Do you believe aliens exist?

[Jings]

Because attorneys don't get military security clearances. Why would the military deem that they need to know any military secrets?

Show me where an attorney is not allowed to obtain clearance to discuss classified information with their client.

Every US citizen has constitutional rights.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41742

 

[Mariner]

Show me where an attorney is not allowed to obtain clearance to discuss classified information with their client.

Every US citizen has constitutional rights.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41742

Seeing as you don't bother to read with comprehension:

A military security clearance is an official determination allowing an individual to access classified national security information. Obtaining one is a prerequisite for many military roles, enabling personnel to handle protected information.

A security clearance is considered a privilege, not an inherent right. It is granted based on a thorough assessment of an individual’s character, conduct, and loyalty. The Department of Defense manages these investigations to ensure that those entrusted with classified information meet stringent eligibility requirements.

Obtaining a military security clearance begins with the applicant completing a detailed questionnaire, such as the Standard Form (SF-86), often submitted electronically through systems like eApp. This form requires a comprehensive history, including residences, employment, educational background, and any foreign contacts over the past ten years. Applicants must also disclose financial records, criminal history, and any past drug or alcohol use. Omissions or inaccuracies can lead to denial.

Following the submission of the questionnaire, a comprehensive background investigation is conducted to verify the provided information and assess the applicant’s trustworthiness. Investigators perform checks of national records, credit history, and criminal records. They also conduct interviews with individuals who know the applicant, such as friends, family, and former employers, to gather insights into their character and reliability. This investigative phase aims to identify any potential vulnerabilities or risks.

Once the investigation is complete, the gathered information undergoes adjudication. This involves a review of all findings against specific adjudicative guidelines to determine eligibility for a security clearance. Factors considered include allegiance to the United States, personal conduct, financial responsibility, and any foreign influence. The Department of Defence Central Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF) makes the final decision on whether to grant or deny the clearance.

What Is Military Security Clearance and How Does It Work

A practical look at how military security clearances work — from the SF-86 and background investigation to what can get your clearance denied or revoked.

legalclarity.org

The reference you gave is for a person on trial where classified information is relevant.

This is not the case with people who have not been charged and are consulting an attorney before writing a book or making a documentary. In that case, no attorney will be allowed access to classified information and divulging such information, even verbally, is a criminal act.

Now stop pitter pattering around the subject. There are several on this forum who have held or hold security clearances of various grades and know the rules.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

UFO… the clue is in the U

Sure the U isn't for attorney retardedation?

 

[Mariner]

This is not the case with people who have not been charged and are consulting an attorney before writing a book or making a documentary. In that case, no attorney will be allowed access to classified information and divulging such information, even verbally, is a criminal act.

To add to the statement above. I know of several people who have written books about military operations. In each case, the manuscript was sent to the military for vetting to ensure no active classified information was included. There is absolutely no need to consult an attorney who does not know the subject at all.

 

[Jings]

Seeing as you don't bother to read with comprehension:

A military security clearance is an official determination allowing an individual to access classified national security information. Obtaining one is a prerequisite for many military roles, enabling personnel to handle protected information.

A security clearance is considered a privilege, not an inherent right. It is granted based on a thorough assessment of an individual’s character, conduct, and loyalty. The Department of Defense manages these investigations to ensure that those entrusted with classified information meet stringent eligibility requirements.

Obtaining a military security clearance begins with the applicant completing a detailed questionnaire, such as the Standard Form (SF-86), often submitted electronically through systems like eApp. This form requires a comprehensive history, including residences, employment, educational background, and any foreign contacts over the past ten years. Applicants must also disclose financial records, criminal history, and any past drug or alcohol use. Omissions or inaccuracies can lead to denial.

Following the submission of the questionnaire, a comprehensive background investigation is conducted to verify the provided information and assess the applicant’s trustworthiness. Investigators perform checks of national records, credit history, and criminal records. They also conduct interviews with individuals who know the applicant, such as friends, family, and former employers, to gather insights into their character and reliability. This investigative phase aims to identify any potential vulnerabilities or risks.

Once the investigation is complete, the gathered information undergoes adjudication. This involves a review of all findings against specific adjudicative guidelines to determine eligibility for a security clearance. Factors considered include allegiance to the United States, personal conduct, financial responsibility, and any foreign influence. The Department of Defence Central Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF) makes the final decision on whether to grant or deny the clearance.

What Is Military Security Clearance and How Does It Work

A practical look at how military security clearances work — from the SF-86 and background investigation to what can get your clearance denied or revoked.

legalclarity.org

The reference you gave is for a person on trial where classified information is relevant.

This is not the case with people who have not been charged and are consulting an attorney before writing a book or making a documentary. In that case, no attorney will be allowed access to classified information and divulging such information, even verbally, is a criminal act.

Now stop pitter pattering around the subject. There are several on this forum who have held or hold security clearances of various grades and know the rules.

Grusch was a major in USAF. Military don't promote people to high ranks for being dumb. If he disclosed anything that shouldn't be disclosed there would have been consequences.

Even when Sean Kirkpatrick, director of AARO at the time, tried to trap him by requesting classified from Grusch, he wouldn't budge. Grusch was actually the reason Kirkpatrick gave notice a couple months later.

Court cases or not, military people have got constitutional rights.

Even Bigelow lawyers can obtain security clearances. Bigelow is one of the organisations that DOD grants top secret contracts to.

Bigelow v. Department of Defense - Opposition

www.justice.gov

 

[Mariner]

Grusch was a major in USAF. Military don't promote people to high ranks for being dumb. If he disclosed anything that shouldn't be disclosed there would have been consequences.

Exactly. So his disclosures are for entertainment purposes and the consumption of the gullible.

Court cases or not, military people have got constitutional rights.

They have, but for all ranks, their constitutional rights are restricted:

They may not stand for political office.
They may not make their political views known.
They may not make their religious views known.
They may not make their social opinions known.
Social media participation is restricted
They do not have freedom of speech.
Their movement is restricted.
Their freedom of association is restricted.
Their privacy may be restricted.
They may not take part in a demonstration, picket or petition.
Their only political right is to vote for the candidate of their choice, but they may never disclose their choice.
They may not participate in work for extra remuneration. No moonlighting.
Unless allowed by their military, they may not join a trade union.
They have no right to expect an environment that is not harmful to their health when deployed.

Finally, unlike any civilian, they can be ordered to perform a function that may lead to their death.

Even Bigelow lawyers can obtain security clearances. Bigelow is one of the organisations that DOD grants top secret contracts to.

Only for what they need to know in the performance of their contracted duties and if they meet the requirements. Civilian contractors are also granted security clearance for what they need to know. I've stated several times that a security clearance is not an NDA. It is a privelege and not a right.

It can be withdrawn at a moment's notice. I know of a military member with the rank of Major whose office was packed up the next day by colleagues after he went home normally the previous day. The next day at the gate, he was informed he was not allowed to enter the military area again. That is how sudden the loss of a security clearance can be.

 

[Forum Reader]

The Age of Discovery film is essential viewing

View attachment 1866873

I watched this yesterday. It's mainly a summary of interviews and media reports since around 2017. No real new info except people saying they know more but it's classified. However, somehow telling us that we have acquired UAPs with different species of aliens is not classified. Wonder what the classified stuff is then...

I find it hard to believe that the UAPs are of alien origin without proper proof. It could really just be Russia or China with some new tech. New tech can seem like magic to people unfamiliar with it. Just go back in time and give a smartphone to someone 50 years ago and see what they think.

One of the big things in the movie is the secret government department (Legacy Program) in charge of acquiring and studying UAPs for the last 80 years. They say they have contractors reverse engineering the tech. If that really was the case then we should be able to see the outcomes in the tech we have now and see who got rich, etc. One of the biggest inventions is the integrated circuit in the 1950s/1960s which underpins almost all tech we have now. If this was reverse engineered then people in this wiki would have to be involved. The circuit ideas came from Britain and Germany before the US semiconductor companies improved on it. Seems unlikely.

Invention of the integrated circuit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, look at the biggest tech companies or richest people in the world now. Did Bill Gates working in his garage have access to an alien spaceship? Did Musk have access to a spaceship when he started SpaceX in 2002?

Things on this list would have to be reverse engineered from 1945+ but it seems like new tech is developed upon previous tech by people and companies all around the world:

Timeline of historic inventions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I also don't see how NASA or independent companies like SpaceX would not know or not want to talk about the UAPs. Musk seems like someone who would tweet about it immediately if his company saw an alien spaceship. Imagine the ego boost for being the first person to provide real proof of aliens. Musk does much lesser things for ego boosts, like secretly paying a Chinese guy to play POE2 for him so he can tell everyone he is a top 10 POE2 player in the world.

They also said that a possible reason for UAPs crashing were for us to learn from and improve our tech. If the aliens wanted that they would crash in public. If I was an alien, I'd crash my ship in a stadium with 100k people there and millions watching live. Not at night in some place nobody has heard of where the US government can quickly recover the UAP and alien bodies and say they didn't see anything. Are aliens that dumb, flying light years across the galaxy and crashing on earth (imperfect tech), and not even achieving the goal they want over 80 years?

 

[Mariner]

Even Bigelow lawyers can obtain security clearances. Bigelow is one of the organisations that DOD grants top secret contracts to.

Bigelow v. Department of Defense - Opposition

www.justice.gov

Did you even bother reading the link you posted? Here is a summary:

A Major's superior had suspicions because the Major:

1. Sometimes disappeared in foreign countries near sensitive international borders.
2. Made misrepresentations about his whereabouts while on leave in conjunction with official travel.
3. Failed to account for periods of paid leave.
4. Made use of a government computer for improper purposes.

Any one of those can result in the loss of a security clearance.

But the Major's case before the court was not about any sensitive information at all, as you imply. He engaged Bigelow to represent him because he believed his superior reading his file was an invasion of privacy. This was dismissed by both the Appeal and Supreme Courts.

In any military, superiors have access to subordinates' files as they need to know about their subordinates. At least annually, every subordinate reads their personal file in the presence of their superior to ensure everything is in the file and is accurate. It's known as a file muster.

The Major was clutching at straws. And no classified information was involved in this trial.

 

[Mirai]

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Extraordinary claims require applicable proof. It's an empirical claim.

We're being visited by aliens.
Hence proof should be: here is an alien craft or here is a CNN interview with an alien. Empirical proof.

And not, "it's so secret everyone is being threatened by the government but people still come out and make documentaries about it and are still fine at the end". If the authorities really had such secrets and wanted to keep them secret a real whistleblower would either no longer exist or be in a "nuthouse" somewhere with a schizophrenia diagnosis.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

I watched this yesterday. It's mainly a summary of interviews and media reports since around 2017. No real new info except people saying they know more but it's classified. However, somehow telling us that we have acquired UAPs with different species of aliens is not classified. Wonder what the classified stuff is then...

I find it hard to believe that the UAPs are of alien origin without proper proof. It could really just be Russia or China with some new tech. New tech can seem like magic to people unfamiliar with it. Just go back in time and give a smartphone to someone 50 years ago and see what they think.

One of the big things in the movie is the secret government department (Legacy Program) in charge of acquiring and studying UAPs for the last 80 years. They say they have contractors reverse engineering the tech. If that really was the case then we should be able to see the outcomes in the tech we have now and see who got rich, etc. One of the biggest inventions is the integrated circuit in the 1950s/1960s which underpins almost all tech we have now. If this was reverse engineered then people in this wiki would have to be involved. The circuit ideas came from Britain and Germany before the US semiconductor companies improved on it. Seems unlikely.

Invention of the integrated circuit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, look at the biggest tech companies or richest people in the world now. Did Bill Gates working in his garage have access to an alien spaceship? Did Musk have access to a spaceship when he started SpaceX in 2002?

Things on this list would have to be reverse engineered from 1945+ but it seems like new tech is developed upon previous tech by people and companies all around the world:

Timeline of historic inventions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I also don't see how NASA or independent companies like SpaceX would not know or not want to talk about the UAPs. Musk seems like someone who would tweet about it immediately if his company saw an alien spaceship. Imagine the ego boost for being the first person to provide real proof of aliens. Musk does much lesser things for ego boosts, like secretly paying a Chinese guy to play POE2 for him so he can tell everyone he is a top 10 POE2 player in the world.

They also said that a possible reason for UAPs crashing were for us to learn from and improve our tech. If the aliens wanted that they would crash in public. If I was an alien, I'd crash my ship in a stadium with 100k people there and millions watching live. Not at night in some place nobody has heard of where the US government can quickly recover the UAP and alien bodies and say they didn't see anything. Are aliens that dumb, flying light years across the galaxy and crashing on earth (imperfect tech), and not even achieving the goal they want over 80 years?

Elon Musk is in fact an alien all his trying to do is return home...

 

[Mariner]

I watched this yesterday. It's mainly a summary of interviews and media reports since around 2017. No real new info except people saying they know more but it's classified. However, somehow telling us that we have acquired UAPs with different species of aliens is not classified. Wonder what the classified stuff is then...

Thank you. I was right surmising there would be no new information, and it was just another hyped advertisement for a movie about UFOs or whatever their new acronym is after the acronym UFO became derisive following the rubbish on the History Channel.

So, nothing new.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Thank you. I was right surmising there would be no new information, and it was just another hyped advertisement for a movie about UFOs or whatever their new acronym is after the acronym UFO became derisive following the rubbish on the History Channel.

So, nothing new.

I've replied to you twice with that conclusion about the documentary...

 

[Mirai]

For months the mystery drones have been flying around and nobody has figured out the frequency? What does this say about military capabilities in Europe?

They are over hyped. Most countries don't have air defense and detection capabilities people imagine seeing in the movies. They have even fewer effectors to shoot such things down and at peace time you don't want to shoot stuff down because the rocket and whatever you shot down will also crash to the ground killing and injuring people. The effectors are also expensive. A PAC-3 interceptor costs USD 7 million and America only produces 500 of such missiles annually with long waiting lists of countries which have ordered them years ago.

 

[Jings]

Did you even bother reading the link you posted? Here is a summary:

A Major's superior had suspicions because the Major:

1. Sometimes disappeared in foreign countries near sensitive international borders.
2. Made misrepresentations about his whereabouts while on leave in conjunction with official travel.
3. Failed to account for periods of paid leave.
4. Made use of a government computer for improper purposes.

Any one of those can result in the loss of a security clearance.

But the Major's case before the court was not about any sensitive information at all, as you imply. He engaged Bigelow to represent him because he believed his superior reading his file was an invasion of privacy. This was dismissed by both the Appeal and Supreme Courts.

In any military, superiors have access to subordinates' files as they need to know about their subordinates. At least annually, every subordinate reads their personal file in the presence of their superior to ensure everything is in the file and is accurate. It's known as a file muster.

The Major was clutching at straws. And no classified information was involved in this trial.

I was gaging whether you use AI for your responses.

Please check with AI about Grusch and his rights about engaging with an attorney to avoid breaching his NDA.

They are over hyped. Most countries don't have air defense and detection capabilities people imagine seeing in the movies. They have even fewer effectors to shoot such things down and at peace time you don't want to shoot stuff down because the rocket and whatever you shot down will also crash to the ground killing and injuring people. The effectors are also expensive. A PAC-3 interceptor costs USD 7 million and America only produces 500 of such missiles annually with long waiting lists of countries which have ordered them years ago.

A pattern is emerging with these drones in that whenever military open fire on the mystery drones, none of the weapons hit the targets therefore no drones were recovered.

Dutch Military Opens Fire on Drones

The Dutch military on Friday fired at drones that were sighted over Volkel Air Base in the country’s east.

www.worldpoliticsreview.com

 

[Mirai]

A pattern is emerging with these drones in that whenever military open fire on the mystery drones, none of the weapons hit the targets therefore no drones were recovered.

Dutch Military Opens Fire on Drones

The Dutch military on Friday fired at drones that were sighted over Volkel Air Base in the country’s east.

www.worldpoliticsreview.com

That shows you how sh-t the Dutch airforce is. And that's not just the Dutch, all European airforces are pretty meh. Europe lacks co-ordinated and layered counter UAV systems. UAV warfare has advantages. The Russians are also weak at detecting and shooting down Western UAVs. Ukrainians have demonstrated this well.

Drone warfare is causing headaches for people in Europe because it's hard to detect and intercept these things without spending huge amount of money and possibly causing collateral damage.

One way to assess incoming threats is to launch aircraft to meet them, track them and shoot them down.

The cost to operate F-16s and the turnaround times are long. F-35s are even worse, they have longer turn around times and are very expensive to exploit. That's why some countries are using FA-50s which are less expensive, slightly less capable but can be refueled/rearmed and can take off again very quickly (within 2h) which a plane like the F-35 can't do (may need 12 hours).

In peacetime again, it's also harder to shoot down UAVs. One is restricted in what one can do and only if vital points are affected can the military shoot them down. And even then they sometimes miss.

 

[Mariner]

I was gaging whether you use AI for your responses.

My responses are my own. I do use AI to search for information and then gauge the source material as credible or not.

 

[Mariner]

Please check with AI about Grusch and his rights about engaging with an attorney to avoid breaching his NDA.

If Grush has/d a security clearance, engaging an attorney is fruitless as the attorney needs to be security cleared and have a need to know the information for defence purposes. The military does not grant access to anyone who does not need to know information for defence purposes. I have stated several times that a security clearance is not an NDA. You keep ignoring this.

When writing books that may include classified information, military person first submits the manuscript to the military, not his attorney, before anyone else, for verification that it does not contain embargoed information. I have explained this before but you still ignore it.

A pattern is emerging with these drones in that whenever military open fire on the mystery drones, none of the weapons hit the targets therefore no drones were recovered.

Dutch Military Opens Fire on Drones

The Dutch military on Friday fired at drones that were sighted over Volkel Air Base in the country’s east.

www.worldpoliticsreview.com

Did you bother to read the article? They do not suspect the drones of being alien. They suspect Russia.

Are you aware of arcs of fire? Anti Aircraft weapons can only fire in permissible predetermined arcs that do not endanger any civilian or other infrastructure. If the drone flies out of the permissible fire arc, it will escape. In wartime arcs are much bigger as civilian collateral damage is permissible. Not in peacetime.

 

[Jings]

If Grush has/d a security clearance, engaging an attorney is fruitless as the attorney needs to be security cleared and have a need to know the information for defence purposes. The military does not grant access to anyone who does not need to know information for defence purposes. I have stated several times that a security clearance is not an NDA. You keep ignoring this.

When writing books that may include classified information, military person first submits the manuscript to the military, not his attorney, before anyone else, for verification that it does not contain embargoed information. I have explained this before but you still ignore it.



Did you bother to read the article? They do not suspect the drones of being alien. They suspect Russia.

Do you recall that Grusch's attorney is Jonathan Maclaughlin III, former Inspector General of ICIG. There's no reason he would not have security clearance. I addition he wouldn't be allowed to enter a SCIF without one. Actually Grusch doesn't need his own attorney because he's one of Rep. Eric Burlison's staff which include legal representatives.

I read the article. Where in the article does it state there is proof the drones were from Russia? Not saying aliens, but not discounting them either. There's no proof either way.

Historically the US government has had a policy of weaponised sceptism. There's evidence of that in declassified documents like Project Blue Book. There's no reason to believe that hasn't changed. Projects designed to manage and downplay public reports is obviously ongoing. I bet even the sockpuppets are gullible, not only some of the public.

 

[Maurice Kitching]

Seeing as you don't bother to read with comprehension:

A military security clearance is an official determination allowing an individual to access classified national security information. Obtaining one is a prerequisite for many military roles, enabling personnel to handle protected information.

A security clearance is considered a privilege, not an inherent right. It is granted based on a thorough assessment of an individual’s character, conduct, and loyalty. The Department of Defense manages these investigations to ensure that those entrusted with classified information meet stringent eligibility requirements.

Obtaining a military security clearance begins with the applicant completing a detailed questionnaire, such as the Standard Form (SF-86), often submitted electronically through systems like eApp. This form requires a comprehensive history, including residences, employment, educational background, and any foreign contacts over the past ten years. Applicants must also disclose financial records, criminal history, and any past drug or alcohol use. Omissions or inaccuracies can lead to denial.

Following the submission of the questionnaire, a comprehensive background investigation is conducted to verify the provided information and assess the applicant’s trustworthiness. Investigators perform checks of national records, credit history, and criminal records. They also conduct interviews with individuals who know the applicant, such as friends, family, and former employers, to gather insights into their character and reliability. This investigative phase aims to identify any potential vulnerabilities or risks.

Once the investigation is complete, the gathered information undergoes adjudication. This involves a review of all findings against specific adjudicative guidelines to determine eligibility for a security clearance. Factors considered include allegiance to the United States, personal conduct, financial responsibility, and any foreign influence. The Department of Defence Central Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF) makes the final decision on whether to grant or deny the clearance.

What Is Military Security Clearance and How Does It Work

A practical look at how military security clearances work — from the SF-86 and background investigation to what can get your clearance denied or revoked.

legalclarity.org

The reference you gave is for a person on trial where classified information is relevant.

This is not the case with people who have not been charged and are consulting an attorney before writing a book or making a documentary. In that case, no attorney will be allowed access to classified information and divulging such information, even verbally, is a criminal act.

Now stop pitter pattering around the subject. There are several on this forum who have held or hold security clearances of various grades and know the rules.

Dammit man. If only Cosmik were here to check you on this stuff. Dude held more clearances than you could shake a stick at. He'd have asked for your qualifications, of course. He was a bit of a stickler for that kind of thing.

I'm afraid we may have lost him with the Nord Steam pipeline investigation. There was also a rumour that he was spotted in Mali with Prigozhin, but this is unconfirmed.

On a side note, you ever dabble in stylometry?

 

[Mariner]

Do you recall that Grusch's attorney is Jonathan Maclaughlin III, former Inspector General of ICIG. There's no reason he would not have security clearance.

He can have a top security clearance. If he doesn't have a NEED TO KNOW the information for defence purposes, he is not entitled to access. I have told you many times that military classified information is compartmentalised and only accessible to those who NEED TO KNOW the contents for defence purposes. Vetting a book is not a defence purpose, and access will be denied.

I have told you this several times, as well as the procedure for a book that may contain classified information vetted by the military.

You keep ignoring the information I give you and pitter-pattering around it seeking a hole in security classification and clearances because you really, really, really want to believe the military is hiding aliens.

I read the article. Where in the article does it state there is proof the drones were from Russia? Not saying aliens, but not discounting them either. There's no proof either way.

Do you understand the meaning of SUSPECT?

Did you bother to read the article? They do not suspect the drones of being alien. They suspect Russia.

Historically the US government has had a policy of weaponised sceptism. There's evidence of that in declassified documents like Project Blue Book. There's no reason to believe that hasn't changed. Projects designed to manage and downplay public reports is obviously ongoing. I bet even the sockpuppets are gullible, not only some of the public.

Why would the military do this? Provide evidence.