Cant Make This Up: A History Podcast

My post here is long, but important to those who care about this stuff (albeit it won't be popular to many): I am sorry to say, but this clipped video being passed around (see tweet below) is not accurate, and with respect to David Grusch (who I did really enjoy watching in this documentary style interview), it is, in my opinion, being misrepresented to prove a point. Sadly, that point is easily negated, with proof. I know that won't stop the general public cheering Mr. Grusch on that he pulled a fast one on the DoD, but I just don't see it and it's unfortunate it's being misrepresented, and here's why: Mr. Grusch states in his hypothetical, when asked about DOPSR, that a 3-letter agency will cite a "Security Classification Guide" (SCG) and it can be litigated after to fight any erroneous rejections/redactions. And then Mr. Grusch stated he would just "publish that" and the "public could make it's own interpretation" out of that SCG reference; three letter agency reference; and redaction(s) on his original request. Again, I'm sorry - that's all not accurate on how it would play out. First, an SCG cited does not have to be made public, at all. Below, I attached a couple examples of classified documents which I forced the declassification of (in part) prior to their declass dates, and these records show the government can easily exempt from public view where the classification decisions derive from. That practice shields the public from seeing exactly what Mr. Grusch stated he would've have shown if he was denied being allowed to speak about "crash retrievals". There is no proof that DOPSR was put in any "catch-22" situation. It's just not how that works. Second, I'll take Mr. Grusch at his word that his DOPSR request is "redacted" for his use should DOPSR decide to do object to some of his material; but that doesn't make sense, either. They wouldn't just redact two words like "crash retrieval" (to stick with his hypothetical) but leave enough inference for the public to figure out what was redacted. Instead, they would mark out entire sections ensuring that classified information was not published by Grusch, and the public would not be able to deduce what it was. There are countless examples of how redactions are made in the context of national security/classified information released spanning decades. Third, if Mr. Grusch received that push back on what he wanted to speak about, he wouldn't be able to turn around and start hinting or crutching the public along to make an "interpretation" off of the scraps he could publish. He'd have to remain silent on those issues, as I am sure we all can agree on. So, to think the public would figure out anything with heavy redactions if this was classified; and try to figure out what citation is being referenced for the classified material withheld when it could easily be redacted, is kind of silly. The public would very much be in the dark on these larger claims if they were truly classified and Mr. Grusch received push back. We can't verify many of the claims Mr. Grusch says, another point I feel we can all agree on, but in situations where we can (like using DOPSR policy/procedures to verify his DOPSR-related claims) and it doesn't quite match to provable fact; this roots my skepticism as it should yours. He seems like a great guy, who truly believes what he has learned from others. He's also incredibly intelligent, as evidenced now by this newest video, his first appearance on NewsNation, and his testimony at the UAP hearing. But his bigger claims remain unproven, and when these smaller issues show concern, I wonder about the rest. I don't feel he's just fabricating as he goes and is "lying". But, something doesn't seem right. I will still give those bigger and more grandiose claims a chance as time goes on. But, stuff like this needs to be pointed out, whether it is popular, or not. Should I see any proof to the contrary, I am happy to correct this. P.S. We still have yet to see Mr. Grusch's DOPSR request, yet here is another instance where he refers to it and it's part of the story. Why can't we see for ourselves what the DoD is allowing him to say? It's all cleared... so, why can't we see it?