Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Grusch credentials
I would like to see us move away from this kind of appeal to authority or credentials. Skeptic Mick West has talked and written extensively about how the UFO community uses this argument to attach some kind of pseudo-veracity to the UFO claims of a proponent, when at the end of the day, the credentials aren’t going to help us determine what is occurring without actual nuts and bolts evidence and hard data. So while it is natural and human for us to point to the legal reliability of an advocate for a particular position, it’s not going to help us with answers. Highlighting credentials like this is more of an attempt to persuade, when what is needed is evidence, not arguments. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn’t make sense as a section heading, but it is a key part of the story. As several sources note, this is a typical story of a very normal love of “credentials”, and the full story should be told with this love of credentials clearly represented from the sources as a part of the full story. There seems to be a polemic at work on Wikipedia in relation to this subject that fails to tell the full stories of events, and the full story is always the best defense of the truth and the most faithful to the purpose of an encyclopedia which is a succinct representation of the various dynamics presented by the sources in the relationships and proportions relayed by the sources. What I’m saying is simply that the point about an appeal to credentials as a false validation should be pointed out from a source rather than simply removing any reference to credentials (which just looks pathetic and disingenuous). I assume this is what you meant but want to be sure. —Jjhake (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the content, but rather the structure and presentation. I don't think we should be highlighting his credentials in the subject heading, for example, but highlighting them in the body is fine. As Mick West, Seth Shostak, and others have pointed out, this entire case so far is built upon an appeal to authority, not evidence. I think we need to avoid using the section headings to further this line of argumentation, and instead fall back upon best Wikipedia practices for presenting the material. That's all I was trying to say. I will have more to say later about this, but I wanted to bring it up. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense entirely. I've been trying to cut out sections headings with several edits just now. Jjhake (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think what I was trying to say, but failed, was that my concern was an issue of framing. Advocates in the UFO community point to Grusch's credentials as an argument from authority, saying that his claims have more weight than others for this reason. But we know these aren't Grusch's claims, they are claims supposedly handed down to him from unnamed sources in the government (according to Grusch). So this argument falls apart right at the beginning. Further, Kean and Blumenthal constantly engage in this kind of argument from authority throughout their reporting and even in their interviews about the topic. Blumenthal in particular leans heavily on the idea that Grusch is engaging in good faith. Even Mick West is willing to accept this, as it doesn't change the lack of evidence. So I don't want to see Wikipedia go down this route of highlighting his credentials, which doesn't solve the underlying lack of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have very intentionally given context from a great source by putting this right before the credentials are listed: "Eghigian writes that "the crusading whistleblower dedicated to breaking the silence over the alien origins of unidentified flying objects" is a kind of American public figure that was first invented in 1950s."
- I fully agree that the age-old nasty trick of argument by means of impressive credentials should be called out, and we have great sources that call it out. However, any suggestion that the credentials should not be included in the Wikipedia article is just as insidious to me because it is an entirely counter-productive example of portraying this cultural event as something simple and cleaned up which is most obviously is not. It's stinking mess with 70 years of history, and the messy details and method should all be represented by means reliable sources. Jjhake (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've just brought this explict language back in as well as key context from our best historian source: "who previously worked in some kind of federal department". Jjhake (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Without commenting directly on specific content right now, everything looks vastly improved over previous versions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that these updates look to be an improvement overall. Jjhake (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Without commenting directly on specific content right now, everything looks vastly improved over previous versions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think what I was trying to say, but failed, was that my concern was an issue of framing. Advocates in the UFO community point to Grusch's credentials as an argument from authority, saying that his claims have more weight than others for this reason. But we know these aren't Grusch's claims, they are claims supposedly handed down to him from unnamed sources in the government (according to Grusch). So this argument falls apart right at the beginning. Further, Kean and Blumenthal constantly engage in this kind of argument from authority throughout their reporting and even in their interviews about the topic. Blumenthal in particular leans heavily on the idea that Grusch is engaging in good faith. Even Mick West is willing to accept this, as it doesn't change the lack of evidence. So I don't want to see Wikipedia go down this route of highlighting his credentials, which doesn't solve the underlying lack of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense entirely. I've been trying to cut out sections headings with several edits just now. Jjhake (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the content, but rather the structure and presentation. I don't think we should be highlighting his credentials in the subject heading, for example, but highlighting them in the body is fine. As Mick West, Seth Shostak, and others have pointed out, this entire case so far is built upon an appeal to authority, not evidence. I think we need to avoid using the section headings to further this line of argumentation, and instead fall back upon best Wikipedia practices for presenting the material. That's all I was trying to say. I will have more to say later about this, but I wanted to bring it up. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Fringe religious opinion
On the same day, Jeff Reed from the Church of God International, a nontrinitarian Christian denomination, stated that the existence of non-human intelligent life would not fit into God's plan, writing, "Jesus did not die for the sins of extraterrestrial aliens. Mankind has a special place in the universe".
This doesn't appear to be in a secondary source, and doesn't represent the mainstream religious opinion on ET life. Per our article on the potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact: "Surveys of religious leaders indicate that only a small percentage are concerned that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence might fundamentally contradict the views of the adherents of their religion." That article goes on to explain the topic in greater detail. I am not convinced that the Church of God International, as represented in this article, is a good fit. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs in this article. jps (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is entirely extraneous (and also from a “ministry” blog kind of source). Jjhake (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I added it and have now removed it. Guess it was just in an attempt to add as much material as possible and later cut down on it. Marginataen (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I love your sense of humor. I have no objection to a discussion of exotheology in this context, provided the sources are good and the material is relevant and balanced. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I added it and have now removed it. Guess it was just in an attempt to add as much material as possible and later cut down on it. Marginataen (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Topics being archived far too frequently and quickly
There are topics created only yesterday which have been archived from this page.
Stop. Asperthrow (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I raised this issue last week, but apparently my concerns were ignored. Auto-archiving should be setup. I was going to add it, but I’m a bit busy right now. If someone could add the auto archive to the header that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Would be glad to have auto archiving setup. I’m not sure how. I’m scrolling far too much, but I’ll not archive again as it is apparently an issue. Jjhake (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Added. I would invite others to look at that diff to make sure I did it correctly. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Would be glad to have auto archiving setup. I’m not sure how. I’m scrolling far too much, but I’ll not archive again as it is apparently an issue. Jjhake (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Leslie Kean on Ezra Klein
Link should get you behind the paywall.
I couldn't make it through the entire podcast due to a lack of time. Ezra Klein is just a tad too deferential to Kean for my liking (which, to be fair, is probably why she agreed to appear). Nevertheless, her framing comports with a lot of what I was saying above which was being (gently) questioned by others. Not enough focus on the balloons and how that may have influenced her and not enough discussion of how, for example, The New York Times balked at breaking Grusch's story, but a datapoint in any case.
jps (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Have not finished it, but will likely to do so eventually. Interesting to hear a current NYT author speaking with Kean, and it does add some more details regarding Kean's thought processes as you say. Separately, I appreciate how Ezra Klein says at the start that conspiracy theories actually thrive on coverage that just falls into one of two extreme polarized camps: true believers vs. dismissive skeptics. The truth is always a messy story that is not served by such black-and-white alternatives and that has plenty of different cultural layers to be noted and kept in view. Jjhake (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is that both Klein and Kean dismiss, more-or-less out-of-hand, a number of prosaic explanations on the basis of bizarre arguments from incredulity. For example, they make a lot of hay about the reports saying that there is no evidence that it is Russian or Chinese technology. The implication is left unspoken. They ought to come right out and say their piece, but obviously nuseither wants to do that for fear of being made the fool. But that's rather the point. The Sagan standard and Ockham's Razor are there precisely to identify options as being more plausible than another in the absence of evidence. "It cannot be just a light effect if instruments register it." was another canard I had to wince at not yelling at the podcast on. Still, for better or worse, Kean has been able to get the ear of a certain segment, and so here we are. Now, if we could just focus a bit more on how "prosaic explanations" are actually possible for all this (I think Klein is still open to this but Kean is most certainly not), we could actually have a "middle". Of course, that "middle" gets maligned as "dismissive skepticism" by those who want to believe. jps (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That all makes complete sense to me. But I also think that Klein is interested in the long-term and crazy cultural history (which we may very well be stuck with for a long time regardless). Jjhake (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like Klein changed the title from "So About Those U.F.O. Stories..." to "What the Heck Is Going on With These U.F.O. Stories?" over the course of the day. Jjhake (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty common occurrence at NYTimes and everywhere online these days. Likely wasn't the author. Likely was the AB testing coming up with a more clickable title. jps (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's funny. I guess that "what the heck" sells... Btw, for anyone interested, here is a transcription of most all the intro that Ezra Klein gave to this show:
- “Immediately, you have these two narratives emerge and take over a lot of social media. One is, ‘This is the biggest news break of all time, and it’s being published in The Debrief because the mainstream media just doesn’t want you to know about it.’ ...We’re keeping it from you. And then there’s the other side to this which thinks it is ridiculous to even be talking about. ‘Just media organizations taking cranks seriously for the clicks.’ And every time I step anywhere near UFO stories (and I do because I think there is something interesting here), I get a ton of emails saying, ‘How dare you waste our time.’ And so to make a metapoint about why I want to do this conversation right now, I don’t think it’s good for these two interpretations to be so distant from each other. It feeds conspiracy theories. It makes it hard for people to know why something that looks very legitimate to them isn’t being taken as legitimate elsewhere. But also I don’t think—on the other side—it’s good for stories (that even if they have problems and holes) that do have something interesting happening in them, something intriguing, something that is a little hard to explain, that does deserve scrutiny, to be ignored. So I wanted to dig into this story, both for what’s solid in it and what makes me, at least, skeptical of it. And I also wanted to dig into some of the stories about governmental investigations into UFOs that preceded it because there have been a bunch of these over the past couple of years. The biggest ones, including this one, were co-authored by Leslie Kean, a long time journalist on this beat who has published a number of them in the New York Times, my publication, though as I mentioned this particular story was in The Debrief. ...My hope is, by the end of this, you have more of a sense of why I think it is reasonable to be very curious, at this point, to have some real unanswered questions, but also be pretty skeptical of some of Grusch’s claims.” Jjhake (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty common occurrence at NYTimes and everywhere online these days. Likely wasn't the author. Likely was the AB testing coming up with a more clickable title. jps (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is that both Klein and Kean dismiss, more-or-less out-of-hand, a number of prosaic explanations on the basis of bizarre arguments from incredulity. For example, they make a lot of hay about the reports saying that there is no evidence that it is Russian or Chinese technology. The implication is left unspoken. They ought to come right out and say their piece, but obviously nuseither wants to do that for fear of being made the fool. But that's rather the point. The Sagan standard and Ockham's Razor are there precisely to identify options as being more plausible than another in the absence of evidence. "It cannot be just a light effect if instruments register it." was another canard I had to wince at not yelling at the podcast on. Still, for better or worse, Kean has been able to get the ear of a certain segment, and so here we are. Now, if we could just focus a bit more on how "prosaic explanations" are actually possible for all this (I think Klein is still open to this but Kean is most certainly not), we could actually have a "middle". Of course, that "middle" gets maligned as "dismissive skepticism" by those who want to believe. jps (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't really understand why Klein is curious, unfortunately, and I finally listened to the entire thing. I think he is titillated in much the same way that we see people excited about a lot of Ripley's Beleive-It-Or-Not style storytelling. Perhaps the best analogue here is religious belief. A lot of very "serious people" are absolutely convinced that supernatural events are happening all the time. For whatever reason, this isn't something that people get all hung up on. If a pilot says, "Jesus saved my training run" and insists that there is video that shows this, there isn't a community of believers set up to push these stories on the mainstream media and Congress these days, but this is just an accident of history for all I can tell. Because UFO claims are of a slightly younger provenance and have been recently pushed by some deep pockets, the Ezra Kleins of the world don't have the requisite baloney detector kits. But this is going to come because once you scratch the surface of UFOs what you end up finding is the same sort of woo. jps (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Klein has provided a full transcript:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-transcript-leslie-kean.html Jjhake (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
DOD denial or lack there of
in regards to paragraph 2:
"In response to Grusch's June 2023 claims, both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) issued statements saying respectively that no evidence has been found for extraterrestrial life or for the possession or reverse engineering of any extraterrestrial materials."
But in reality, DOD has not denied this, instead they said the following:
"DoD released a statement stating, "To date, AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of any extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently. AARO is committed to following the data and its investigation wherever it leads".
AARO is a newly formed organization by congress that allegedly does not have title 50 access to investigate or get access to these Special Access Programs. This allegation has also not been denied by DOD.
I think it's more accurate to say that AARO hasn't found VERIFIABLE INFO, not DOD. H3sam91 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- That’s a very specific point (and a reasonable one in my opinion), but it has only been brought up in some “UFO advocacy” contexts from what I’ve seen. One anchor for NewsNation did make that point which I mentioned (with a quote) in the body of this article. However, my mention of this got deleted from the body of the article and voted down. If you can find this point noted in more than one mainstream news source, there would likely be an appropriate way to get it acknowledged in the article. Otherwise, I think it will continue to be dismissed as nitpicking advocacy for the Grusch claims. Jjhake (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then atleast we can say there is "no verifiable information". the article right now says there isn't any evidence. the official statement says verifiable information. they could have easily said that but they chose to says verifiable which imply there may be evidence but AARO can't verify (precisely my point, as AARO allegedly doesn't have title 50 clearence.) H3sam91 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The info in the article lede should remain simple and as brief as possible. However, I took a shot at adding this within the lede, and we will see what others think. The full statement by the DoD is below in the body of the article of course, so it is not a critical point. Jjhake (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then atleast we can say there is "no verifiable information". the article right now says there isn't any evidence. the official statement says verifiable information. they could have easily said that but they chose to says verifiable which imply there may be evidence but AARO can't verify (precisely my point, as AARO allegedly doesn't have title 50 clearence.) H3sam91 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, it was Brian Entin who made this same point in a June 11 interview of Ross Coulthart (where Entin was clearly defending his own decision to give Coulthart so much time).
- https://www.newsnationnow.com/author/brian-entin/ Jjhake (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
but they chose to says verifiable which imply there may be evidence but AARO can't verify
That would be begging the question and anyway, we don't need to divine hidden meanings from these sources when we've got long established mainstream agreement that there is no evidence for reverse engineering of crashed extraterrestrial UFOs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)- The rumors about the "hidden meanings" of the DoD statement were first aired by Brian Entin of NewsNation with specific comments that he made on June 11. I see no issue with being specific in the language as long as we don't start repeating the rumors in the article that have showed up in only this one source to my knowledge. Jjhake (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I realize the timeline is confusing and muddled, but I’m pretty sure Entin was among the last to talk about this, not the first. Between the time of the original story and the 11th, quite a few people brought this up. I’m almost positive John Greenewald discussed it on his podcast (ep. 124) on June 7. It may be the case, however, that Entin is easier to cite and reference than other sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, helpful correction. Entin is the only one that might work to cite. Not sure if worth it unless it develops? Jjhake (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it’s worth it, but as I have said elsewhere, I tend to have a more inclusive, liberal approach than others, so you may find some disagreement. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. As I mentioned, I tried once a week or so back to note this point, and it was deleted. So, for my part anyway, I'll plan to leave it alone for now unless other sources bring it up again. Jjhake (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it’s worth it, but as I have said elsewhere, I tend to have a more inclusive, liberal approach than others, so you may find some disagreement. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, helpful correction. Entin is the only one that might work to cite. Not sure if worth it unless it develops? Jjhake (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I realize the timeline is confusing and muddled, but I’m pretty sure Entin was among the last to talk about this, not the first. Between the time of the original story and the 11th, quite a few people brought this up. I’m almost positive John Greenewald discussed it on his podcast (ep. 124) on June 7. It may be the case, however, that Entin is easier to cite and reference than other sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The rumors about the "hidden meanings" of the DoD statement were first aired by Brian Entin of NewsNation with specific comments that he made on June 11. I see no issue with being specific in the language as long as we don't start repeating the rumors in the article that have showed up in only this one source to my knowledge. Jjhake (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Is this an encyclopedia article about the larger cultural event of these claims and not simply an article that analyzes the claims?
We have now 1. removed extraneous religious fringe material (which I agreed was too extraneous in that particular case), 2. removed the example of an Air Force veteran and UFO officer who shared in an interview his hopes that Grusch will become a national hero, and 3. mentioned the possible removal of the widespread disinformation theory. I’ve noted the disappearance of one active and thoughtful editing voice after the article name debates.
All of this leads me to request a clear answer from my fellow editors regarding the goals and purposes of this article in the long term: Is this an encyclopedia article about the larger cultural and historical event of these claims and not simply an article that analyzes the claims? I’m very earnestly hoping that we can agree to write with the first option as our objective (which of course fully includes the second objective as part of the event). Thoughts and feedback much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I probably shouldn't answer this per WP:CBALL, but I have a hard time not taking this sort of bait. I think that in the near future, the article is likely to develop similarly to Pentagon UFO videos which still deserve some fixing. I remember when working on that article all those years ago certain editors were appalled... appalled... that we would spend time explaining the parallax effect. Now, that seems to be one of the major things that these videos continue to serve as object lessons for. In this article, I think the larger question comes to be how far should we be willing to suspend disbelief when people make outlandish claims? Signal-to-noise ratios are very, very hard to identify when it comes to UFOs. People who devote their lives to trying to figure out how to do this, with few exceptions, end up on the other side of credulity all the time.
- Jimmy Carter saw a UFO. It was almost certainly Venus. He could never bring himself to admit that and the last time he was interviewed on the subject, he still maintained that it couldn't possibly have been Venus because it had running lights and was flying around through the sky.
- In past decades/centuries, Marian apparitions, miraculous signs and wonders, literal magic, and arguments that there were too many pieces of evidence to deny the existence of fairies were all the rage. We look back on these quaint incidents now with bemused detachment. How could they be so ridiculous? The rhetoricians will counter with stories of meteorite denial and scoffing at continental drift by the academic elites of their time, but if you actually look at the history of these discoveries you will find chains of events which look very different from what is being described here. The few instances where the null hypothesis turned out to be wrong does not argue that skepticism is wrong in this particular case. Keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out. Etc., etc.
- jps (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- When crystal ball gazing becomes a pastime of senators and such for seventy years, it should be treated seriously as a cultural phenomenon. There are excellent secondary sources doing this, and I hope Wikipedia will make good use of them in service of the truth. Reducing the topic to just accusations of woo woo idiocy is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the larger cultural context. Skepticism has a vital service to offer, but it’s not the only tool in the box. Jjhake (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- To answer your question, the way this article is framed right now, it is not about the larger scope, but I suppose it could be. During the earlier part of this discussion here and elsewhere, I argued in favor of expanding the scope to a larger article about UFO conspiracies and "disclosure" which would allow for this kind of treatment. I’ve also worked on other related articles that have this kind of larger cultural scope. I’m afraid that this one does not at this time, but I’m always open to other formats and styles. Right now, I’m considering creating a new article just about UFO disinformation and propaganda, but I’m still in the early phases of research and I’m not quite sure this will lead to an actual new article. It’s best to follow the sources and see where they take you, rather than the other way around. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Helpful to read. There is certainly a continuing proliferation of UFO commentary in more and more mainstream books and media outlets so that some kind of a more textured cultural coverage is going to have a lot of secondary source material. Jjhake (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- And by "UFO commentary" I do not mean commentary on UFOs but on the communities and histories associated with the advocates, detractors, and those studying it all from various angles. I just learned today, for example, that the term "Invisible College" in relation UFOs was first used by Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee. Jjhake (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think you could definitely create a new article about this larger scope. As of right now, most of this focus is contained within our poor article on UFO conspiracies. However, when you look closely at Grusch's claims, it turns out that different people have been making these same claims for many decades, which means they should all be neatly consolidated into a single article for encyclopedic purposes. Take a look at Leonard H. Stringfield, for example. His story (from 1954, no less!) is remarkably similar to the one Kean and Blumenthal tell, except in this particular case, Stringfield's "Grusch"-like whistleblower source was Lieutenant Colonel John O'Mara, Deputy Commander, Intelligence, United States Air Force. So there's this pattern going back many years, of the same story being repeated over and over again, and I think we should have a broader article on this history. You seem like the one to write it! Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, that Leonard H. Stringfield story from 1954 is incredibly similar. So wild. This fuller history a massive undertaking. I’ll be thinking about it. I’m really looking forward to the book that Greg Eghigian, the Penn State history professor, is writing. Jjhake (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Follow that up with Robert Dean, followed by dozens more. The common denominator? These claims always either originate with the military or from a military source. Some skeptics believe this is because the government wants people to believe UFOs are real, even if they aren't. Look at Roswell. A public affairs officer was ordered by the base commander of Roswell Army Air Field to announce they recovered a flying saucer. The base commander got his orders from the Pentagon. Leon Davidson believed this was part of a larger Cold War disinformation program to hide experimental military technology and to confuse the Soviets and other enemies. There is some evidence (look for Project Stork) that the military was interested in studying the psychological impact of UFO sightings on the public, and the CIA said they were concerned that such reports would interfere with normal communications channels. American journalist Annie Jacobsen has an altogether different take on this idea in her book Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base, whose conclusions are pretty wild and out there, so I won't spoil them for you, but there's a lot of different ideas that a single, comprehensive article should cover, and right now, we have no such article. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! Wild stuff indeed. Thanks for the book recommendation. Jjhake (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's all a hall of mirrors. When I read Jacobsen's book, I got the idea that this was disinformation as well and that she fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, hall of mirrors is just the right image. Jjhake (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's all a hall of mirrors. When I read Jacobsen's book, I got the idea that this was disinformation as well and that she fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! Wild stuff indeed. Thanks for the book recommendation. Jjhake (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Follow that up with Robert Dean, followed by dozens more. The common denominator? These claims always either originate with the military or from a military source. Some skeptics believe this is because the government wants people to believe UFOs are real, even if they aren't. Look at Roswell. A public affairs officer was ordered by the base commander of Roswell Army Air Field to announce they recovered a flying saucer. The base commander got his orders from the Pentagon. Leon Davidson believed this was part of a larger Cold War disinformation program to hide experimental military technology and to confuse the Soviets and other enemies. There is some evidence (look for Project Stork) that the military was interested in studying the psychological impact of UFO sightings on the public, and the CIA said they were concerned that such reports would interfere with normal communications channels. American journalist Annie Jacobsen has an altogether different take on this idea in her book Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base, whose conclusions are pretty wild and out there, so I won't spoil them for you, but there's a lot of different ideas that a single, comprehensive article should cover, and right now, we have no such article. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, that Leonard H. Stringfield story from 1954 is incredibly similar. So wild. This fuller history a massive undertaking. I’ll be thinking about it. I’m really looking forward to the book that Greg Eghigian, the Penn State history professor, is writing. Jjhake (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think you could definitely create a new article about this larger scope. As of right now, most of this focus is contained within our poor article on UFO conspiracies. However, when you look closely at Grusch's claims, it turns out that different people have been making these same claims for many decades, which means they should all be neatly consolidated into a single article for encyclopedic purposes. Take a look at Leonard H. Stringfield, for example. His story (from 1954, no less!) is remarkably similar to the one Kean and Blumenthal tell, except in this particular case, Stringfield's "Grusch"-like whistleblower source was Lieutenant Colonel John O'Mara, Deputy Commander, Intelligence, United States Air Force. So there's this pattern going back many years, of the same story being repeated over and over again, and I think we should have a broader article on this history. You seem like the one to write it! Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- To answer your question, the way this article is framed right now, it is not about the larger scope, but I suppose it could be. During the earlier part of this discussion here and elsewhere, I argued in favor of expanding the scope to a larger article about UFO conspiracies and "disclosure" which would allow for this kind of treatment. I’ve also worked on other related articles that have this kind of larger cultural scope. I’m afraid that this one does not at this time, but I’m always open to other formats and styles. Right now, I’m considering creating a new article just about UFO disinformation and propaganda, but I’m still in the early phases of research and I’m not quite sure this will lead to an actual new article. It’s best to follow the sources and see where they take you, rather than the other way around. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- When crystal ball gazing becomes a pastime of senators and such for seventy years, it should be treated seriously as a cultural phenomenon. There are excellent secondary sources doing this, and I hope Wikipedia will make good use of them in service of the truth. Reducing the topic to just accusations of woo woo idiocy is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the larger cultural context. Skepticism has a vital service to offer, but it’s not the only tool in the box. Jjhake (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hawley new interview
https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/us-downplayed-number-ufo-sightings/
“The number of these is apparently huge, huge. And that is something that the government has, the best I can say about it, downplayed, if not kept from the public, for a long, long time,” said Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. Hawley says while he can’t assess the truth of Grusch’s allegations, he says the government has admitted there are many UAP sightings that are “unaccounted for.”
“I don’t have any basis to evaluate them but do some of the details that he’s alleging, do they sound plausible? Yeah, sure. They sound plausible, based on what I’ve seen this government do in other instances,” Hawley said. This was in reference to the government’s response to the Chinese spy balloon spotted over the U.S. back in January. “What we learned from the Chinese spy balloon incident is that one part of the government actively concealed it from other parts of the government,” Hawley explained. “Because that’s what they do all the time.”
Hawley says though he can’t verify Grusch’s claims, they track with what he has heard in briefings. “He’s saying that the government knows more about this than they have previously let on. That doesn’t really surprise me. Because it looks to me like the government has been tracking these UAPs for a long time now, and has not been saying much about it,” said Hawley.
However, not all lawmakers are convinced. “If we’d really found this stuff, there’s no way you could keep it from coming out … My gut belief is if there’s a physical piece of a spacecraft or an intact spaceship, we would’ve known about it by now,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. Hawley doesn’t buy that argument, saying the government is good at keeping secrets when it wants something to stay hidden. H3sam91 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just now added this source with comments from both senators within the "Congressional plans and comments from members" section of the article. Jjhake (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
David Schindele as a source
@Jordgette: the opinions of Minuteman I intercontinental ballistic missile launch crew commander David Schindele about David Grusch as reported in the Minot Daily News perfectly illustrates why such claims as those of David Grusch resurface repeatedly in American history. It’s absolutely notable to this “David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims” event and a dismissive and exclusionary attitude only more fully perpetuates the mutual recriminations and ignorant rumors. The best defense of the truth is the full and colorful story. Jjhake (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. His opinion is still non-notable in the larger context of this story, and it doesn't belong in the article any more than that of any other minor officer in the Armed Forces. -Jordgette [talk] 02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Grusch is a minor officer as well. That's got nothing to do with my point about how to represent an event from the sources as a piece of cultural history. Jjhake (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jjhake, to play devil's advocate, and to argue from Jordgette's POV, are you able to find at least one other source that mentions Schindele or his case in relation to Grusch? I realize it is still early days, but Jordgette could argue that if it's only covered by one small paper like the Minot Daily News, and Schindele or his case isn't mentioned by anyone else, then maybe we shouldn't cover it. I'm not saying Jordgette is right or that I even agree with them, but their position might be supported if any of that was true. Now, it may also be the case, giving your argument some weight in this regard, that Schindele is famous, his case is notable, and there is a good reason to include it. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm hoping you do. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I know that notable applies to the question of creating an article, but when representing a cultural event the question is simply if the source reliably gives the facts. There is no doubt that the Minot Daily News is accurately representing the opinion of this small-town ballistic missile launch crew commander. This captain's opinion is a critical and obvious element of this very American story, and it would be a distortion of the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" not to include it. I've placed it in the article alone under the subheading "Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota" just before the larger subsequent subheading of "Mainstream media reporting" to make the relative proportion and place of this small-town story clear in relation to the larger story. However, if you take the small-town story out, you are not portraying the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event that this article is supposed to portray, and you are perpetuating a stupidly sanitized and artificial portrayal of U.S. history that will not serve the truth most effectively in the long term. Jjhake (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks for your reply. Let's put that specific argument aside for the moment (let's come back to it later) and focus on the sourcing, as it's the best way to move forward right now. Are there other good sources that mention Schindele or his specific case, such as the 1966 UFO incident? If either one of those things are notable, that would make a difference. What do we know about The Minot Daily News and the editor who wrote this article? Looking at the article itself, it appears there is a paper trail, as they originally published an article about the incident back in 1996, and Schindele published a book. It also says Schindele was interviewed by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in 2022. That lends a touch of weight to inclusion, but it's not much. What would help tremendously is to find more coverage of Schindele elswehere, and to report back showing that his case has more legitimacy to it than just a small town paper giving it attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- As the Minot Daily News article notes:
- "About a month ago, Schindele was one of former military members interviewed by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) established by the Department of Defense last year to investigate the UFO situation."
- Another related story that includes Schindele is here:
- https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/10/19/air-force-veterans-who-are-ufo-true-believers-return-newly-attentive-washington.html
- Again in the Minot Daily News article where Schindele talks about his feelings on the Grusch event:
- "Air Force officials instructed the military members at the launch control facility and those who knew about the incident, never to speak about it and as far as they should be concerned, it never happened. The Minot Daily News carried the front-page headline, “Minot Launch Control Center ‘Saucer’ Cited As One Indication Of Outer Space Visitors,” for a story published on Dec. 6, 1966, about UFOs seen in the local area."
- There are many sources on the Condon Report in the 1960s which was funded by the Air Force and found no evidence to support the claims and recommended against further studies.
- However, again, I'm not advocating for a Wikipedia article about the Minot Air Force Base UFO folklore from the 1960s. That would be an entirely different thing. I'm saying that the feelings for Grusch that an old Air Force "UFO true believer" like Schindele has should be included in the account of the Grusch event. Is there any doubt at all that Schindele feels this way about Grusch? Of course he does, and that is a basic part of the cultural history that this Grusch article is supposed to cover and obviously why events like this Grusch case keep happening. Jjhake (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jordgette: let's see what Jordgette thinks. The current section heading ("Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota") made me laugh out loud, and I think that should either be changed, or moved somewhere else, as it sounds less than serious and somewhat silly. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll keep thinking about a better subsection heading or location for this element of the event. I’m obviously shaped here by my training as a historian. There is nothing funny or odd to me about including minority voices as long as they are clearly represented as a minority and are critical to understanding the whole story. Of course this doesn’t help me to write encyclopedia articles. However, articles on cultural history events should not be that far removed from writing good history (just based on secondary sources instead of primary sources). The secondary sources here are intentionally giving voice to one old “true believer”, and there must be some way to share the fact that such feelings exist. Jjhake (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m leaning towards exclusion because I’m not convinced it fits the current narrative. Maybe it can be worked in in the near future, but it’s just someone saying "I agree with Grusch" without much substance behind it. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, however. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not a story about someone saying that they agree with Grusch. It’s a story about someone saying that they hope he becomes a national hero. It’s a complete distortion of this event not to depict such true believers. Jjhake (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I think you might be getting down to brass tacks and narrowing the scope for inclusion. Mick West talks about these true believers in terms of the "Invisible College". It might be informative to think about how to connect Grusch to that topic. According to West, the Invisible College of UFO academics is behind much of this push toward "disclosure", and I use that in quotes. You should look closer into Schindele’s backstory and see if it intersects with that group of people, and if it does, consider how to write about it in terms of the true believer angle. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not a story about someone saying that they agree with Grusch. It’s a story about someone saying that they hope he becomes a national hero. It’s a complete distortion of this event not to depict such true believers. Jjhake (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m leaning towards exclusion because I’m not convinced it fits the current narrative. Maybe it can be worked in in the near future, but it’s just someone saying "I agree with Grusch" without much substance behind it. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, however. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll keep thinking about a better subsection heading or location for this element of the event. I’m obviously shaped here by my training as a historian. There is nothing funny or odd to me about including minority voices as long as they are clearly represented as a minority and are critical to understanding the whole story. Of course this doesn’t help me to write encyclopedia articles. However, articles on cultural history events should not be that far removed from writing good history (just based on secondary sources instead of primary sources). The secondary sources here are intentionally giving voice to one old “true believer”, and there must be some way to share the fact that such feelings exist. Jjhake (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jordgette: let's see what Jordgette thinks. The current section heading ("Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota") made me laugh out loud, and I think that should either be changed, or moved somewhere else, as it sounds less than serious and somewhat silly. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks for your reply. Let's put that specific argument aside for the moment (let's come back to it later) and focus on the sourcing, as it's the best way to move forward right now. Are there other good sources that mention Schindele or his specific case, such as the 1966 UFO incident? If either one of those things are notable, that would make a difference. What do we know about The Minot Daily News and the editor who wrote this article? Looking at the article itself, it appears there is a paper trail, as they originally published an article about the incident back in 1996, and Schindele published a book. It also says Schindele was interviewed by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in 2022. That lends a touch of weight to inclusion, but it's not much. What would help tremendously is to find more coverage of Schindele elswehere, and to report back showing that his case has more legitimacy to it than just a small town paper giving it attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I know that notable applies to the question of creating an article, but when representing a cultural event the question is simply if the source reliably gives the facts. There is no doubt that the Minot Daily News is accurately representing the opinion of this small-town ballistic missile launch crew commander. This captain's opinion is a critical and obvious element of this very American story, and it would be a distortion of the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" not to include it. I've placed it in the article alone under the subheading "Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota" just before the larger subsequent subheading of "Mainstream media reporting" to make the relative proportion and place of this small-town story clear in relation to the larger story. However, if you take the small-town story out, you are not portraying the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event that this article is supposed to portray, and you are perpetuating a stupidly sanitized and artificial portrayal of U.S. history that will not serve the truth most effectively in the long term. Jjhake (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jjhake, to play devil's advocate, and to argue from Jordgette's POV, are you able to find at least one other source that mentions Schindele or his case in relation to Grusch? I realize it is still early days, but Jordgette could argue that if it's only covered by one small paper like the Minot Daily News, and Schindele or his case isn't mentioned by anyone else, then maybe we shouldn't cover it. I'm not saying Jordgette is right or that I even agree with them, but their position might be supported if any of that was true. Now, it may also be the case, giving your argument some weight in this regard, that Schindele is famous, his case is notable, and there is a good reason to include it. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm hoping you do. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Grusch is a minor officer as well. That's got nothing to do with my point about how to represent an event from the sources as a piece of cultural history. Jjhake (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jjhake: it's good that you brought this to the talk page, but please add the new source link and the diff so that everyone can see it, and we can have something to come back to in the future. Also, I shortened the title for easier browsing. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Here is the source in question:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20230617192941/https://www.minotdailynews.com/news/local-news/2023/06/former-missile-officer-ufo-whistleblower-demonstrates-tremendous-courage/
- UFO history should be treated for what it is a major part of U.S. cultural history, and this case of David Schindele from North Dakota is a classic example of just why such UFO whistleblower claims keep coming back over and over since the 1950s. Jjhake (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. With more details like this, you can attract more discussion. I will have something to say about it a bit later. Also, don't forget to add a link to the diff showing the content (added or deleted). Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose heading of "Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota". That’s just silly. If we are going to discuss advocates and supporters, that could be done in a particular, specific context. As for whether Schindele is notable enough to include, that remains to be seen, and it’s not clear if simply stating he supports Grusch and has well wishes for him is encyclopedically relevant. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I changed it to the temporary heading of "response from ex-military". I don't think this content is a good fit as it is, but it's possible that it could be somehow worked into the article, but I'm not sure about that. Project Blue Book records a famous UFO incident at Minot Air Force Base in October 1968. Schindele left in May 1968, and the newspaper describes his report that occurred in September 1966. I'm not convinced this is the best fit for this article right now, and I'm leaning towards exclusion in agreement with Jordgette. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is very helpful to have this "Response from ex-military" as a key part of representing this "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event as a standard and repeating pattern of American cultural history. I hope other editors will recognize this. The story of the 1966 incident that was a lengthy headline article in The Minot Daily News on December 6, 1966 is mentioned as well as shown in a photo within this story reporting on the response to Grusch. To be clear, asking about the historicity of any of this folklore is not the point. This is simply about representing this stereotypical reaction to Grusch by a typical "true-believer veteran". (As noted in a comment above, this is exactly the kind of thing that West's "Invisible College" takes advantage of all the time. I don't think it can be used as a source but this story from October 2021 calls Schindele one of "three aging Air Force ...true-believer veterans".) The truth will be much better served for everyone long term if incidents such as this "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event accurately represent all of the key parts of the story. Jjhake (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to include better context and info about the Schindele response to Grusch in this "Response from ex-military" section just now so that the connections to the typical and very old patterns of American UFO folklore are clear. Jjhake (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- C'mon people. It's so dumb to include this. It just looks like someone scoured the internet for a supporting opinion from someone who would appear credible, and found this bottom-of-the-barrel source. The disconnect between Grusch's sweeping, bombshell allegations, and one random guy speaking to a tiny newspaper, is ridiculous. This does not belong in the article. ETA: At the very least, the header "Response from ex-military" should be changed to "Response from one random ex-military guy." -Jordgette [talk] 14:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- What about "Response from a military veteran and UFO author" as the section heading?
- As I've said over and over, this has nothing at all to do with supporting claims by Grusch. Any sane person would recognize that it does not do this. This is about accurately portraying the world of generational American folklore that surrounds this UFO topic. Jjhake (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It does give the appearance of supporting Grusch. Why this guy? He is not notable, he is not an acknowledged expert even on UFO folklore, his self-published book is non-notable, and there's no reason to believe he has any information that the rest of us don't have. It looks very cherrypicked. I mean, I watched the interview, can my opinion be included in the article? -Jordgette [talk] 16:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are likely to be supported by other editors. You've already been supported by the one other editor to comment so far. I'm the one in a minority here, believe me, and I'm not cherry-picking Schindele. He is the only one of these old-school UFO ex-military people who has had his feelings about Grusch shared by a news outlet. Virtually all UFO accounts are self-published, and it's a classic, crazy, local American story that I think shows the larger and older cultural history that is connected in to this whole messy and many-layered subject. I think it is critical to an accurate portray of this American cultural event (the Grusch claims) to keep this one example of a "Response from a military veteran and UFO author". Jjhake (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It does give the appearance of supporting Grusch. Why this guy? He is not notable, he is not an acknowledged expert even on UFO folklore, his self-published book is non-notable, and there's no reason to believe he has any information that the rest of us don't have. It looks very cherrypicked. I mean, I watched the interview, can my opinion be included in the article? -Jordgette [talk] 16:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- C'mon people. It's so dumb to include this. It just looks like someone scoured the internet for a supporting opinion from someone who would appear credible, and found this bottom-of-the-barrel source. The disconnect between Grusch's sweeping, bombshell allegations, and one random guy speaking to a tiny newspaper, is ridiculous. This does not belong in the article. ETA: At the very least, the header "Response from ex-military" should be changed to "Response from one random ex-military guy." -Jordgette [talk] 14:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I changed it to the temporary heading of "response from ex-military". I don't think this content is a good fit as it is, but it's possible that it could be somehow worked into the article, but I'm not sure about that. Project Blue Book records a famous UFO incident at Minot Air Force Base in October 1968. Schindele left in May 1968, and the newspaper describes his report that occurred in September 1966. I'm not convinced this is the best fit for this article right now, and I'm leaning towards exclusion in agreement with Jordgette. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little sensitive to the idea that if 3rd parties haven't noticed this connection, then WP maybe ought not to make it. On the other hand, I have no doubt that your analysis is correct, Jjhake. This is one in a long line of similar claims from similar types, and it's a little weird that the people most enthusiastic about this story don't seem able to admit that. jps (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've taken a shot at "Response from an Air Force veteran with a UFO story" as the section title for now, trying to make the context and all as clear as possible. It still strikes me as a good example of the bigger picture that few people seem to be keeping in view just now, but perhaps I'm trying too hard. Jjhake (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your time and effort. However, neither the section heading (veteran with a story?) nor the content work for me and I still think it should be removed. I recommend setting it aside and coming back to it. Regarding the comments above from jps about a "long line of similar claims from similar types", that appears to be the way to go, so consider developing a section that shows that the so-called UFO mythology has a long history. One of the points skeptics continue to make on this subject is that nothing Grusch is saying is new or different from what has come before it. I think that’s a worthy topic to write about and maybe you can work Schindele into that, but right now it doesn’t work. Perhaps a good place to start is with the Roswell incident. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Best source I’ve found on the long history of such stuff is Greg Eghigian, and we’ve placed two key points from him in the Background section:
- ”There have been many instances over recent decades in the U.S. of people "who previously worked in some kind of federal department" coming forward to make "bombshell allegations" about the truth regarding UFOs, and the whistleblower claims by Grusch fit this pattern. Eghigian writes that "the crusading whistleblower dedicated to breaking the silence over the alien origins of unidentified flying objects" is a kind of American public figure that was first invented in the 1950s.” Jjhake (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Schindele doesn’t really fit into this; rather, he’s being shoehorned into this article. We need to stick closely with sources about Grusch and related claims. The topic of UFO incursions on to military bases is somewhat related, but aside from the small town paper and Schindele’s books we don’t have much to go on here. Perhaps you can get a hold of Schindele’s book online and take a look for any additional pointers. Again, we need to stick closer to the primary topic here. Schindele takes us a bit too far away from it. Take a look at WP:COATRACK for some guidance. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is not an article about claims. What an absurd way to frame it. This is an article about a cultural event and should cover all the human elements of the story that the secondary sources cover. Jjhake (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The reason I say absurd is because the very best secondary sources, like Ezra Klein today, are making just this point and appealing for this to be understood as a human story with all the layers that come with that. Jjhake (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the entire coatrack essay. Schindele is being used in this manner. It may not be apparent to you, but every editor does this at some point, usually by accident, so it’s understandable. If Schindele is notable enough to include, a preponderance of sources will have covered it for us. They haven’t, so the default is to exclude. To me, it takes us too far off the topic and doesn’t add anything that increases our understanding of the subject. Notice how Jordgette says it gives the appearance of cherry-picking. That’s indicative of a coatrack. If you can find other sources about Grusch that highlight Schindele, then great, otherwise I’m still opposed to it and don’t understand why it’s included here. Even the Minot small town paper isn’t able to explain the connection. Schindele respects and admires Grusch, that’s fine, but it’s not enough for us to use it. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The connection is very simple. Schindele with his sad book is wanting to be the kind of iconic American hero that he sees Grusch to be. Many excellent historians have and will continue to note this. It’s obvious. I’ll work on more sources. Jjhake (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, you’re patience and leadership qualities are astounding. Jjhake (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the entire coatrack essay. Schindele is being used in this manner. It may not be apparent to you, but every editor does this at some point, usually by accident, so it’s understandable. If Schindele is notable enough to include, a preponderance of sources will have covered it for us. They haven’t, so the default is to exclude. To me, it takes us too far off the topic and doesn’t add anything that increases our understanding of the subject. Notice how Jordgette says it gives the appearance of cherry-picking. That’s indicative of a coatrack. If you can find other sources about Grusch that highlight Schindele, then great, otherwise I’m still opposed to it and don’t understand why it’s included here. Even the Minot small town paper isn’t able to explain the connection. Schindele respects and admires Grusch, that’s fine, but it’s not enough for us to use it. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Schindele doesn’t really fit into this; rather, he’s being shoehorned into this article. We need to stick closely with sources about Grusch and related claims. The topic of UFO incursions on to military bases is somewhat related, but aside from the small town paper and Schindele’s books we don’t have much to go on here. Perhaps you can get a hold of Schindele’s book online and take a look for any additional pointers. Again, we need to stick closer to the primary topic here. Schindele takes us a bit too far away from it. Take a look at WP:COATRACK for some guidance. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your time and effort. However, neither the section heading (veteran with a story?) nor the content work for me and I still think it should be removed. I recommend setting it aside and coming back to it. Regarding the comments above from jps about a "long line of similar claims from similar types", that appears to be the way to go, so consider developing a section that shows that the so-called UFO mythology has a long history. One of the points skeptics continue to make on this subject is that nothing Grusch is saying is new or different from what has come before it. I think that’s a worthy topic to write about and maybe you can work Schindele into that, but right now it doesn’t work. Perhaps a good place to start is with the Roswell incident. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The prominence given to Shindele's opinion is UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a history book. And using criteria other than guidelines and policies for constructing an article is inappropriate. First of all, this does not deserve an entire subsection replete with its own subsection title. And has been noted above, Shindele saying he admires someone for coming forward, or whatever, carries no weight. This is because he has no notoriety on his own, nor is he a subject matter expert. Far from it.
Additionally, there is no evidence to back up his claim of having an extraordinary experience. Also, I am looking at the Minot Daily News headline. And the headline and the article are written as though his claims have veracity without verifiable evidence. Also, this newspaper article is using the same appealing to authority tropes for Shindle, as if this lends credence to what he claims to have seen.
Furthermore, this sighting is portrayed as a government cover-up, with the general forbidding anyone to talk about it. But it is more than likely there is another reason the general told his subordinates to never talk about it. It was because of the glitch, which would be classified regarding national security as that pertains to nuclear weapons. Not because the general wanted to bury the story of a UFO sighting.
Lastly, with a headline and article writing like this, I have to question the editorial oversight, or lack thereof, of this media outlet. We know nothing about the editorial criteria of this newspaper. And one more final note, the coverage at the Military.com piece [1] is, at best, passing mention and carries no weight. Anyway, removing this material has now received a consensus of three to one. It is time to honor this consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed it just now to honor the consensus. However, I will try one last time to record my "dissenting opinion". Even this most recent comment continues to conflate:
- Shindele as some kind of an authority (a point which I would take to be completely obvious as not the case).
- Shindele as an example of an American cultural reality that is critically and immediately relevant to this Grusch article (and that is conveyed in both the Military.com story and the Minot Daily News story).
- In my understanding, the point about Wikipedia not being a history book is the only relevant point that has been brought up with any of the concerns above, but I don't even accept that. Encyclopedias do convey a great deal of history content and contemporary event content which is exactly what this article is supposed to be. Instead, the article is constantly pulled toward a petty attempt to "evaluate the claims" and nothing more. This approach "feeds conspiracy theories" as Ezra Klein so wisely notes in what I transcribed below (and is also incredibly boring and uninformative because it fails to consider all of the colorful and nuanced human and cultural realities). Instead, this article should involve great contemporary history writing (citing secondary sources only and without any original research of course in keeping with the purpose of an encyclopedia). If you want an example of what I would think is best, see a substantial amount of material that I recently contributed here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#20th_century_and_after
- Perhaps I'm all wrong, and this material in the UFO history section above will need to be gutted as well, but I have yet to understand why an encyclopedia cannot contain excellent historical information from secondary sources. I have certainly seen such content in many print encyclopedias and reference books elsewhere. Jjhake (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know... doesn't strike me as a reliable secondary source. I would treat it as a primary source or an unreliable secondary source. In that regard, it is similar to the fringe religious arguments discussed below. We need people who are independent of these agendas to provide proper contexts. We can't rely on the community of ufology for this. jps (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Two different small news outlets report on this old veteran who cares a lot about UFOs, and one of the outlets reports on how the vet loves Grusch, but this can’t be mentioned at all in any context as an aspect of this event. It’s a disservice to Wikipedia writing. Jjhake (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jjhake, you're bludgeoning and it needs to stop. This has eaten up way too much time and energy, both yours and others', that's better spent elsewhere. -Jordgette [talk] 14:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. At the point of three to one, I immediately deleted the content to honor the principle of consensus although I’m entirely in disagreement. I can’t see how you consider that being a stick in the mud. Jjhake (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because you Keep. On. Typing. Let it go. -Jordgette [talk] 16:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. At the point of three to one, I immediately deleted the content to honor the principle of consensus although I’m entirely in disagreement. I can’t see how you consider that being a stick in the mud. Jjhake (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jjhake, you're bludgeoning and it needs to stop. This has eaten up way too much time and energy, both yours and others', that's better spent elsewhere. -Jordgette [talk] 14:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Two different small news outlets report on this old veteran who cares a lot about UFOs, and one of the outlets reports on how the vet loves Grusch, but this can’t be mentioned at all in any context as an aspect of this event. It’s a disservice to Wikipedia writing. Jjhake (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know... doesn't strike me as a reliable secondary source. I would treat it as a primary source or an unreliable secondary source. In that regard, it is similar to the fringe religious arguments discussed below. We need people who are independent of these agendas to provide proper contexts. We can't rely on the community of ufology for this. jps (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Two different small news outlets report on this old veteran
... yeah, but WP:SENSATION. I'd like to see something far more serious. jps (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Congressional Hearing scheduled tentatively
https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/luna-lawmakers-bipartisan-ufo-hearing-july/amp/
"(NewsNation) — A Republican representative says lawmakers are planning a hearing on UFOs, which will tentatively be held sometime toward the end of July. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida told NewsNation on Wednesday the hearing is likely going to be bipartisan-led and in her home state."
I would also like to suggest this to be added:
Florida was the location of a classified briefing regarding UAPs in February. Rep. Tim Burchett confirms that he and Rep. Matt Gaetz recently attended a classified briefing in Florida and spoke with pilots involved in a UAP encounter.
https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/1637196200561594368 H3sam91 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Citation link and info conveyed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna all added to article body yesterday. (Will continue to review and consider the Rep. Tim Burchett and Rep. Matt Gaetz material. However, anything not covered by multiple secondary sources is not to be included on Wikipedia, so this does not look eligible for consideration at this point.) Jjhake (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Disinformation campaign allegations
I think there are some problems with this section (entitled "Disinformation campaign allegations"). I will discuss them in about a day or so after rereading this section. As an overview of what I am looking at: this paragraph section gives the impression that Grush's public testimony to the press is, on the one hand, part of a government disinformation campaign. And in which, Grush is knowingly or unwittingly participating.
Yes, most of this paragraph section is attributed to the sources saying this. But, it seems that we are telling people that Wikipedia is giving credence to this nonsense, which is all based on speculation by the sources themselves. It seems to be UNDUE. Especially, if these sources are merely journalists and not experts in this field who have been critically analyzing and publishing about these woo-woo claims for years.
Frankly, I don't think this section should be given this much weight. I'll try to get into specifics later. -Steve Quinn (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some related material in the Leslie Kean and Ezra Klein NYT interview as well (with link shared above). Jjhake (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Steve, I trust your judgment and critical faculties. I will spare you my 10,000+ word essay defending this content. I can now share the pain of Marginataen losing his lovely images, and Jjhake losing his Minot material. With that said, I think the disinformation angle has been covered in a preponderance of reliable sources and needs to be mentioned. But please, by all means, take the lead on this and improve it however you like. Or delete it. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think Steve indicated deletion but just prominence, trimming, and wording issues. As I’ve said ad nauseam, I consider this an encyclopedia article about the larger cultural event of these claims not simply an article that analyzes the claims. It would be a serious gap in our representation of this event if we deleted this content that has shown up in multiple prominent sources. I fully agree that it needs to be made clear that Wikipedia is not validating these ideas in any way, but they are a massively important aspect of the cultural realities that I hope the article can clearly convey. Jjhake (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are only three key claims that need to be mentioned in the article. There is a fourth claim that I think is important to mention, but I have encountered some pushback from others here whenever I bring it up. The first three claims that should be easy to include are the following: 1) Grusch's own claim that there is a government disinformation program regarding UFOs being waged against Americans 2) The (counter) claim that Grusch in fact, is somehow the victim of a government disinformation campaign or is a willing participant. I refer to the GLARING discrepancy between the incredible amount of research Kean and Blumenthal did on this story and the vastly different information Grusch subsequently told Ross Coulthart; this either paints Grusch as a pathological liar or as someone who intentionally tried to discredit their own story for reasons unknown. Kean has repeatedly been asked by MULTIPLE interviewers about this and is UNABLE to respond to the question. Not just once, but several times. She has no response to this question, and that does not sit well with me at all and makes me inclined to dismiss this entire story as nonsense 3) The idea that this story is a sophisticated government disinformation campaign used to hide experimental military technology. 4) And this is the most controversial of all, but has received some coverage in the media: Republicans seem to be unusually preoccupied with Grusch's story and the pursuit of investigations, to the point where several conservatives have come forward arguing that this undue obsession of the right with Grusch might be a political psyop of some kind. I don't expect 4 to gain as much traction as 1, 2, and 3, but it has come up several times. In other words, the political right wing has been unusually interested in this story, which was published three days (or so) before the first president in US history was indicted by the federal government. I'm going to leave it there, and hope Steve and you and others will do with it what they can. I don't personally care if some of it is kept or all of it is deleted, I'm just happy to share my concerns and hope that someone else finds them notable enough to include. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Very helpful and accurate analysis with these four claims in my read of the sources as well. I do want the article to give a tight representation of this from the sources (but I’d also hope that this event be recognized as one example among many in a prominent American hero story genre as multiple sources are also commenting on this reality which badly muddies the waters and which justifies the representation of some minority and fringe voices in the drama). Jjhake (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
On June 21, Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) told NewsNation that lawmakers are planning a hearing on UFOs that is tentatively to be held "sometime toward the end of July" in Florida
...Just days before Trump's trial. Just a coincidence, right folks? Grusch comes forward three days before Trump's indictment, and now the hearing on Grusch's claims is being held just days before Trump's trial. This is all happening exactly as I predicted. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)- It's looking like a circus alright. This little story below (with a video attached) referred to it as a "field hearing" which is not a term I've heard before (although I really know nothing about Congressional hearings).
- https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/us-downplayed-number-ufo-sightings/ Jjhake (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- My dear fellow, you are an astute observer! Yes, this is all connected to Steve Bannon's "deconstruction of the administrative state" tactic, which involves not just the firehose of falsehood and wag the dog theatrics, but the creation of so-called parallel, but illegitimate, "post-fact" investigations and hearings to distract the public from Trump's indictment and trial. Matt Gaetz did just this on the day Trump was indicted, when he hosted a completely and totally fake alternative "hearing" on the January 6th insurrection. It is not a coincidence that most of the key players behind this investigation into Grusch's claims are from the pro-Trump, Jan 6 contingent of 2020 election deniers; they are holding this new "hearing" right before Trump goes to trial. This is their stated tactic of distraction and obfuscation. It's so obvious, that even conservatives like Ross Douthat and Andrew Follett are honest enough to say, "guys, stop, you're making fools of yourselves". Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Talk about un-American... Jjhake (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- In case you aren't aware, regarding the Hawley material below, Hawley was the first Senator to object to the certification of the Electoral College vote count on January 6, which the insurrection was intended to disrupt, and according to the NYT, was primarily responsible for "elevating false claims that President-elect Joe Biden stole the election". Given Hawley's record on this and other issues, I think we need to be very careful about elevating his claims about the government in this instance. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good points. I intentionally ended the paragraph containing Hawley's claims with the contrary content from Graham (a fellow Republican to Hawley but a more mature figure). I also cut some older content from Hawley when updating with the latest. However, do help to note if Hawley's voice get's repeated or undue prominence in the article. He does seem to be throwing a lot of "red meat" out to the base. Jjhake (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello all. I am going to back off on this section for now. Viriditas makes a good point about this being a useful distraction from Trump's legal woes and concomitant bad press. However, I don't think the upcoming Congressional investigation will successfully overwhelm the news of Trump's trial an other potential indictments. Be that as it may, I just want to be sure this section will not venture into WP:SYNTH territory. This is one of my major concerns about this section. So, please let's be watchful. I admit I am uncomfortable about this section being in the article but let's see how it goes. This section seems germane to this story but at the same time maybe its not. I think what will solve this riddle for me is looking at this article in about six months to a year from now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good points. I intentionally ended the paragraph containing Hawley's claims with the contrary content from Graham (a fellow Republican to Hawley but a more mature figure). I also cut some older content from Hawley when updating with the latest. However, do help to note if Hawley's voice get's repeated or undue prominence in the article. He does seem to be throwing a lot of "red meat" out to the base. Jjhake (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- In case you aren't aware, regarding the Hawley material below, Hawley was the first Senator to object to the certification of the Electoral College vote count on January 6, which the insurrection was intended to disrupt, and according to the NYT, was primarily responsible for "elevating false claims that President-elect Joe Biden stole the election". Given Hawley's record on this and other issues, I think we need to be very careful about elevating his claims about the government in this instance. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Talk about un-American... Jjhake (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- My dear fellow, you are an astute observer! Yes, this is all connected to Steve Bannon's "deconstruction of the administrative state" tactic, which involves not just the firehose of falsehood and wag the dog theatrics, but the creation of so-called parallel, but illegitimate, "post-fact" investigations and hearings to distract the public from Trump's indictment and trial. Matt Gaetz did just this on the day Trump was indicted, when he hosted a completely and totally fake alternative "hearing" on the January 6th insurrection. It is not a coincidence that most of the key players behind this investigation into Grusch's claims are from the pro-Trump, Jan 6 contingent of 2020 election deniers; they are holding this new "hearing" right before Trump goes to trial. This is their stated tactic of distraction and obfuscation. It's so obvious, that even conservatives like Ross Douthat and Andrew Follett are honest enough to say, "guys, stop, you're making fools of yourselves". Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Very helpful and accurate analysis with these four claims in my read of the sources as well. I do want the article to give a tight representation of this from the sources (but I’d also hope that this event be recognized as one example among many in a prominent American hero story genre as multiple sources are also commenting on this reality which badly muddies the waters and which justifies the representation of some minority and fringe voices in the drama). Jjhake (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are only three key claims that need to be mentioned in the article. There is a fourth claim that I think is important to mention, but I have encountered some pushback from others here whenever I bring it up. The first three claims that should be easy to include are the following: 1) Grusch's own claim that there is a government disinformation program regarding UFOs being waged against Americans 2) The (counter) claim that Grusch in fact, is somehow the victim of a government disinformation campaign or is a willing participant. I refer to the GLARING discrepancy between the incredible amount of research Kean and Blumenthal did on this story and the vastly different information Grusch subsequently told Ross Coulthart; this either paints Grusch as a pathological liar or as someone who intentionally tried to discredit their own story for reasons unknown. Kean has repeatedly been asked by MULTIPLE interviewers about this and is UNABLE to respond to the question. Not just once, but several times. She has no response to this question, and that does not sit well with me at all and makes me inclined to dismiss this entire story as nonsense 3) The idea that this story is a sophisticated government disinformation campaign used to hide experimental military technology. 4) And this is the most controversial of all, but has received some coverage in the media: Republicans seem to be unusually preoccupied with Grusch's story and the pursuit of investigations, to the point where several conservatives have come forward arguing that this undue obsession of the right with Grusch might be a political psyop of some kind. I don't expect 4 to gain as much traction as 1, 2, and 3, but it has come up several times. In other words, the political right wing has been unusually interested in this story, which was published three days (or so) before the first president in US history was indicted by the federal government. I'm going to leave it there, and hope Steve and you and others will do with it what they can. I don't personally care if some of it is kept or all of it is deleted, I'm just happy to share my concerns and hope that someone else finds them notable enough to include. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think Steve indicated deletion but just prominence, trimming, and wording issues. As I’ve said ad nauseam, I consider this an encyclopedia article about the larger cultural event of these claims not simply an article that analyzes the claims. It would be a serious gap in our representation of this event if we deleted this content that has shown up in multiple prominent sources. I fully agree that it needs to be made clear that Wikipedia is not validating these ideas in any way, but they are a massively important aspect of the cultural realities that I hope the article can clearly convey. Jjhake (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Ideas for how to reframe and identify it more clearly with section naming, introductory phrases, etc. would also be helpful. There are also two layers to all of these questions that people raise.
- Is there a group within the defense and intelligence community of career bureaucrats that continue to
hunthint internally at this stuff for whatever reason(s)? - How do these kind of claims by various whistleblowers get used by elected politicians and lawmakers in Congress?
These are two very different kinds of questions that get asked without always including clear distinctions. Anyway, how to best frame any such content as being clearly just the *speculations* of various pundits and commentators seems to be a short-term priority with some work still needed in the current article content. Jjhake (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to your first question, what I see is there are a certain number of intelligence related officials who gravitate toward UFO and extraterrestrials and have decided without evidence that these exist. As a group they share the same bias, as shown by Grush. But I don't have any RS that supports this. So, participating in a UAP program is a natural fit for them. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- A most reasonable thought. I hope (without much hope) for more clarity from some who should be able to provide it. Jjhake (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
more commentary in two sources
Haven't read these yet, but looks like nothing new and just some more commentary:
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/ex-intelligence-official-us-government-ufo/
https://bigthink.com/13-8/military-whistleblowers-ufos-70-years/
I'm not familiar with either outlet. They look modest but possibly passing. Does anyone know how Big Think and the Boston U alumni magazine would rank as sources? Jjhake (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just read them both. Great content with two top notch scientists. Both very critical overall but straightforward and easy to summarize. I plan to add both to the “response from science and academia” section. Impeccable credentials. [[User:Jjhake|THE PROCESS] (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with summarizing these for this article. The BU source can probably be considered reliable. The Big Think.com article looks like good reporting to me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Repeating sources in different sections
I think it is generally not good practice to repeat sources with attribution in multiple sections. I see that is done with both Eghigian and Doubthat. Can we consolidate their quotations/paraphrasing in one place instead of two places? If there are points that they make which belong in more than one place, consider WP:ASSERTing plain facts (e.g. that Gary Nolan has said similar things -- this is not something that needs to be attributed necessarily if it is an uncontroversial fact). jps (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Very helpful. If others don't get to these things first, I'll work at cleaning and tightening up a bit in this area. This example of what not to do had me laughing: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris". Jjhake (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Senate Intelligence bill gives holders of "non-earth origin or exotic UAP material" six months to make it available to AARO
I suggest a sentence be added to first paragraph of article: "in June 2023, Senate Intel committee, passed unanimously measures mandating all government contractors to provide a comprehensive list of all non-earth origin or exotic unidentified anomalous phenomena material" possessed and to make it available to the AARO director director for "assessment, analysis, and inspection." The Intelligence committee legislation also includes what might be called a "safe harbor" provision, providing that if such a person complies with the notification and make-available deadlines, "No criminal or civil action may lie or be maintained in any Federal or State court against any person for receiving [UAP-related] material or information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by H3sam91 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
introduced June 22, 2023
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2103/text?s=1&r=3
Senate Intelligence bill gives holders of "non-earth origin or exotic UAP material" six months to make it available to AARO
highlights:
The new UAP language..would require "any person currently or formerly under contract with the Federal Government that has in their possession material or information provided by or derived from the Federal Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena that formerly or currently is protected by any form of special access or restricted access" to notify the director of (AARO) within 60 days of enactment, and to provide within 180 days (six months) "a comprehensive list of all non-earth origin or exotic unidentified anomalous phenomena material" possessed and to make it available to the AARO director director for "assessment, analysis, and inspection."
The legislation also would require the AARO director to notify designated congressional committees and leaders within 30 days after receiving any such notifications, information, or exotic materials.
The Intelligence committee legislation also includes what might be called a "safe harbor" provision, providing that if such a person complies with the notification and make-available deadlines, "No criminal or civil action may lie or be maintained in any Federal or State court against any person for receiving [UAP-related] material or information."
Section 1104 of S. 2103 does not...confer any immunity for threats or acts of violence, perjury, or other crimes of the sorts sometimes alleged in stories about purported hidden government UFO programs.
The language was adopted by the 17-member committee without dissent.
S. 2103 contains a sweeping prohibition on any future direct or indirect funding for any special-access program (SAP) activity related to unidentified anomalous phenomena, unless the program has been "formally, officially, explicitly, and specifically described, explained, and justified to the appropriate committees of Congress, congressional leadership, and the Director [of AARO]."
The designated "appropriate committees" are the intelligence, armed services, and appropriations committees of both houses of Congress. "Congressional leadership" is defined as the Speaker and minority leader in the House of Representatives, and the majority and minority leaders in the Senate. A total of 58 senators and 137 House members hold the positions that the bill designates to receive such notifications.
...every type of SAP/CAP is supposed to be reported to least a small number of designated members of Congress.
[Funding ban includes,] "any activities relating to," among other things, "Recruiting, employing, training, equipping, and operations of, and providing security for, government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft," and "managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure." Also included is a broad range of activity related to reverse-engineering, including work on "any aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology other than chemical propellants, solar power, and electric ion thrust."
"Sense of Congress" language merely provides an explanation or justification for substantive requirements. In this case, the stated justification seems to be that there is a compelling need for the U.S. government to step up its efforts to reverse-engineer any exotic technology that is within its reach, and the lawmakers have concluded that this requiresa relaxation of some of the extreme secrecy controls that purportedly surround study of exotic technology. --H3sam91 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Clearly relevant somehow. Will watch and sort out later (unless others do first). Jjhake (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- thanks. extremely relevant. H3sam91 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Connections to Grusch allegations still speculative and would need to see such connections made in mainstream media before adding to this article as far as I can tell. Jjhake (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- sure but it's an important part of the story. they are acknowledging the existence of such craft, and it's directly related to Grusch's claim H3sam91 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is a significant development just not yet clear where it fits best in an encyclopedia (the last place where info lands). Jjhake (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on this, but how about AFTERMATH? H3sam91 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- The precise language for bills proposed in Congress probably don't deserve too much attention. Check back when they carry the force of law or third party sources make hay with the wording. jps (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- not 100% sure what you mean. regardless of whether it's yet law or not, it's official legislative record. it's a proposed bill that's Unanimously passed committe. if the exact wording of such a document is not that important, I wonder why people hire lawyers for a condo buying contract. H3sam91 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the purposes of encyclopedia writing, it’s not useful as secondary sources are what matter. Proposed content of bills passed unanimously by committee would be a primary source. Jjhake (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- got it. is there a reason why secondary reports are needed when a primary reliable source exists? H3sam91 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias are never supposed to contain original research (WP:OR), and primary sources tend to indicate that original research is taking place. Jjhake (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- got it. is there a reason why secondary reports are needed when a primary reliable source exists? H3sam91 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the purposes of encyclopedia writing, it’s not useful as secondary sources are what matter. Proposed content of bills passed unanimously by committee would be a primary source. Jjhake (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- not 100% sure what you mean. regardless of whether it's yet law or not, it's official legislative record. it's a proposed bill that's Unanimously passed committe. if the exact wording of such a document is not that important, I wonder why people hire lawyers for a condo buying contract. H3sam91 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- The precise language for bills proposed in Congress probably don't deserve too much attention. Check back when they carry the force of law or third party sources make hay with the wording. jps (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on this, but how about AFTERMATH? H3sam91 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is a significant development just not yet clear where it fits best in an encyclopedia (the last place where info lands). Jjhake (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- sure but it's an important part of the story. they are acknowledging the existence of such craft, and it's directly related to Grusch's claim H3sam91 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Connections to Grusch allegations still speculative and would need to see such connections made in mainstream media before adding to this article as far as I can tell. Jjhake (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- thanks. extremely relevant. H3sam91 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
some chatter from a couple lawmakers saying odd stuff about a classified UAP briefing they attended on a military base in Florida on February 21
“I have seen evidence of craft that I am not familiar with any of our allies or adversaries or even our country possessing. I’ve seen that craft taken by air crews who have gotten quite close to it and we’ve got a lot more questions about why this information isn’t more broadly available to the American people,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Newsmax this week. Gaetz and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) reportedly attended a classified UAP briefing on a military base in Florida on February 21. The briefing has apparently led to a lot of speculation from lawmakers over what they saw. Jjhake (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- yes Tim Burchett also made comments about it on newsmax
- https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/1637196200561594368
- Matt Gaetz:
- https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/1634449226225659908 H3sam91 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think these go under the heading: Any publicity is good publicity. They certainly are enjoying their time in the limelight, no matter how bizarre this sounds. Lol! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- they are members of some of the most important committes's (armed services, judiciary, oversight, transporation, foreign affairs). You think just for publicity they risk being labeled crazy if these allegations prove to be false? H3sam91 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I do. They really don't have anything to lose from doing this. Their actions cater to a segment of the population that want to believe and who are hoping that this time, finally, the truth will be revealed. I don't know how this will turn out. But Burchette and Gaetz will come out of it unscathed and, at the same time, known by a larger segment of the population. Just keep watching. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are plenty of subjects to use to cater to that segment. let's say you're right. how about Grusch? he's willing to go to jail just to cater to a segment of a population? how about ICIG? he's willing to destroy his reputation? H3sam91 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry. I have to sign off right now. I might be back later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You think just for publicity they risk being labeled crazy if these allegations prove to be false?
@H3sam91: Burchett and Gaetz are known conspiracy theorists. They have been labeled "crazy" by other political pundits for many years now. If this is something of a surprise to you, then please take a moment to read their biographies. As I have said many times, this entire subject is being used by the right wing in the US for political reasons unrelated to Grusch. The more concerning question, is why does the US government have so many irrational politicians in power? Other countries have been asking this question for some time. It turns out, that billionaires have been funding the so-called culture wars in the US, which became most prominent around the time Obama was elected to his first term. These billionaires have been instrumental in opening the floodgates to conspiracy theories throughout the country since that time. If you're interested in how this works, please take a look at the books The New Hate (2012), Dark Money (2016), Democracy in Chains (2017), and Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right (2019). Trumpism was merely the two decade culmination of this well-funded campaign to confuse the American public and bring society into a new post-truth era using Russian tactics like the firehose of falsehood. Unfortunately, most of academia and experts in this area have been extremely slow to catch on to this (there are good reasons as to why this is), and only pulled the proverbial fire alarm when the country was burnt halfway down to the ground. These claims by Grusch, their elevation by the conservative media networks and right wing politicians, are all part of the larger picture that has been painted and framed on the wall of America. Is there anything to these Grusch claims that these politicians can help uncover or reveal? Quite unlikely, and frankly, improbable. What will happen, is that Burchett and Gaetz et al. will use this subject to distract from Trump's trial. Just you watch. I've been following this subject for many years. I guarantee you, nothing will happen to shed additional light on these claims. I suggest you follow John Greenewald and watch his videos/podcast. He's been on top of this subject for almost three decades now. Recently, he's made the observation that while there's a lot of talk about "disclosure", the opposite is in fact occurring, with information becoming less available. Someone like Grusch conveniently serves several different narratives. Things are not what they seem. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)- What you just alleged is quite a conspiracy if proven to be true. let's talk facts instead. For now the fact is someone with years of experience and highest of clearence levels in Intel community has made allegations regarding UAP programs that inspector General of IC has found urgent and credible. he's made testimonies under oath to congress. Democrats should love to jump on it and prove the crazy right wingers wrong and have a laugh. instead they are very silent. what are they afraid of? his allegation should be extremely easy to disprove. H3sam91 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- they are members of some of the most important committes's (armed services, judiciary, oversight, transporation, foreign affairs). You think just for publicity they risk being labeled crazy if these allegations prove to be false? H3sam91 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think these go under the heading: Any publicity is good publicity. They certainly are enjoying their time in the limelight, no matter how bizarre this sounds. Lol! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Do not confuse the ignoring of outrageous claims for an acquiescence to their supposed truth. jps (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- sure but that's besides the point. again I repeat:
- For now the fact is someone with years of experience and highest of clearence levels in Intel community has made allegations regarding UAP programs that inspector General of IC has found urgent and credible. he's made testimonies under oath to congress. H3sam91 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Highest clearance levels" is something of a vaguewave here. We also have no indication of which allegations the IG found urgent or credible. I suspect the allegations that are credible are likely that he was bushed aside. As to whether that is "urgent", well, Congress has said that whistleblower protections are urgently part of the law, so absent any other argument, that's the only thing we've got here and that's already well-covered in the article. jps (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Lindsay Graham statement
Lindsay Graham stated recently that if there was a ufo spacecraft in our possession we would have known.
This is in contrast to Congressman Matt Gaetz statement in February and interview with newsmax stating that he has seen evidence of these crafts and have seen them taken by air crews.
in a seperate interview, congressman Tim Burchett states that he was with Matt Gaetz and knows what he's referring to.
https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/1634433986653978624
https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/1634449226225659908
A U.S. congressman recently said that he believes the U.S. government has found alien UFOs in the past, following reports of several unidentified flying objects being shot down. During a recent conversation with Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz, Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett said that he believes the U.S. has previously "recovered craft" from possible alien UFOs. H3sam91 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Helpful to get the larger picture, but this article on the Grusch claims likely needs to stay focused on just specific responses to his claims. Some of what you note makes it clear that there is a little Congressional chatter about possession of nonhuman craft before the Grusch claims went public. I did not know that. However, for now, I think editors on this article will want to focus on the narrative specific to Grusch and also to focus on just the most specific comments from the most senior members of Congress (the key decision makers). Getting too much contextual info into this part of the article before any hearing takes place is probably overkill for an encyclopedia. However, other editors might think differently of course, and please continue to share other info and thoughts here as you have them. Jjhake (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. thank you for your comments. I think it speaks to the credibility of Grusch's claim, which I think is relevant. I don't think we should just include responses, and not include whether the responses have merit. H3sam91 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly says nothing about whether Grusch's claims are "credible". It only says that they are being noticed by members of Congress. Credibility is not something evaluated on the basis of parallel commentary. jps (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. but even if it doesn't prove his credibility, it provides support to his claims. H3sam91 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not really. It needs to be an expert evaluation and not just some guess by a lawmaker. jps (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. but even if it doesn't prove his credibility, it provides support to his claims. H3sam91 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly says nothing about whether Grusch's claims are "credible". It only says that they are being noticed by members of Congress. Credibility is not something evaluated on the basis of parallel commentary. jps (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. thank you for your comments. I think it speaks to the credibility of Grusch's claim, which I think is relevant. I don't think we should just include responses, and not include whether the responses have merit. H3sam91 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
UAP as a term must be noted
@GLORIOUSEXISTENCE: Grusch spent years as a public servant using the term UAP for very good reasons, and the U.S. government is funding two separate teams (NASA's UAP independent study team and the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) to investigate them. It is utterly inappropriate for several reasons for an encyclopedia not to include the term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-uap Jjhake (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure
for very good reasons
is supported by the sources, but I agree that we ought to use the term in this article because it is being used so often in relation to this story. jps (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)- It’s the *only* term that all of the NASA team will use for very good reasons. Whatever is going on with Grusch, it’s also the only term used in the world where he worked for the defense and intelligence folks. Jjhake (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any source which indicates there are "very good reasons". I also don't see a source that indicates that it is the "only" term used in those contexts. I know that they preferentially use the acronym for reports, testimony, and discussions with the media, but we have no idea what they do in private conversations.
- As I intimated previously, this change in terminology is a classic example of a Euphemism#Lifespan situation. Unidentified flying object itself was a term that was invented to get away from the maligned "flying saucer" terminology that was being used at the time of Project Blue Book. Over the years "UFO" got tainted by the outre status and so there was a very concerted effort to change the term simply so that they could avoid the negative associations. Those who advocated for the change even admit that this is a motivation.
- At Wikipedia, we follow behind the curve. I am glad we use "UFO" as the main designate here, and I am also glad we mention UAP since it seems to be a current rage in the community of UFO-believers who are promoting this and other stories. However, it is not our responsibility to adopt their terminology or associate value judgements with it ("very good reasons") just because they are trying to encourage wider use of the new euphemism. We follow the sources and the third-party WP:FRIND-quality sources are using both terms with perhaps a slight preference for UFO.
- jps (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you were a professional scientist on the NASA team, you’d think differently. I’ll pull the sources together on the expectations around UAP. They are extensive. Jjhake (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think so, having had the opportunity to talk to at least two people on that team personally in my professional capacity. jps (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- You think they are happy to describe themselves as the UFO NASA team? Seems rather dubious. Jjhake (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think they have no illusions that they have been tasked by a Congressional fiat of dubious arrangement to study a topic which probably does not deserve the resources being invested in it. If "UFO" describes that, then why not? jps (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- They must be good at faking it in that case with all the public rhetoric from David Spergel and several others about the scientific payoff that comes from investigating anomalous events. Jjhake (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think they have no illusions that they have been tasked by a Congressional fiat of dubious arrangement to study a topic which probably does not deserve the resources being invested in it. If "UFO" describes that, then why not? jps (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- You think they are happy to describe themselves as the UFO NASA team? Seems rather dubious. Jjhake (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think so, having had the opportunity to talk to at least two people on that team personally in my professional capacity. jps (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you were a professional scientist on the NASA team, you’d think differently. I’ll pull the sources together on the expectations around UAP. They are extensive. Jjhake (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- It’s the *only* term that all of the NASA team will use for very good reasons. Whatever is going on with Grusch, it’s also the only term used in the world where he worked for the defense and intelligence folks. Jjhake (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my point, (and, dare I say, Spergel's). There is no issue with investigating anomalies when they present themselves. But the key point is that evidence for an anomaly has to be of the sort that is subject to the kind of review that scientists do. That is not the case in this scenario. Contrast that with, for example, the Pioneer anomaly which was a clear, data-driven observation that was subject to independent analysis. I suspect that Spergel would be somewhat amused if I let him know that his comments on investigating anomalies was being used to argue that we have "good reason" to change the euphemism from UFO to UAP. Maybe I'll tell him the next time we chat. jps (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- And I wanted to note that we are really in agreement here, so I shouldn’t belabor the point. Both terms should be used as the sources use both in a rather wild mix. (The differences and history among various participants in government UAP work are revealing, but that’s beside the point as far as this encyclopedia stuff.) Jjhake (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is good that we are in editorially agreement, but it is important to get ahead of stuff like this which has a way of infecting article content sooner or later. jps (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- And I wanted to note that we are really in agreement here, so I shouldn’t belabor the point. Both terms should be used as the sources use both in a rather wild mix. (The differences and history among various participants in government UAP work are revealing, but that’s beside the point as far as this encyclopedia stuff.) Jjhake (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd love to hear his thoughts on the value of the UAP term. As you say, it seemed obvious to me that he would think that any tool for distinguishing the mythology from the science could be helpful. Jjhake (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Lovely Sean Thomas essay
"If you want an extra presidential oddity, think on this: the only recent President who has flat-out denied the possibility of alien UFOs is Donald Trump."
Thank God for delightful writers like Sean Thomas.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ufos-or-not-something-is-up/ Jjhake (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"It sounds like the plot of a truly terrible Dan Brown novel, written when Dan Brown was nine years old. The Pope knows about UFOs? They exist in the fifth dimension? Any talking lizards?" If you're not grinning, you're non-human. --Jjhake (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am not impressed. The analysis seems to be completely made-up rather than having any basis in fact. Yes, there are incurious people like John Podesta, Chris Mellon, and any of a dozen other "serious" people who seem taken in with UFO hype. No, there is no indication that any of this has anything to do with "beyond human understanding" claims any more than weeping statues, huldufólk, or the Loch Ness Monster. As a unique blend of US folklore, it's fascinating how people get caught up in this. But as a story of actual evidence, there is no there there. For decades, the question has been, "Where is your evidence?" For decades the answer has either been, "behind closed doors in a military base" or "it's right here in these weird bits of metal, bone, and plastic." And for what? A story that's repeated again and again around our proverbial campfires. There is a reason that UFO religion is a bigger topic (with more adherents than most people realize) than this little dust-up. Rumors and myths are powerful things, but it does no one any favors to pretend that they are not rumors and myths. jps (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- This "whistleblower" event is entirely about U.S. folklore and mythology that is foisted upon the rest of the world as well because it is American. It is a cultural and historical event. Jjhake (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is why I was disappointed with Sean Thomas's essay. It didn't seem to notice that it is part of a long-standing tradition of such. It's rather as if someone started covering Evangelical Christianity in the US Government and argued that speaking in tongues by members of Congress, the Executive Branch, and those with top-secret clearance was perhaps evidence of supernatural powers. jps (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- While reaching no conclusions himself, Thomas gives a very long history in the most colorful language and is far from supportive or complimentary. Instead, he is extremely mocking of the tradition in every comparison that he makes. Anyway, whether or not you or I appreciated his essay is not the point. It's simply one of several visible cultural pundits who have addressed the Grusch claims, and as such are key aspects of this cultural event. Jjhake (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I guess my point is that it is a lazy dive into the subject. Because of that, it seems to miss that just because there is a litany of characters from "high up" in the government who have seem supportive of rumors and myths, that does not mean there is necessarily anything deserving of explanation. People sometimes get titillated by what they think are mysteries. jps (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- While reaching no conclusions himself, Thomas gives a very long history in the most colorful language and is far from supportive or complimentary. Instead, he is extremely mocking of the tradition in every comparison that he makes. Anyway, whether or not you or I appreciated his essay is not the point. It's simply one of several visible cultural pundits who have addressed the Grusch claims, and as such are key aspects of this cultural event. Jjhake (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is why I was disappointed with Sean Thomas's essay. It didn't seem to notice that it is part of a long-standing tradition of such. It's rather as if someone started covering Evangelical Christianity in the US Government and argued that speaking in tongues by members of Congress, the Executive Branch, and those with top-secret clearance was perhaps evidence of supernatural powers. jps (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- This "whistleblower" event is entirely about U.S. folklore and mythology that is foisted upon the rest of the world as well because it is American. It is a cultural and historical event. Jjhake (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)