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.
8 comments:
Kevin,
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. In my view, there has been no significant progress since 2017.
Nothing that has been said by the so-called whistleblowers is worth serious consideration. Elizondo has claimed to possess psychic abilities that allegedly allowed him to kill terrorists remotely in the past. He has also stated that glowing orbs were frequently flying around inside his house. Naturally, he has failed to provide any evidence for these claims. Then there is David Grusch. His testimony is worthless because he is not a firsthand witness, and most of his statements can be easily debunked — just look at the so-called 1933 UFO crash in Italy (which is a hoax that is not taken seriously by Italian UFO researchers), or his claims about secret treaties between the government and aliens (which is an old narrative that can be traced back to Richard Doty's shenanigans of the 1980s, and I am not even joking). Finally, there is Jake Barber, who lied about his military career — a fact that has been proven with documented evidence.
The only substantial things we have obtained since 2017 are the Navy videos and the testimonies of military pilots. However, it has not been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the Navy videos depict anything extraordinary. Mick West's analysis offers a more than reasonable skeptical perspective on these videos, and in any case, we are unable to confirm either position because the radar data is classified. Without those data, we cannot determine with certainty the speed at which the objects in the videos were flying or their actual distance from the camera.
Yes, it is true that the United States government has admitted that unidentified flying objects are present in national airspace. However, this is not a groundbreaking revelation, as similar admissions were made in the past. Even in 1952, the government acknowledged that unidentified flying objects were flying over the United States, only to later shift toward a policy of complete denial. Today, it is evident that many individuals within intelligence agencies are pushing for a return to that exact policy — just look at the bogus AARO report to see this.
Yes, it is also true that some scientists take the subject more seriously than before, but the general attitude of the scientific community has not changed. Only a small number of scientists are genuinely interested in this issue, and among them, I personally consider Avi Loeb to be the only serious one, as I do not trust Gary Nolan.
For these reasons, I would not say that significant progress has been made. It may appear that way on the surface, but in reality, there is nothing we do not know — or credibly suspect — about UFOs now that we did not in 2016.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a whistle blower who could come forward and take an accredited government agency comprised of scientific consultants and a few legitimate news media to a location for the purposes of displaying evidence of a UAP. Perhaps in another country some day?? Unequivocal evidence would put the discussion and debate to rest without the need to author 72 page essays on the dysfunctional machinations of the bureaucracy.
Spartacus01
I think you miss my point. While there has been little to no significant progress toward Disclosure and we have the same trouble with the Navy cockpit videos that we have had with movie footage, that is debunkers throwing mud, it appears things have stagnated. I was suggesting that the interest displayed by those in an academic environment are taking the topic more seriously than they had in the past. Ironically, the paper cited above was published by Harvard which had been the home of Donald Menzel, who never saw a UFO sighting that he couldn't explain. Rather than hit the default setting of debunking, they are now suggesting the topic deserves proper scientific scrutiny. That is progress, though it don't move us closer to Disclosure. At least they are no rejecting the data out of hand.
Joeschmoe -
Frankly, I suspect that the alleged whistleblowers do not access to the sort of evidence that we all would like to see. Given what I have been able do deduce from the various statements and testimonies, they haven't seen much in the way of first-hand evidence. Yes, latest example, he claims to have been involved in a recovery, but we have no evidence to back up the claim. There have been many others who made similar claims but have been unable to produce any sort of solid evidence. All they have done is provide ammunition's for the Skeptics and set our research back.
Kevin,
Perhaps I am being cynical or excessively conspiratorial, but since I have the opportunity to see firsthand how these events unfold and what effects they have on the community — given that I constantly debate with the UFO community and observe what people think — I can confidently say that, to me, this entire disclosure narrative, ever since 2017, appears to be a long-term operation deliberately planned to gradually dismantle both the UFO community and the public perception of the phenomenon. At first, they introduced evidence elements — the Navy videos, pilot testimonies, and so on. But then, little by little, they started injecting increasingly absurd claims — people summoning UFOs with their minds, psionic assets bringing down UFOs, whistleblowers making extraordinary claims without any evidence, etc. It is a classic bait and switch: build credibility at first, then drown everything in nonsense until people get exhausted and stop caring.
This way, those who were initially skeptical but intrigued by credible evidence will end up even more skeptical than before, realizing that the UFO field has turned into a circus of absurd stories. Meanwhile, those who have always embraced extreme theories will double down, pushing even wilder narratives. The result? Serious investigations — like those conducted by you, Stan Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, Ted Phillips, Richard Hall, and others — are buried under a flood of noise. The community fractures between those who embrace the most outlandish claims and those who dismiss the entire subject as nonsense, leaving serious ufologists increasingly isolated, with fewer people willing to listen.
The most effective way to permanently discredit something is not to suppress it outright, but to make it appear legitimate, push it into the mainstream, and then flood it with absurdities until it collapses under its own weight. This is controlled opposition at work: create interest, gain trust, and then systematically undermine it from within. If a topic remains obscure and marginalized, people will continue to investigate it independently. But if you elevate it to a high level of public and governmental attention, and then orchestrate its downfall by associating it with increasing levels of nonsense, the result is much more powerful. People will not only stop paying attention — they will actively reject it, believing they have already seen it thoroughly debunked. In the end, the topic does not just return to obscurity — it becomes more discredited than ever.
So, while it may seem that the scientific community is becoming more open to the UFO subject, I believe this is merely a temporary side effect of the broader operation. Once the controlled demolition of the topic is complete, any scientific curiosity will fade just as quickly as it emerged. Most scientists engage with UFOs now only because the mainstream narrative allows it — for the moment. When that changes, so will their interest. As long as the subject remains in the spotlight, some will entertain it, whether out of curiosity or career opportunism. But the moment it becomes too closely associated with absurdity, they will distance themselves, dismissing it as just another case of mass delusion or pseudoscience. In the end, this renewed scientific engagement is conditional and fragile. It is built on a foundation designed to collapse, and when it does, the scientific community will not only walk away but will likely become even more skeptical than before.
Spartacus01
I don't think we really disagree. I have pointed out for years that the Robertson Panel, commissioned in 1953, pointed out they should publish information about mysterious objects and then explain how the mistake was made. If you look at the Project Blue Book administrative files, you can see that the suggests from the Panel were taken. They reevaluated a number of mysterious UFO cases and offered ridiculous solutions. Levelland is a good example, dozens of witnesses, cars stalled by the close approach and even a report of a landing trace. Very mysterious and then the solution. Ball lightning. Didn't matter that the existence of ball lightning was being argued by the scientific community at the time, that was the solution.
My point was that the academic community, until relatively recently, wouldn't entertain the suggestion their might be alien visitation... Now, at lease, they seem to be taking a more, well, scientific approach to the topic. The government can, of course, overwhelm us with "experts" telling us something different, but the point is that we have some of the academic community on our side.
And, of course, if the curtain of ridicule is dropped again, well, those supporters will run for the hills, but we have an opportunity here if we can weed the charlatans from the field, refuse them a platform and search for the truth, whatever that truth might be.
Well-stated, Kevin. Thank you very much!
I feel that people should realize that Robertson was already deep into flying disc research by the time the "panel" was formed and opinions generated. He was well aquatinted with different sightings that occurred during WW II. Keith Chester,, I believe, wrote a pretty good book detailing it.
Yes, and it fairly certain that he assembled his panel from those who believed that there was nothing to the UFO phenomenon and were, in some cases annoyed by it. It is also clear that the report was written before much testimony had been taken, so the conclusions drawn are irrelevant.
Post a Comment