DOPSR wouldn’t approve a statement just to imply its validity.
Anything that Grusch or Elizondo has cleared through DOPSR is information the government was comfortable with them sharing or publishing. This means that, to their knowledge, the claims are either untrue or not classified or sensitive.
There’s no double bluff involved.
If any of Grusch’s submissions to DOPSR contained true or sensitive information—like details about alien crash retrievals—they would have firmly classified it. In such a case, he wouldn’t even be allowed to disclose what was deemed off-limits.
You can’t present a claim to DOPSR, such as “we have alien spacecraft at Wright Patterson Air Force Base,” and then twist their denial of clearance into an implication of truth. If they refuse clearance, you can’t publicly state, “DOPSR didn’t approve my claim about aliens at Wright Patterson, which must mean it’s true.” You would still be stating the very thing they flagged.
There’s no paradox here. Grusch and Elizondo approached DOPSR with their claims, and DOPSR responded, “Sure, go ahead and share that if you want.” This indicates that the information isn’t sensitive, likely because it lacks veracity.
Your argument raises some interesting points about the DOPSR process and how it might be perceived in relation to claims made by individuals like Grusch and Elizondo. It’s true that DOPSR serves to protect classified information and could easily restrict disclosures that pertain to sensitive subjects, including anything related to national security or classified research.
However, it’s also essential to consider that the approval process might not solely hinge on whether or not something is true. DOPSR’s role is more focused on protecting information, which can mean that even if certain claims appear sensational or intriguing, they might not necessarily be classified.
Additionally, the fact that Grusch and Elizondo were cleared to speak on certain topics doesn’t automatically negate the possibility that their claims warrant further investigation. Just because DOPSR allows certain statements doesn’t necessarily implicate their veracity. While it is reasonable to be skeptical of the claims made, the approval process should ideally serve as a mechanism to ensure responsible disclosure without compromising security, rather than being used strictly as a barometer of truth.
In any case, it’s a nuanced subject that invites further discourse, especially given the complexity surrounding topics like UFOs and government transparency. The conversation about unclassified reports may also spark interest in investigating their claims more deeply, regardless of DOPSR’s position.