While
we talk about Disclosure of UFO related materials and see that the US
Government is hard at work to derail those efforts, we also see that the topic
has moved from the arena of ridicule into a place for serious discussion. That
is, I suppose, progress of a sort.
I
say this because the Harvard National Security Journal recently
published an article entitled, “Flying Saucers and the Ivory Dome:
Congressional Oversight Concerning Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.” It is a
serious article that briefly touches on the long history of UFO-related
investigations beginning with the Foo Fighter of World War Two and ending with
a discussion of the legislation that is pending in Congress.
In
the abstract for the paper, Dillon Guthrie wrote, “Once dismissed for decades,
the topic of unidentified anomalous phenomena (“UAP”), previously labeled as
unidentified aerial phenomena and unidentified flying objects (“UFOs”), now
attracts the sustained attention of Congress. In the annual U.S. defense and
intelligence authorization measure enacted in each of the last four years,
lawmakers have included bipartisan provisions tightening oversight of this
matter. One Senate-passed UAP bill would even have directed the federal
government to exercise eminent domain over any “technologies of unknown origin
and biological evidence of non-human intelligence.” Relenting to this pressure,
the national security establishment has grudgingly acknowledged that UAP are
not the “illusions” Secretary McNamara told Congress about but real—and that
they may challenge national security. So, who knew what about UAP when?
Meanwhile, researchers at Harvard University, Stanford University, and
elsewhere have begun to study these phenomena in earnest.”
 |
| Washington attitudes about UFOs are beginning to change. |
What
I see as exciting here is that the academic world is no longer rejecting the
idea of alien visitation as the stuff of science fiction and conspiracy nuts,
but now suggesting it is a topic that demands serious scrutiny.
Guthrie
wrote that the UAP Disclosure Act, which he noted had not yet been passed, gave
the government the right to take any physical evidence from those who might
hold it. He wrote, “The Act would order the US Gov’t to exercise eminent domain
over all unknown technologies and biological evidence of non-human intelligence
that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interest of public
good.”
Basically,
it is a law that would authorize government confiscation or any materials that
provide evidence of alien visitation. Since I see nothing that limits that
power, I wonder if that means government agents could cease the private files
and interviews conducted by UFO researchers for what they would call the
interest of public good.
As
I say, the law has not been passed, and while it might be seen as a prudent
course to take, how often has such a law, passed with good intensions devolved
into an illegal grab of private property. You can file this under unintended
consequences.
You
have to wonder, after all these years, all the information, documentation and
evidence collected by UFO researchers and organizations, how the confiscation
of the material would be in the interest of public good. The point here is that
we’ve been subjected to the tales of alien visitation, abduction and
environmental interference for decades, so that the revelation would not lead
to any sort of pubic panic. I believe our response would be, “We know.”
For
those interested in the whole journal article you can read all seventy-two
pages, with lots of footnotes here:
https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Guthrie_16_Harvard_Natl_Security_J_1.pdf
It
is interesting, if for no other reason, it is published in a journal, giving it
added weight. I would have said gravitas, but I didn’t know how to spell it.
