Deception Through Disclosure Part 1: Decoding the Grusch Enigma
By Paul and Phillip Collins (originally published on canadianpatriot.org)
In his poem “Marmion,” Sir Walter Scott wrote the following: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive.” Those verses come to mind whenever these writers explore the background of the more recent crop of so-called UFO whistleblowers. Even a cursory examination of these individuals reveals an intricate constellation of institutions and personages commonly associated with covert political power. United States Air Force officer and former intelligence official David Grusch is no exception to that rule. In June of 2023, he emerged from obscurity making wild claims regarding UFOs.
Grusch comes with credentials that have caused many to take his claims seriously, even though his allegations seem to be derivative of overused themes that have been in the UFO community since its very inception. Grusch is a decorated veteran of the Afghanistan War and has served with the Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) (Kean and Blumenthal). According to the June 5, 2023 Debrief article over the Grusch revelations, Grusch acted as the NRO’s representative to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force from 2019 to 2021 (ibid). While with the NGA, Grusch was the representative to the UAP Task Force and the agency’s co-lead for UAP analysis from late 2021 to July 2022 (ibid). These aspects of Grusch’s background are, of course, significant resume builders that help convince the public that his claims are legitimate.
It is the June 5, 2023 Debrief article penned by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal that first placed Grusch in the spotlight. It should be noted that before providing the Debrief with the information he wished to make public, Grusch first presented it to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, which is part and parcel of the Department of Defense (DOD) bureaucracy (ibid). After review by the office, Grusch’s on-the-record statements were “cleared for open publication” (ibid). This suggests that there are people in the DOD who want Grusch’s claims of craft retrieval and reverse-engineering to be disseminated to the public. Some would say that elements within the DOD simply want the truth to finally be known by their fellow Americans. Seasoned researchers who have seen this dance before, however, would argue that the release of Grusch’s information is fueled by less than altruistic motives.
Grusch is alleging the existence of UFO “legacy programs” (ibid). These programs, Grusch asserts, have been hidden in “multiple agencies nesting UAP activities in conventional secret access programs without appropriate reporting to various oversight authorities” (ibid). He also claims to have reported to Congress that there has been a “publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material – a competition with near-peer adversaries over the years to identify UAP crashes/landings and retrieve the material for exploitation/reverse engineering to garner asymmetric national defense advantages” (ibid). This unknown Cold War, according to Grusch, has lasted several decades (ibid).
Much is made of Grusch’s interaction with Congress, which supposedly produced “hours of recorded classified information transcribed into hundreds of pages which included specific data about the materials recovery program” (ibid). It is important to note, though, that Grusch’s reports to Congress are not accompanied by evidence. The Debrief article states: “Congress has not been provided with any physical materials related to wreckage or other non-human objects” (ibid). Also significant is the fact that Grusch’s assertions regarding UFOs are not the product of his firsthand experience. Michael Shellenberger made this clear in his June 7, 2023 substack article over Grusch. Shellenberger wrote: “Grusch’s claims are shocking, and he has not made public any photographs, video, or written evidence to support them. He says he never saw any of the alleged non human spacecraft himself” (Shellenberger). Everything that Grusch contends about a materials recovery program and reverse-engineering, according to Kean and Blumenthal, comes from “extensive interviews with high-level intelligence officials, some of whom are directly involved with the program” (Kean and Blumenthal). This all, of course, begs the question: who are these “high level intelligence officials” and how can we be sure they are not just using Grusch as a witting or unwitting disinformation conduit?
Apparently, even Grusch contemplated the possibility that the UFO information he had received was all lies. In an interview with NewsNation, Grusch stated: “I thought it was totally nuts and I thought at first I was being deceived, it was a ruse” (Entin). Somehow, Grusch was able to overcome his doubts and release his revelations. What facilitated the change of heart? Did Grusch come to actually believe what intelligence officials had told him? Or did he decide to willingly participate in a disinformation campaign? Grusch’s motives alone will provide fodder for debate for years to come.
There are two troubling aspects to Grusch’s claims. The first is the previously noted conspicuous lack of any evidence to support the allegations. The more one looks into Grusch’s sensational assertions, the more one has to admit that they conform to the definition of hearsay. Hearsay, of course, seldom constitutes hard evidence of anything because of the absence of the person being quoted. While helpful, hearsay is hardly a smoking gun. The second disturbing aspect of Grusch’s claims is the fact that they are being treated as novel when, in fact, they are nothing new. Accounts of crash retrievals and reverse-engineering have been with the UFO community since the 1947 Roswell incident. Adam Gabbatt put it best in his analysis of the Grusch case for the Guardian newspaper. He described Grusch’s claims of government suppression of UFOs as “a common conspiracy trope in the UFO community” (Gabbatt). That description is very true. Everyone from Timothy Good to Clifford Stone has talked about retrieval efforts that hide the truth about UFOs from the public. The repetitious nature of this trope has even been noted by U.S. Representative Mike Turner, a Congressman from Ohio who is part of the “Gang of Eight,” described by the Dayton Daily News as “the eight Congressional leaders who are briefed on the most sensitive classified intelligence questions by the executive branch” (Gnau). While appearing on Bret Baier’s Fox’s Special Report, Turner made the following observation:
“Bret, this has been a story since the 1960s. Really every decade there have been individuals who have said that the United States has such pieces of unidentified flying objects that are from outer space. There is no evidence of this. And certainly, there (would) be quite a conspiracy for this to be maintained, especially at this level. (ibid)”
Turner’s remarks regarding the trope promoted by Grusch are certainly salient. The question is: who wants this trope to now gain significant traction with the public? The answer may actually be buried in the Debrief article responsible for transforming Grusch into the UFO community’s latest celebrity. The article states that “Grusch is represented by Charles McCullough III, senior partner of the Compass Rose Legal Group in Washington” (Kean and Blumenthal). The Compass Rose Legal Group also released a June 9, 2023 statement regarding its representation of Grusch. The statement says that Compass Rose Legal Group represented Grusch “on matters limited to his reasonable belief that elements of the Intelligence Community improperly withheld or concealed alleged classified information from the U.S. Congress” (“Statement on Compass Rose Legal Group’s Successfully Concluded Representation of Former Client David Grusch”). The statement continues: “The firm filed a narrowly-scoped whistleblower disclosure with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (‘ICIG’) and associated personnel matters – and had represented Mr. Grusch since February 2022” (ibid).
The Compass Rose Legal Group is more than just a Washington-based national security law firm. It also appears to be a repository for spooks. The founder and managing partner of Compass Rose Legal Group is Andrew Bakaj, a former intelligence officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (Andrew P. Bakaj, Esq.”). Bakaj left the CIA in 2014 (although it is common knowledge that CIA officers seldom break their ties entirely with the Agency) (McLaughlin). His departure was marked by scandal. Bakaj had been an attorney with the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General (ibid). During his time with that office, Bakaj and others raised concerns of evidence tampering in the CIA Inspector General’s office (ibid). The claims originated with colleagues of Bakaj who came to him with their concerns (ibid). According to Yahoo News National Security and Investigations reporter Jenna McLaughlin, Bakaj, acting on behalf of his colleagues, began asserting “that multiple senior employees at the CIA inspector general’s office were involved in facilitating or covering up evidence mishandling in one of its investigations of a contractor” (ibid). These allegations compelled Bakaj to speak with colleagues at the intelligence community inspector general’s office (ICIG) (ibid). Eventually, the claims reached Congressional ears and trouble began for Bakaj (ibid). McLaughlin elaborates:
Bakaj’s superiors at the CIA watchdog office subsequently interfered in interviews with the ICIG, according to the sources, in order to try and find out who the whistleblowers were. Afterward, Bakaj’s security clearance was suspended and he was put on administrative leave. He didn’t work for over a year before he decided to retire and enter private practice — he is now a managing partner at Compass Rose Legal Group… (ibid)
Five years later, an external review of Bakaj’s case found that the former attorney with the CIA Office of the Inspector General had, in fact, been the target of a retaliatory investigation (ibid). For many, this review, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), vindicates Bakaj (ibid). These writers, however, are not so sure. Firstly, the DHS Office of the Inspector General’s unclassified Investigative Summary states that the external review was ordered by then-ICIG Charles McCullough (“DHS OIG Investigative Summary: CIA OIG Employee Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint”). McCullough would go on to become a Senior Partner at Bakaj’s Compass Rose Legal Group (“I. Charles McCullough III, Esq.”). Were Bakaj and McCullough already allies at the time of Bakaj’s ouster from the CIA watchdog office? Did McCullough order the DHS OIG investigation to find out the truth, or merely to attack Bakaj’s enemies within the CIA Office of the Inspector General? The DHS OIG Investigative Summary also states that the CIA OIG’s “retaliatory investigation” of Bakaj successfully “discovered other, unrelated derogatory information, which it used” (“DHS OIG Investigative Summary: CIA OIG Employee Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint”). What was the exact nature of the “derogatory information” that CIA OIG dug up on Bakaj? Was Bakaj really a concerned civil servant unduly attacked by his superiors when he exposed wrongdoing at the CIA OIG? Or was his ouster from CIA OIG merely the consequence that results from participation in the internecine conflicts that characterize CIA culture?
Whatever the answer to those questions may be, one thing is for certain: Compass Rose Legal Group is not a protagonist on the political stage. The group claims to be a national security law firm, but its high volume of former intelligence officials suggests that it is really something of a legal appendage of the American deep state. Some of its personnel possess backgrounds that are best described as nefarious. Take, for instance, Mark Zaid. Following his departure from the CIA OIG, Bakaj was represented by Zaid (McLaughlin). Zaid is an attorney who focuses on national security law. His website states that he “often represents former/current federal employees, intelligence and military officers, whistleblowers and others who have grievances or have been wronged by agencies of the United States Government or foreign governments” (“Mark S. Zaid, P.C.”). Zaid’s website also states that he “teaches the D.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education classes on ‘Defending Security Clearances’” (ibid).
John Kiriakou, the former CIA analyst and case officer who confirmed that waterboarding was being employed in the interrogation of terror suspects, describes Zaid in less than flattering terms. According to Kiriakou, “Zaid is literally the worst possible choice for any whistleblower in national security” (Kiriakou). In support of this contention, Kiriakou points out Zaid’s role in the downfall of Jeffrey Alexander Sterling (ibid). Sterling served in the CIA between 1993 and 2002 (Isikoff). In 2011, Sterling incurred the wrath of the United States government when he was charged by the Justice Department with leaking information regarding a CIA effort to undermine Iran’s nuclear program (ibid). Allegedly, Sterling provided details of the effort, known as “Operation Merlin,” to journalist James Risen (ibid). Subsequently, those details appeared in Risen’s 2006 book, State of War (ibid). Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff summarizes the portrait painted of “Operation Merlin” in State of War:
Risen described it as a botched attempt under the Clinton administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program by giving flawed blueprints for key components to a Russian nuclear scientist who had defected. The idea was that the Russian scientist, who was covertly working for the CIA, would feed the flawed designs to the Iranians. But according to the book, the CIA’s efforts went awry when the scientist got nervous and instead tipped off the Iranians to the flaws in the designs. According to Risen, this ended up helping Iran “accelerate its weapon development.” (ibid)
For a short period of time, Sterling was represented by Zaid (Kiriakou). According to Kiriakou, however, Zaid quickly shifted from the role of defense attorney to informant, costing Sterling his freedom (ibid). Kiriakou writes:
Zaid briefly represented CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, who was accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times’ James Risen. But while the FBI was looking at three different people as Risen’s possible source, Zaid sent a letter to the FBI saying, “I think my client is guilty.” The FBI dropped the other two investigations and focused only on Sterling, who went to trial, consistently protested his innocence, was convicted, and spent three-and-a-half years in prison. (ibid)
Kiriakou also calls attention to his own personal experience with Zaid. In 2007, right after Kiriakou blew the whistle on the CIA’s employment of torture, Zaid became the former CIA officer’s legal representation (ibid). That arrangement, however, was short-lived. Zaid was fired two weeks after becoming Kiriakou’s attorney (ibid). Kiriakou claims that he fired Zaid because the national security lawyer “was impulsive, unnecessarily confrontational and untrustworthy” (ibid). Later, Zaid actually aligned himself with one of Kiriakou’s enemies: journalist Matthew Cole (ibid). Kiriakou elaborates:
Four years later, he was representing Matthew Cole, the “journalist” who was secretly working for the Guantanamo defense attorneys, the man who ratted me out to the FBI, which led to my arrest and to two years in prison. Cole told the FBI that I was his source who told him the name of a CIA officer involved in the torture program.
Not only did Zaid represent Cole, but both he and Cole testified against me in grand jury proceedings in 2012. How this man still has a law license is an utter mystery to me. (ibid)
Kiriakou is puzzled by Zaid’s longevity in the legal profession. He states: “How this man still has a law license is an utter mystery to me” (ibid). Kiriakou concludes that Zaid must be some kind of operative who is still connected to the murky world of intelligence. He writes:
But he’s [Zaid] thrived in Washington. He makes most of his money representing people who have books jammed up in the CIA’s pre-publication review process. He handles a lot of “insider issues” like security clearances and trying to smooth ruffled Intelligence Community feathers. But he’s clearly an inside man. (ibid)
Kiriakou’s assessment of Zaid appear to be not too far from the mark. Zaid seems to be playing a game all too familiar to covert operators, masquerading as a national security lawyer when, in fact, he is a shill for the national security state. There are other aspects of Zaid’s background that are somewhat sketchy. A November 7, 2019 ZeroHedge article brought attention to a YouTube channel in the name of Mark S. Zaid Esq. that feature “liked” videos of “Disney Girls” (Durden). The ZeroHedge article also points out that Zaid has stated on Twitter that he likes going to children’s theme parks alone. The Tweet in question reads: “One does not need kids to be all the Disney one needs and wants to be” (ibid). The Tweet includes several pictures of Zaid posing at the theme park with Disney characters (ibid).
Most appalling is a discovery by Twitter users that Zaid has boasted about getting security clearances “for guys who had child porn issues” (ibid). Zaid’s Tweet reads: “I’ve gotten security clearances for guys who had child porn issues” (ibid). The problems with this from a counterintelligence perspective should be fairly obvious. Compromised individuals who receive a security clearance and are then placed in sensitive positions can then be blackmailed into leaking sensitive information or engaging in other criminal activities.
ZeroHedge concludes its report on Zaid with the following statement: “And people wonder why the Department of Defense has a massive pedophile problem” (ibid). This is a reference to a 2019 investigation conducted by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) (Brown). That investigation identified “hundreds of DOD-affiliated individuals” as suspects in child pornography cases (ibid). The DCIS investigation came on the heels of a 2018 investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program (ibid). According to a July 3, 2019 article in Reason magazine, that inquiry concluded that “DOD computers were among the top networks nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD’s network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks studied” (ibid).
The majority of recent UFO revelations claim the Pentagon, the headquarters to America’s Department of Defense (DOD), as their point of origin. A series of Pentagon UFO videos have received considerable media coverage since 2017. In addition, Luis Elizondo, a UFO “whistleblower” who has made countless appearances on major media outlets, claims that he worked in a program that investigated UFO reports that was housed “on the fifth floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, deep within the building’s maze” (Cooper, Blumenthal, and Kean). Given the fact that the Pentagon is an epicenter for both pedophiles and dubious UFO disclosures, one has to wonder if there are compromised individuals who have been blackmailed into participating in recent UFO deception efforts.
Believe it or not, sexual entrapment and blackmail enjoy an overlap with UFO deception. Possible employment of blackmail reared its ugly head in the 1947 Maury Island incident. In that case, Harold Dahl, a harbor patrolman, claimed that on June 21, 1947, at approximately 2 p.m., he saw doughnut-shaped aircraft while sailing in the Maury Island bay. One of the craft appeared to be damaged and was spewing hot slag-like debris that injured a worker and killed Dahl’s dog. Dahl’s testimony became the basis for the Maury Island incident, which is one of the most famous UFO cases after Roswell. Years later, Dahl’s widow, Helen Dahl, voiced her suspicions that her husband had been blackmailed by his superior officer, Fred Crisman, the likely architect of the Maury Island incident and, later, a suspected participant in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Thomas 111). Helen, once stated: “Something happened in the late 1960s to change the relationship between my husband and Fred. Fred began calling the shots. It’s possible that Fred was blackmailing Hal [Harold’s nickname]” (111). Researcher Kenn Thomas asserts that Crisman was already controlling Dahl in June of 1947 when the Maury Island incident occurred. Thomas writes: “It should be recalled, however, that Dahl owned the boat upon which he had his UFO encounter but nevertheless reported to his ‘boss,’ Fred Crisman. Crisman dominated the relationship even in 1947” (111). If the blackmail theory is correct, it would help explain how Crisman was able to get Dahl to cooperate in creating the outlandish Maury Island myth. In addition, if Crisman was employing blackmail in his attempt create an elaborate UFO myth, then he may have been doing so at the behest of covert political circles. Crisman may have begun developing links to the covert world while serving in World War Two. Mark Pilkington writes: “During the Second World War, Crisman had flown with the Army Air Force in south-east Asia and the Pacific and was rumoured to have worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) – a US intelligence agency” (Pilkington 36-37). Subsequent to the war, Crisman lived a life that was characterized by mystery, political skullduggery, and high strangeness related to the UFO phenomenon. Pilkington elaborates:
Crisman led a short, colorful and eventful life. His name crops up in District Attormey Jim Garrison’s controversial investigation into the JFK assassination. Garrison claimed Crisman was working as an undercover agent in the arms world, and may even have been present at Kennedy’s assassination. He would later involve himself in Washington and Oregon state politics, where he earned a reputation as a troublemaker and was constantly dogged by rumours of intelligence connections: Crisman certainly fits the slippery profile of a CIA hired hand. He would return to the UFO scene in the late 1960s, a time of increased national interest in the subject, promoting Maury Island as a genuine UFO incident, before dying in 1975, aged fifty-six, leaving a legacy of mystery behind him. (37)
Was the Maury Island incident a hoax perpetrated by Crisman to further the agenda of deep state actors? If it was, did Crisman employ some form of blackmail to successfully produce the hoax? The possibility must be considered, given many of the problematic features of Crisman’s life.
An even more compelling case is that of Robert Lazar, the extremely suspicious businessman who claimed to have worked on reverse engineering extraterrestrial technology at a secret installation known as “S-4.” The site is located by the highly classified United States Air Force facility known as Area-51. Interest in Area 51 is being revitalized in UFO circles by Grusch’s claims. Sources that shared information with Grusch have contended that Area 51 is among the locations where the Pentagon and military contractors “store nonhuman spacecraft” (Shellenberger).
In 1990, Lazar pled guilty to a felony charge of pandering in District Court (Bates). It was revealed that Lazar “had recruited a local known prostitute and encouraged her to solicit customers” (ibid). The prostitute, a woman named Toni Bulloch, received help from Lazar in establishing her business and modernizing the outfit’s computers (ibid). Most startling was the revelation that Lazar kept computer records of Bulloch’s customers (ibid). A police investigation discovered that “Lazar videotaped customers and maintained records of their license plates numbers” (ibid). All of the sudden, Lazar appeared to be more like a cloak-and-dagger type than a UFO whistleblower.
According to Gene Huff, Bulloch told Lazar that “she had an ongoing affair with a member of Las Vegas Metro Vice and that as long as she didn’t do outcalls to the hotels, vice would turn their heads and allow her to operate” (Huff). It appears that elements of law enforcement were running a protection racket for people and activities at Las Vegas hotels. Huff writes: “It is unknown whose interest these cops were protecting in the hotels” (ibid). Bulloch also allegedly told Lazar that she was an informant for the FBI, DEA, and Las Vegas Metro (ibid). Authorities investigating Lazar’s involvement with Bulloch’s brothel claimed that there was no evidence that he was using the intelligence collected on brothel clients for blackmail purposes (Bates). No explanation, however, was provided by law enforcement for the brothel’s collection of dossiers. Unless entrapment and blackmail were the motives driving intelligence gathering at the brothel, maintaining records and videotaping clients makes absolutely no sense. Was law enforcement covering up sexual entrapment and blackmail aspects of the case to conceal a connection to local and federal law enforcement? It is interesting to note that the judge presiding over Lazar’s case allowed the UFO whistleblower to select his charge (Merritt). Another curious aspect of the case was the fact that Lazar was reluctant to plead guilty and only did so after being coaxed by a deputy district attorney (Bates). Obviously, some negotiations took place and deals were made behind closed doors. It may be that Lazar agreed to take credit for Bulloch’s brothel in order to conceal the involvement of federal and local law enforcement agencies. Lazar could have received a sentence of one to six years of incarceration and a possible $5000 fine (ibid). Instead, he received a sentence of three years’ probation and community service (Huff). Cooperation, it seems, has its rewards.
What are the odds that a man would go from working at an installation known for its numerous ties to intelligence and the military to stumbling accidentally into a highly connected prostitution ring that was, from all appearances, collecting intelligence and damning information on its clients? A normy who has nothing for conspiracy theories would even have problems with such an assertion. Again, the case for a significant overlap between UFO disinformation efforts and sexual entrapment and blackmail operations is very compelling.
Lazar, incidentally, claims as an associate a UFO disinformation conduit who has insinuated himself into the David Grusch case: Jeremy Corbell. In 2018, Corbell wrote and directed a documentary about Lazar’s UFO revelations entitled Bob Lazar: Area 51 and Flying Saucers (“Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers”). After propping up Lazar as a UFO “smoking gun,” Corbell moved on to transforming Grusch into the latest UFO “Holy Grail.” Corbell was one of several colorful and suspicious characters seated behind Grusch when the former intelligence official testified before a July 26, 2023 Congressional hearing on UFOs (“’This gives me hope’: UFO filmmaker speaks on whistleblower’s account of sightings”). During an NBC interview regarding Grusch’s revelations, Corbell could barely contain his elation, stating that July 26, 2023 “was a historic day,” all thanks to the Grusch’s testimony (ibid). Corbell also boldly declared: “David Grusch is telling you how it is, whether or not you can accept it” (ibid). The filmmaker claims that he and television investigative journalist George Knapp were the first individuals to vet Grusch (ibid). So, needless to say, Corbell has a lot riding on Grusch.
An example of Corbell’s role as a UFO disinformation agent was provided on April 8, 2021, when the filmmaker released footage of what he described as “’pyramid’ shaped UFOs and advanced transmedium vehicles” (Corbell). According to Corbell, the footage and a May 1, 2020, Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) classified briefing that allegedly provides context were obtained through “an anonymous data drop” (ibid). There is no indication that Corbell raised any questions regarding the identity or motives of his anonymous source. Disturbingly, Corbell seems to be a magnet for this variety of “evidence.” Corbell writes: “As an investigative filmmaker and journalist working in the field of UFO research – I receive anonymous communications and data drops on a daily basis” (ibid). How does Corbell go about authenticating such material? The filmmaker provides no information regarding his means and methods of review. Researcher Jack Brewer highlights this fact in his assessment of the material released by Corbell. Brewer observes:
“Substantial detail is put forth about the alleged context of the images and video footage, described by Corbell as coming from a May 1, 2020, Office of Naval Intelligence classified briefing. No further information about the vetting process is offered, however, than Corbell’s reference to information “articulated” to him by “those familiar with the briefing.” The names or specific roles of such people are not provided. Corbell similarly goes on without justification to assert the “impressive provenance” of the material while explaining with confident certainty its otherwise quite unclear purposes” (Brewer).
According to an April 12, 2021 article in the U.S. Sun, “Pentagon officials…. confirmed the images were taken by US Navy personnel – but did not comment on the nature of the footage” (Fiorillo). The article goes on to share a statement from Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough. Concerning the footage, Gough states:
“I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations. As we have said before, to maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.” (ibid)
Corbell, may think Gough’s statement is a reason to crack a celebratory beer. The statement, however, is not an admission that the footage constitutes “smoking gun” evidence of extraterrestrials invading earth’s airspace. In fact, Gough refuses to say much more than that the footage in question was “taken by Navy personnel” (ibid). The only other significant fact concerning the footage that one can glean from Gough’s statement is that it has been the subject of a review by the UAP Task Force. The statement seems to indicate that the review is still in progress, which means that no conclusion has been reached regarding the footage. Gough does not comment on the nature of the vehicles and objects that appear in the footage and she remains silent regarding their point of origin. Her statement does not vindicate Corbell or his material in the least. The jury remains out, even though Corbell would have everyone believe that the gavel has come crashing down.
According to Brewer, “Questions were raised about how material from a classified briefing could be provided to Corbell. Similar questions arose about the apparent discussion of the contents of the briefing as portrayed at his website” (Brewer). Such queries are completely understandable. Acquiring and leaking classified material cannot be an easy task. While not impossible, such an endeavor is fraught with risk and difficulty. To address the issue, Brewer turned to Steven Aftergood, a veteran researcher of national security and classification policy with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) (ibid). In an email to Brewer, Aftergood made the following observations:
“It is entirely possible for a classified briefing to include unclassified parts. In fact, most classified documents do have at least some unclassified paragraphs or portions. In the UFO context, the question of authenticity is much more important than the question of classification. There is a history of fabricated documents and images that purport to show UFOs. If someone cannot reliably identify the source of their information because it is ‘classified,’ then that would count against its credibility.” (ibid)
Aftergood’s email to Brewer reiterates a point made by these authors and scores of other researchers: in the realm of UFOs, anonymity hurts credibility. That fact, however, did not stop Corbell’s source from concealing his or her identity. What is Corbell’s source trying to hide? Corbell’s unidentified informant may be just a prankster. However, the fact that some of the materials provided to Corbell originated with the United States government raises another possibility. Corbell’s anonymous data dumper may be a disinformation agent associated with covert circles within the government. If this is the case, anonymity is hiding a deep state puppeteer who helped place strings on Corbell. Grusch may be among the deep state actors who now pulls on those strings.
As was previously stated, Compass Rose Legal Group seems to be, to some extent, a repository for people coming out of the world of intelligence and the national security state.
In addition to former CIA officer Andrew Bakaj, there is the aforementioned Charles McCullough III, the senior partner of the Compass Rose Legal Group who also represented Grusch. Prior to joining Compass Rose Legal Group, McCullough was Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) and reported directly to then-Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper (“I. Charles McCullough III, Esq.”). McCullough may have relayed a subtle message regarding Grusch’s role as a tool of intelligence circles that are affiliated with Compass Rose Legal Firm when the so-called “whistleblower” appeared before the House Oversight Committee on July 26, 2023.
Fox News reports: “Charles McCullough, who was President Barack Obama’s former Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented Grusch in his Intelligence Community Inspector General complaint and was purposefully seated behind him during the July 26 hearing” (Eberhart, italics added). Was McCullough merely showing support for a man he had represented? Or was McCullough letting it be known that Grusch served forces within the murky world of intelligence that are aligned with Compass Rose Legal Group? McCullough seating behind Grusch during the July 26, 2023 proceedings may have been a subtle way of communicating that Grusch was a front for intelligence circles.
Grusch himself may have accidentally admitted to still being on contract with the government. In his opening statement before the congressional committee on July 26, 2023, Grusch stated that he was with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) “from 2021 to 2025” (“David Grusch Opening Statement at Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Hearing”). Grusch immediately realized what he had just said and corrected himself, stating that he had been with the NGA until 2023 (ibid). There are two possible explanations for this error. The mundane one holds that Grusch merely misspoke. The second holds that Grusch’s error was a moment of parapraxis, a betrayal of the fact that Grusch is still beholden to forces in the world of intelligence. Author Walter Bosley has entertained the second possibility, using his experience as a counterintelligence specialist with the San Francisco Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and as a Special Agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) as a frame of reference.
While appearing on the Beyond the Forbidden podcast, Bosley reviewed Grusch’s open statement (“Is UFO Whistleblower David Grusch still Under Contract? If so, who does he report to?!?”). For Bosley, Grusch’s curious verbal faux pas raised the possibility that Grusch had not entirely left the employ of intelligence agencies (ibid). “It’s very possible,” Bosley asserted, further stating that Grusch and the rest of the current crop of UFO “whistleblowers” were “operational contractors” (ibid). “When you’re an operational contractor,” Bosley explained, “you are encouraged to establish your own private business and that can be how they pay you” (ibid). According to Bosely, the operational contractor’s business helps conceal the work that the contractor is doing on behalf of intelligence agencies. “That’s the cover for action when you’re actually out there doing your operational activity anywhere in the world,” Bosley told the podcast audience (ibid).
Bosley then went into the agreement that appears to have developed between intelligence circles and operational contractors involved in the current UFO deception effort. Placing himself in the role of the covert forces behind the UFO deception effort, Bosley shared what might have been said to Grusch and others pushing the current UFO narrative:
“We’re [the intelligence agency] going to make sure you get put in the spotlight and you’re put forward in this community. It’s a perception management op. We’ll feed you your narrative. We’ll give you what’s called an ‘undercover legend.’ We’ll give you…. the story the public is going to be told about who you are and what you are and what you’re doing here. And of course, there’s truth in it because it’s your real name. You really were in the military or whatever you did. But it’s just like I said, the passage material. Some of it’s real, some of it’s not. You literally can leave the military on Friday and Monday start doing this operational contracting.” (ibid)
Grusch may prove to be little more than someone who was selected by covert forces to play a role. The representation provided by the Compass Rose Legal Group has assisted in the creation of that role. It is not the first time that Compass Rose Legal Group has represented a dubious whistleblower. Prior to participating in the current UFO deception campaign, the Compass Rose Legal Group took up the case of a CIA analyst who stood at the center of an attempt to undermine representative government that culminated in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump: Eric Ciaramella. Prior to playing heroic whistleblower, Ciaramella had worked in the White House during the transition from Obama to Trump (Sperry). When Ciaramella decided he would assume the role of whistleblower, it was Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, two of the aforementioned heavy hitters at the Compass Rose Legal group, that came to his aid (ibid). From the very beginning, Ciaramella was a problematic individual whose bona fides as a whistleblower are questionable.
Ciaramella was initially presented to the public as an anonymous public servant who was not politically motivated when he filed a complaint regarding Trump’s 2019 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy requesting assistance in domestic investigations of Biden and other players in the Obama Administration (ibid). In truth, two National Security Council (NSC) co-workers knew differently. The NSC co-workers revealed to investigative reporter Paul Sperry that they had overheard Ciaramella talking to Sean Misko, another analyst working at the NSC, about removing Trump from office (ibid). The conversation allegedly took place during a staff-wide NSC meeting held in February of 2017 at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (ibid). The meeting, called by then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, was convened just two weeks after Trump took office (ibid). One of the individuals present at the meeting told Sperry that Ciaramella and Misko “were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump from office. No joke” (ibid).
Another attendee, a military detailee to the NSC who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, corroborated the first source’s allegation (ibid). The military detailee also made it clear that Ciaramella and Misko were motivated by a shared globalist aversion to the nationalist and patriotic ideas and concepts present in Trump’s “America First” foreign policy (ibid). The military detailee provided Sperry with the following account: “After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out.’ And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president’” (ibid). The military detailee told Sperry that Ciaramella and Misko “were triggered by Trump’s and Flynn’s vision for the world. This was the first ‘all hands’ [staff meeting] where they got to see Trump’s national security team, and they were huffing and puffing throughout the briefing any time Flynn said something they didn’t like about ‘America First’” (ibid). According to the military detailee, Ciaramella also told Misko, “We can’t let him enact this foreign policy” (ibid).
The military staffer told Sperry that he was very disturbed by what he had overheard and immediately reported it to his superiors (ibid). During the same time period as Ciaramella’s and Misko’s alleged conversation, Mark Zaid tweeted that “a coup has started” and that “impeachment will ultimately follow” (ibid). While speaking with Fox News regarding Zaid’s tweet, Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, said, “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game” (Re). Zaid’s big mouth had, indeed, given away the game plan being employed by the Compass Rose Legal Group and other deep state actors to oust a democratically elected head of state. An important feature of that strategy was to trick the public into conflating disinformation agents and political activists with concerned public servants and whistleblowers. The very same modus operandi is detectable in the case of UFO celebrity and Compass Rose Legal Group client David Grusch.
Subsequent to the all-hands NSC meeting, accusations began to circulate within the Trump Administration that both Ciaramella and Misko were leaking information to the media (Sperry). These leaks were meant to undermine Trump (ibid). The next major attack on the Trump Administration came when Ciaramella filed a whistleblower complaint regarding the telephone conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy. The July 25, 2019 conversation was leaked to Ciaramella by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman the day after the telephone call transpired (ibid). Vindman was a NSC aide who appears to have been groomed by covert political circles with a Democrat/leftist orientation since he was very young. Like Ciaramella, Vindman has a significant connection to the Compass Rose Legal Group.
In 1979, when Vindman was just three years old, his family, which consisted of his twin brother, an older brother, his father, and his grandmother immigrated from the Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, to the United States (Dolsten). In 1985, Alexander and his twin, Yevgeny, appeared in Ken Burn’s documentary The Statue of Liberty (ibid). It is not clear why Burns, a well-known American filmmaker, was drawn to the Vindmans over scores of other Ukrainian immigrants. What is known is that Burns is an ardent supporter of the Democratic party and a major participant in the party’s donor base. Newsmeat, a popular campaign donor search engine, documented nearly $40,000 in political contributions made by Burns to different Democratic groups and individuals from 1991 to 2010 (“Ken Burns’ Federal Campaign Contribution Report”). In an October 1, 2022 interview with Max Raskin, Burns asserted that “the Republican party…. born on the idea of liberating the black man has completely flipped and become the party of white supremacy” (Raskin). This is, of course, a trope commonly associated with the extreme left-wing of the Democratic party as well as other radical left-of-center players on the political stage, thus giving one a fairly good idea of where Burns’ political loyalties lie.
In the realm of covert politics, however, the lines can sometimes get blurred and partisan affiliations can be reduced to little more than camouflage that conceals a semi-submerged oligarchy composed of powerful individuals who, on occasion, look past one another’s differences and collaborate. A September 22, 2023 ProPublica article shown this to be the case when it published a photograph of Burns standing with conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and deceased libertarian billionaire David Koch (Kaplan, Elliott, and Mierjeski). The photograph dates back to 2018 and was taken at, of all places, Bohemian Grove, the secretive elite retreat that is nestled away in a forested area of Northern California (ibid). While Burns claims he has no relationship with Thomas, the other man captured in the photograph, Koch, funded one of Burns’ documentaries, The Vietnam War (Huston).
Koch and Burns were part and parcel of the anti-Trump coalition that opposed the populism espoused by Trump’s support base. On July 30, 2018, CNN reported that a summer meeting of the Koch network, founded by David Koch and his brother, Charles, “opened up their summer meeting with an emphasis on bipartisanship while also delivering sharp critiques of President Donald Trump and his administration” (Berg). During the meeting, Brian Hooks, the co-chair of the Koch network, accused Trump of cultivating political discord, stating, “The divisiveness of this White House is causing long-term damage” (ibid). According to the CNN’s Rebecca Berger, Hooks “also chided elected officials who are ‘following’ [Trump’s] lead” (ibid). The Koch network also expressed opposition to the Trump administration’s tariffs and trade policy (ibid). Berger noted this bone of contention, observing that the “[Koch] network has been powerless to persuade the President to rethink his strategy on trade generally and tariffs specifically” (ibid).
Burns’ attacks on Trump, issued before the 45th President had even taken office, were much more scathing. During a speech given at the Stanford University commencement ceremony in June of 2016, the filmmaker described Trump as “an insult to history” and accused the President-elect of being a person who was “willing to discard long-standing relationships” (Alexander). One cannot help but wonder if this strange remark was meant to capture the sense of betrayal suffered by many in oligarchical circles when Trump adopted a populist stance. Burns, according to reporter Iain Alexander, “also highlighted how Trump was ‘glaringly not qualified’ to be President, ‘a person who easily lies.’ A person who ‘insults veterans, threatens the free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants and all muslims’” (ibid). Clearly, Burns was reflecting the sentiments of America’s oligarchical class in his speech. Vindman is a servant of that class and his vetting may have began when his family was selected to appear in Burns’ documentary. If such a grooming process did, in fact, take place, it worked smashingly well. Vindman’s former commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, has described Vindman as “a political activist in uniform” (Sperry). He also identified Vindman as a globalist adherent who “really talked up Obama and globalism to the point of [it being] uncomfortable” (ibid).
Vindman’s connection to the Compass Rose Legal Group comes through his brother Yevgeny, who was a senior ethics official and lawyer on the National Security Council (NSC). In 2020, Yevgeny filed a retaliation complaint with a Pentagon watchdog, Sean O’Donnell, claiming he had suffered reprisal for reporting ethical violations allegedly involving Robert O’Brien, Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, and Alex Gray, Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Council Chief of Staff (Bertrand). A letter regarding Yevgeny’s complaint that was signed by Democrats on four House Committees states: “Specifically, there were allegations of sexism, violations of standards of ethical conduct for employees and violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act” (ibid). Yevgeny’s legal team in his retaliation complaint case included two Compass Rose Legal Group members: Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid (ibid). The presence of the Compass Rose Legal Group in this case makes one wonder if the Yevgeny, like his brother Alexander, was part of the deep state effort to destabilize the Trump Administration.
Alexander Vindman’s summary of the Trump/Zelenskyy call served as the basis for Eric Ciaramella’s whistleblower complaint. Ciaramella’s complaint, therefore, was based on a conversation that he did not hear. Instead, Ciaramella received information regarding the call from another person, in this case, Vindman. What was being propped up by Bakaj and Zaid as a damning revelation was little more than the product of hearsay. Furthermore, Vindman admitted that he had made up portions of his call summary (Spiering). The parts fabricated by Vindman made it appear that Trump had made quid pro quo offer when, in fact, he did not (ibid). The call summary prepared by Vindman stated:
President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption. (ibid)
This synopsis of the call, however, did not agree with the rough transcript of Trump’s telephone conversation with Zelenskyy. Tim Pearce of the Washington Examiner explains:
The rough transcript of the phone call documents Trump congratulating Zelensky on his election victory and pledging to send a “very, very high level representative” to attend Zelensky’s inauguration. However, it does not include Trump explicitly promising to work with Zelensky to “strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption” in Ukraine. (Pearce)
During his testimony, Vindman tried to explain away the discrepancy between his call summary and the rough transcript, stating that, while the excerpt regarding rooting out corruption was “not entirely accurate,” its inclusion was justified because “it was consistent with U.S. policy” (Spiering). Vindman was, of course, trying to skirt the fact that he had created a section of the call out of whole cloth in order to make it appear as if Trump had committed an impeachable offense. The call summary was an unsuccessful attempt to transform an insignificant conversation into a national scandal. That effort was seriously hurt by Vindman’s own testimony. Tom Morrison, the National Security Council’s Senior Director for European Affairs, also helped deliver the fatal blow when he testified to Congress that he heard nothing that could be considered unlawful in the Trump/Zelenskyy telephone call (Beavers). Morrison stated: “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” (ibid).
Both the Trump impeachment fiasco and the David Grusch case highlight the Compass Rose Legal Group’s practice of playing fast and loose with the definition of the term “whistleblower.” What exactly constitutes a “whistleblower” in the eyes of Andrew Bakaj, Charles McCullough, and Mark Zaid? For these deep state denizens, “whistleblower” and “disinformation agent” seem to be synonymous.
Sources Cited:
Alexander, Iain. “Filmmaker Ken Burns Destroys Donald Trump During Stanford Speech.” Film Industry Network 13 June 2016 <https://filmindustry.network/filmmaker-ken-burns-destroys-donald-trump-stanford-speech/31359>
“Andrew P. Bakaj, Esq.” Compass Rose Legal Group, PLLC <https://compassrosepllc.com/bakaj/>
Bates, Warren. “Source in Channel 8’s UFO series pleads guilty to pandering charge.” Las Vegas Review-Journal 19 June 1990 <http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/lazar/rj_6-19.htm>
Beavers, Olivia. “White House Russia expert defends Trump-Ukraine call: Nothing ‘illegal.’” The Hill 31 October 2019 <https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/468364-ex-white-house-russia-expert-defends-trump-ukraine-call-nothing/>
Berger, Rebecca. “Top Koch network official: ‘The divisiveness of this White House is causing long-term damage.’” CNN 30 July 2018 <https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/koch-official-trump-white-house-divisiveness/index.html>
Bertrand, Natasha. “Vindman twin accused top NSC officials of misconduct, claims retaliation.” Politico 26 August 2020 <https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/26/vindman-twin-accuses-nsc-officials-misconduct-402367>
“Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers.” IMDb <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9107368/?ref_=nm_knf_t_1>
Brewer, Jack. “Corbell Asserts but Fails to Report How Stories Vetted.” The UFO Trail 13 April 2021 <https://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2021/04/corbell-asserts-but-fails-to-report-how.html>
Brown, Elizabeth Nolan. “Defense Department Computer Network Among Top Sharers of Child Pornography.” Reason 3 July 2019 <https://reason.com/2019/07/03/defense-department-computers-among-top-sharers-of-child-pornography/>
Cooper, Helene, Ralph Blumenthal, and Leslie Kean. “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program.” The New York Times 16 December 2017 <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html>
Corbell, Jeremy. “The US Navy Filmed Pyramid Shaped UFOs.” Extraordinary Beliefs 8 April 2021 <https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-filmed-pyramid-ufos>
“David Grusch Opening Statement at Unidentified Anonalous Phenomena [UAP] Hearing.” YouTube 26 July 2023 <
>
“DHS OIG Investigative Summary: CIA OIG Employee Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint” Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General 8 August 2019 <https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019/I16-NON-DHS-SID-18500.pdf>
Dolsten, Josefin. “A Jewish photographer has been capturing Alexander Vindman and his twin for nearly 4 decades.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency 6 November 2019 <https://www.jta.org/2019/11/06/culture/a-jewish-photographer-has-been-capturing-alexander-vindman-and-his-twin-for-nearly-4-decades>
Durden, Tyler. “Whistleblower Attorney Bragged About Getting Security Clearance For ‘Guys With Porn Issues.’” ZeroHedge 8 November 2019 <https://www.zerohedge.com/political/whistleblower-attorney-bragged-about-getting-security-clearances-guys-child-porn-issues>
Eberhart, Chris. “Accusations fly over alleged secret UFO program ‘coverup.’” Fox News 19 September 2023 <https://www.foxnews.com/us/accusations-fly-over-alleged-secret-ufo-program-coverup>
Entin, Brian. “Military Whistleblower claims US has UFO retrieval program.” NewsNation 6 June 2023 <https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/military-whistleblowe-us-ufo-retrieval-program/>
Fiorillo, Chiara. “Stranger Things: Eerie moment flashing pyramid UFO and bizarre orb swoop on US warships before vanishing in latest Navy footage.” The U.S. Sun 13 April 2021 <https://www.the-sun.com/news/2683726/us-navy-filmed-ufo-sky-video/>
Gabbatt, A whistleblower claims the US has alien vehicles. But where’s the proof?” The Guardian 9 June 2023 <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/ufo-alien-vehicles-us-whistleblower-evidence-where-is-proof>
Gnau, Thomas. “Report quotes NASIC employee in new UFO whistleblower drama.” Dayton Daily News 7 June 2023 <https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/report-quotes-nasic-employee-in-new-ufo-whistleblower-drama/UBTOOF723NGY7PO4PAE4U2CELU/>
Huff, Gene. “The Lazar Synopsis.” The Bob Lazar Corner 12 March 1995 <https://web.archive.org/web/20070818143751/http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/synopsis.htm>
Huston, Caitlin. “Ken Burns Distances Himself From Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas After Photo.” The Hollywood Reporter September 22, 2023 <https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ken-burns-justice-clarence-thomas-photo-1235597073/>
“I. Charles McCullough III, Esq.” Compass Rose Legal Group, PLLC <https://compassrosepllc.com/mccullough/>
Isikoff, Michael. “Ex-CIA Officer Charged with Leak to Reporter.” NBC New York 6 January 2011 <https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/ex-cia_officer_charged_with_leak_to_reporter/1937626/>
“Is UFO Whistleblower David Grusch still Under Contract? If so, who does he Report to?!?” YouTube 31 August 2023 <
>
Kaplan, Joshua, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski. “Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events.” ProPublica 22 September 2023 <https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus>
Kean, Leslie and Ralph Blumenthal. “Intelligence officials say U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin.” The Debrief 5 June 2023 <https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/>
“Ken Burn’s Federal Campaign Contribution Report.” Newsmeat <https://web.archive.org/web/20110815003542/http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Ken_Burns.php>
Kiriakou, John. “What was this CIA Officer Thinking?” Consortium News 30 September 2019 <https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/30/john-kiriakou-what-was-this-cia-officer-thinking/>
“Mark S. Zaid, P.C.” Mark Zaid Website <
https://markzaid.com/
>
McLaughlin. Jenna. “Rare external investigation finds wrongdoing in the CIA’s watchdog office.” Yahoo News 12 September 2019 <https://news.yahoo.com/rare-external-investigation-finds-wrongdoing-in-the-ci-as-watchdog-office-090046808.html>
Merritt, Guy. “The Bob Lazar conundrum: is there any truth to Lazar’s claims?” ClassicUFO.com 6 February 2013 <http://www.classicufo.com/blog/2013/02/the-bob-lazar-conundrum-is-there-any-truth-to-lazars-claims/>
Pearce, Tim. “White House: Vindman wrote summary of April Trump-Zelensky call that conflicts with rough transcript.” Washington Examiner 15 November 2019 <https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house-nsc-ukraine-expert-wrote-summary-of-april-trump-zelensky-call-that-conflicts-with-rough-transcript>
Pilkington, Mark. Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010.
Raskin, Max. “Interview with Ken Burns.” Max Raskin 1 October 2022 <https://www.maxraskin.com/interviews/ken-burns>
Re, Gregg. “’Coup has started,’ whistleblower’s attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment.” Fox News 6 November 2019 <https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment>
Shellenberger, Michael. “US has 12 or more Alien Spacecraft, say Military and Intelligence Contractors.” The Public 7 June 2023 <
>
Speiring, Charlie. “Alexander Vindman Admits Making Up Parts of Trump Call Summary.” Breitbart 19 November 2019 <https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/19/alexander-vindman-admits-making-up-parts-of-trump-call-summary/>
Sperry, Paul. “Whistleblower was Overheard in ’17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump.” Real Clear Investigations 22 January 2020 <https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html?_ga=2.149113278.986350956.1686924698-2016503022.1686924698>
“Statement on Compass Rose Legal Group’s Successful Concluded Representation of Former Client David Grusch.” Compass Rose Legal Group, PLLC 9 June 2023 <https://compassrosepllc.com/news/>
“’This gives me hope’: UFO filmmaker speaks on whistleblower’s account of sightings.” NBC News 26 July 2023 <https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/ufo-filmmaker-speaks-on-whistleblower-s-account-of-sightings-189367365555>
Thomas, Kenn, JFK and UFO: Military-Industrial Conspiracy and Cover-Up from Maury Island to Dallas. Washington: Feral House, 2011.
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism and co-authored the books The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship and Invoking the Beyond: The Kantian Rift, Mythologized Menaces, and the Quest for the New Man. Both books are available at www.amazon.com. Phillip has also written articles for News With Views, Conspiracy Archive, and the Vexilla Regis Journal.
Paul David Collins is the author of The Hidden Face of Terrorism and the co-author of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship and Invoking the Beyond: The Kantian Rift, Mythologized Menaces, and the Quest for the New Man
Paul has published several articles concerning the topics of deep politics and elite deviancy. Those articles have appeared in Terry Melanson’s online Conspiracy Archive, Paranoia magazine, Vexilla Regis Journal, and Nexus magazine.