me neither. While I would have prioritized differently (above paragraph), supporting ones family - even if it delays the truth - doesn’t dismiss or devalue his claims.
Leaving government service and then the first thing he does is involving himself in government UFO policy influence through an NGO? To me that does makes me more cautious of him and his claims. Until we know more I don’t think we can dismiss the possibility of all of this being a part of an operation to give the deep state/military/private contractors more influence over a government that increasingly want insight.
What if the policies SOL tries to promote is more favorable to the secrecy of military/private contractors than what the government initially would have implemented?
I don’t understand why. Big pharma bro riding with the Central Untelligence Bureau and the Pentagram… That guy is working towards disclosure? Either I’m too cynical or you’re not cynical enough.
I think “belief” is a good word in this situation, my own skeptical beliefs usually change if my experiences tell me I’m wrong. I can’t judge Grusch, SOL or even Nolan’s involvement before I see what they actually do.
There are many military careers that doesn’t translatable to civilian life, and many skills in all military careers that do. But that’s not the point. Suggestion? Simply anything unrelated to UFOs as they risk staining their credibility. Policy influencing in regards to better school lunches or rail infrastructure? No problems!
There’s too many charlatans in the UFO field making money of their claims, statements, organizations and businesses. Whistleblowers should try to distance themselves as much as possible from those type of people.
I guess we remember and interpret it differently. As people started asking why the first half a million dollars of investments/donations would go to repay a load TTSA got from one of TomD’s private companies and then asking about the 100k yearly royalty to TomD for using the TTSA name, some of the bigger names suddenly became less publicly prominent. As more digging into the deeper financial structures seemed to indicate what people considered shenanigans, people started outright stepping down from TTSA.
I think Elizondo, Mellon and all the others did the right thing - What I argued for earlier: They distanced themselves from charlatans and grifters. Or at least from a guy who thought it would not hurt their good intentions if he made some money along the way.
It seems to me you’re quick to take people at their words and not consider history and experience. Have we not time and time again seen reveals in pop-culture, business and similar - Where it turned out they just outright lied back then but now it won’t hurt to reveal the truth?
If Elizondo had claimed otherwise, it would not only hurt TomD’s work towards disclosure (which I think we all agree is a good thing) but also Elizondo’s credibility as being part of something suspicious.
Remember that weekend nonsense about “UFO filmed at Elizondo’s ranch”? He had nothing to do with it, but he was very quick to distance himself from the whole thing.
“I didn’t film it, I didn’t share it, I didn’t write the caption, I have nothing to do with it”. Which is a fair thing to say and the best response to the borderline outrage it garnered. But it shows he’s smart enough to distance himself from situations he’s not in control of and could tarnish him.
I think that’s what happened in TTSA based on how I interpret the available facts.
The situation could be attributed to cultural differences. In America, it’s common for both individuals in a household to work in order to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. This hasn’t always been the case, and the need for dual incomes can be especially true depending on the location. In some areas, one person can afford housing, while in others, it requires two incomes. Of course, this is a separate discussion and, as you rightly pointed out, pure speculation.
That’s a valid point, and I think the response to it can vary greatly depending on the individual. Personally, it doesn’t bother me, but perhaps it should.
I concur with your point, which is why I felt less concerned upon learning that Garry Nolan was involved. If you’re unfamiliar with his work, I recommend exploring it. In my opinion, he is as far removed from being a charlatan as one can be, while still maintaining credibility in this field.
That’s a fair perspective. There indeed seems to be a fine line between grift and monetizing a subject. This line becomes even finer when it comes to the topic of UAP. Personally, I wouldn’t categorize TTSA as a grift, but I understand that others may have a different view.
History and personal experiences are indeed important to consider. However, since I can’t share the experiences of another individual, I must take them at their word while also remaining open to the possibility that I could be incorrect in my assessment due to meaning behind the words. Although I might personally speculate about what might be going through an individual’s mind when they make a particular statement, I always prioritize their publicly stated words over any hypothetical mindset.