tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.comments2023-12-18T16:18:07.781-08:00ENTAUSMike Cifonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-68410972476352452362023-12-18T12:09:19.667-08:002023-12-18T12:09:19.667-08:00Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Mike. What stri...Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Mike. What strikes me time and again with this new generation of ufologists – I'll use the "old school" terminology now – is, despite their attempts to distance themselves from the earlier generations, they continue to plough the same ground in much the same way. Their originality comes in their form of presenting either (1) new instruments or (2) a new language in which to package things, but the subject's been poked at, pored through, and ruminated about in pretty much the same way for decades. And yet, it all starts and comes back to the same message. This "this" – the “phenomenon” – is a mystery. No, it's more than that. It's THE Mystery. Whether it's tackled in a wholly secular, materialist fashion or in a cryptic, spiritual fashion, the assumption is that it is a revelation that is of a worldview--shattering nature (I remain uncertain at best about this take). <br />And yet, as you and I have discussed before, to talk about an "it" – it probably doesn't matter if you use the singular or plural – is to make the same category error that came with "flying saucer" or "UFO." And say what you will about the US Air Force, but over the years when they tracked reports, they quickly became aware that those rubrics bundled a whole bunch of things that were unrelated except for the fact that they were things reported to be in the sky. <br />I often wonder, as everyone tries to lift out the signal from the noise, what if the noise is actually the thing? I for one think the noise – all of it, that includes conferences like Sol’s and our little exchange here – is the interesting stuff. We learn a lot about ourselves when you look at the noise we produce and what we consider to be noise. The search for the signal is what most observers are after, understandably so. But at least for me, I’ll continue to find the noise of human beings far more interesting.Greg Eghigiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-49574777934411080142023-11-30T02:16:05.480-08:002023-11-30T02:16:05.480-08:00Anonymous, I think we agree as much as we part way...Anonymous, I think we agree as much as we part ways in some regards. By "Indigenous perspective" I had less in mind those modern (Six Killer Clark) or traditional (any number of knowledge keepers) voices that would harmonize with the drift of the symposium's inclinations, but scholars such as David Delgado Shorter and Kim TallBear, who bring a postcolonial Indigenous perspective to these all-too-"modern" proceedings (despite the protestations of Skafish et al). With regard to Hegel, Kant, Schelling, and German Romanticism, I accept there is one very interesting "Hermetically-inflected" reception of their work (I would balk at Kant, given his investment in Reason and Enlightenment, this latter resolutely not of the Hermetic variety!) and one that need be taken into account. However, at the same time, there are other, no less compelling receptions, found in Henrich, Frank, Adorno, Habermas, Zizek, and Hegel's Anglosaxon, "Analytic" readers no less legitimate and arguably more robust. Invoking the undeniable Hermetic (etc) horizon of the post-Kantian ferment echoes in my mind with Kripal's and Hansen's efforts to recoup the philosophical tradition to the "impossible" (e.g., Kant's passing interest in Swedenborg, scattered remarks of Nietzche's, Derrida's writing on "telepathy"), most which, on close scrutiny, do not pass muster (I've addressed this matter at Skunkworksblog). Even more, the pertinence of, say, Schelling's belief in a spirit world (in his _Clara_), however admittedly true, is still in question with regard to the matters of the Phenomenon. It seems to me at the very least a questionable move to understand Geist as something akin to "spirit" in the paranormal sense. That being said, I was perhaps too harsh with Skafish, above: his two latest works, including _Cannibal Metaphysics_, neither of which I have had a chance to read, suggest a more fine grained anthropological stance than his reported retort, above, seems to suggest. Nevertheless, I stand my ground with regard to Hegel and German Romanticism!<br />Bryan Senteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04989715661418188351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-59416843211733831742023-11-29T20:12:56.799-08:002023-11-29T20:12:56.799-08:00Mike, thank you for posting this review of Day One...Mike, thank you for posting this review of Day One. "Yes," to all the concerns mentioned in the preceding comments. Surely Ardy Sixkiller Clark (author of several amazing books of interviews with Native American describing their encounters with UFOs and aliens) would have been able to say quite a bit about "indigenous" views. I would rather hear her than him on this matter. Sorry that he turned your question as an opportunity not to engage your thinking, but rather to reinforce his own prejudices. You and Bryan know that Hegel has to be understood in his context, which included Kant, Schelling, German romanticism, and for that matter what preceded them in various forms of hermeticism. On all this see Cyril O'Regan "The Heterodox Hegel" and Glenn Magee "Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition," to to mention so many great books by Manfred Frank, all to little appreciated on our shores. And also Scholem's "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism," upon reading which thirty years ago I concluded "Here is so much of German idealism!" (Philip K. Dick is connected to much of this in his own strange ways.) To be sure, as you indicate, Mike, we are called to "silence" in the face of the Phenomenon, which has nothing to "say" to us, a fact that may be "heard" as an invitation us to be silent in return, to dwell within the mystery, rather than to try to master it via concepts, even though that's our go-to move. I loved Jeff Kripal's paper, too. Looking forward to Part Two! Keep up the good work, Mike.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-34145720317297212092023-11-29T06:47:04.969-08:002023-11-29T06:47:04.969-08:00Yes, Mike, thanks for these comments and reflectio...Yes, Mike, thanks for these comments and reflections. Very much looking forward to part 2! Greg Eghigiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-55936778043214383422023-11-28T02:32:55.058-08:002023-11-28T02:32:55.058-08:00Anonymous, thanks for underlining that Cifone had ...Anonymous, thanks for underlining that Cifone had already observed the analogy to Creation science in his post. Hitherto, any interventions on my part have been offhand, but now I see they're so long, those posts, I need to take notes to avoid such redundancies in the future! Bryan Senteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04989715661418188351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-13518943260121234922023-11-27T19:47:16.300-08:002023-11-27T19:47:16.300-08:00Two key quotes: "Nobody wants to stand up and...Two key quotes: "Nobody wants to stand up and ask harder questions, possibly uncomfortable ones". "The whole exercise, in this light, appears analogous to Creation Science, an endeavour to articulate and defend an essentially and forthright matter of more-or-less doctrinal faith"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-24542389116680473552023-11-26T20:40:04.958-08:002023-11-26T20:40:04.958-08:00Thanks for this, Michael. I'm taking away a lo...Thanks for this, Michael. I'm taking away a lot to think about. And I heartily concur with everything Bryan had to say. Michael Redmondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-44665677768773995572023-11-26T04:01:14.676-08:002023-11-26T04:01:14.676-08:00First, thanks for the nod.
A number of passages p...First, thanks for the nod.<br /><br />A number of passages prompt a (favourable) response.<br /><br />Being someone still on _this_ side of the UAP-ontological Rubicon, the Sol Foundation's whole-hearted endorsement of Grusch strikes me as an index of its, as you term it, soteriological character, an impression all the more reinforced by the participation of Pasulka/Heath, Nolan's being on the board (as a self-confessed Experiencer), and even, to some extent, Vallée. The whole exercise, in this light, appears analogous to Creation Science, an endeavour to articulate and defend an essentially and forthright matter of more-or-less doctrinal faith by means of the "theory" of the day. The reaction to your question is a case in point. Which brings up the problematic "gnostic" dimension of the whole conversation. "Gnosis" is knowledge by acquaintance: the Gnostic is an Experiencer, which entails that the truth of the matter is ultimately esoteric, even if that gnosis remains mystical, inexpressible either in principle (it's ineffable) or socially (the mystic's lips are zipped, as the word's etymology reminds us). This, at least socially, is a growing problem (and an aspect of the religious side of the phenomenon that demands scrutiny) (And speaking of which, I'm increasingly impatient with Pasulka et al who speak as if this religious dimension is somehow their discovery: the UFO has been a subject of research for religious studies scholars, sociologists, and social psychologists from the get-go, as the SUNY volume _The Gods Have Landed_ (1995) attests...). <br /><br />Your observations re the problems in the logic underwriting Skafish's position are very substantial, I think, for me, the most valuable contribution in this post. He has translated (I believe) Latour, whose _We have never been modern_ perhaps plays a role in his own thinking. Skafish's take on German Idealism, let alone Romanticism is wincingly pedestrian. And this invocation of the "Indigenous" stands in need of pitilessly trenchant anti- or post-colonialist critique; if you're going to invoke it, get some Indigenous _scholars_ (like those who recently published a critique of SETI) on the panel! Skafish seems to join a growing list of academic philosophers "engaging the Phenomenon," but nearly all of whom, for my part, leave me less than impressed.<br /><br />Your impression of Pasulka/Heath confirms my own. However much I want to take her seriously, every effort is frustrated. Once my professional demands become manageable I _hope_ to review her latest and in restrospect _American Cosmic_...<br /><br />This matter of "disenchantment" calls for some reflection surely; I've got a growing bookshelf on the matter, to which I hope to get ("Bookshelf long, life short").<br /><br />OK, of course, doubtless more to say, but the Job calls. Lookn fwd to Part Two.Bryan Senteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04989715661418188351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-33177287013089493592023-10-24T08:38:08.874-07:002023-10-24T08:38:08.874-07:00Hi Michael! Thanks for identifying (though I only ...Hi Michael! Thanks for identifying (though I only ask respondents that they use *some* handle other than "anonymous", going forward; thanks again). I see the point you're making, quite clearly (and I appreciate the clarity). However, I'm not sure that even on *those* terms, he's succeeded. Let's suppose it's a case for "reformation". Well, then, I'm not sure what's *new* here, or "reformed" - esp. since he himself ends up doing the same stuff that occurred in the 19th and early 20th cents.: preaching a gospel of "mind-power", which, as far as I can tell, ends up meaning how to get rich - if not quick, than somewhat quickly. Another way of asking the question is: so what the model of reformation employed? Usually, it takes the form of some kind of "back to the roots" movement. Is that what's going on here? Again, I don't see what the "case" being made really is, or what it amounts to. (That's partly a function of my ignorance of what's going on today, aside from the "mind-power" stuff about attracting the things you want with your positive thinking, and so on ... not particularly new, interesting, or compelling.)Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-61884920268933033732023-10-23T22:15:55.437-07:002023-10-23T22:15:55.437-07:00Apologies, Michael, for my neglecting to identify ...Apologies, Michael, for my neglecting to identify myself properly. It was an oversight I won't repeat. Avanti: You write: "In my estimation, (MH is) not an academic historian; he's an 'outsider historian' or something like that." Well, yes, exactly -- and I think he would agree. As I have no reason to doubt that MH sincerely believes the gospel he's preaching, I don't think of him as a snake oil peddler or any variety of charlatan, but as an evangelist of modern-day hermetic reformation. I'm framing his position within explicitly religious imagery because that's what I think this is all about. You are criticizing MH for succeeding at what he set out to do -- which is NOT to write systematic philosophy or academic history, but to make a 21st century case for an ancient dogmatic tradition. Cheers and best wishes. Michael Redmondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-91732162762649608562023-10-20T11:51:19.406-07:002023-10-20T11:51:19.406-07:00Further evidence of the unreliability of the work ...Further evidence of the unreliability of the work as serious intellectual history comes from the fact that he doesn't seem to actually understand the history of the Western philosophical tradition, to which some of this stuff is related. For example, in around chapter 7 or 8, he lumps together Kant and Berkeley as both "idealists" (which isn't really defined, except as the view that the "mind" - or worse, perception - determines or creates "reality"), and throws in Hegel (and the German Idealists) for good measure. At best, that's confused. At worst, it's just ignorant. No mention is made, furthermore, of Kant's own well known repudiation of some of Swedenborg's claims, a mystical writer who makes a celebratory appearance in the text as the 18th century Ur-Source of the "mind-power" view, whose teachings (he tries to show) inspired many in the American occultist movement in the late 18th and into the 19th centuries. (Kant's arguments might have been poor, but what were those arguments?)<br /><br />Finally: What were *any* of the serious arguments against *any* of this stuff (called "occult" or "esoteric" or "Hermetic" - monolithic terms whose validity was variously disputed even in the wake of Yates' brilliant scholarship here). Isn't an intellectual historian supposed to tell us anything about traditions that seriously opposed this stuff?<br /><br />What about the actual arguments for example (as bad as they might have been) against the so-called "gnostics"? All we get is a sense that "oh, those poor outsiders, the gnostics, who were persecuted, they were the good outsiders resisting the newly-formed state religion of Christianity, with its incipient orthodoxy". It's surely bad intellectual history not to supply the reader with the counterpoints that challenge the central historical subject matter. It's bad just because it just ends of being hagiographical: one-sided, and therefore imbalanced precisely in the ways that orthodox opponents (to gnosticism, esotericism, Hermeticism, etc. - if these are clearly definable historical traditions) would cast their own histories.<br /><br />I'm left wanting to go back to Yates (as problematic as it might have been for casting a "grand narrative" type of history), and to just read the original works. But then again, why would I even want to read Blavatsky? Indeed, whom should one read? And what should one's "practice" be?<br /><br />There is one thing I think I agree with, which the author articulated in the interview on "Engaging the Phenomenon" (the podcast that touched off my attempt to engage this occult material again): these traditions are organized (very confusedly and perhaps very ignorantly) around some structure of real phenomena indicative of process of nature about which we have very little understanding, beyond as surface-level awareness *that* it's there. But what the "that" is, and how these occulta can be systematically related to the "material" forces of nature, over which technoscience is able to exact a measure of control. Well, that's an entirely different matter all together. Connecting the two isn't the job, of course, of the historian or the technician of the Occult. And without this more systematic and empirically well-grounded understanding, neither is it the job of the historian to dabble in the snake-oil salesmanship of the "mind-power" movement the author thinks he's providing a "case" for. Indeed, you say he "is engaged in making a 21st century case for some ancient dogmata" - but what's the "case"?<br /><br />(Sorry, had to break up my reply into two parts.)Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-1984734604076511122023-10-20T11:50:33.675-07:002023-10-20T11:50:33.675-07:00Hey, so can you choose a handle so I can identify ...Hey, so can you choose a handle so I can identify you beyond "anonymous" - esp. since you've used my first name, and I have no idea to whom I'm addressing these comments...<br /><br />Maybe we're talking past each other, or I'm not getting the point. Either way, the point I'm ultimately making is that not only is this terrain a thicket of real, utter nonsense mixed in with some generally spiritually useful or productive teachings, a "historian" of the terrain who has no clear principles to help us work through the territory, offering us little beyond a chronology of this cacophony, isn't really worth reading - except for the already-convinced. Again, my model is the intellectual historian and cultural critic Morris Berman, who has a clear handle on this material, its position within intellectual history overall, and enough of a grounding in the empirical world of "materialist" science to know not only what science's failings are (though, what is "science" exactly), but when we're talking about self-interested bullshit or just plain muddle.<br /><br />At page 200, I've put the book down; I really felt as though my brain was getting curdled, honestly. I mean, after the n-th occult "theory", one has to wonder: so, how is one theory v. another one actually demonstrated, and what's the evidence adduce in its favor? And that's the problem: we're dealing with a sometimes confusingly aleatoric theoretical act that tries to make sense of some experiential reality about which neither the system nor the principles are clear. I say all of this in a deliberately provocative way, to illicit the typical reply "yes, but you're trying to think of it scientifically" - right. But except that's the point, I think: I'm not trying to approach it that way, the practioners themselves are! They propose to offer accounts and interpretations of experiences, and then to provide a system by which some unseen or "occult" "forces" are going to be manipulated to effect. The irony - a Hegelian point - is that this stuff is already scientific before it's occult. It's just bad science (and mostly bad spirituality moreover, insofar as it's operationalized as a "do this, and get this outcome" kind of a procedure). I realize that a good historian (intellectual or otherwise) should try, as much as possible, not to impose their own value judgements on that which they're chronicling. But with this work, something is clearly missing. In my estimation, he's not an academic historian; he's an "outsider historian" or something like that. As such, his work suffers from the lack of discipline and grounding that academic history (esp. intellectual history) affords you. Finally, about the "outsider" status: I mean, it's another instance of bullshit, right? He's an "outsider" to what, exactly? Institutions and people who judge BS when and where they see it? Someone who publishes books on the "power of positive thinking" for getting rich, or anything else that you want (if only you "attract" it with your "mind power"), has lost all credibility in my view.Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-19337715640699797372023-10-18T18:39:10.718-07:002023-10-18T18:39:10.718-07:00I can't help myself https://video.disney.com/w...I can't help myself https://video.disney.com/watch/sorcerer-s-apprentice-fantasia-4ea9ebc01a74ea59a5867853Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-42819686732513955812023-10-18T18:34:58.872-07:002023-10-18T18:34:58.872-07:00We're not talking about the same thing, Michae...We're not talking about the same thing, Michael. How would the analysis you proffer respond to questions such as "Did Moses talk to God on Mount Sinai?" or "Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?" Those who would answer "yes" to these questions are not working off a philosophical or historical base, although they might well attempt to adduce both in support of their "yes" -- they are expressing a faith base, primarily. As far as I can tell, hermetic occultism rests on faith, too -- ipso facto religion. I daresay MH would not be happy to hear me say that, but that's my view. Whether hermetics is based on seven principles or twelve, all are faith statements, worldview statements. As such they're prior to philosophy and frequently have more to do with making history than history making them. MH is engaged in making a 21st century case for some ancient dogmata. That's how I read him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-28092903180012441882023-10-18T16:42:49.994-07:002023-10-18T16:42:49.994-07:00I disagree. The philosophy is painfully unreliable...I disagree. The philosophy is painfully unreliable (even ignorant in places - as in his attempt to label Kant an "idealist" and lump him in with some kind of tradition of "mind power", or associate him with Berkeleyan idealism ... all of which is stupid if it isn't ignorant), and the history, as I've said, is one-sided and hagiographical. It can be read as a kind of "primary" text, for its value (such as it is) as a record of one contemporary intellectual's engagement/identification with his subject (as you've suggested), but as a history of anything I'm very dubious. Indeed, I suspect it's driven entirely by his own attempt to preach a kind of gospel of "positive thinking", which ends up as the crass doctrine of how to get rich using "mind power". Having read now half of the book, I'm convinced most of this stuff really *is* bullshit, sorry to say. And as to whether any of it has something to do with a real structure of nature (i.e., whether "mind" has some causal efficacy independent of matter - a distinction one ought to first philosophically question, as James did), well, without a clear unpacking of the issues and evidence, one can more or less trim the fat of the popular "metaphysical" doctrines (mostly rubbish) to get to the the core empirical reality - which is likely missed even by these apparently venerable "hidden traditions". And that's what real science does: who cares about what traditions have said, practiced, believed, taught, etc. (the logic even of Socrates, who initiated, despite Plato's attempt to "hermeticize" the old man, a "rational" repudiation of the obscurantism of these kinds of "though-traditions"); let's get to the actual empirical core and then work with that. I've always said that gurus as well as ordinary folk might have made contact with what we now might call a "para-physical" reality, but most likely neither the sage nor the uninitiated "know" what it is, how it works, and how it relates to the rest of Nature. At best, we have just a poorly understood "techne" without actual knowledge. Precisely the sort of thing Socrates heckled his contemporaries about.Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-12612554902528771752023-10-18T16:23:43.184-07:002023-10-18T16:23:43.184-07:00Fair enough, but this argument that would be emplo...Fair enough, but this argument that would be employed by the initiates, presupposes an efficacy (causal or otherwise) that simply wouldn't be granted in the first place by outsiders (e.g. by the uninitiated).Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-16688705293562151222023-10-18T10:12:06.623-07:002023-10-18T10:12:06.623-07:00PS re "a hidden truth which has been (perhaps...PS re "a hidden truth which has been (perhaps willfully or maliciously) obscured and suppressed by the forces of the uninitiated, the ignorant." That's half the story, however. The "suppression" also arises from the initiates, who argue that some occult knowledge is positively dangerous in ignorant minds -- like handing a loaded gun to a child. The issue here isn't "democracy," it's concern for the general welfare. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-24933514814818766942023-10-18T09:58:53.221-07:002023-10-18T09:58:53.221-07:00I don't know how to respond to your critique e...I don't know how to respond to your critique except to say I don't read MH for philosophy or history. Relating to his areas of interest, he is l'homme engagé in Maulraux's sense, and so his journey of engagement is as much of interest to me as the ideas he explores and promotes. And he's a fluent, lively writer. I don't have much standing to speak of philosophical issues, but I've found MH's grasp of history generally reliable in terms of consensus views, and his dissents from consensus I often agree with, based on my own study. He's intelligent and well read, rational and responsible, and for those qualities alone he's a breath of fresh air in the often stultifying field of "the occult." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-91772620483208674252023-10-04T17:08:40.489-07:002023-10-04T17:08:40.489-07:00For sure: it's a gem that needs much wider app...For sure: it's a gem that needs much wider appreciation. I'm savoring the work now, and it's definitely influencing my own thinking going forward (as I myself gather my ideas for a book)...Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-68134698272962243952023-10-04T14:10:24.738-07:002023-10-04T14:10:24.738-07:00Heartened by the recognition you extend to Brenda ...Heartened by the recognition you extend to Brenda Denzler's work. Over the years people have asked me to recommend indispensable books on UFO/paranormal. THE LURE OF THE EDGE is on my Top Ten list. It remains as salient today as the day it was published. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-76680673705064917902023-10-01T08:00:04.852-07:002023-10-01T08:00:04.852-07:00Mike, another very thoughtful, on target analysis ...Mike, another very thoughtful, on target analysis of the circular problem involved in getting UAP science going: There's no good evidence, but that's because evidence-generating institutions and funders (universities, NSF, etc.) refuse to legitimate such research because there's supposedly no "there" to the UFO, and that's because there's no good evidence. Gads.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-18574169400742141612023-08-04T09:38:09.613-07:002023-08-04T09:38:09.613-07:00Thank you for this excellent overview of this port...Thank you for this excellent overview of this portion of Archives II, Mike! Wish I could have been there in person with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-72240236939311172302023-08-02T14:11:39.374-07:002023-08-02T14:11:39.374-07:00As has been pointed out already by several others ...As has been pointed out already by several others (including Kean in multiple interviews on her story), in connection specifically with this issue, the DOPSR clearing the story/narrative only means that it contains nothing which would compromise the nat'l security of the U.S.; it therefore confers neither approbation nor confirmation of the content of narrative itself. That is, DOPSR's approval for release doesn't increase or decrease the probability that what Grusch is saying is true (that much is clear). So I guess my answer is that your reading of the DOPSR clearing is perhaps too strong: their clearance doesn't mean that "nothing he said is considered 'secret' by the U.S. defense establishment" but rather, more weakly: that nothing he said compromises nat'l security, which is a different standard. Remember, Grusch has not been specific about names, or places; in open sessions/hearing, all he says is that someone said that X, or there is a facility with Y, or that he has seen some set of unspecified documents which show evidence for Z, or that there are photos (or vidoes) showing something that suggests nonhuman tech, and so on ... all carefully and effectively redacted information for discussion in the open public domain, before Congress. Now, the real money is in his allegedly much more specific disclosure to the Inspectors General of the DoD and IC. There he gives names, locations ... details we all would love to know, so we could potentially independently verify. But that's all classified. Hence, the (familiar) problem...Mike Cifonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910256379002179502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-77720501171909986302023-08-02T07:44:18.935-07:002023-08-02T07:44:18.935-07:00How does your thinking jive with the fact that Gru...How does your thinking jive with the fact that Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose, and the DOPSR _cleared_ his "revelations", i.e., nothing he has said is considered "secret" by the U.S. defense establishment?Bryan Senteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04989715661418188351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7235611048140260044.post-83556172108082536042023-08-01T21:16:34.091-07:002023-08-01T21:16:34.091-07:00Good piece! Good piece! Michael Redmondnoreply@blogger.com