To be perfectly honest, I have the UFO video which ends the career of every UFO skeptic, and every UFO debunker.
And the UFO video is unimpeachable. It is recorded by NHK, Japan’s state broadcaster.
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, NHK has the original footage.
I caught the UFO footage while recording aerial footage of Tokyo.
The UFO footage is presented on my blog. I have presented the original video, the zoomed video, seven stills, and the video which proves the authenticity of the UFO footage.
I have a little different take with respect to a couple of the provisions of law that Billy discusses in this piece.
Billy writes, "Lawmakers are not only ordering an accounting of 'all' UAP activity over the previous year – they want info on 'all' UAP logged outside that time frame as well, no parameters...If Section 1683 (the UAP section of the FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, AKA "Gillibrand-Rubio-Gallego") is honestly pursued, the origin story is on the line."
I respectfully submit that is a misinterpretation of a clause that requires the annual report, to be submitted to eight congressional committees by the Director of National Intelligence, to cover both "(A) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during the one-year period" and "(B) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during a period other than that one-year period but that were not included in an earlier report." On its face, that language is somewhat ambiguous. I inquired into its intended meaning as early as August, 2021 (four months before it became law), and to my own satisfaction determined that, from the congressional perspective, the intent of (B) was not to go back to Year One, but to capture reports of fairly recent events that would occur in one reporting year, but due to delay in reaching the reporting system or for other reasons, miss inclusion in the compilation for that the year in which the event occurred. Thus, for example, a hypothetical encounter between a Navy jet and UAP on October 5, 2022, likely would reach the UAP office too late for the cutoff date for the report due October 31, 2022, but it would have to be included in the report due on October 31, 2023, even though it actually occurred in the previous reporting year. Thus, there would be no "gaps," no periods after enactment of law in which an event reported into the military-IC system would miss inclusion in an annual DNI report to the congressional committees (in theory).
While I cannot say more about the exact manner in which I satisfied myself on this point, I think you will probably see that the language is applied in that manner by the DNI and the Pentagon, and I predict that the members of the pertinent congressional committees will not be complaining that those agencies have misinterpreted what Congress intended, regarding the time periods to be covered by the annual reports.
If Congress wished to mandate a sweeping compilation of all UAP data back to Year One, it would spell that out in a much more explicit fashion. One of the new UAP provisions currently under consideration in Congress would take a narrower but significant step in that direction, by mandating a study of Intelligence Community involvement in UFO matters, going back to January 1, 1947. The proposed study would be conducted by the Governmental Accountability Office, which is an arm of Congress. Both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have already approved this proposal (in slightly different forms); the Senate committee's version is now incorporated into the pending Senate version of the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. This and two other UAP-related proposals will receive final consideration during the "lame-duck" session of Congress that will convene on November 14, 2022.
Here is the House committee version of the proposal (note the specificity, as compared to the FY 2022 NDAA clause discussed above): The GAO is to "(1) commence a review of the records and documents of the intelligence community, oral history interviews, open source analytic analysis, interviews of current and former government officials, classified and unclassified national archives (including those records any third party obtained pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the “Freedom of Information Act” or “FOIA”)), and such other relevant historical sources as the Comptroller General considers appropriate; and (2) for the period beginning on January 1, 1947, and ending on the date on which the Comptroller General completes activities under this subsection, compile and itemize a complete historical record of the intelligence community’s involvement with unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena, including successful or unsuccessful efforts to identify and track unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena, efforts to recover or transfer related technologies to United States-based industry or National Laboratories, and any intelligence community efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide unclassified or classified misinformation about unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena or related activities, based on the review conducted under paragraph (1)."
(In addition to this possible GAO study, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Defense in May 2021 launched an "evaluation" of that Department's involvement in UAP. Little has been revealed publicly about the depth to which the IG team is drilling, or when it expects to file a report, nor is it clear how much of its report will be made public.)
Billy also wrote, "Congress is demanding to see 'an enumeration of any instances in which data relating to [UFOs] was not provided to the [ODNI] because of classification restrictions on that data or for any other reasons.'" This is indeed a requirement of the law enacted in December 2021 (although the "was not provided" clause refers to the Pentagon UAP office, not ODNI), but it is NOT part of the annual mandated report from the DNI. Rather, it is a separate provision that requires the head of the Pentagon UAP office (currently called the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AARO) to twice annually provide CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS to six specific congressional committees on certain matters, including "any instances in which data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena was not provided to the Office because of classification restrictions on that data or for any other reason." This is NOT information that will be reported publicly. Lawmakers may consider such information in crafting further legislative remedies, or other remedies, if they deem it appropriate.
Indeed, another proposal currently under consideration would create a "secure system" for current or former government employees or contractors to provide UAP-related information to the UAP office, without fear of reprisals, with the understanding that the UAP office would keep the congressional committees apprised of any significant and credible information that comes in through this pipeline. All of this would still be under the umbrella of classification, however. This proposal (sometimes referred to as the "whistleblower," "safe harbor," or "immunity" proposal) has already been approved by the House of Representatives and by the Senate Intelligence committee. Its fate will also be determined during final negotiations on the FY 2023 NDAA, during the "lame-duck" session.
Douglas Dean Johnson
(my gmail address is my name, periods between the names)
Great piece Billy! Keep calling these freaking liars out!!! I'm so fed up with this lying & "national security" BS, when it's the taxpayers continously being screwed by our own government! They're like parasites surviving on our hard work & it's infuriating! If they're not going to tell us the truth like where all our money's been going they need to go!!!🙏🏽❤️
Yeah, maybe, but you'll be back.
I feel ground down by it all. If this gets blown off again, I am for the rest of my life, going to ignore the subject altogether.
Great article, Billy! The American citizens have the right to see the UFO videos.
To be perfectly honest, I have the UFO video which ends the career of every UFO skeptic, and every UFO debunker.
And the UFO video is unimpeachable. It is recorded by NHK, Japan’s state broadcaster.
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, NHK has the original footage.
I caught the UFO footage while recording aerial footage of Tokyo.
The UFO footage is presented on my blog. I have presented the original video, the zoomed video, seven stills, and the video which proves the authenticity of the UFO footage.
I’ve reported on this UFO footage here earlier.
https://realtvufos.blogspot.com/2022/09/ufo-video-one-of-worlds-best-ufo-videos_2.html?m=0
Alfred Røsberg, Norway
The Puerto Rico ocean uap video is on YouTube
I have a little different take with respect to a couple of the provisions of law that Billy discusses in this piece.
Billy writes, "Lawmakers are not only ordering an accounting of 'all' UAP activity over the previous year – they want info on 'all' UAP logged outside that time frame as well, no parameters...If Section 1683 (the UAP section of the FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, AKA "Gillibrand-Rubio-Gallego") is honestly pursued, the origin story is on the line."
I respectfully submit that is a misinterpretation of a clause that requires the annual report, to be submitted to eight congressional committees by the Director of National Intelligence, to cover both "(A) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during the one-year period" and "(B) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during a period other than that one-year period but that were not included in an earlier report." On its face, that language is somewhat ambiguous. I inquired into its intended meaning as early as August, 2021 (four months before it became law), and to my own satisfaction determined that, from the congressional perspective, the intent of (B) was not to go back to Year One, but to capture reports of fairly recent events that would occur in one reporting year, but due to delay in reaching the reporting system or for other reasons, miss inclusion in the compilation for that the year in which the event occurred. Thus, for example, a hypothetical encounter between a Navy jet and UAP on October 5, 2022, likely would reach the UAP office too late for the cutoff date for the report due October 31, 2022, but it would have to be included in the report due on October 31, 2023, even though it actually occurred in the previous reporting year. Thus, there would be no "gaps," no periods after enactment of law in which an event reported into the military-IC system would miss inclusion in an annual DNI report to the congressional committees (in theory).
While I cannot say more about the exact manner in which I satisfied myself on this point, I think you will probably see that the language is applied in that manner by the DNI and the Pentagon, and I predict that the members of the pertinent congressional committees will not be complaining that those agencies have misinterpreted what Congress intended, regarding the time periods to be covered by the annual reports.
If Congress wished to mandate a sweeping compilation of all UAP data back to Year One, it would spell that out in a much more explicit fashion. One of the new UAP provisions currently under consideration in Congress would take a narrower but significant step in that direction, by mandating a study of Intelligence Community involvement in UFO matters, going back to January 1, 1947. The proposed study would be conducted by the Governmental Accountability Office, which is an arm of Congress. Both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have already approved this proposal (in slightly different forms); the Senate committee's version is now incorporated into the pending Senate version of the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. This and two other UAP-related proposals will receive final consideration during the "lame-duck" session of Congress that will convene on November 14, 2022.
Here is the House committee version of the proposal (note the specificity, as compared to the FY 2022 NDAA clause discussed above): The GAO is to "(1) commence a review of the records and documents of the intelligence community, oral history interviews, open source analytic analysis, interviews of current and former government officials, classified and unclassified national archives (including those records any third party obtained pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the “Freedom of Information Act” or “FOIA”)), and such other relevant historical sources as the Comptroller General considers appropriate; and (2) for the period beginning on January 1, 1947, and ending on the date on which the Comptroller General completes activities under this subsection, compile and itemize a complete historical record of the intelligence community’s involvement with unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena, including successful or unsuccessful efforts to identify and track unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena, efforts to recover or transfer related technologies to United States-based industry or National Laboratories, and any intelligence community efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide unclassified or classified misinformation about unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena or related activities, based on the review conducted under paragraph (1)."
(In addition to this possible GAO study, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Defense in May 2021 launched an "evaluation" of that Department's involvement in UAP. Little has been revealed publicly about the depth to which the IG team is drilling, or when it expects to file a report, nor is it clear how much of its report will be made public.)
Billy also wrote, "Congress is demanding to see 'an enumeration of any instances in which data relating to [UFOs] was not provided to the [ODNI] because of classification restrictions on that data or for any other reasons.'" This is indeed a requirement of the law enacted in December 2021 (although the "was not provided" clause refers to the Pentagon UAP office, not ODNI), but it is NOT part of the annual mandated report from the DNI. Rather, it is a separate provision that requires the head of the Pentagon UAP office (currently called the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AARO) to twice annually provide CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS to six specific congressional committees on certain matters, including "any instances in which data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena was not provided to the Office because of classification restrictions on that data or for any other reason." This is NOT information that will be reported publicly. Lawmakers may consider such information in crafting further legislative remedies, or other remedies, if they deem it appropriate.
Indeed, another proposal currently under consideration would create a "secure system" for current or former government employees or contractors to provide UAP-related information to the UAP office, without fear of reprisals, with the understanding that the UAP office would keep the congressional committees apprised of any significant and credible information that comes in through this pipeline. All of this would still be under the umbrella of classification, however. This proposal (sometimes referred to as the "whistleblower," "safe harbor," or "immunity" proposal) has already been approved by the House of Representatives and by the Senate Intelligence committee. Its fate will also be determined during final negotiations on the FY 2023 NDAA, during the "lame-duck" session.
Douglas Dean Johnson
(my gmail address is my name, periods between the names)
@ddeanjohnson on Twitter
Respect, BC, for being someone who remembers what the term "journalism" means.
Great piece Billy! Keep calling these freaking liars out!!! I'm so fed up with this lying & "national security" BS, when it's the taxpayers continously being screwed by our own government! They're like parasites surviving on our hard work & it's infuriating! If they're not going to tell us the truth like where all our money's been going they need to go!!!🙏🏽❤️