Mar 23Liked by Steve Skojec


The story on the excommunication of the deacon in the Diocese of Lafayette really hurts. The bishop was my parish priest years ago. Maybe we don't know all the details, but this seems very unjust. Could the Bishop's response have been different? Something along the lines of "I am praying for you in this difficult time you are experiencing. I respect you decision to step away from the ministry of the deaconate, and will consider your ministry suspended for now. However, you are a child of God and a disciple of Christ. You are a member of the Body of Christ. I cannot give you any answers at this time to heal your wounds, but I will continue to pray for you. Your wounds are very real. I desire to help you find healing. My door is always open. Please feel free to visit with me at any time. Your brother in Christ."

Expand full comment

That seems reasonable.

Expand full comment

Correct me if I'm wrong (please!), but my understanding is no members of the Nazi regime in Germany were excommunicated. For better or worse, you don't get excommunicated for sin, no matter how awful, but read the wrong books and you're in trouble.

Expand full comment

No, there was a mass excommunication circa 1932 or 1933. It was de facto rescinded after the civil service was required to join the party.

Expand full comment

Thank you!

I did not know that.

Expand full comment
Mar 22·edited Mar 22

>> So, if we at least grant the possibility that this story is true — and Grusch has proven himself by every measure to be a credible guy with standup bona fides

Every measure? I think you're being more than a little kind to the man. At the least you're ignoring the mental illness (he's been committed twice, according to Wikipedia).

Grusch has, as far as I know, produced not a single piece of actual evidence to support his story. And let's remember this guy claimed alien spaceships might come from "other dimensions", which definitely moves him out of the "credible" category for me. I mean, what the hell does that even mean?

9 months ago, in a previous article on Grusch, I said "By next year, there will be no results whatsoever from this kerfuffle, except for the usual grifters looking for a few dollars, or maybe a book and/or a movie deal, based on their claims that the nefarious "they" are concealing the overwhelming evidence of space aliens."

It's tempting to congratulate myself pretty hard, except, well, it's like predicting that water will wet.

Expand full comment

He suffered from combat and fatality related PTSD and related alcohol abuse. He had a friend die in the line of duty, and another kill himself shortly after they had a phone conversation. He sought treatment and was fully cleared and kept his clearances.

Trauma responses are not insanity, even if they are classed as a kind of mental illness.

And he provided evidence and witnesses to the inspector general of the intelligence community, who testified in closed session with cleared members of Congress. The ICIG also deemed Grusch’s claims “credible and urgent” based on his own classified testimony and that of witnesses.

The fact that classified evidence has not been made public is not surprising.

The Pentagon has been actively obfuscating. Both Sean Kirkpatrick and Susan Gough have been caught either outright lying or using evasive semantics to deceive.

When an institution is accused of corruption and malfeasance, you don’t ask that institution (especially when it has the power to classify and intimidate) to investigate itself.

Multiple members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have said that’s what’s happening here. Some have claimed to have seen evidence themselves.

The push to form a new UAP investigative committee in Congress just dropped in the last week.

The evidence will only come after a fight to get it from those who are accused of illegally concealing it, which should be obvious.

So maybe chill out and don’t throw yourself a party just yet.

Expand full comment

PTSD is connected to maladaptive daydreaming -- I know nothing about the details of his issues, but if, as you say, he suffers from PTSD, then there's an obvious potential connection.

Expand full comment

Again, he was psychologically cleared to maintain his top level clearances. He used to work on and deliver the Presidential Daily Briefing to the White House, so he was cleared at the highest level.

Expand full comment

I hear you; but rational people do not talk about spaceships from "extra dimensions" and then bring up the holographic principle. Rational people don't claim Benito Mussolini's government recovered an alien spacecraft and the Vatican scored it for the US government.

Further, this is entirely an "appeal to authority", there isn't a shred of physical evidence to support Grusch. The pope speaks with a great deal of authority and certainty when he talks about Satan (and I'm sure his listeners would describe him as “credible and urgent”), but that doesn't mean Satan actually exists.

Expand full comment

Certainly, rational people bring such things up, if they are scientific theories they've been exposed to. He was only saying it was one hypothesis, not that it was what he believed was the case.

Eric Weinstein said on his most recent appearance on the Modern Wisdom podcast that he talks to Grusch, and that this kind of accusation isn't fair to him.

"David Grusch knows that he's a physics BA, he knows he's not a PhD, he's repeating things that have been said to him. He had the presence of mind to try to give an example of what 'interdimensional' might mean, and he used holography, and so as a result everyone's making, 'Oh, David Grusch says holographic interdimensional beings..." This is absurd, and it's not fair to David Grusch. I'm telling you. I mean we can call David up right now and I promise you he's not going to back this madness."

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_swB_KS8Hw&t=3360s)

Your second paragraph doesn't really even rise to the level of an argument. He's a whistleblower giving testimony under oath about a program that has been illegally kept secret from the legislative body that is unknowingly funding it through misdirected appropriations. He brought the existence of the program and the lack of appropriate oversight and the illegal concealment even from those who are read in and/or have a need to know to the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG), and his claims were, again, deemed 'credible and urgent' and the ICIG had a classified briefing with members of Congress in January to update them on what he knows.

I've got a crying toddler who needs me so I'll end it here.

Expand full comment

The second paragraph was heading for a theme that runs through these kinds of claims, "appeal to authority". Someone with authority knows something to be true, but can't provide evidence because of "reasons".

Let's recap some of Grusch's claim: a decades long, international conspiracy to hide multiple alien encounters, ships and biologics, plus the killing of US citizens to protect the secret. Grusch is a former intelligence office, so he knows what he's talking about. At the least, huge and transformative information.

Grusch provides no evidence for the claim, but asserts he is in possession of evidence, specifically, the 40 witnesses who have seen the ships, the documents and the photographs he's only heard about.

Grusch could simply read the list of names into the Congressional Record, or list them as part of his other media publications. Is there a credible reason why Grusch didn't release those names?

Is Grusch protecting the witnesses? That's not a credible argument, unless we are willing to believe the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, insert more-TLA-word-salad, can't figure out who Grusch talked to while he was working for them over the past 5 years. Conversations with Grusch's boss and co-workers would be enlightening at the least.

Is Grusch protecting himself? Grusch informed the federal government he was going to spill the beans about UFOs years (that's right, years) before he did so, giving the government ample opportunity to kill him. And besides, the perfect defense to having a Boeing-whistleblower kind of weekend is to release the names, not to tease that you might release them at a later time.

Did Grusch do something illegal? Congress can grant Grusch immunity and Grusch can't be prosecuted at a federal level.

Does Grusch think releasing the names won't be sufficient? We can confidently predict a media frenzy over those names, and denial isn't possible. Especially when your ex gets interviewed and says "Yup, aliens are real, my partner told me about the ships, and having three eyes is just creepy." Especially when we consider how hard it would be for 40 people to all stonewall at the same time.

I dunno, maybe Grusch did a pinkie-swear not to give out the names, but that means believing 40 people told Grusch about the football-field sized alien ships over drinks, without any expectation he might pass that information along to other interested parties.

In short, Grusch makes a claim based on his authority, but refuses to provide evidence in his possession. If he provides those names, we either have a bunch of evidence, or we know Grusch has nothing. And when someone makes a claim but refuses to provide evidence, I know which way I'm going to bet.

Here, I'll toss the ball back. What is a credible argument why Grusch has refused to provide the evidence in his possession?

Expand full comment