Regarding SAPs

Here is a very brief overview of SAP’s from the CDSE from 2021.

https://www.cdse.edu/Portals/124/Documents/student-guides/SA002-guide.pdf

The reason I am posting this is because I don’t think there are many folks here that understand the classification system of these programs, and it relates directly to what many folks here refer to as “evidence” of what would be a waived SAP.

It is critical to understand that discussion of these programs and their facilities, even in a broad manner and especially in a detailed manner, with anyone that isn’t cleared to speak about them would be against the law.

This is a reason why there should still be a certain amount of skepticism surrounding the claims of David Grusch (the reason I personally started following the topic closely) and the 40+ witnesses that have gone before the ICIG to discuss their involvement or knowledge of the purportedly waived SAP in question. If these folks spoke to David Grusch about any details regarding this program as first-hand witnesses, it would not be good for them at all. If he was provided any hard “evidence” of this program, like documents or photos or videos by anyone claiming to be involved with them, it would be very bad for them.

All of this is to say that the witness testimony to the ICIG alone is really the only testimony that could be considered conclusive, and we will NEVER know what testimony was given there. Meaning David Grusch could have been told one thing (whatever operational security protocols that individual would have in place), and the ICIG told another. The “credible” and “urgent” ruling may have been based around information provided by witnesses (assuming second-hand, but possibly even first) that required further investigation, but may still only be obfuscation via OPSEC. There are absolutely SAPs that have had their congressional oversight waived and it is not at all against the law, or even something that the DoD has a need to acknowledge the existence of by the United States Government’s own classification standards.

While I have no doubt that what Grusch says he believes to be true, it is nowhere near out of the realm of possibility that it isn’t and that’s not his fault. I certainly hope it is, as I want to believe every word, but I can’t objectively do that, and I don’t think folks should speak in absolutes when referring to his testimony.