It's not the best news, but a great start for our government officials to demand transparency, attention, and coverage about this subject. Far too long, the government and mainstream media have been dubbing people "crazy" and "conspiracy theorists" for witnessing and experiencing UFO encounters. There is nothing worse people can do than make others feel crazy, especially knowing that this is a real phenomenon. I believe this is a step in the right direction, even though it is more than likely that the military-industrial complex and secret agencies already know about who and what they are and why they are interested in humankind. DKH
“‘I don’t see a reason for them to coexist,’ Powell says. ‘Congress needs to make the decision. Congress needs to say, we will ultimately support the organization that controls the information for dissemination to the public.’”
It appears that after Lacatski's experience at Skinwalker ranch, he approached Reid to obtain funding for a contracted-out project that was aimed directly at ranch owner Bigelow. A very tight group. Who else at the DIA was interested, or read the reports? Because when AAWSAP ended no one at the enormous DIA was apparently interested and Lacatski approached the DHS.
AAWSAP spawned AATIP (although the latter has no evidence for its existence except for Elizondo's pronouncements) and AATIP appears to have been used by the TTSA crowd to create a front page story for the press: "AATIP, a $22M (oops wrong project!) Government UFO study"; which garnered political interest, as it appears to have been designed to do; culminating in Gillibrand's amendment (words/plan provided by Christopher Mellon.)
... which, in turn, is being headed off at the pass by the DoD's AOIMSG response.
AAWSAP's main contribution appears to have been the identification of a hitchhiker-type psi phenomenon that behaves like a contagious agent. But as far as UFO/UAP studies go, the two sides in this battle are jockeying for position before any military UFO/UAP investigations start for real.
Follow the virtual money. What's the cost of Gillibrand's proposition, compared to the DoD's AOIMSG? Will the politicians prefer to offload the UFO problem to the DoD for free, or pay for a new body to oversee and manage data from organisations that would choose to shave their eyeballs before sharing?
Money+Political_Will kick-started the Superconducting Super Collider, which was eventually cancelled due to costs - and that was a project asking questions we wanted answers to. How long will the politicians back UAP studies before the psi side (and physical 'impossibilities') have them running for cover?
Apparently psi is real, and some UAP appear to be non-human tech. But these actual realities don't mesh well with virtual political realities.
However this ends, this entire episode in our UFO history needs to be remembered, and understood.
Hi Freeman. "Will the politicians prefer to offload the UFO problem to the DoD for free, or pay for a new body to oversee and manage data..." you ask. To my mind, offloading to DOD would simply be perpetuating the decades old status quo. Based upon developments and public polling since 12/17 I'd venture to speculate that a significant number of congress members are aware that such a move would not sit well with constituents. ( I look forward to the day when UAP becomes an election issue. Hope springs eternal.)
Hi Billy & Bill: The only reason that UAP are no longer a toxic subject to politicians is because they can be viewed as potential threats from terrestrial sources and a flight safety risk (rather than as potentially ET or anything else).
Whatever exercise ensues to find answers (Congressionally backed or DoD controlled), then (for any individual incident) once any foreign threat has been ruled out then the investigation will probably cease (see SA4281):
(4) Evaluating links between unidentified aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or nonstate actors.
(5) Evaluating the threat that such incidents present to the United States.
There is a small window of opportunity to look further but would the DoD do this:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director and the Secretary shall each... including testing of materials, medical studies, and development of theoretical models to better understand and explain unidentified aerial phenomena.
...but that doesn't preclude such theories from being limited to the fields of atmospheric or cognitive anomalies :(
I was re-watching episodes of Madam Secretary, specifically the one where they emphasise the issue of Climate Change. It was pointed out that until the 'truth' of climate change was acknowledged (by a House Resolution) then no progress could be made.
The same applies to the area of UAP/UFOs that we're specifically interested in. Until the there's an acknowledgement that some UAP represent non-human tech &/or paranormal phenomena, then the authorities won't look beyond the purely terrestrial.
Points well taken. However, we must be cognizant that a portion of the Congress and Senate were in on the classified UAP Task Force briefings, which allegedly was 70 pages (not 4) and included several still classified videos that, according to Elizondo, were mind boggling. Regardless of whether the UAP were recorded in restricted airspace, or not, what those Washingtonians saw must have shaken some of them into the realization that the phenomenon goes well beyond military encounters and sightings.
It's ludicrous that only special committees and committee chairs are allowed to get the classified briefings. How can the legislature vote on UAP related amendments to spending bills when only a handful are aware of the bigger picture?
(On the other hand, do we really want Marjorie Taylor Greene and her loony radical compadres voicing their opinions on UAP? "The Demons are here!")
I recall that Elizondo claimed it was 70 odd pages, but my understanding is that it was more like 17. I can't help but be suspicious of claims about videos, given what's been released to the public. I fully accept the likelihood of an ET presence but Elizondo has been nothing but hype, as far as good evidence goes.
The military may have the sensors, but they will be ultra-cautious when it comes to sharing information - and so will the intelligence community. The IC has a very good overview of the history and development of foreign technology - they know what Russia and China can do, but the spooks won't do anything that reveals the degree of their knowledge.
Some 'unknowns' *will* be known by the IC and the military, but they won't admit they know. But there will also be 'unknowns' that are genuine mysteries. Some of the latter will be supported by classified information/sensors thereby limiting/prohibiting open analysis. A smaller subset will involve good evidence (mostly multi-witness testimony) that doesn't involve classified elements and can be discussed openly.
Nimitz 2004 was exceptional, because the wide publicity it gained allowed witnesses to come forward and talk around the edges of classified info. That's as good as the general public/Congress could possibly expect. Nimitz should have triggered a public enquiry with open hearings. The fact that it didn't gives us a big clue as to how things will actually go from here.
I might be one of the few here to come to Elizondo's defense. He has made it clear that there are disclosure red lines he cannot cross without dire consequences. Well, that's not new. There are likely hundreds of retired military / intelligence officers who took or signed the same security oaths and have revealed... nothing. Not even whispers. So, to accuse L.E. of being all hype is simply not fair. Who else has publicly stated the DOD has more videos that are not being declassified? Who else ( other then Mellon) from inside the mil-intel complex keeps pushing for more transparency and international cooperation?
As to Nimitz 2004... I know. I know. The radar, FLIR, and other top of the line sensor data bolsters the case for its significance. But, as one who monitors UFO reporting websites daily, I can state with certainty that those tic-tac signatures were middle-shelf compared to some of the extraordinary objects ordinary people are videoing nearly every day. But those folks aren't in uniform and don't have an array of sophisticated sensors to buttress their captures. Thus, you and many others discount what they have seen.
If the phenomenon is to remain caged in the military / intelligence complex... expect no enlightening answers.
It's a difficult situation for everyone. When I was a kid I was annoyed by the dismissal of the Mantell case as Venus, especially when it was acknowledged that Venus was in a different part of the sky. Anyone who sees something unusual is automatically in the position where they have to defend their interpretation of what they saw.
There are lots of videos and it's next to impossible to prove fake from misinterpretation from alien tech (assuming the last exists, which I do). But if part of the mission is to produce incontrovertible evidence to the authorities so they have no option but to acknowledge the reality of non-human tech (or something paranormal), then we need to find cases that tick all the boxes - which is what documentary makers, like James Fox, try to do.
The continuing problem is the elusive nature of the phenomenon and the difficulties in obtaining multi-witness, multi-sensor data.
Perhaps my expectations of Luis Elizondo are too high, but I've
followed most of what he's said and written and from an evidential point of view he's not moved the ball forward at all (he's not even managed to provide evidence of the existence of his own AATIP, although others have made supporting statements.) What he has done is to help gain the attention of the media as part of the TTSA team's efforts. Virtually all PR and hype, excluding Nimitz, which he wasn't involved with. He doesn't distinguish between what he knows from his previous role (if anything) and what he knows from talking to his TTSA buddies. As for secrecy, the guy wouldn't even confirm that his name was on the DDwhatsit form requesting the release of the Navy videos (eventually someone else released a copy showing his name on it). Maybe he is a nice guy, but I wouldn't buy a second hand car from him, or a book.
SA4281 should have included something like: A subset of data and reports, that represent exceptionally anomalous phenomena, should be collated as a separate body of evidence for independent review and consideration of their broader implications.
Agreed. And it may well come down to money. As Rodeghier says, "The government has assets in place -- satellites, sensor systems, sensor systems on aircraft that concentrate on military sightings. So they have things in place already that don't, in theory, cost money. But still, the effort required to do it appropriately is not insubstantial. In fact, let's put it this way, it's definitely going to cost a lot more than the $22 million that AAWSAP spent." Given the spectrum of curiosities associated with UAP, I wouldn't begin to know how to put a price tag on it. Manhattan Project, meet Apollo?
A strong element of UAP studies raises questions as to how our fundamental reality affects individual perceptions. Politics is the art of responding to the perceived perceptions of others.
Once again I'm reminded of the recurring PEANUTS panels in which Lucy is holding a football on the ground for Charlie Brown to kick. At the last moment she pulls it away, causing him to fly into the air and crash on his backside. Will he / we ever learn?
The game is afoot, and I suspect the USAF - at the highest levels - played a significant role in advocating for AOIMSG.
Someone is hell-bent on controlling the narrative - a very restricted narrative.
It's possible the pressure from Navy pilots and radar techs was building up to a whistleblower level, so they had to get out in front of any revelations. Just a thought.
It's not the best news, but a great start for our government officials to demand transparency, attention, and coverage about this subject. Far too long, the government and mainstream media have been dubbing people "crazy" and "conspiracy theorists" for witnessing and experiencing UFO encounters. There is nothing worse people can do than make others feel crazy, especially knowing that this is a real phenomenon. I believe this is a step in the right direction, even though it is more than likely that the military-industrial complex and secret agencies already know about who and what they are and why they are interested in humankind. DKH
“‘I don’t see a reason for them to coexist,’ Powell says. ‘Congress needs to make the decision. Congress needs to say, we will ultimately support the organization that controls the information for dissemination to the public.’”
I wholeheartedly agree with Robert Powell.
It appears that after Lacatski's experience at Skinwalker ranch, he approached Reid to obtain funding for a contracted-out project that was aimed directly at ranch owner Bigelow. A very tight group. Who else at the DIA was interested, or read the reports? Because when AAWSAP ended no one at the enormous DIA was apparently interested and Lacatski approached the DHS.
AAWSAP spawned AATIP (although the latter has no evidence for its existence except for Elizondo's pronouncements) and AATIP appears to have been used by the TTSA crowd to create a front page story for the press: "AATIP, a $22M (oops wrong project!) Government UFO study"; which garnered political interest, as it appears to have been designed to do; culminating in Gillibrand's amendment (words/plan provided by Christopher Mellon.)
... which, in turn, is being headed off at the pass by the DoD's AOIMSG response.
AAWSAP's main contribution appears to have been the identification of a hitchhiker-type psi phenomenon that behaves like a contagious agent. But as far as UFO/UAP studies go, the two sides in this battle are jockeying for position before any military UFO/UAP investigations start for real.
Follow the virtual money. What's the cost of Gillibrand's proposition, compared to the DoD's AOIMSG? Will the politicians prefer to offload the UFO problem to the DoD for free, or pay for a new body to oversee and manage data from organisations that would choose to shave their eyeballs before sharing?
Money+Political_Will kick-started the Superconducting Super Collider, which was eventually cancelled due to costs - and that was a project asking questions we wanted answers to. How long will the politicians back UAP studies before the psi side (and physical 'impossibilities') have them running for cover?
Apparently psi is real, and some UAP appear to be non-human tech. But these actual realities don't mesh well with virtual political realities.
However this ends, this entire episode in our UFO history needs to be remembered, and understood.
Hi Freeman. "Will the politicians prefer to offload the UFO problem to the DoD for free, or pay for a new body to oversee and manage data..." you ask. To my mind, offloading to DOD would simply be perpetuating the decades old status quo. Based upon developments and public polling since 12/17 I'd venture to speculate that a significant number of congress members are aware that such a move would not sit well with constituents. ( I look forward to the day when UAP becomes an election issue. Hope springs eternal.)
Hi Billy & Bill: The only reason that UAP are no longer a toxic subject to politicians is because they can be viewed as potential threats from terrestrial sources and a flight safety risk (rather than as potentially ET or anything else).
Whatever exercise ensues to find answers (Congressionally backed or DoD controlled), then (for any individual incident) once any foreign threat has been ruled out then the investigation will probably cease (see SA4281):
(4) Evaluating links between unidentified aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or nonstate actors.
(5) Evaluating the threat that such incidents present to the United States.
There is a small window of opportunity to look further but would the DoD do this:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director and the Secretary shall each... including testing of materials, medical studies, and development of theoretical models to better understand and explain unidentified aerial phenomena.
...but that doesn't preclude such theories from being limited to the fields of atmospheric or cognitive anomalies :(
I was re-watching episodes of Madam Secretary, specifically the one where they emphasise the issue of Climate Change. It was pointed out that until the 'truth' of climate change was acknowledged (by a House Resolution) then no progress could be made.
The same applies to the area of UAP/UFOs that we're specifically interested in. Until the there's an acknowledgement that some UAP represent non-human tech &/or paranormal phenomena, then the authorities won't look beyond the purely terrestrial.
Points well taken. However, we must be cognizant that a portion of the Congress and Senate were in on the classified UAP Task Force briefings, which allegedly was 70 pages (not 4) and included several still classified videos that, according to Elizondo, were mind boggling. Regardless of whether the UAP were recorded in restricted airspace, or not, what those Washingtonians saw must have shaken some of them into the realization that the phenomenon goes well beyond military encounters and sightings.
It's ludicrous that only special committees and committee chairs are allowed to get the classified briefings. How can the legislature vote on UAP related amendments to spending bills when only a handful are aware of the bigger picture?
(On the other hand, do we really want Marjorie Taylor Greene and her loony radical compadres voicing their opinions on UAP? "The Demons are here!")
I recall that Elizondo claimed it was 70 odd pages, but my understanding is that it was more like 17. I can't help but be suspicious of claims about videos, given what's been released to the public. I fully accept the likelihood of an ET presence but Elizondo has been nothing but hype, as far as good evidence goes.
The military may have the sensors, but they will be ultra-cautious when it comes to sharing information - and so will the intelligence community. The IC has a very good overview of the history and development of foreign technology - they know what Russia and China can do, but the spooks won't do anything that reveals the degree of their knowledge.
Some 'unknowns' *will* be known by the IC and the military, but they won't admit they know. But there will also be 'unknowns' that are genuine mysteries. Some of the latter will be supported by classified information/sensors thereby limiting/prohibiting open analysis. A smaller subset will involve good evidence (mostly multi-witness testimony) that doesn't involve classified elements and can be discussed openly.
Nimitz 2004 was exceptional, because the wide publicity it gained allowed witnesses to come forward and talk around the edges of classified info. That's as good as the general public/Congress could possibly expect. Nimitz should have triggered a public enquiry with open hearings. The fact that it didn't gives us a big clue as to how things will actually go from here.
I might be one of the few here to come to Elizondo's defense. He has made it clear that there are disclosure red lines he cannot cross without dire consequences. Well, that's not new. There are likely hundreds of retired military / intelligence officers who took or signed the same security oaths and have revealed... nothing. Not even whispers. So, to accuse L.E. of being all hype is simply not fair. Who else has publicly stated the DOD has more videos that are not being declassified? Who else ( other then Mellon) from inside the mil-intel complex keeps pushing for more transparency and international cooperation?
As to Nimitz 2004... I know. I know. The radar, FLIR, and other top of the line sensor data bolsters the case for its significance. But, as one who monitors UFO reporting websites daily, I can state with certainty that those tic-tac signatures were middle-shelf compared to some of the extraordinary objects ordinary people are videoing nearly every day. But those folks aren't in uniform and don't have an array of sophisticated sensors to buttress their captures. Thus, you and many others discount what they have seen.
If the phenomenon is to remain caged in the military / intelligence complex... expect no enlightening answers.
It's a difficult situation for everyone. When I was a kid I was annoyed by the dismissal of the Mantell case as Venus, especially when it was acknowledged that Venus was in a different part of the sky. Anyone who sees something unusual is automatically in the position where they have to defend their interpretation of what they saw.
There are lots of videos and it's next to impossible to prove fake from misinterpretation from alien tech (assuming the last exists, which I do). But if part of the mission is to produce incontrovertible evidence to the authorities so they have no option but to acknowledge the reality of non-human tech (or something paranormal), then we need to find cases that tick all the boxes - which is what documentary makers, like James Fox, try to do.
The continuing problem is the elusive nature of the phenomenon and the difficulties in obtaining multi-witness, multi-sensor data.
Perhaps my expectations of Luis Elizondo are too high, but I've
followed most of what he's said and written and from an evidential point of view he's not moved the ball forward at all (he's not even managed to provide evidence of the existence of his own AATIP, although others have made supporting statements.) What he has done is to help gain the attention of the media as part of the TTSA team's efforts. Virtually all PR and hype, excluding Nimitz, which he wasn't involved with. He doesn't distinguish between what he knows from his previous role (if anything) and what he knows from talking to his TTSA buddies. As for secrecy, the guy wouldn't even confirm that his name was on the DDwhatsit form requesting the release of the Navy videos (eventually someone else released a copy showing his name on it). Maybe he is a nice guy, but I wouldn't buy a second hand car from him, or a book.
SA4281 should have included something like: A subset of data and reports, that represent exceptionally anomalous phenomena, should be collated as a separate body of evidence for independent review and consideration of their broader implications.
Agreed. And it may well come down to money. As Rodeghier says, "The government has assets in place -- satellites, sensor systems, sensor systems on aircraft that concentrate on military sightings. So they have things in place already that don't, in theory, cost money. But still, the effort required to do it appropriately is not insubstantial. In fact, let's put it this way, it's definitely going to cost a lot more than the $22 million that AAWSAP spent." Given the spectrum of curiosities associated with UAP, I wouldn't begin to know how to put a price tag on it. Manhattan Project, meet Apollo?
A strong element of UAP studies raises questions as to how our fundamental reality affects individual perceptions. Politics is the art of responding to the perceived perceptions of others.
Once again I'm reminded of the recurring PEANUTS panels in which Lucy is holding a football on the ground for Charlie Brown to kick. At the last moment she pulls it away, causing him to fly into the air and crash on his backside. Will he / we ever learn?
The game is afoot, and I suspect the USAF - at the highest levels - played a significant role in advocating for AOIMSG.
Someone is hell-bent on controlling the narrative - a very restricted narrative.
It's possible the pressure from Navy pilots and radar techs was building up to a whistleblower level, so they had to get out in front of any revelations. Just a thought.
Robert Powell is sorta like screen name "Freeman"
He asks a lotta good questions
Let's hope that Congress goes with only ASTRO
Kathleen Hicks simply takes her marching orders from the Pentagon.. who prefers the status quo
Tom Rogin of the Washington wrote a good OP- ED a few days ago regarding this as well
Well, at least one guy's making a little noise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PF5IFBsUU