Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Data Is King

All kidding aside, we have spy satellites that can see a pimple developing on my forehead. I'm kinda guessing the Navy already knows what these so-called UAP's are.
- Keith Kloor, Twitter

The admirable and persistent work of John Greenewald recently added a couple more shades of intrigue to the TTSA kaleidoscope. The U.S. Navy denied the three videos touted by TTSA were cleared for public release, backing up the previous statements from the Pentagon, while labeling the objects depicted in the film clips as unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP.

Greenewald reported Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, explained, "The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges." 

A lot seems to have been read into that statement, much of which, in my opinion, is based on what the reader chooses to see. Interpretations such as "they're admitting they're not ours" and "they finally acknowledged they're UAP" are making the social media rounds. 

I understand why UFO enthusiasts are excited. The DoD and the Navy are talking about UFOs - a lot - but the concepts being wishfully attributed to the Navy spokesperson are not what he said, not exactly. In this post let's consider a few things about this never ending story. 

After all, if you can't trust the Information Warfare Center to catapult us into UFO Disclosure, who can ya trust?


A lot of spooks emerged out of the IC and waded into the UFO pond over the years. Some particular notables include Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, who directed the CIA prior to serving on the Board of Governors for the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena from 1957 to 1962. A fellow NICAP board member was Col. Joseph Bryan III, who, interestingly, was "later discovered to be a former naval officer and CIA employee, psychological warfare specialist," according to researcher Richard Hall.
DCI Hillenkoetter led to what would be a long line of current and former intelligence professionals moonlighting in ufology. The list includes Gen. Bert Stubblebine, credited with redesigning the intelligence structure of the entire U.S. Army, Col. John "Mr. Non-Lethal" Alexander, Comdr. C.B. "Scott" Jones, who claimed he believed his friend was targeted with a mind control weapon by the FBI, the enigmatic and UFO forum-present Ron Pandolfi, infamous Richard Doty, and many more, including, of course, Luis Elizondo and a number of intriguingly successful members of the IC prior to boarding the TTSA train.

Long before current Information Warfare spokespeople indirectly implied reasons the Navy revised its UFO reporting procedures - somewhat contradicting a DoD explanation the AATIP was axed due to higher priorities more deserving of funds, no less - intel analysts sometimes used the levels of concern of their commanding officers as indicators of how much attention they should give potential threats. That included matters of what, today, we might call UFOs or UAP.

James Carrion documented per declassified memos and reports how the 1946-47 Ghost Rocket flap involved professional analysis in which it was suspected senior officers were, in reasonable likelihood, well aware of the origins of the reported rockets. Numerous reasons were given to that effect by intelligence analysts, as well as an FBI Special Agent in Charge, which included a lack of concern for the rocket reports from the brass. Also observed was a lack of calling personnel back from leave during intense portions of the supposed threat. This curiously happened while the press was simultaneously offered official statements of concern and provided stories pertaining to the rocket sightings.

We might consider the circumstances somewhat comparable to a so-called Pentagon UFO program which was reportedly discontinued, yet select personnel persist in publicly warning us - and an accommodating media - of airspace incursions. At the least, I'd argue it should be taken into consideration.

Data Talks  

Most importantly, there is no substitute for verifiable data. Evidence available for public review: that's the name of the game. Unfortunately, those claiming to be leading Disclosure are much more often than not obstructing the purported evidence. They are long on claims and short on data.

There have been vague and anonymous news reports about taxpayer-funded examinations of UFO witnesses, modified buildings for storage of UFO debris, reports of UFO research projects existing both before and after the AAWSAP and AATIP, and too many more fantastic claims to list, little to none of which has been substantiated. There are discrepancies about who ran the projects, what the projects were empowered to do, if anything of value was learned, if the research was properly approved and overseen by official boards, and it's not clear how much, if any of it, is even classified or not. Several FOIA requests are pending.

Maybe Disclosure of extraordinary things is on the horizon. I guess ya never know for sure. If not, hey, there's always that statement about UAP from the Naval Operations for Information Warfare.


  1. I think it's best to advise believers and skeptics alike not to hold their breaths waiting for Disclosure. Because if they do, they'll suffocate first.

  2. Jack, Your persistent efforts to keep journalists and UFO investigators honest are truly heroic. Have you considered contacting the newspapers who have helped these bogus researchers distribute their unverified claims? I'm sending you links.

    1. Thank you, Carol. It's disappointing to me that discrepancies surrounding Elizondo as explored in Keith Kloor's work at The Intercept hasn't received more media attention, at least from the outlets that were covering TTSA and the related circumstances. It's not particularly surprising, and it's a little intriguing, but still disappointing.

  3. "There have been vague and anonymous news reports about taxpayer-funded examinations of UFO witnesses.."

    Well, for what it is worth John Keel went into depth about these. The examinations were supposed in-depth psychological and physical exams designed to draw out exactly what the witness saw and/or knew about what they had just experienced. Sounds kind of iffy when we think UFOs, but it DOES possess a certain logic if they were witnessing GOVERNMENT projects and someone was worried about what they saw and what they might say.

    Since these accounts would exist as health records, FOI requests are useless. In fact, FOI requests in general won't take you very far. I agree with Vallee's view. I.e., "Someone sees a strange light above their house, and they call the Air Force to report it. Since it was reported through official channels it is classified as secret. 20 years later, someone submits a FOI request and the event is cleared for release. It was just a sighting of a strange light, but because it now comes from an official release it possesses significance. But, it is still just a mundane case of a strange light above a house...."

  4. I know someone who saw something "odd" that still hasn't been identified.