At times, however, Grusch was less forthcoming under oath than he had been in media interviews.
In the interview with NewsNation in June, Grusch claimed the government had “very large, like a football-field kind of size” alien craft, while he told Le Parisien, a French newspaper, that the US had possession of a “bell-like craft” which Benito Mussolini’s government had recovered in northern Italy in 1933.
On Wednesday, Grusch seemed unwilling to go into details on those claims, citing issues of security. Grusch told the hearing he was prepared to elaborate in private, but his reticence prompted speculation from doubters.
Garrett Graff, a journalist and historian who is writing a book on the government’s hunt for UFOs, tweeted: “Very interesting to me that Dave Grusch is unwilling to state and repeat under oath at the #UFOHearings the most explosive (and outlandish) of his claims from his NewsNation interview. He seems to be very carefully dancing around repeating them.”
Not to mention most of his testimony is second hand, things he was told not things he saw. And did he produce any documentary evidence? On its face I’m having a hard time differentiating this hearing from Project Camelot.
If you needed any more evidence this guy is a grifter, here it is. Can’t discuss alien ships under oath for “security reasons”, but no concerns about blabbing about them to B-tier news media.
I’ve seen some clips of him recounting some personal anecdotes. I didn’t expect any real evidence to come from this. I’m not American so maybe someone can chime in but what exactly is the point of these hearings? There have been a bunch with tech CEOs but other than the speakers boomering the questions, what actions are taken after them?
It’s political theater, a pleasant distraction where Democrats and Republicans can sit on the same committee and pretend that the government is a functional entity. No one on the committee is going to have it used against them in campaign ads, and committee members get paid a per diem for sitting in and asking questions (which is one of the reasons why congressmen want committee assignments so much)
Not to mention most of his testimony is second hand, things he was told not things he saw. And did he produce any documentary evidence? On its face I’m having a hard time differentiating this hearing from Project Camelot.
If you needed any more evidence this guy is a grifter, here it is. Can’t discuss alien ships under oath for “security reasons”, but no concerns about blabbing about them to B-tier news media.
The US government has come out and said that nothing this guy has said in any interview has been subject to classification restrictions.
Which is government speak for “this guy is a lying ass, but saying so outright would just fuel the crazies”.
I’ve seen some clips of him recounting some personal anecdotes. I didn’t expect any real evidence to come from this. I’m not American so maybe someone can chime in but what exactly is the point of these hearings? There have been a bunch with tech CEOs but other than the speakers boomering the questions, what actions are taken after them?
It’s political theater, a pleasant distraction where Democrats and Republicans can sit on the same committee and pretend that the government is a functional entity. No one on the committee is going to have it used against them in campaign ads, and committee members get paid a per diem for sitting in and asking questions (which is one of the reasons why congressmen want committee assignments so much)