Perhaps it’s down to cultural differences, but “he” having to make a living to support his family? Isn’t there a “she” or another “he” involved in this family? It’s a bit too speculative to talk about how the Grusch family shares their responsibilities, but if I was trying to expose one of the biggest secrets in history… I wouldn’t find it unreasonable that my spouse secured the household income while I secured the future of humanity.

The situation could be attributed to cultural differences. In America, it's common for both individuals in a household to work in order to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. This hasn't always been the case, and the need for dual incomes can be especially true depending on the location. In some areas, one person can afford housing, while in others, it requires two incomes. Of course, this is a separate discussion and, as you rightly pointed out, pure speculation.

Leaving government service and then the first thing he does is involving himself in government UFO policy influence through an NGO? To me that does makes me more cautious of him and his claims.

That's a valid point, and I think the response to it can vary greatly depending on the individual. Personally, it doesn't bother me, but perhaps it should.

There’s too many charlatans in the UFO field making money of their claims, statements, organizations and businesses. Whistleblowers should try to distance themselves as much as possible from those type of people.

I concur with your point, which is why I felt less concerned upon learning that Garry Nolan was involved. If you're unfamiliar with his work, I recommend exploring it. In my opinion, he is as far removed from being a charlatan as one can be, while still maintaining credibility in this field.

I think Elizondo, Mellon and all the others did the right thing - What I argued for earlier: They distanced themselves from charlatans and grifters. Or at least from a guy who thought it would not hurt their good intentions if he made some money along the way.

That's a fair perspective. There indeed seems to be a fine line between grift and monetizing a subject. This line becomes even finer when it comes to the topic of UAP. Personally, I wouldn't categorize TTSA as a grift, but I understand that others may have a different view.

It seems to me you’re quick to take people at their words and not consider history and experience. Have we not time and time again seen reveals in pop-culture, business and similar - Where it turned out they just outright lied back then but now it won’t hurt to reveal the truth?

History and personal experiences are indeed important to consider. However, since I can't share the experiences of another individual, I must take them at their word while also remaining open to the possibility that I could be incorrect in my assessment due to meaning behind the words. Although I might personally speculate about what might be going through an individual's mind when they make a particular statement, I always prioritize their publicly stated words over any hypothetical mindset.