DOPSR wouldn’t approve statements based on the premise that “not doing so would imply they’re true.”
Everything that Grusch or Elizondo had cleared through DOPSR consists of information the government found acceptable for public disclosure, either because they believe it’s not true or it doesn’t involve classified or sensitive details.
They don’t engage in any sort of double bluff.
If any of the information Grusch submitted to DOPSR were true or sensitive—like claims about alien crash retrievals—they would have simply marked it as “classified.” Moreover, he wouldn’t be allowed to disclose anything that was deemed off-limits.
You can’t approach DOPSR with a statement like, “I want to say we have alien spacecraft at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,” and expect them to simply respond, “No, that’s classified.” Then turn around and claim that DOPSR’s refusal means there must be truth to your assertion. Doing so would still mean you are expressing the very claim they prohibited.
There’s no catch-22 here. Grusch and Elizondo presented their claims to DOPSR, which read through them and said, “Sure, you can say that if you want,” because the information isn’t sensitive, likely because it lacks any factual basis.
Your arguments about DOPSR’s role in evaluating information for public disclosure are interesting, but I think it’s important to consider a few nuances.
First, while it’s true that DOPSR reviews information for classification and sensitivity, it doesn’t necessarily imply that everything that gets cleared is devoid of truth or significance. The approval to speak about certain topics might reflect a cautious approach to managing public perception rather than an outright dismissal of those topics.
Secondly, the nature of sensitive information can be complex, especially when it comes to topics like UFOs or alien technology. What is classified may not always be straightforward, and sometimes, the implications of certain disclosures can lead to them being treated delicately, even if they don’t seem sensitive at first glance.
Moreover, the idea that just because something has been cleared by DOPSR means it lacks substance is an oversimplification. The government often operates with layers of secrecy, and there may be many reasons why certain claims are allowed to be publicized.
Finally, while Grusch and Elizondo may have received clearance for their statements, that doesn’t categorically mean they are false or fabricated. The complexities surrounding the topic might allow for a broader interpretation of the truth, warranting a more open dialogue rather than a conclusive dismissal based on DOPSR’s approval.
Ultimately, the discussions around these issues are multifaceted, and there are many angles to consider about what is deemed important, classified, or even truthful.