The UAP Task Force: is this 'disclosure'?

[aoibhghaire]

Key events that have taken place since 16 December, 2017

https://icer.network/2021/12/17/16th...7-anniversary/

[aoibhghaire]

Dramatic Sequence of Events Results in Unprecedented U.S. Legislation

Toronto [ZNN] ZlandCommunications has learned that ICER - The International Coalition for Extraterrestrial Research has assembled a first-time-ever sweeping chronology of significant events that have lead to the creation of unprecedented legislation in the U.S. Senate on UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

The enactment into law of UAP-specific legislation has been triggered by unprecedented events that have captured the imagination and political will of a bipartisan group of US Senators and Congressional representatives - another first amidst the current divisiveness in U.S. governance.

To put the codification of these events into their proper perspective and strategic context, it appears that ICER has not only streamlined the timing, sequence and significance of these events for the public in its press release, ICER seems to have contributed to breaking the glass ceiling of secrecy that has plagued U.S. military and intelligence agencies for over 75 years.


http://zlandcommunications.blogspot....eading-to.html

[Bill Ryan]

An interesting new (17 Dec 2021) piece published on The War Zone. (A long one!)

It's reported near the end of the article that the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday himself stated there was no indication that the aircraft were extraterrestrial. But of course, that inclusion in itself is interesting. And UFO documentarian Jeremy Corbell is also mentioned.It has to be said that if these "drones" are indeed Chinese or Russian, that itself has to be pretty significant.

• https://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43...t-on-for-weeks

Harassment Of Navy Destroyers By Mysterious Drone Swarms Off California Went On For Weeks

A new trove of documents shows that the still unsolved incidents continued far longer than previously understood.



Earlier this year The War Zone exclusively reported about a series of 2019 incidents that involved unidentified drones stalking US Navy vessels over several nights in the waters off of Southern California. Our initial report also covered the Navy’s investigation into the incidents, which appeared to struggle to identify either the aircraft or their operators. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday later clarified that the aircraft were never identified, and that there have been similar incidents across the service branches and allied militaries.

Newly released documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that the full scope of these drone incursions was greater than it initially appeared, and they persisted well after the Navy’s investigation was launched. Deck logs indicate that drone sightings continued throughout the month of July 2019 and included events where drone countermeasure teams were called into action. One notable event involved at least three ships observing multiple drones. Uncharacteristically for unclassified deck logs, the details on this event are almost entirely redacted.

Among the new documents is the map seen below that details the interactions between a drone (denoted on what appears to be a briefing slide as an unmanned aerial system, or UAS) and a Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the USS Paul Hamilton.


US Navy via FOIA. Map depicts the USS Paul Hamilton's interactions with an unknown UAS

The map depicts Paul Hamilton making an abrupt right-hand turn while a drone closely follows the ship. The legends and annotations of the map have been redacted under FOIA exemptions that apply to technical data that have military applications. Though the title of the document reads July 17th, the map appears to refer to drone encounters that occurred in the incidents on July 14th and July 15th.

Intriguingly, one of the position points of the drone is marked with a star, while others show a dashed line around a given area. It is unclear exactly what these indicate without the map legends, though the star suggests at least one particularly notable event. Our previous coverage indicated that the incident involved multiple contacts that maneuvered around the ships in a highly dynamic way, and there may have been uncertainty about the exact location of the drones at times.

The deck logs from the period show that Ship Nautical Or Otherwise Photographic Interpretation and Exploitation (SNOOPIE) teams were deployed frequently during the incidents. SNOOPIE teams consist of sailors specifically trained to enhance situational awareness and to document unknown contacts or other events and objects of interest.
It is highly likely that a number of photographs exist of the drones given the work of the SNOOPIE teams and other onboard sensors. The same document providing the map above also contains a reference to a photograph of the drones, which has been completely redacted under the same technical data exemptions.

US Navy. A member of a destroyer's SNOOPIE team with a video camera in hand

According to deck logs, the proximity of the drones also led the ships to exercise enhanced “emissions control,” or EMCON, protocols designed to minimize their electronic profile. An extensive analysis by War Zone editor Tyler Rogoway explains that drones could play a useful role in provoking reactions from an adversary as a means to capture highly prized electronic intelligence (ELINT) and sensitive operating procedures. Intriguingly, references to EMCON were not universal throughout the encounters, and do not appear to have been as relevant in the newly released documents.

Previously, the majority of available documents suggested that the drone encounters were limited to the evenings of July 15th and July 16th, 2019, with a second, but minor series of events occurring towards the end of the month. New logs show that sightings persisted sporadically throughout the second half of July with another significant event happening in the early hours of July 30th. Indeed, as early as the morning of July 17th, the USS Russell, another Arleigh Burke class destroyer, continued to report drone sightings, as seen in the portion of the log below.

US Navy via FOIA. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell.

It is very noteworthy that several days later, on the 20th, the USS Russell conducted an initial counter UAS exercise.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

Later in the same day, the Russell conducted another set of counter UAS exercises, this time firing a 5-inch naval gun. Speaking to USNI News, retired Navy officer Thomas Callender explained that 5-inch deck guns have been tested as a counter UAS weapon in the past with limited success, stating "they found that the 5-inch gun took multiple shots to try and hit it because it’s not designed for something slow and small."

Callender's remarks were in the context of another incident in July 2019 that involved Marines onboard the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Boxer disabling an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz using a vehicle-mounted electronic warfare system. The logs from this period reflect that several shots were fired in the exercise, including at least one misfire.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

Three days later, another drone was spotted by a SNOOPIE team at an elevation of about 400 feet. Note that in naval parlance, "calling away" refers to sending sailors to their posts.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

A little over an hour later, flares were spotted, though the logs do not remark if these were connected to the ongoing drone sighting. Flares are not uncommon in the training areas off Southern California where the ships were operating.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

The following day, a new term is introduced to the logs: “ghostbusters.” A log entry reflects an apparently brief counter UAS exercise lasting about eight minutes.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

Though official references are hard to come by, “ghostbuster” is a term sometimes used to refer to lower-end counter UAS devices that look similar to rifles.

Battelle. A woman test-fires the anti-drone gun known as the DroneDefender.

These anti-drone countermeasures are increasingly being used by security forces around the world. They operate by using highly-directional radiofrequency jammers designed to disrupt communications between drones and their operators. One key limitation of these devices is that they can only disable drones that are directly controlled by a human operator. Autonomous systems are far more resilient against such countermeasures. Beyond that, their overall effectiveness varies heavily by type and circumstance. Aside from these limitations, they are relatively portable and easily fielded.

It is not perfectly clear if the Russell had this equipment onboard previously, or if “ghostbuster” devices were brought onboard in reaction to the earlier drone incidents. If so, they would have been among the simplest counter-drone devices to field given their independent man-portable deployability. Our previous reporting did not show any indication of the use of these devices in the earlier incidents, and references to them appear shortly after the counter-UAS exercise, heavily suggesting they may have been introduced in response to the incursions. We are not aware of these systems being widely fielded on surface ships at the time, especially those operating in home waters. Also, only the USS Russell reported the use of "ghostbusters" in its logs.

After a relatively quiet period, another incident occurred in the very early hours of July 30th. A SNOOPIE team was activated and “ghostbusters” were called for shortly afterwards.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

What follows are uncharacteristically redacted logs. As with the map of the drone movements earlier in this story, the exemptions pertain to technical military data. In the hundreds of pages of ship logs reviewed by us about this matter, these are the first to contain significant redactions and the only ones to reference this particular exemption.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

By 3:00 AM on July 30, the pattern of redaction ends. In the same timeframe, at least two other ships nearby noted drone or UAV activity. As previously reported, the USS Kidd, another Arleigh Burke class destroyer involved in these incidents, deployed its own SNOOPIE team for UAVs at 2:16 AM that day. The log later notes that the SNOOPIE team was recalled by 3:27 AM.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Kidd

Logs from the USS Paul Hamilton also reflect multiple drones spotted off the ship, and their own SNOOPIE team activated around 3:30 AM on July 30.

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Paul Hamilton

Later in the morning on the same day, the Russell again engaged its SNOOPIE team and the “ghostbusters.”

US Navy. Excerpt from the log of the USS Russell

This log entry also has a reference to "SCAT," which likely stands for Small Craft Action Team. Speaking to Business Insider last year, Navy Lt. J. G. Frank Smeeks, an anti-terrorism officer, explained that "SCAT is a team consisting of crew-served weapons machine gun operators that provide 360-degree coverage of the ship, an anti-terrorism tactical watch officer and a gunnery liaison officer. They are called away as a pre-planned response to threats the ship may face like a small boat attack or low, slow flyer." Logs from another nearby ship, the USS Bunker Hill, also indicate that they manned their own SNOOPIE team and SCAT in the same timeframe. The Bunker Hill logs are unclear if the SNOOPIE team was deployed in response to a drone sighting. The simultaneous use of three teams designed for quick reactions to potential threats suggests a high level of alarm well into the morning.

US Navy. USS America conducts small craft attack team drills

In this same general time period, it appears that the USS Russell was visited by an unnamed admiral. Deck logs record an admiral arriving on July 22, just prior to the implementation of counter UAS training exercises and the start of references to "ghostbusters" on the morning of July 24. Logs also remark about an admiral casting off on July 31, but there are few other indicators what the purpose of the visit may have been or if it had any connection to the UAS incidents.

Cumulatively, these records show a sustained, but an intermittent pattern of drone sightings throughout the month of July by Navy ships operating off Southern California. These events seemed to have spurred additional training and the rapid deployment of unique capabilities like the “ghostbuster” counter-UAS equipment. It remains unknown what impact, if any, this training and equipment had on deterring drone operations. At least three ships reported sighting drones in the very early hours of July 30th, with unusual and extensive redactions in the logs of the USS Russell, but we do not know what happened the next day, or in the weeks that followed.

It is also noteworthy that these events occurred well after Navy investigators sought to “correlate or rule out operations” with Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) based in San Diego. Indeed, an investigation began immediately after the initial events on July 16th, with information on the incidents being routed to the Chief of Naval Operations as early as July 18th. Given the progress of the investigation, more prosaic causes like errant US aircraft or civilian activity had already been examined. Whatever the outcome of the July 30th event, it was likely closely scrutinized by Navy leadership.

The lack of concrete identification of the aircraft involved also led to widespread public speculation earlier this year. Leaked photos and videos said to pertain to the July 15th and 16th incident were released this summer by filmmaker Jeremy Corbell. The materials consisted of footage of radar screens showing multiple unknown contacts, video of an object apparently falling into the ocean, and a brief video of a triangular-shaped light flying over the deck of a ship. The apparent triangular shape of the object has been strongly debated, as many have posited it was the result of a common optical artifact.

Jeremy Corbell. A briefing slide depicts several pictures of a "seemingly triangular" shape recorded by the Russell

The Department of Defense was quick to partially authenticate the material, acknowledging that the videos were taken by Navy personnel. However, to date, the Pentagon has not provided any details that corroborate the location or timeframe of the footage or any clarification on what the objects were. Corbell maintains that the videos depict extraordinarily complex vehicles capable of “transmedium” travel, or the ability to traverse both water and the atmosphere with ease. Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday explained in a press briefing earlier this year that while the Navy had not positively identified the aircraft, there were no indications they were extraterrestrial in nature.

There has been significant overlap in the discussion of the mounting threat from lower-end drones and resurgent interest in UFOs in recent years. That overlap is conspicuous in the recent National Defense Authorization Act language, which authorizes an expansive approach to the Pentagon’s study of UFOs. The language, introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, creates a requirement for conducting “field investigations,” as well as new mandates to scientifically examine UFO reports. An amended version of Gillibrand's proposal was ultimately adopted in the NDAA and awaits President Biden's signature. While many have focused on otherworldly explanations for UFO sightings, Senator Gillibrand told Politico that the rationale for her interest encompassed conventional and emerging technology and not only the “unknown.” She explained, “you're talking about drone technology, you're talking about balloon technology, you're talking about other aerial phenomena, and then you're talking about the unknown.”

The urgency surrounding the drone issue has been a growing focus among defense policymakers as encounters with both civilian and military aircraft have become widespread. In the last five years the Federal Aviation Administration has gathered approximately ten thousand drone incident reports. We have made many of these reports available in an interactive tool that maps the location and descriptions of the incident.

Far from being only a domestic issue, drones have also become a matter of grave concern for military leaders. Earlier this year Marine General Kenneth McKenzie Jr. said in a speech to the Middle East Institute that “the growing threat posed by these systems coupled with our lack of dependable, networked capabilities to counter them is the most concerning tactical development since the rise of the improvised explosive device in Iraq.” McKenzie also explained that drones “provide adversaries the operational ability to surveil and target U.S. and partner facilities while affording plausible deniability and a disproportionate return on the investment, all in our adversaries’ favor.”

In the case of the 2019 Southern California incidents, several of these factors appear to be at work. The newly released map clarifies just how closely drones were shadowing Navy ships, likely affording opportunities to gather a variety of valuable intelligence. The lack of positive attribution of the aircraft even today speaks to McKenzie’s comments about plausible deniability and disproportionate return.

Questions also linger surrounding “dependable, networked capabilities” and countermeasures. For now, it remains unknown if the “ghostbuster” devices and additional counter-UAS training were sufficient to halt the incursions. A highly pertinent question now is when exactly did they end, and how widespread similar incidents have been elsewhere?

The timing of training and potential deployment of counter-UAS capabilities in the weeks after the events of July 15th and 16th also points to the Navy believing these were unidentified drones, not fantastic craft with out-of-this-world abilities. This appears consistent with our previous reporting, which found that the Navy had investigated its own drone flights and questioned civilians known to operate drones in that area. Additionally, countless deck log entries refer to the aircraft not only as UAS or UAV, but also plainly as drones. Finally, asked about our reporting, the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday himself stated there was no indication that the aircraft were extraterrestrial.

Still, since they remain unidentified, we can’t say for certain exactly what they were or who they belonged to. We are still far from a full answer. These new documents suggest several avenues for further inquiry, and we expect new information to develop. As we and our expert sources continue to analyze the documents some inferences are bound to change. References to the colorful term "ghostbuster" appear to be new to this story, and we are currently pursuing additional records to clarify exactly what this entailed and what happened in subsequent days and weeks.

See also:

• Multiple Destroyers Were Swarmed By Mysterious 'Drones' Off California Over Numerous Nights By Adam Kehoe and Marc Cecotti Posted in The War Zone
• Adversary Drones Are Spying On The U.S. And The Pentagon Acts Like They're UFOs By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
• Navy's Top Officer Says ‘Drones’ That Swarmed Destroyers Remain Unidentified By Adam Kehoe and Marc Cecotti Posted in The War Zone
• FAA Data Shows Strange Pattern Of Military Encounters With Unidentified Aircraft By Adam Kehoe and Marc Cecotti Posted in The War Zone
• China Built A Mothership For Training Its Forces To Defend Against Drone Swarms By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

[Did You See Them]

Why are they "drones" ?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Did You See Them (here)
Why are they "drones" ?

Good question. My best guess is because they're "slow and small". Here's the quote from the article:

Speaking to USNI News, retired Navy officer Thomas Callender explained that 5-inch deck guns have been tested as a counter UAS weapon in the past with limited success, stating "they found that the 5-inch gun took multiple shots to try and hit it because it’s not designed for something slow and small."

And, though not stated in the article, presumably they're not behaving like regular aircraft either.

But as many ufologists know, there are sometimes very small, drone-like UFOs as well. (And they may well be unpiloted drones, just not "ours". )

However, I do still suspect that these craft, whatever they are, are classified US military hardware (of various kinds), all being used in a highly compartmentalized way to test their capabilities against what's very well understood, the capabilities of the regular US Navy.

[Kryztian]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Did You See Them (here)
Why are they "drones" ?

Good question. My best guess is because they're "slow and small".

Per dictionary.com, a drone is

2 a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight.
b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely

It seems the policy has been not to imply that there is any intelligence behind these UAPs or any occupants, but by using the word "drone", it implies that there is an intelligence remotely operating the craft. And to distinguish these UAPs as drones, from the other UAPs seems to imply that the non-drone UAPs have occupants!

[Sunny-side-up]

It's reported near the end of the article that the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday himself stated there was no indication that the aircraft were extraterrestrial.

Bill

That is totally true, unless one is captured or one contacts directly and says they are not from earth, well then they are just "baffling " tech.

[onawah]

History Channel’s “Unidentified” and a Secret Meeting Between Intelligence Officials Running AATIP. Or… was it?
BY JOHN GREENEWALD
DECEMBER 20, 2021 UPDATED:DECEMBER 22, 2021
https://www.theblackvault.com/docume...qoEvdpY4H7by2w

(Note: This subject is not something I devote a lot of time to, but I thought those on the forum who do would want to see this, and that it might have been overlooked otherwise.)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LrJ7Vnu6b7A

"So I will throw a monkey wrench into this wheel. I see a lot of talk and dismissal of a story posted on Reddit, and I can add a few things, including what I verified to be true. The post throws into question on what was depicted in the History channel show “Unidentified” and how people depicted as running the present day AATIP effort, may not have been. Although it’s a tv show, and some people may not care about context, it does created additional questions worthy of asking.

First? This story came to me in 2019, and it checks out, at least on the points I can check. It ties in to the History Channel; the show “Unidentified”; and specifically a scene in Season 1, Episode 6, that depicts what appears to be a secret meeting just outside the Pentagon between, “a new team of Pentagon officers who are studying UFOs” and “running this [AATIP] effort,” “…with official blessing.” (Quotes taken from the tv show “Unidentified,” as said by Luis Elizondo.)

Let me explain, and take this for what it’s worth.

Second? You all know I do not like anonymous sources. So, when this person came to me, I do what I always do. I vet and verify. However, please note from the get go, they were NOT anonymous to me and made ZERO effort to hide their identity with me (which is always a red flag if they did try to do that). They just did not want me to blast out their identity. Every claim I could check… checked out. All evidence pointed to they WERE active U.S. Army counterintelligence, and they even contacted me through a military e-mail initially to also help verify credentials. That also checked out as it was verified not to be a spoofed address. In addition, the Reddit moderator where this was posted recently was given enough evidence to convince them as a law enforcement officer, that the person’s credentials checked out. So, there are multiple people who vetted the source, and to that extent, it could be verified by all.

Third? Back in 2019, I dissected the claim of where the alleged Elizondo/Delonge meeting was. I was told in 2019, as was posted publicly here in 2021, it was the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Virginia. I took a different approach here.

The scene in episode 6, season 1, of “Unidentified” showed Elizondo and DeLonge inside a hotel room. Captured on the side of the frame was a hotel room mirror. It was a very distinct design, and likely unique to the hotel, emulating the “Crystal” part of the Crystal Gateway Marriott. In other words, it was a crystal shaped mirror. Heading to the website of the Crystal Gateway Marriott, there are numerous photos of the rooms. There was a 100% match on the mirror on the wall and the desk lamp on the table.




Another scene showed DeLonge walking through the hotel going to the meeting. Slightly blurred behind him, was a long light pillar, also found within photos of the hotel in the lobby area. Again, yet another match.



So, in 2019, you’d have to be a very lucky guesser, or someone with intimate knowledge of the television shoot’s location to nail that one.

Let’s move on.

Fourth? The physical description of the person. I won’t go into any other detail, other than this. While vetting the person, I found numerous photographs of them. In Unidentified, that person was a match, in both stature and physical appearance, along with a somewhat unique physical feature of the person – and yes, you could tell even with the blurred face. Yet another indicator the person was truly there, and telling the truth about sitting at the meeting in a hotel lobby.

Because this person did not want to have their identity known in 2019 or even here at the end of 2021, I respected that then as I do now. I also knew with my own personal conviction, I wouldn’t run a story with one single source, who could not be named, and was known only by me. It was no offense to this counter-intelligence agent speaking up; rather, that’s how I’ve always operated. So, I just sat on it until they were ready to come forward to people beyond just me and invited themselves to be vetted. That time has now come.

People thought I was/am out to get Elizondo, and I am not. Not then and certainly not now. If I was, I would’ve been happy to publish this in 2019 with no named sources, since most UFO blogs and sites claiming to be a “news site” do the same anyway making all sorts of claims. But, that’s not my style or intent. I am out to get the truth, whatever that may be, with no personal bias on what I want it to actually be. So, I just dig and dig and dig, and with stories like this, I verify what I can, and store it for later use.

That said, this story has always been a bit of a surprise to me, even to this day.

I decided to post the above at this point, given the raging debate that people think this CI agent is not an agent, and is some kid on Reddit making it up. I can at least say through research and personal interaction, that isn’t true, and their story has remained consistent since 2019. In addition, all things that I could challenge of the story? All checked out.

Most of all, I was let down that what was framed as a secret meeting between intelligence officers, was nothing of the sort. It was more of a “job interview” (as this Army CI agent said), with at least one of the parties at the table not knowing it would end up in a TV show or the fact they were even being filmed. In addition, with that context, at least one of the people at this meeting was certainly not “running [the AATIP]effort,” but according to them, they were just “talking about some wild stuff [with]little evidence to support any of it.”

I wonder what the other two at the table knew about this “meeting” and whether or not they are happy with being secretly filmed and put on tv?

As a television producer who worked extensively for A&E networks / History Channel, I could NEVER film someone without their consent. Or, if they just seemed to be in the shot (ie: a person walking behind my main framed character), then we would have to blur the face and only show those who were cleared with an appearance release. Many have tried to dismiss this story because the Army officer says he had no knowledge of being filmed. Well, I am here to tell you as someone with first hand knowledge, although shady, the producers could get away with it if they adequately blurred the face and did not use the person’s voice.

I re-watched the segment on Unidentified, and I can say that again, from experience, that meeting was intentionally misrepresented with narration and sound bites, if this counterintelligence agent is telling the truth (I see no signs they are not). Also as a television producer with experience, I now question what else could have been misrepresented more for entertainment/intrigue/mystery/tease rather than accuracy. Trust me, in television production, that’s an easy thing to get away with (obviously, as seen here).



Why is this important? Because when I saw the meeting aired and represented how it was on the TV show, I was incredibly intrigued and encouraged. I felt that this was maybe some proof the Pentagon was lying, and the AATIP effort was underway, even in “secret.” Yet, now, one of the people at the table comes forward, and we learn that at least according to them, they wanted to be involved in the effort, but were not at all, nor were they ever. And what was supposed to be a meeting between those at the table who were currently running AATIP, well, it was actually just a scene secretly filmed for a tv show, and misrepresented on the air as something it was not.

Let it be known, I do not blame DeLonge or Elizondo by default for this. It is very possible that they, too, were unaware of the filming being taken in secret from the 2nd level of the hotel. So, my post here is not an attack on them in the slightest, nor is it an insinuation they did this. They could very well have been unaware of all this in the context it was shown.

Producers often will take b-roll shots, especially without the talent’s knowledge, so it appears to be more genuine and real in the context of a television program. In fact, I did this myself on quite a few occasions, but certainly not maliciously or for the intent of misrepresenting. And my talent was always made aware after the fact they were filmed, if I shot b-roll of them.

That said, SOMEONE made the call to frame this all in this way. So I hope in the interest of accuracy, someone will speak out about it from the cast and/or crew just to clear it up. And, maybe they should even apologize, since this Army counterintelligence agent had to file a formal report with superiors since they were told things about “classified material” that weren’t actually classified, and all that same information ended up on DeLonge’s social media account and on a tv show.

What do you all do with the above? Well, that is up to you. I am sure my post will entice the same attackers to start throwing stones my way for posting about this, like I am somehow to blame for all this. However, the facts are what they are. I challenged the story in every way I could, and it all checked out.

But I do believe this is an important part of this saga and it should be dealt with. If players in this story advocate for truth and transparency, then I think at least some of the above should be addressed.

In addition, I feel there is a possibility (though I am not 100%) this CI agent’s identity may be known ONE DAY when they decide to put a face and a name to the anonymous posting. And when that happens, people will see they are a real person.

As for the other two at the table? Well, I may have something to add to that, too, should they ever decide to come forward. But that is a story for another day.

Until then, I wish you continued luck with unraveling the AATIP/AAWSAP/UAP saga. We are all going to need it as the waters seem to be getting muddier rather than clearing up.

###

The Original Reddit Post – Archived 12/20/2021 @ 6:51a Pacific
First, full disclosure. I am a US Army Counterintelligence Agent. This will be the first time I’ve posted something on Reddit in the 10 years I’ve been here that runs the risk of someone being able to figure out who I am based on the story I’m about to tell, but I’m nearly retired, so I think I’m probably alright.

I want to start with a disclaimer. I know, having read a ton of books and watched a ton of stuff over this topic, that we (CI) have a bad reputation in this and the UFO community and I get it. But me, personally? I have no reason or desire to lie or add more confusion into this subject as it’s already muddled enough as it is. So what I’m going to recount here are events exactly as they occurred and my own personal thoughts and opinions.

None of this is to be taken as the official stance of the US Government or the US Army.

Now, the story. Apologies in advance, this is long.

Back around Thanksgiving of 2018, I was at work, discussing the old Project Stargate with a colleague who worked in a SAP in the same building as me. During this conversation, he mentioned that one of his coworkers was a retired CI colonel who provided cover support to Stargate back in the 80s and offered to introduce me, so I went with him and we had a rather… interesting conversation regarding Stargate and some of the stuff that went on at Fort Meade during that timeframe with regard to that program. During that conversation, I somewhat jokingly asked, “Are you guys going to tell me that UFOs are real next?” They all became rather serious and my colleague asked, “Have you ever heard of Luis Elizondo?”

He went on to explain that Elizondo was a former Army CI guy like myself and told me that I should look into some of his claims and videos. According to this colleague, he served with Elizondo while he was still in the Army and explicitly trusted the man. So – I did my research, watched some stuff, and eventually figured out where Elizondo worked at the time – TTSA. So? I contacted TTSA, identified myself as a CI agent and said I’d be curious to talk to Elizondo if he was willing, just to discuss this subject in general.

24 hours later, I had about a 30 min-1 hour phone call with Elizondo. The biggest takeaways from this conversation were the three questions I asked and his answers to them: 1 – What made you believe? He responded with, “You know the videos in the news? The stuff that’s still classified is way crazier.” 2 – Is AATIP still a thing, because the media says it’s defunct?” – It absolutely still is a thing. 3 – Can I get a job with AATIP as an Army CI guy to do investigations?” – Absolutely, we’ll set up a meeting.

Fast forward to the end of January 2019. I was invited to a meeting by Elizondo at the Gateway Marriott hotel just outside of the Pentagon. When I showed up, the meeting was already in progress- Tom Delonge was there and two gentlemen (who will remain nameless due to the fact they’re still working in the USG). (As a side note, Tom Delonge is a huge dude. Like – ripped and taller than me, and I’m fairly tall. Was not expecting that). I didn’t get the entire conversation from the start, but it sounded to me like they were discussing something to do with mutual work or something of that nature between TTSA and the USG. Don’t quote me. It’s not relevant. Some of the key things from this meeting that I want to point out are: 1 – they said they had “recovered fragments” from UFO sightings/encounters and showed me several photos on their phone of what looked to be regular metallic slag or melted chunks of debris. They also had chemical analysis reports they showed me copies of. Now, I got an A in college chemistry, but having like – 15 seconds – to look at these things and them not being willing to provide copies – I couldn’t tell you what the hell those reports said, or if they contained anything noteworthy – or – really – anything indicating these metallic lumps were from potentially extraterrestrial origin or whatever. One final thing they mentioned was the supposed existence of what they referred to as a “biological specimen.” When I exhibited a bit of surprise over this, Elizondo pointed to the two gentlemen from the Pentagon and said, “they know about it, it belongs to the USG.” This will be important later.

At one point during this meeting, Elizondo got up to see the two gentlemen from the Pentagon off and I had a little bit to talk to Tom directly. During that portion of this encounter, he made the statement to me that there were incidents of “some type of creatures coming through portals on Earth,” and in one incident, these “creatures” used some kind of “weapon” to turn a dog into a “grease stain.” He also mentioned that there was some kind of a “cold war or equivalent to the Syria situation” taking place between a species of extraterrestrial that is already here “under the oceans” and another from “somewhere else” that is currently “on the moon.”

Being that I was trying to be polite (still in ‘seeking a job w/ the AATIP mode), I listened and didn’t really argue or ask a lot of hard-hitting questions, just nodded and heard these guys out. At the conclusion of this meeting, Elizondo set me up with the two gentlemen at the Pentagon and I left.

Fast forward to the end of February 2019.

I met with the two gentlemen in a conference room in the Pentagon cleared for up to TS/SCI discussions and material. I want to say something here for clarity’s sake. In the intelligence community, we have a lot of nooks and crannies and niche jobs you can find yourself in. The one thing that stands true for every single one of these jobs is that there is an “onboarding” process. Meaning – you have to provide paperwork, attend a couple of interviews, take a polygraph, and get “read-on” to whatever it is you’re interested in doing, before you ever even touch the material or do the job.

None of this took place.

I want to make that clear, since at this time, I was still under the impression we were moving toward “me working with AATIP.”

During this hour-long meeting in the Pentagon, we discussed a number of things. First, I (obviously), asked about the “biological specimen” mentioned in the first meeting. They demurred and said, “if there was one, we don’t know where it is, probably been moved between who knows how many warehouses by now.” I asked them about AATIP and recounted my discussion with Elizondo and the potential for possibly working with/for AATIP. They explained that AATIP went defunct due to a funding issue and that, though it still “existed,” it wasn’t currently (as of then) active. We discussed some other stuff, one thing which I won’t recount because they claimed it was SECRET//NOFORN, but I will recount the thing they claimed was TS//SCI. They told me of an incident where an Italian helicopter was literally shot by a UAP and had to make an emergency landing and that they had obtained this information from the Italians. This will be important later. (Also, for other IC professionals reading this who might have just had a mild stroke, it turns out this wasn’t classified information, so chill tf out.) Moving on… the final bit we discussed, which I thoroughly agree with was that – in the 1940s, when the UFO craze took off, the USG at the time had to choose between dealing with the USSR and the start of the Cold War and/or dealing with potential hysteria at home due to the flying saucers people were reporting. So, the national security council at the time decided to work to debunk, marginalize, and ridicule the UFO/Flying Saucer subject, and it through those initial efforts, continued efforts throughout the 1900s, and via the plethora of fringe nonsense today that keep this subject marginalized.

That meeting concluded and that was the last I saw of those two guys.

Fast forward to July 2019.

I watched Unidentified and when we got to the part of the show where they had filmed that meeting in that hotel, I was shocked. In my opinion, that was pretty shady of Tom Delong and Luis Elizondo – to have that meeting take place and secretly have a cameraman up on the second floor of the lobby without notifying us. If I had known they were using that as a stunt for their show at the time, I likely wouldn’t have shown up to the meeting – or – if I did, I wouldn’t have showed up in uniform. The reason for this? Is because the narrator made it seem like there was this super-important, hush-hush meeting between “intelligence officers” to “discuss the UAP issue.” In reality? We were in a ****ing hotel lobby in VA, near the Pentagon and talking about some wild stuff w/ little evidence to support any of it.

To circle back to the TS/SCI thing from above? A friend of mine at the time sent me a screenshot of Tom’s Instagram where he discussed that exact incident with the Italian helicopter and, IIRC, it was even featured in one of the episodes of Unidentified. My response to this – was to file a report w/ my local field office over this. I know that might make me look like “the bad guy,” but if you bring a CI Agent in, tell him something is TS/SCI, then I find out a rockstar has the information and that **** is on social media AND a tv show? I’m pretty much obligated to do something at that point.

Anyhoo.

My final thoughts and conclusions regarding all of this.

I started this wild ass journey back in 2018 not really paying much attention to UFOs/UAPs or whatever. I now have read enough, heard enough, and seen enough – to have moved to “UFOs/UAPs are 100% real, but we don’t know exactly what they are.”

Regarding Elizondo and Delonge.

I don’t know exactly what their entire angle was/is regarding all of this. Their publicly stated stance is one of “disclosure.” But the way they interacted with me, and the runaround I experienced in the ****ing Pentagon put a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not going to sit here and call their entire endeavor bull****, because I don’t think, on some level, it is. There are too many stories from the witnesses they interviewed for it simply to be complete nonsense.

But I have maintained from the beginning that something is a bit off – especially with the way Elizondo’s involvement started, how he went about all of this, and the nature of the subject itself. Personally? My first thought was that this was all a giant smokescreen and part of some kind of deception operation the USG is running to cover up for something else. What that could be? Who knows.

But for people touting that “disclosure” is coming – they’re sure taking their sweet-ass time.

Sorry for the long post. There are more bits to this, but this is already a Dickensian treatise. I will be willing to answer questions and provide more information – also – I want to reiterate the following points:

1 – these are the events exactly as they occurred.

2 – these are my personal opinions.

3 – this is not the stance of the USG or the Army.

4 – nothing here is actually classified (again for IC people reading this).

I can verify my identity to a mod, if needed.

EDIT – I forgot to mention that I asked those guys at the Pentagon where the AATIP’s documents and evidence were – and they told me it was “all transferred to Bob Bigelow and didn’t exist at the Pentagon anymore.” "

[Gwin Ru]

A group more secret than any intelligence agency on Earth with super power abilities. Is TLS real? 53:20

michaelj5326
Published December 25, 2021

Rumble — UNIFYD.com/free-library
Use code “THANKS40” to receive 40% off a UNIFYD Premium membership for the lifetime of the membership to further support the platform and future interviews and videos!
free newsletter at UNIFYD.com/newsletter

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/vosn4r

[Bill Ryan]

New from Richard Dolan: an interesting title, but it's all relevant.

UFOs, the Gillibrand Amendment, and the Globalist Revolution

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mTQFqATdFLI

[norman]

Gate Keeper, Sen. Harry Reid has died.

Can we expect anything to tumble out of the secrets bag ?




https://www.reuters.com/world/us/for...ed-2021-12-29/

[Gwin Ru]

DISCLOSURE: An Interview with “Ray” 1:30:16

“DISCLOSURE” is an exclusive interview with “Ray”, an individual who Jason Shurka has been working with since June of 2018 that works with an undercover organization for the betterment of humanity known at TLS (The Light System)

This explosive interview is an in-depth discussion about Ray’s first-hand experiences with

- TLS (The Light System),

- Extraterrestrials,

- extremely advanced (and suppressed) technology,

- “supernatural” phenomenon,

- out-of-body traveling,

- NASA,

- the underground tunnels,

- the children,

- the Global Agenda and

- so much more.

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OOxrGD631PYj

[Kryztian]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
DISCLOSURE: An Interview with “Ray” 1:30:16

“DISCLOSURE” is an exclusive interview with “Ray”, an individual who Jason Shurka has been working with since June of 2018 that works with an undercover organization for the betterment of humanity known at TLS (The Light System)

This explosive interview is an in-depth discussion about Ray’s first-hand experiences with

- TLS (The Light System),

- Extraterrestrials,

- extremely advanced (and suppressed) technology,

- “supernatural” phenomenon,

- out-of-body traveling,

- NASA,

- the underground tunnels,

- the children,

- the Global Agenda and

- so much more.

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OOxrGD631PYj

Wow, there is a lot to unpack in this one! The "Ray" materials probably deserve their own thread. There is a lot one could debate, investigate and pick apart about the veracity and implications of this narrative.

[Kryztian]

Will the Real Lue Elizondo Please Stand Up?

Ufology has never had a character as polarizing or important as Luis Elizondo. His controversial status tells us much about where the Disclosure movement is today.

https://medium.com/on-the-trail-of-t...p-800e74f794c5
Bryce Zabel · Nov 11, 2021 · 10 min read

LUE ELIZONDO HAS BECOME the face of America’s renewed interest in UFOs since the New York Times revelations of 2017. If it’s possible to be overexposed as a UAP explainer, then he may qualify. He’s been everywhere — from 60 Minutes to Tucker Carlson to Unidentified to what seems like a thousand podcasts. With each one, his schtick becomes a little clearer, and he drops another nugget here and there and then, once in a while, he uncorks a whopper which, if true, would change the game as we know it or should have already.

Is it all true? Well, according to Elizondo’s Twitter feed, and his pinned Tweet, it sure is:

Lue Elizondo has “pinned” this over a year old Tweet to his profile for all to read.

By the way, the TV game show To Tell the Truth is where the phrase, “Will the real (insert name here) please stand up?” comes from. Three people take questions from a panel, all pretending to be the same person. At the end, the panelists vote and, after they’ve committed themselves, the question gets asked and the real person stands up. From a ufological perspective, back in 1966, abductee Barney Hill even appeared, and most of the panel picked him.

Elizondo has become a mystery man of sorts in the past couple of days. On November 9, he posted this cryptic Tweet:

I have no idea about his health and welfare. I hope it’s good and the concern was all a Twitterstorm in a Teapot. As of this writing, we’re still in his “strategic pause” and I’m sure more than a few are wondering exactly what he means by “preparation for a major assault.” The obvious question: offense or defense?

The Four Narratives of Lue

As best as this writer can determine, there are four narratives to describe how people have seen Lue Elizondo —

1. He’s the greatest truth teller to take on UFOs ever.
   
   
2. He’s still a government shill being put before the public to do the bidding of the Deep State.
   
   
3. He’s a liar and who never ran the UAP program he said he did.
   
   
4. He’s a grifter just out to make money off Ufology.

Which version you think is going to stand up at the end of To Tell the Truth depends a lot on how you see the UFO/UAP reality issue and your own place in it. Your mileage may vary.

I asked that question in a Twitter poll which, admittedly, is about as far from scientific as you can get, but it does measure passion among a subset of Twitter folks who have opinions. Here’s that input from 482 voters over a 48 hour period:

So, based on this snapshot of the Twittersphere, half the people think he’s an independent truth teller and the other half are split. Given that Twitter can be a bitter, partisan battlefield, it probably also means that Elizondo is thought of even more highly out there in the country at large. It’s too bad mainstream pollsters don’t yet test this kind of material but that will happen soon enough as the story continues to develop over time.

I like Lue Elizondo. The way he rolls actually works for me. I voted in the first category, but it is more than possible he still works for the government and still tells a version of the truth. That seems like a good bet actually.

Elizondo has certainly given us the opportunity to gauge who he is over these past four years. I’m betting that most people reading this have formed an opinion of the man by watching him react in different situations. They’ve certainly seen his answers evolve over time. As an aside, word is that Elizondo always sits with his back to the wall so he can see the door. I do that, too, but only because I’ve watched too many Godfather movies. He probably does it because old habits die hard.

There’s an article in the latest British version of GQ that appears to confirm the employed by the government narrative.

In addition to his role on the advisory board of the UAP think tank Skyfort, he retains high-level national security clearance and is employed as a government defence contractor, although he is not able to say what that work involves.

Being employed as a government defense contractor is not a disqualifier for activism, but Elizondo probably should discuss this at a slightly deeper level soon. Maybe he can’t explain everything but he might do a slightly better job at explaining why he can’t.

That article is full of other great material, including statements that Elizondo says he believes are true about UAP —

• space/time bending or dilation,
  
  
• radiation effects,
  
  
• government possession of crash wreckage
  
  
• a 23-minute video
  
  
• a video where the UAP is 50 feet from a jet cockpit

Meantime, here is the always interesting analysis from Ryan Robbins about both the GQ article and Elizondo.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6pUejs3ry2U

Anyway, I do believe this following version of who he is, neatly summarized by The Hollywood Reporter in their coverage of his upcoming book deal:

Elizondo was a former U.S. Army counterintelligence special agent and helped hunt drug traffickers, terrorists and spies. In 2008, he was asked to be part of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a $22 million program sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to study UFOs. In 2010, he was made director of the program. In 2017, he resigned from his position in protest of excessive government secrecy regarding UFOs. Elizondo was also involved in To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences from 2017 to 2020, and appeared on History Channel’s Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation. In 2019, a Pentagon spokesperson attempted to cast doubt on Elizondo’s leadership role within the AATIP, but Reid issued a counter-statement that firmly vouched for Elizondo’s position.

That fits the facts as I know them. If you dive into #ufotwitter, of course, you’ll find a lot of finger-waggers ready to tag him as just a tool or worse, a liar who never really did what he said he did.

While I’ve not done a deep dive into clarifying his credits, lots of others have. They include 60 Minutes which led their piece with him, plus Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal of the New York Times, plus journalists like George Knapp and Ross Coulthart, and a lot of others. So, I’m sure I’ll be dismissed as a tool myself, but based on these sources, my impression is that Lue is on the level with his resume. Privately more than publicly, some of the people who are on Team Lue still think he might be playing for the government on a deeper level behind-the-scenes (not just by working for a contractor), but they don’t seem to mind. As my Trail cohort
David Bates
puts it:

This is a complicated question. My two cents: I think he’s aware that there are factions within the government at odds over Disclosure, and he’s clearly aligned with those pushing for it. I don’t think this necessarily means he’s taking orders or that he’s part of some grand, masterfully orchestrated plan, but he’s not going to do anything that would complicate things for like-minded colleagues.

Not that this clears him of some kind of agenda or bias. After all, he is admitting to being involved in military intelligence operations, working at the Pentagon, having government classification, etc. So it’s probably a fair question to ask, given the government’s use of denial and ridicule over the years, if he wasn’t drafted into being exactly who he’s being right now. Still, I accept his explanations. Here’s why:

I spent the earlier part of my career in journalism, TV news actually, as a local news reporter/anchor, then a CNN correspondent, and as an investigative reporter for PBS. I’ve done a thousand stories, and been lied to straight to my face. I’ve also heard the truth and usually know it when it hits me because of all those interviews. Having listened to Lue Elizondo speak for probably dozens of hours by now, he seems authentic. There, I’ve said it.

It Means What It Means

In fact, my biggest beef with Lue by now is the constant dance where he references his NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), hems like he has to choose his words carefully, then lets fly with some wild statements on what he believes to be true. Among them:

• We have crash wreckage.
  
  
• Roswell is 100%.
  
  
• We have biological samples.
  
  
• We have video and photographic evidence that blows away what the public has seen already.
  
  
• There are photos (or videos) that show some kind of “occupancy” inside these craft.

It’s a lot. As David Bates pointed out last month, Elizondo always couches this as it being his opinion because, well, his NDA. In the podcast Theories of Everything, we get the perfect example of Luespeak:

Have there potentially been biological samples recovered? Yes. I’m not going to expound on that … and be careful when I say that. I’m being purposely very open and vague at the same time, right? What does that mean? Well, it means what it means.”

Still, you have to wonder how he came to form these personal opinions if he hadn’t been privy to some evidence and conversations over the years that lead him to these opinions. On that same podcast, he was asked if there are photos that show occupants inside “craft” and this was the answer:

There are some very compelling photos out there that seem to show something inside, some sort of occupancy, and I’ll leave it at that ….”

So it’s not a violation of his NDA to confirm there are these “compelling” photos? Except it’s doubtful he got to look at them while kicking back at Applebees, right? It seems clear to me that he saw them on his job but there are others who disagree.

It’s understandable why some see the NDA thing as a crutch to invoke when helpful, and to ignore when he wants to get something off his chest. For me, however, I don’t care how he rationalizes it. I just want him to keep saying the truth as he knows it.

Aside from the largely pointless bickering over what he really did or didn’t do at ATTIP, I’m not aware of anyone ever having accused him of just flat-out lying. The skeptics throw tomatoes because he can’t (obviously) prove all this, but they can’t charge him as being a liar, crazy or a fool. At least I don’t think so.

Plus, he routinely says that there is more mind-blowing stuff to come. More mind blowing than crashes and bodies and pictures of ET pilots? Count me in.

Memo: It is Not a Crime to Write a Book

Last September, Elizondo announced he was writing a book. The very act of becoming an author is something that a group within ufology routinely uses to dismiss the individual as only being interested in doing in order to cash in. This is false.

• First, everyone has a right to make a living.
  
  
  
• Second, I know from personal experience, having written three books, that an author should think very carefully about quitting their day job.

Let’s get to what the book is about then. Elizondo released this statement:

The American people now know a small portion of what I and my colleagues in the Pentagon have been privy to: That these UAP (unidentified aerial phenomenon) are not secret U.S. technology, that they do not seem to belong to any known allies or adversaries and that our intelligence services have yet to identify a terrestrial explanation for these extraordinary vehicles. This conversation is only just beginning.”

Granted, Lue’s book is going to come from a big publisher, HarperCollins, so there will be massive interest in it, and he’ll make some dough. Still, I doubt that’s the reason he’s writing it and, again, so what? The man needs income streams as much as any of his critics. Would they work for free?

My hope, actually, is that his book is going to be the thing that ends all this finger-pointing. If it is extremely honest about his work life, it would fly very close to throwing that NDA aside and that just seems impossible to fathom. So it may not give us all that much more than we’re getting now on podcasts. Our wish list should include more specifics, but another upside is that he’ll be speaking to a larger, more mainstream audience. That will be a good thing.

My take? The real Lue Elizondo who stands up is going to be the one who’s been telling the truth all along.

Writer/producer Bryce Zabel co-hosts the popular new podcast Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel that can be found on all major platforms from Apple to Spotify. Bryce also publishes and edits Trail of the Saucers, a writers’ collective that focuses on UAP news, history, culture, and analysis. Here are several more compelling pieces from the archives —

https://medium.com/on-the-trail-of-t...p-800e74f794c5

[Kryztian]

Below is a link to another article on Medium by Bryce Zabel. I am just copying the bullet points.

Top Ten UAP/UFO Stories of 2021
https://medium.com/on-the-trail-of-t...1-83dbf1372cbc

Every year since 2017 has been a big one in the struggle to unravel the mystery of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. It turns out that 2021 was the biggest yet for UFO news.

#10 — The Final, Disappointing Sputtering Out of To the Stars Academy (TTSA)

#9 — Former Presidents and Presidential Candidates Go On-the-Record

#8 — Investigative Reporters Take on a Cosmic Watergate

#7 — Skeptics Had a Hard Year

#6 — U.S. Intelligence Leaders Tease Non-Human Explanations

#5 — The News Obits for Harry Reid are a Wake Up Call

#4 — NASA’s Bill Nelson Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

#3 — 60 Minutes Breaks its UFO Taboo

#2 — The Preliminary Assessment on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena says UAP is a Real Problem

#1 — Passage and Signing of the Gillibrand-Rubio Amendment to the NDAA (National Defense Appropriations Act)

Lots of explanations and many good links at: https://medium.com/on-the-trail-of-t...1-83dbf1372cbc

[aoibhghaire]

Disclosure or deception? New UFO Pentagon office divides believers.

The U.S. government hasn't comprehensively studied UFOs in decades — but not all ufologists are excited about a new Pentagon investigative office.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...evers-n1287199

[aoibhghaire]

Disclosure or deception?

Is a carefully "managed, step-by-step disclosure" a deception? To a point, yes but how much it is would depend on what is allowed to be publicly verified after secretive decision-makers agree-disagree on the course of action amongst themselves.

Definitely, establishing a new form of technological dominance would be very important; saying that "we don't know what UAP are" appear to be meant to adapt newcomers to UAP reality, people like previously dismissing politicians, scientists, thinking, and general segments of the public. The most secretive research is not admitted. Like playing dumb. Not admitting secret contact research, abductions, ET bodies, MILABS, various assessments on "who they are/what they want" and successful degrees of retro-engineering is a form of deception. Will society react well to that list of activities?

As the Post Second World War becomes an almost forgotten memory for the new generations distracted and mentally reprogrammed by social media tribal reinforcement and as there is growing cynicism for democracies around the world, challenged by autocrats, right-wing ethnocentric and left-wing (WOKE) identity politics with illiberal governments and new regional and world-dominating actors pursuing dominance how will revealing that otherworldly secret research has taken place knowing for 74+ years that we are not alone in the universe. How will different types of conservatives being left out of this Western-dominated conversation and cynical individualists all over the world react to a full-blown disclosure?

The deepest secret-keeping (some even well-intended), decision-makers would have tried to study how to proceed with disclosure step-by-step informing humanity about UAP, other intelligences, implications, and what has been secretly done. And right now they seem to be implementing an initial recognition of an enigmatic reality. I just hope that they do not over-emphasize the threat and/or potential threat aspects only to be credible or to stimulate further militarization to maintain military superiority. What if the continuation of the human species itself depends upon adapting in an amicable and relational way to what UAP ET-NH reality represents?

[Spiral]

Article on drone guns https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/dronedefender

There are two subjects here, OUR drones and the "something else" / UAP / UFO type objects, many that are quite small & there fore deemed to be drones. The ones I see in the UK (& when I lived in France) are silver spheres.

Like most people who are interested in ufos I read that supposedly UFOs had been brought down by radar ie micro waves in the early days of the saucer phenomena, the gun on Bills post looks like a microwave weapon to me. The Author Paul Sinclair has published pictures of US military deploying what insiders think are micro wave tech at the ufo hotspot of Bempton here in the UK.

I don't think the ufo type things are effected by radar, for two reasons, no recent stories about downed ufos (unless they have become very clever at getting them hidden like in Richard D Halls documentaries) & this pic I took of two very close to an RAF radar installation (Staxton), by very close I mean about a mile away & from the way they appear to be moving they must have gone right past it !

[Spiral]

Posted by aoibhghaire (here)
Disclosure or deception? New UFO Pentagon office divides believers.

The U.S. government hasn't comprehensively studied UFOs in decades — but not all ufologists are excited about a new Pentagon investigative office.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...evers-n1287199

Basset looks like an asset saying that lol, Greer, well we know about Greer, and the biggest joke of all is the claim "The U.S. government hasn't comprehensively studied UFOs in decades"

Of course they have been up to their necks in it ever since Ike made that deal & Churchill got in on it.

What was the National Sausage Association set up to do ? And why did they pretend to be Air Force for decades if it wasn't super covert ?

After all there is the FBI for domestic issues, and the Cocaine Import Agency for the foreign shenanigans, so why this other one ? Does the S stand for "space" ?

Dark journalist is your one stop shop for the whole UAP / Elizondo / TTSA story IMHO.

The curious thing is Mick West might be right, which brings in the deception & trickster element, so they admit these things exist & then show us fake vids ? Why am I not surprised lol.

[boja]

So CHRIS MELLON is now suggesting that LUE ELIZONDO should be given his old govt. job back !!!

Was this the plan all along ?

in 2017 LUE "Comes out", takes control of the narrative.
He & MELLON carefully control the release of just exactly as much info as they are willing to allow, until the Congress & Senate are roused enough to take over their "disclosure" process for them.
Then LUE smoothly slips back into place within the Pentagon : -

JOB DONE

https://www.christophermellon.net/po...s-dod-job-back


Christopher Mellon
2 days ago
5 min read

Why Hasn’t Lue Elizondo Been Offered his DoD Job Back?
How many times in your life, at work or at school, have you been advised to ‘think outside the box’? Or to be ‘brave and principled’ and ‘think independently’ rather than just going along with the herd? I would imagine more than once. But is that really good advice? I’d like to think so, but let’s consider the case of Luis Elizondo.


In 2017, after years of working selflessly on his own time to motivate people in DoD and the IC to take the UAP issue seriously, he finally resigned. He did so because these unidentified aircraft were routinely violating restricted U.S. airspace in a manner and pattern that suggested someone has achieved a major technological breakthrough and is using it in a manner that poses a potential threat to U.S. forces. If this unknown agent has benign intentions, why are they provocatively sending these craft to swarm around U.S. warships, apparently intending to be seen and provoke a reaction that reveals our air defense procedures and capabilities? Why are they spying on sensitive DoD test ranges, U.S. nuclear power plants, Navy Carrier Strike Groups, the critical THAAD missile defense facility in Guam, etc.?


Obviously, this is a matter of grave concern. Yet, for years, nobody in DoD or the IC had the courage to raise this taboo issue regardless of the facts or potential consequences for our military and our country. Finally, after a months-long, last-ditch effort by Lue failed to get the issue in front of the Secretary of Defense himself, Lue resigned in protest to draw attention to the problem.


Lue’s resignation letter, dated October 4, 2017, the 60th anniversary of the Sputnik launch, states:


… Despite overwhelming evidence at both the unclassified and classified levels, certain individuals in the Department remain staunchly opposed to further research on what could be a tactical threat to our pilots, sailors, and soldiers, and perhaps even an existential threat to our national security. In many instances, there seems to be a direct correlation the phenomena exhibits with respect to our nuclear and military capabilities. The Department must take serious the many accounts by the Navy and other Services of unusual aerial systems interfering with military weapon platforms and displaying beyond next generation capabilities. Underestimating or ignoring these potential threats is not in the best interest of the Department no matter the level of political contention. There remains a vital need to ascertain capability and intent of these phenomena for the benefit of the armed forces and the nation. For this reason, effective 4 October 2017, I humbly submit my resignation in hopes it will encourage you to ask the hard questions: "who else knows?', what are their capabilities?, and "why aren't we spending more time and effort on the issue?"

Since the publication of that letter the UAP world has been transformed. In 2017, UAP were a taboo subject that few in the USG dared discuss. Now, we have Congressionally mandated annual classified and unclassified reports and legislation that may finally compel DoD and the IC to treat the UAP issue as seriously as we do threats like Chinese and Russian hypersonic vehicles and missiles. U.S. Senators are now openly acknowledging the fact that the observed UAP technology in some cases is so advanced we cannot help but consider the possibility it was not made by human minds. That mind-bending possibility is now being taken seriously around the world due to the congruence of the efforts of Dr. Avi Loeb of Harvard and a handful of outspoken pundits from the U.S. national security community. Lue and I are both honored to be part of Dr. Loeb’s Galileo Project. These conversations on UAP from both a scientific and national security standpoint were unthinkable just a few years ago. This is amazing progress in the short period of time since Lue resigned.


One might think, if the DoD or DNI leadership was serious about encouraging employees to ‘think outside the box' and be 'brave, independent and principled,’ that when someone actually manifests those traits for the nation’s benefit, correcting an outrageous intelligence community oversight in this case, the achievements of that individual might be acknowledged and celebrated to convey a proper signal to the workforce. Why not, for example, acknowledge that Lue was right all along, thank him for his sacrifice and service, and offer him his old job back?


In actuality, of course, nothing of the kind seems to have even crossed the minds of Lue’s former employers at DoD and the IC. To the contrary, despite the fact Lue has been proven correct about everything he said, despite the fact that DoD’s and the IC’s negligence is now incontestable and the subject of an IG investigation, OSD has not expressed a word of thanks or recognition for Lue’s incredible achievement. To the contrary, even while they acknowledge that Lue and a handful of others were right on the substance, there is an ongoing effort to discredit Lue emanating from the Office of the Secretary of Defense!


OSD’s petty argument, expressed through OSD spokesperson Susan Gough, is that there was no formal funding for UAP research after 2012, so how could Lue have been the director of a UAP investigative effort as he claims? This makes sense to some bureaucrats who think only in terms of money. Never mind the fact that Lue was bootstrapping the effort for years with available time and resources, collaborating with the Navy to investigate the issue, promoting inter-agency investigative activity, in general investing extraordinary amounts of time and energy, and doing everything he could with the limited resources available. In the big machine it doesn’t count if all the paperwork is not in order no matter the benefits or outcome! I can vouch for Lue’s efforts after the funding lapsed as can many others. Consequently, these ad hominem attacks against Lue boil down to criticizing him for going above and beyond the call of duty, continuing to work the issue, and do the right thing even without the support he and the mission deserved!


The issue is first and foremost the message not the messenger; namely the shocking and unexpected fact that we have a serious unresolved national security issue on our hands. Nobody can deny that without Lue’s efforts both the American public and the senior leadership of this nation would still be in the dark about this vexing issue. So, instead of seeking to discredit, why can’t DoD and the IC say: “Thank you Lue for your courage, tenacity, and willingness to challenge group think and put national security above all else. The system failed and your efforts have helped to rectify a serious strategic lapse and vulnerability.” I received a number of awards at DoD for basically just doing my job and working hard, I did not have to fall on my sword the way Lue did, yet Lue is still being ostracized by an obstinate bureaucracy too proud to admit Lue was right and they were wrong. The petty bureaucratic mindset reflected in the continuing attacks on Lue are themselves indicative of serious government dysfunction.


It’s commonplace for people to attack the messenger when they don’t like the message. We need to get beyond such pettiness in domestic politics as well as national security. In the meantime, how about a pat on the back for Lue even if he did perhaps violate a few speeding ordinances in his efforts to get a long-overdue warning message to our leaders. In the meantime, however, it is hard to see, based on this example, why anyone at DoD or the IC would want to ‘think outside the box’ or ‘challenge group think.’ In truth, it seems all you can expect for doing either is criticism and ad hominem attacks.