Award winning behavior analyst Bedros Akkelian (Spidey) suggests that denials of permission for David Grusch to tell all he knows in a SKIF, is "an admission of guilt".
Analysing the UFO hearing he said: "There's no denying even for the skeptics that even if we don't acknowledge that there's definitely evidence here of non-human life, there's no denying that something weird is going on in terms of the communication between Congress and the Pentagon. It's kind of crazy that the Pentagon can hide that much from their auditors, whereas a civilian can't even come anywhere near that kind of activity"
"And also .... they reference numerous times throughout this hearing that they were denied a SKIF, they were denied to sit in a room with David Grusch and ask him confidential questions. They're obviously going to continue to work on that but so far they were denied the right to do that. My question is, isn't that an admission of guilt to a certain extent? Isn't that an admission of something because, here's the thing, if someone came out with an accusation against me and you asked me if I'm okay with you talking to them I'd be like 'yeah, go ahead', I didn't do it, they can tell you whatever they want, but for me to say no I'm not not okay with you guys talking, it's got to be it's got that there's something I don't want coming out. Now I don't know what that is. I don't know if you know, maybe they think that Grusch doesn't have the facts but some of what he thinks he knows could be damaging. I don't know what that is, but I'm left wondering like, why can't Congress override some of this stuff? I think they should really look into, okay, who's denying us access to this on whose authority? Are we not allowed to talk about this or investigate this? It just seems weird to me that there's this lack of communication to where Grusch is more informed as to who's making these decisions than Congress themselves. It's very strange so yeah a SKIF should happen, more conversations should happen even if they lead to nothing. There needs to be more questions asked"
Bedros also assessed that the "harmonious" hearing, signified people coming together to face a bigger and "higher threat".
He said: "I have to say, this is one of the most harmonious cooperative hearings I've ever seen ever. I've analyzed a lot of events like this and you can often sense tension or disagreement and sometimes they're kind of throwing little jabs at each other. This was insane, like use the word bipartisan, and there was such cooperation from both sides, such acceptance. And it was kind of crazy to me because in the other interview, the News Nation when we talked about how at the end there seems to be this element of bringing people together because, when there's a higher threat people come together and it's almost like we're seeing that happen because there's a bigger threat at hand. Republican Democrat doesn't matter we're all humans and we're coming together as Americans to figure this out"