UFO Info Wars

"And like, wow, that’s it? That’s all you’re gonna tell us? Really? And you want applause for your 'revolution'? This sounds like a big-time tactical error by BAASS. Who in their right mind hangs this kind of stuff on the line and expects people to walk away without asking some very basic questions? Who paid for this research? Bigelow? Uncle Sam? Both? When do we taxpayers get to see the results? How about the names of all the contributors? What are you thinking?"

- Billy Cox, De Void, on BAASS public statement

To The Stars Academy and its friends of the program are getting some justified scrutiny. If you're going to jump out there and make bold claims, perhaps it would be wise to give more thought to the initial statements if the best idea for follow up is to tell people you can't talk about it.

Advocate for transparency and the normally more tolerant than not Billy Cox came to question TTSA public relations, as described in his March 19 De Void post, TTSA needs a new game plan. Cox presented valid critical points of view about TTSA strategies and leadership while acknowledging the outfit indeed got the public talking UFOs.

Robert Bigelow

In his May 7 offering, A question of ownership, Cox addressed, among other topics, what can reasonably be called a mind numbingly questionable public statement from Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS). The statement directly claims BAASS UFO investigation involved some 50 full-time staff, including retired military intelligence officers, scientists, analysts, and project managers "in adopting the novel approach of utilizing the human body as a readout system for dissecting interactions with the UFO phenomenon." 

The BAASS statement continued:

The BAASS approach was to view the human body as a readout system for UFO effects by utilizing forensic technology, the tools of immunology, cell biology, genomics and neuroanatomy for in depth study of the effects of UFOs on humans. This approach marked a dramatic shift away from the traditional norms of relying on eyewitness testimony as the central evidentiary arm in UFO investigations. The approach aimed to bypass UFO deception and manipulation of human perception by utilizing molecular forensics to decipher the biological consequences of the phenomenon.

The result of applying this new approach was a revolution in delineating the threat level of UFOs.

It is more than reasonable to expect substantiating data. Researchers should be satisfied with no less than clear and supporting documentation of how involved the Defense Intelligence Agency was in funding such work (as previously claimed), what was reported to the DIA, and clarification of what is available for public release. 

Scientific Method?  

Arguably adding insult to injury, longtime Team Bigelow consultant Dr. Eric Davis made a social media post berating researchers attempting to clarify the circumstances through the Freedom of Information Act. What's more, Davis made some assertions about how the FOIA works, which were addressed and challenged as "blatantly false" by John Greenewald of The Black Vault.

While Greenewald's points are indeed valid, there was yet another statement in the Davis rant that deserves calling out. Davis wrote, "The multi-sensor and radar platforms data fusion plus F-18 pilot and warship observers, all analyzed and synthesized into a forensic picture that Tic-Tac shaped craft are non-terrestrial because all other possible explanations were scientifically eliminated according to the scientific method." Emphasis mine.

CB Scott Jones, Edgar Mitchell & John Alexander

Okay, I'm not gonna take the time to get qualified experts to explain the scientific method and what's wrong with that statement, but suffice it to say there's plenty. I've spent a significant amount of time over the past eight years blogging about the sensational kinds of circumstances and statements as described above. I've covered the conspiracy mongering of Gen. Bert Stubblebine and his wife Dr. Rima Laibow, the evasiveness of Col. John Alexander, and the mind control and pro-ETH statements of Cmdr. C.B. Scott Jones, among much more.

I don't know what was wrong with these people. I don't claim to know why they thought themselves entitled to be exempt from providing documentation of their claims and/or accountability for their statements.

Maybe they truly believed the things they said. Maybe they were involved in orchestrated deceptions. Perhaps the very nature of their work led to some extent of irrationality over time. Maybe combinations of all of that apply, but one point should come through loud and clear: Statements from the intelligence community and its consultants can absolutely not be taken at face value, whatever the reasons. Verification is a must, and any given individual either demonstrates an understanding of the necessity of evidence available for public review or they do not.