aggiephoenix02 said:

---

I appreciate what Joe brings to the thread…

---

I enjoy the fact that he's engaged, and I legit appreciate that he keeps us on our toes.

What bugs me is...

A) His constant omission of certain glaring facts to drive home pre-determined points that are really being driven by his feelings. It's not, "Here are the facts, which could point to either X, Y, or Z." Instead, it's "Here are some of the facts, which can only point to the conclusion I desperately want to be true." On the other end of the spectrum, I at least try to caveat most of my assumptions with variations of "But who really knows?" or "Then again, it could be [X]."

B) As Ben Fiasco mentioned, his almost militant style of posting - more so than any "believer" in this thread, including myself. It's just day after day, post after post, of walls of text, obsessively trying to prove something he doesn't believe in. He's of course welcome to do whatever the hell he wants, but it's just strange for someone to go on and on and on about something they so clearly don't believe in.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

"You don't agree with me so you must be a paid troll."

---

You have the thinnest skin on this entire website. Cmon.

---

That is 100% what he said about joes. Has nothing to do with anyone's skin. TCTTS doesn't like the manner in which joes posts as a skeptic so he accused him of being a paid troll.

Edited to change a word

TCTTS said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

"You don't agree with me so you must be a paid troll."

---

You have the thinnest skin on this entire website. Cmon.

---

That is 100% what he insinuated about joes. Has nothing to do with anyone's skin. TCTTS doesn't like the manner in which joes posts as a skeptic so he accused him of being a paid troll.

---

"I'm half joking, but I'm also kind of sort of starting to wonder..." is not an "accusation."

Clearly, I don't believe that Joes is an actual, paid troll.

Clearly, I was being facetious in order to make a point about his obsessive posting habits.

---

Joes called in to question Grush's credibility. Rather than defend Grush you half a** called Joes a troll. I thought Grush's word was rock solid? Why not defend him vs attacking the messenger?

Because Grusch's character/record speaks for itself, as has been outlined numerous times in this thread?

Because, as I already stated, it's not at all weird that all those guys know each other?

Because it's disingenuous to automatically assume that Travis Taylor is a "nut job," and therefor assume that because Grusch knows him he's a "nut job" too?

Because Joes does this over and over again, and is the "issue" I felt needed addressing, rather than the one that was clearly a bad faith effort to smear someone (Grusch) simply because Joes doesn't want any of this to be true?

Does this really need explaining?

I dont see joes as abrasive at all.

Obviously continually expressing skepticism = abrasive

TCTTS said:

---

Because Grusch's character/record speaks for itself, as has been outlined numerous times in this thread?

Because, as I already stated, it's not at all weird that all those guys know each other?

Because it's disingenuous to automatically assume that Travis Taylor is a "nut," and therefor assume that because Grusch knows him he's a "nut" too?

Because Joes does this over and over again, and is the "issue" I felt needed addressing, rather than the one that was clearly a bad faith effort to smear someone (Grusch) simply because Joes doesn't want any of this to be true?

Does this really need explaining?

---

Has it? Just because you say Grush is credible doesn't make it so. If he is socializing with known UFO profiteer's that absolutely calls his testimony in to question.

guadalupeag said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Because Grusch's character/record speaks for itself, as has been outlined numerous times in this thread?

Because, as I already stated, it's not at all weird that all those guys know each other?

Because it's disingenuous to automatically assume that Travis Taylor is a "nut," and therefor assume that because Grusch knows him he's a "nut" too?

Because Joes does this over and over again, and is the "issue" I felt needed addressing, rather than the one that was clearly a bad faith effort to smear someone (Grusch) simply because Joes doesn't want any of this to be true?

Does this really need explaining?

---

Has it? Just because you say Grush is credible doesn't make it so. If he is socializing with known UFO profiteer's that absolutely calls his testimony in to question.

---

You're right. Me saying Grusch is credible doesn't make it so.

But you're missing the larger point that I'm trying to make, which is that dozens of reputable, high-level government officials, Top Gun pilots, NASA scientists, etc have all gone on the record as vouching for him as credible.

I'm merely taking their word for it.

Not to mention, every last one of Grusch's highly impressive credentials have been verified by multiple individuals, both in and out of government. Grusch literally delivered the daily briefing to the President, for crying out loud, while having one of the highest security clearances someone in his position can achieve.

These are FACTS that not even his detractors are disputing.

So, together - the multitude of reputable individuals vouching for him, along with all of the many indisputable facts about his career - point to someone who is almost assuredly credible and trustworthy.

In other words, IMO, not believing THAT many reputable people, and setting aside THAT many facts and credentials, in order to arrive at the predetermined, untrustworthy "nut job" label, simply based on Grusch's association with certain UAP enthusiasts, is just as much a "leap of faith" as so many "believers" here are accused of taking.

It's hypocritical, not to mention a bad faith effort, and that's what bugs me.

Joes isn't simply "calling his testimony into question," he's declaring Grusch a "nut job" because Grusch associates with people who happen to believe the exact same things he does, which, to me, is such a nonsensical accusation. Stratton, Taylor, Corbell, Knapp, Coulthart, etc all believe, to varying degrees, that the government is hiding proof of UAPs. This is the exact same thing that Grusch believes. So why is it such a no-no that Grusch is associating with these folks, especially when two of them were literally employed by the Pentagon, and were privy to all kinds of info the public has yet to see, while the other three have proven beyond connected, with a multitude of verified sources sharing info with them as well?

Is it because they make money off the subject? Or are - excuse me - "UFO profiteers" as you pejoratively call them? Again, none of these people are getting anywhere close to rich off of this subject, so I don't see what the problem is with them finding ways, via podcasts or the occasional book or whatever, to support themselves in their pursuit to uncover what they believe to be the truth. Also, no one is denying that any of them - Grusch included - are "conspiracy guys." Like… that's the point. They believe in a conspiracy and are actively trying to prove it. So why wouldn't they ban together, pool their resources, have each others backs, etc? Now, do some of them make errors in judgment from time to time? Sure. They're human beings. But by and large they all come across as good, passionate people who are simply after the same thing Grusch is... not money, but the truth.

It's just super weird to me that ALL of the reputable individuals vouching for Grusch, and ALL of the credentials I mentioned are instantly thrown out the window because of Grusch's association with people who believe the exact same things Grusch does, and for some reason meet Joes arbitrary standard of who gets deemed a "nut job."

Also, I'm not saying, "Don't question David Grusch." I'm simply saying, "If you're going to question David Grusch, how can you so easily dismiss the mountain of facts and evidence pointing to him being a highly reputable person?" How and why does his association with Corbell and the like suddenly wipe that mountain off the map?

THAT'S the kind of stuff I'm talking about ignoring. THAT'S where the "disingenuous" label comes from.

Because, again, Joes is doing the same thing he's accusing us of doing - ignoring facts to settle on a predetermined result we "want" to be true.

I'm not calling out his skepticism.

I'm calling out his hypocrisy.

Sea Speed said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

"You don't agree with me so you must be a paid troll."

---

You have the thinnest skin on this entire website. Cmon.

---

That is 100% what he said about joes. Has nothing to do with anyone's skin. TCTTS doesn't like the manner in which joes posts as a skeptic so he accused him of being a paid troll.

Edited to change a word

---

and you joined in on the dogpile. Yet you're the guy that the moment anyone criticizes anything about you we hear about your hot wife, great job, etc … your skin is extremely thin, hence why you even replied to me to begin with.

I truly don't know if Grusch is credible or not.

I do think that IF you were going to run a giant UFO psyop, he would be a great candidate to be the poster boy.

Ah yes, evidence of my thin skin is replying to a post directly attacking me. What absurd logic. If we are judging ones skin thickness by the way they respond when one makes a post directed at them, I think tctts holds that crown. On a per word basis he has everyone beat by an order of magnitude.

Either way, it just sounds like you're jealous of my life. Good luck with the ugly wife and ****ty job.

Sea Speed said:

---

Ah yes, evidence of my thin skin is replying to a post directly attacking me. What absurd logic. If we are judging ones skin thickness by the way they respond when one makes a post directed at them, I think tctts holds that crown. On a per word basis he has everyone beat by an order of magnitude.

Either way, it just sounds like you're jealous of my life. Good luck with the ugly wife and ****ty job.

---

Thanks for proving my point.

Mr President Elect said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

"You don't agree with me so you must be a paid troll."

---

No kidding, right?? I personally found it quite informative and ground-breaking that Grusch confided with those in the ufo community during his whistleblowing process on ***checks notes*** ufo's. Also, his Grusch is a nut by proxy is a very strong argument that he (Grusch) cannot be taken seriosly. I for one welcome Joe bleeding all over this thread with his unbiased analysis.

Btw, someone needs to tell these guys they should remove this very damaging admission that they talked with Grusch in the past

---

Alright, well, I haven't gone after anyone here personally at all, just the supposed experts, so I genuinely apologize for anyone who's been offended. I've seen pretty much all I need to see and it's clearly not going to improve. I'll follow along more passively and watch what happens.

And just to clarify, I in no way thought I was educating anyone else about Grusch's relationships, just that I wasn't aware and they're a deal killer for me. I'm not ashamed to say that I haven't spent 50 years of my life researching. Something as big as the existence of aliens on this planet should be apparent and not require a lifetime commitment to find them.

This thread, and a shared understanding of the reality of aliens, has brought TNNCS and I together after many years. I'm grateful, so much so that I decided to move my gloating I Told You So posting to here from Spyder's 16 thread, post-disclosure.

This topic is obviously important, and I do hope we can all get along as disclosure approaches.

This whole thing is a giant Rorschach test, people see what they want to see in Grusch. Heroic crusading whistleblower or crank, not much in between.
For me, as someone who would love for something tangible to be found, I still see "well I talked to a guy who", and not any actual evidence, which is always where we seem to be. Even built into his testimony was the standard plausible deniability, because these are off book and they don't write things down. So if they aren't found it is just more of the conspiracy,
And the same government that couldn't even keep Bin Laden's death a secret long enough for the president to announce it the same day could somehow keep this a secret across three generations, 13 presidents and who knows how many people who were read in.
Until all of that can be reconciled and there's real evidence, nothing is different than the last 75 years.

Redstone said:

---

This thread, and a shared understanding of the reality of aliens, has brought TNNCS and I together after many years. I'm grateful, so much so that I decided to move my gloating I Told You So posting to here from Spyder's 16 thread, post-disclosure.

This topic is obviously important, and I do hope we can all get along as disclosure approaches.

---

The Redstone-TCTTS alliance over UFOs is about as exciting the first time iron man and captain America were on screen together

oragator said:

---

This whole thing is a giant Rorschach test, people see what they want to see in Grusch. Heroic crusading whistleblower or crank, not much in between.
For me, as someone who would love for something tangible to be found, I still see "well I talked to a guy who", and not any actual evidence, which is always where we seem to be. Even built into his testimony was the standard plausible deniability, because these are off book and they don't write things down. So if they aren't found it is just more of the conspiracy,
And the same government that couldn't even keep Bin Laden's death a secret long enough for the president to announce it the same day could somehow keep this a secret across three generations, 13 presidents and who knows how many people who were read in.
Until all of that can be reconciled and there's real evidence, nothing is different than the last 75 years.

---

Except that Grusch's complaints under the whistleblower act were found to be credible by the IG, who has the clearances necessary to evaluate his case. The public has not seen what Grusch claims to have seen, but the people who are responsible for deciding whether Grusch has a legitimate whistleblower case have. The IG believes Grusch's claims are not baseless. So this situation is markedly different.

Which of his claims are credible, in the eyes of the IG, though? The existence of non-human materials?

Or the existence of a secret program operating without oversight? My guess is the IG is investigating the latter.

redline248 said:

---

Which of his claims are credible, in the eyes of the IG, though? The existence of non-human materials?

Or the existence of a secret program operating without oversight? My guess is the IG is investigating the latter.

---

Both. He wouldn't have been cleared to state what he did otherwise.

Again, I'm not dismissing out of hand, I am only saying that as of now, we have exactly what we always had - "I heard from someone that". Until that changes I'm not gonna get excited.
My personal guess is that there is some secret investigative program out there, which is why the IG cleared it. But it's a huge step from that, to "we have alien craft and beings in the basement". We will see though.

oragator said:

---

Again, I'm not dismissing out of hand, I am only saying that as of now, we have exactly what we always had - "I heard from someone that". Until that changes I'm not gonna get excited.
My personal guess is that there is some secret investigative program out there, which is why the IG cleared it. But it's a huge step from that, to "we have alien craft and beings in the basement". We will see though.

---

Being a skeptic requires one to avoid taking anything solely on face value. But that doesn't mean that the context around Grusch's claims, such as the circumstances of his whistleblower claim and his credentials, are irrelevant. I don't dismiss Grusch's testimony out of hand precisely because the ICIG is actively investigating this. If this was just a "nothingburger", then the ICIG would have dismissed it. It's not inappropriate to be excited about where Grusch's testimony could lead. It is inappropriate to throw Grusch's claims in the same bucket with previously debunked claims from other sources just because the subject is crashed UFOs and aliens. This situation is not at all comparable to "exactly what we always had".