Friday, June 14, 2019

The UFO Reporters

Lots of sensational claims were dealt out. There were the lines about metal alloys and the unsupported assertions UFO witnesses were physiologically changed by their experiences. Leaked documents lacked provenance and in some cases couldn't be verified as authentic. 

Discrepancies increased, including details of such documents raising deeper doubt. Personnel couldn't be verified, and neither could a lot of their stories. They avoided direct questions and took only softball interviews. 

Mainstream journalists took notice. Many of them parroted lines as apparently instructed, while others seemed to grab the story because it involved actual intelligence officials, for whatever reasons. Some journos also seemed curious as to why their colleagues were so easily manipulated and willingly acting as uncritical mouthpieces, in some instances publishing assertions so ill advised they refused to even state sources.

This evolving story is going to keep going for a while yet, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out, and to what extent, in the public at large. A much deeper issue confronts the UFO community: Its popular high profile reporters failed miserably to verify many of the claims they assured us were true, and tried to shore up the stories when select journos began dismantling them. Most importantly of all, it has long been this way and there is more than adequate evidence such UFO reporters have chronically had little interest in accuracy as compared to sensational stories. Everybody knows it, other than the most gullible, and many don't even care for a variety of reasons. 

We're going to keep coming back to a main point, though: The UFO reporters assured us they could vouch for circumstances that continue to be unverified, and their only excuse is incompetence. Otherwise, we are forced to contemplate how intentionally they were attempting to confuse their followings and mislead the public when they argued in defense of the contents of documents that established no such things as they repeatedly asserted.

The UFO community is ultimately going to have to come to terms with how it accounts for being repeatedly fed unsupported stories by credulous, if not opportunist, reporters and filmmakers, spanning years. Then, when some journalists spend a few short weeks on the UFO reporters' latest story, they dismantle it to an embarrassing extent. Do we want more of the same? Are we willing to revisit the integrity of the sacred cow stories these same UFO reporters assure us are iconic? 

Questions of intelligence and integrity loom. Questions of how the community chooses to define itself loom larger. 

If nothing changes, nothing changes. 


  1. Bravo, Jack. Don't let up. If they've got proof, let them show it. No BS, no showbiz. Show it. And yes, let's hold the reporters to account. Just the facts, please. Facts you've verified, facts that others can verify. Do your jobs.

  2. I applaud and admire your tenacity, but I fear you’re tilting at windmills. I don't want to admit how long I've been following UFOs. But, it’s long enough to be certain nothing will change.

    Ufology pushes its nonsense so far over the line the public eventually gets bored with the story that has no denouement. Then it turns its back on UFOs ... again ... because the conclusive proof it was told is imminent never materializes.

    Of course, it's happened before (Remember the Area 51/Bob Lazar circus?). I saw Knapp and Lazar in a prime time interview on CNN at the time.

    So, the media pushing something like this is nothing new. After all, filler is needed for slow news days, especially now there’s a 24-hour news cycle to fill. TTSA-AATIP is as good for that as dogs that can howl Madame Butterfly (and probably attracts more eyeballs). Personally, I find UFO stories more entertaining than singing dogs (which is why I can’t kick my habit). And these days, UFOs are a welcome respite from the 24/7 hysterical Trump headlines.

    This TTSA-AATIP silliness will eventually fade away because it will turn out to be yet another UFO joke that’s all set up and no punchline.

  3. Very well done Jack. Indeed we have seen this movie before, quite a few times in fact as you articulated.

    In this sequel, DeLonge takes over the role of the scheming carnival barker looking to cash in on the con, previously played by Jaime Maussan.

    Elizondo plays the Adam Dew role of the obscure character coming forward with incredulous claims of proof.

    John Greenewald, yourself and others are the new RSRG - the Roswell Slides Research Group - a dogged ad hoc group of intrepid researchers determined to get to the truth. We'll call your group CRED - the COMMITTEE to RESEARCH ELIZONDO and DELONGE.

    Of course, this latest movie will end in the same ignominious fashion as the others.

    1. I'm too young to know the history you reference, but I will postulate that this has all the markings of a distraction campaign. There was some really good research released at the start of this decade. These books quickly fell into obscurity. At about the same time, this circus started to perform.

      It reminds me of a Jenny Randles quip I read, "In the late 80s and early 90s we started getting some really interesting leads on Roswell. Some good work was done on the testing that was going on at the base there. Shortly afterwards, the alien autopsy film was released. It destroyed the integrity of all that research..."

      And the beat goes on....

  4. Leslie Keene is the love child of L.M.Howe....and Jamie Maussan...all of them have the ability to not know..that they dont know..Delonge..acts like he is controlled by stoned sceptics who are trying to make the field dumber and dumber each week for a laugh..

  5. Well Trump can kiss his UFO voters good-bye ...

  6. No offense, but you sound like 'old man yells at cloud' here.

    These are exactly the types of comments George Knapp and others mention as far as UFO in fighting. People in the UFO field are either jealous someone else got the story, or are just backseat debunkers who do the same exact thing as ACTUAL debunkers, and do zero research themselves, so just throw everything aside because of jealousy.

    I appreciate John Greenwald and others going the official route to get more information, but it's been well established how much redacted or ignored information comes out 'officially.' The UFOlogy field bitches about how much the government keeps away in FOIA requests and complains about the cover stories given in different UFO events in the past aren't logical, then at the same time relies on he 'official word' when it comes to a story another UFO reporter get. A little bit like being in 1984 and having a problem with Big Brother deceiving at every turn, and then when someone comes along showing you behind the curtain and asking Big Brother about it, saying 'see! you're lying!' A little hypocritical, huh?

    I don't have a problem if people don't believe Kean, Knapp, Elizondo, Lazar, or whoever. Then don't believe it. If you listen to most of their interviews, they address most of the common complaints and will even point out they're the ones who reported it in the first place, like Knapp about Lazar's education.

    No one is asking for their accounts to be added to the education system's history curriculum, if you don't think it's legit, then don't. All I know is, there's now three official videos out because of them, and a good dozen military on the record because of them. Elizondo was on a national news station last night. Politico just did an article about Senators being briefed. Lazar is on Rogan's podcast today, probably the most listened to in the world.

    So I'm sorry this 'surge' of mainstream news breaking through made some other nickel and dimer UFO reporters jealous that they have to argue about what the initials of AATIP stands for - or "its not fair he didn't use the release form right for those videos" - but drop the ego and get over it.

    1. If researchers and reporters abide by best practices (and provide documentation for their assertions), then believing them ceases to be a factor - and that's the problem, those mentioned don't. It's a pretty low bar to give someone a pass if they're not asking for their material to be added to a history curriculum, but, sure, be more of the problem than the solution if you enjoy it.

    2. So what is your answer when someone brings up the exact same philosophy to you about UFO research? I'm sure debunkers like Phillip Klass made the same exact statements as that, or when debunkers site scientists like Carl Sagan or Project Blue Book's conclusions?

      I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve Bob Lazar, but if you every actually taken the time to listen to individuals like George Knapp or Leslie Kean on the dozens of podcasts, radio shows, or interviews over the years, a lot of your issues are at least addressed. OK you don't believe, fine. It's not really necessary to take potshots in what comes off as bitter jealously quite honestly.

      So I'm not sure what you consider a pass as. If you want an official stamp of approval with documentation, well then it begins and ends with stamps that stated UFOs are an explained phenomenon thanks to Project Blue Book, so there you go. The book is closed.

  7. Anon, that was quite a bit of hyperbole there. Whereas I believe it audacious for us as a species to believe that we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe, or multi-verse, the lessons learned from the scam known as The Roswell Slides demand cynicism. Especially when cracks in the armor the size of the Grand Canyon begin to appear in this TTSA endeavor.

    Just because researchers like Jack expose inconsistencies and possible fraudulent claims about this latest shiny object, one shouldn't shoot the messenger. Even if he's telling you things which you may not want to hear.

    Don't be so over-eager for the ETH, or whatever theory you believe in, to be proven that you put on blinders. The Roswell Slides con nearly dealt ufology a death blow.

    BTW -
    Every researcher in this field I've run across over the years has the absolute utmost respect for Jack Brewer.

    1. Hey, thanks, Tom! Sounds like you're keeping some pretty good company! ha...

      Seriously, I appreciate the support. There are some folks out there who would argue pretty adamantly against my methods and positions, but, in all sincerity, being rejected by what amounts to a cult is among one of the best endorsements I could hope for.

    2. When will this site discuss the actual evidence that is being released and the military witnesses instead of talking about TTSA? Sure TTSA are reporting it, but you can go verify it or debunk it outside of their reports. This is the point of all this isn't it? Investigating what UFOs might be? Just because NBC tracks down a news story doesn't mean we only talk about the NBC reporter and their motivation, then ignore what they've dug up.

      How do the Roswell Slides equate at all to this story? Ha, why do people latch on to the hoaxes that few of us bought into as being a warning and equal to this? The level of proof and access to witnesses and their legitimacy are far higher than what most of us expected from the doubtful child mummy.

      I get the need to question TTSA's motives but the evidence is fuelling this. The government is not interviewing TTSA, they are speaking with the pilots and witnesses. I'd like to see the focus on that, but maybe there isn't much conflict in that to stir up people.

    3. @Tom,

      Not to beat a dead horse with my comment (please see above) but since you mentioned the Roswell Slide fiasco, I thought I would repeat:

      There was some really good research released at the start of this decade. These books quickly fell into obscurity. At about the same time, the "circus" started to perform.

      It reminds me of a Jenny Randles quip I read. She stated, "In the late 80s and early 90s we started getting some really interesting leads on Roswell. Some good work was done on the testing that was going on at the base there. Shortly afterwards, the alien autopsy film was released. It destroyed the integrity of all that research."

      That is something to strongly consider.


      RIP Paul Bennewitz and RIP Danny Casolaro. They gave it all to pursue the truth - and I personally think they came oh so close. Never forget!

  8. Adam,

    Agreed. There are some striking parallels to the Alien Autopsy and Roswell Slides frauds. These hoaxes cast an even darker pall over the whole of ufology. It even caused a few long time serious researchers to leave this field of study permanently(i.e. Isaac Koi and Paul Kimball).


    Since hoaxes are de rigueur in ufology, even researchers who believe in the phenomena, or even its possibility, must thoroughly investigate every claim in every case. This does not equate to jealousy.

    I personally believe in the phenomena. I had two fairly close sightings of UFO's, or UAP's, or whatever the nomenclature du jour is. What I saw struck me viscerally as not of this Earth.

    I do concur with some of your points. We mustn't bury the lede in this latest case. The videos from the F/A-18 Super Hornets should be the focus. However, is it not prudent to investigate the story en toto?

  9. Tom, my issue is who can these people go to? If you wanted to bring forward your story and evidence, you don't have many choices. You'll be stuck in the UFO subculture like Coast to Coast, YouTube, or even Jack's blog, it won't see the light of day or get much movement in influencing the public. Greer? Delonge? Say even Nick Pope or Richard Dolan backed're still in the UFO subculture. Bob Lazar, liar or whistleblower, lives not in our day to day reality but in our subculture. We like to keep it all there because its 1) unprovable 2) the nuts and Martian Space Marines pump their BS into it, and 3) a bit scary. Keeping this out of our day to day lives and letting it hide out in night time dream land lets us dismiss it and enjoy our superiority and control.

    So along comes TTSA who to some credit "gets it". They know this evidence has to be taken back into our day to day world to get people to either admit there are non-humans doing as they please, or humans doing as they please. Either way could be a threat or something we can study to learn from. Now I have no idea if TTSA is a scam, disinfo, or on the up and up...but we're stuck with them, the evidence is stuck being funneled through them because we don't have an established outlet for this. So when you get some guys like TTSA has and evidence like this, I don't blame them for swinging for the fences by brining in the NYT, Fox, the History Channel, and whatever mainstream media they can use.

    So yeah I get the need to keep an eye on TTSA, but the EVIDENCE is not TTSA's. It belongs to the human pilots with families and careers, to the other military personnel coming forward trying to tell us something amazing is happening. The story is the evidence, not TTSA. The evidence has been piling up for years, and here we've got some recent stuff and we should be demanding more instead of getting bogged down with TTSA. The UFO/Berlin Wall is starting to crack and we're too worried about Elizondo. Personalities come and go in the UFO field, but the evidence we want exists, lets ask for all of it instead of wasting too much energy on the wrong thing.

  10. Has it occurred to anybody at TTSA to enlist the expertise of the National Academy of Sciences?

    1. A competent argument can indeed be made that TTSA obstructs much more than it reveals.

  11. Hi Jack, I have been following the TTSA info with intterest for several reasons. Professionally, I am a publisher in a completely different field. I also have published a fairly large number of PR stories. I know a thing or two about spin.

    I am in in the camp that the Tic-tac video is real. The pilot interviews are real. However I call Elizondo a knuckle dragger. That didn't sit well with some. Why do I think this? First off we have seen a bunch of pictures of him with desert camo from the middle east. I think it's great he severed honorably. However then in ends up in the Pentagon in a super secret group and 'supposedly" leading this UFO study group. What is background does he have in advances sciences to get this position? He has never said. Clearly he is smart. He has for the shows, been well schooled on the proper dialog and scripting. This is a giant leap of faith to believe that he went from a war zone picture to head up this group in the pentagon. A very logical decision by the Sec. of Defense would be to hire for the job a Air Force scientist. That's common sense but was apply here by Elizondo whether by showing his educational background or why he was best person for the job.

    The second item is while he hints at knowing more than what he is saying, and using national security for the reason, was in the recently show about 'nuclear' locations. The first 3 shows were on Tic-tac but nothing more on this? A reason show on real UFO that possibly captured could produce hundreds of shows if not more. It would be the greatest TV documentary type set of shows ever. 3 shows of mostly the same material is, well, disappointing to say the least.

    This is why I can the whole TTSA PR spin.

    I have other thoughts that the whole release of the Tic-tac video might be an attempt to slow roll the UFO history over time. In other words this might be a slow attempt of UFO disclosure. This make more sense that anything that come from TTSA.

  12. Anon,

    Ahh yes - where are us mere civilians to go if we see an airborne anomaly? And there's the rub with this phenomena. The government? We would surely be summarily dismissed. We know this. Therefore that's not an option. The police? They would probably taze us as soon as "UFO" lept from our mouths. Folks who are prominent in the UFO community? If we don't have video, it didn't happen. MUFON? As I found out, a frustrating monumental waste of time. TTSA? No. Just... no.

    Of course there are a few people in the field I trust. Jack, Glenn Greenwald, Curt Collins, Rich Reynolds and Mark O'Connell off the top of my head. There's about one handful of others... and that's it. But what can even these legitimate gentlemen, all with a record of decades of distinguished investigative reporting on the phenomenon, do with a civilian report of fantastical lights in the sky defying the laws of physics?

    I don't have a good answer for you. I can only say that I have reconciled with the fact that only myself and the other 3 witnesses to what we saw were made believers in the phenomena. And that's all. And for me, that's more than enough.