Grusch claimed early on that he had tried to reach out to
AAROspecifically Kirkpatrick, before AARO existed, for years before the whistleblower hotline came available. He also claims he tried repeatedly leading up to his tapping the hotline, and he was routinely ignored. This unfortunately tracks withAARO’s public faceKirkpatrick; they have expressed more than once that they do not follow up on the majority of tips they receive as they discount them as “not credible.”It’s his word against Kirkpatrick, in this case, and Kirkpatrick has not shown a great deal of willing, or even interest, in this regard.
EDIT: Since this is a repost on this new instance, I'm reposting this comment. Also, in the other instance, someone pointed out some flaws in my remembering, and I have amended them here. AARO didn't exist at the time Grusch claims he was reaching out to Kirkpatrick.
I think it's also important to note the specific words used by Dr. Kirkpatrick, AARO, Susan Gough, and others. They are extremely careful about their choice of words and how they convey their message. I'm using Susan Gough as a specific example due to her choice of attributing knowledge (or lack thereof) about these programs to AARO rather than the Pentagon. She also prefers terms like 'extraterrestrial' or 'alien' over 'Non-Human Intelligence,' which Mr. Grusch has used.
It appears to me that they are cautious with their statements, striving to avoid outright falsehoods while still withholding full disclosure. You can interpret this as you wish.
Edit: I would also like to highlight that, if we are to believe Ross Coulthart and other journalists, many whistleblowers are refusing to liaise with AARO due to a lack of trust. Therefore, when Dr. Kirkpatrick asserts that he hasn't been made aware of certain allegations, he may not be lying. However, David Grusch has repeatedly stated that he provided Dr. Kirkpatrick with all the information he had given to the Inspector General.
This is a good point, because I think the same thing is likely happening with Grusch, but in the opposite direction. For example, he will say something like "non-human biologics", which people are going to interpret as alien. But that could also just be plants or some fungus. The charitable interpretation is that he's trying to stay within legal and classification boundaries, but he could also be phrasing things to maximize his future earning potential (dude is definitely going to be writing a book, at minimum, in the future).
I wish he would make an official statement and not this: a post to his LinkedIn that he only shared with 1st connections.
He may possibly make a more public announcement; who knows? Mr. Kirkpatrick appears to be reserved and quiet, often avoiding interviews. However, surprisingly, he chose to give an interview on ABC at a time when the UAP Hearing is dominating all the news. I must admit, I find it difficult to read him.
I think it's also important to note that in this letter, Dr. Kirkpatrick states, 'The Subcommittee, whose questions and oversight duties are irreproachable and genuinely in need of answers, has never asked AARO for an update on the reporting system, the historical review, the operations, or the S&T strategy that AARO leads and is undertaking.'
I find this transcript from the April 19th hearing segment, regarding the public website that AARO is supposed to launch for whistleblowers to report UAP data, to be relevant:
Gillibrand: Dr. Kirkpatrick Congress has mandated that your office establish a discoverable and accessible electronic method for potential witnesses of UAP incidents and potential participants in government UAP related activities to contact your office and tell their stories. Congress also set up a process whereby people are subject to nondisclosure agreements, preventing them from disclosing what they may have witnessed or participated in could tell you what they know about risk of retribution from or violation of their NDAs. Have you submitted a public facing website product for approval to your superiors and how long has it been under review?
Kirkpatrick: I have. We submitted the first version of that before Christmas.
Gillibrand: And do you have an estimate from them when they will respond and when you'll have feedback on that?
Kirkpatrick: No, I don't.
Gillibrand: Okay. We will author a letter asking for that timely response to your superiors. When? When do you expect that you will establish a public facing discoverable and access portal for people to use to contact your office as the law requires.
Kirkpatrick: So I would like to first say thank you all very much for referring the witnesses that you have thus far to us. I appreciate that we've brought in nearly two dozen so far. It's been that's been very helpful. I'd ask that you continue to do that until we have an approved plan. We have a multi-phased approach for doing that, that we've been socializing and have submitted for approval some time. And once that happens, then we should be able to push all that out and get get this a little more automated.
Gillibrand: Great.
Kirkpatrick: What I would ask, though, is, as you all continue to refer to us and refer witnesses to us, I'd appreciate if you do that. Please try to prioritize the ones that you want to do, because we do have a small research staff dealing with that.
Gillibrand: Thank you. And then do you have any plans for public engagement that you want to share now that you think it's important that the public knows what the plan is?
Kirkpatrick: So we have a number of public engagement recommendations as according to our strategic plan. All of those have been submitted for approval. They have to be approved by USDINS We are waiting for approval to go do that.
Gillibrand: Okay. I will follow up on that.
Is that true? Didn’t Grunsch say he worked for AARO? Who is lying?
I was my agency’s co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and trans- medium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All- Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
This is taken from his opening statement at the hearing.
I agree with you, there appears to be a disagreement on facts between the two parties.
