Last night, on my
normal UFO segment on Coast-to-Coast AM, I mentioned something called
Immaculate Constellation, which, according to a whistleblower, who is never
identified, is a top-secret archive of UFO, well, UAP images. According to the
whistleblower, the military and intelligence community are operating a database
of videos and images taken from "infrared (IR), forward-looking infrared
(FLIR), full motion video (FMV), and still photography of UAPs.
The whistleblower
alleged that the Department of Defense created Immaculate Constellation under
what's known as an Unacknowledged Special Access Program (USAP) in 2017 after The
New York Times reported on an informal Pentagon UAP program known as AATIP.
Reporter Michael
Shellenberger of Public said on "Joe Rogan
Experience" that in the whistleblower's report, the Pentagon is
"illegally" hiding information about this program from Congress.
The whistleblower said that
simply printing the name "Immaculate Constellation" could trigger
government surveillance of whoever publishes the name using the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act as probable cause. They won't comment on it, but
talking about it will put you in the danger zone. I guess that means I am now
in the “Danger Zone,” which sounds like a good name for a podcast or a rock
band. BTW: Agents, if you come for me, please don’t crash through the door. I’ll
happily open it for you.
DoD spokeswoman Sue
Gough, who has been called on many times as UFO and UAP questions are asked, denied
on Wednesday, any knowledge of a special access program known as Immaculate
Constellation. I’m not sure that this is relevant because if it was a special
access program which would also suggest a need to know and she might not have
been in the loop. Would a spokeswoman, or spokesman for that matter, be read
into every highly classified program? If they are not then they have plausible
deniability, meaning that she can say such things as having no knowledge of a
program and be telling the truth. Doesn’t mean the program doesn’t exist, only
that she doesn’t know about it.
I am reminded that when
the Moon Dust was inadvertently revealed in 1986, the Air Force denied that
such a program existed. When shown official documents with the name Moon Dust
on them, a higher-ranking Air Force officer said Moon Dust did exist but had
not been used. Other documents refuted that claim as well.
For
more precise information on this see:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/03/aaro-and-beginning-of-moon-dust.html
The point is that the
first officer, Lieutenant Colonel John E. Madison, of the Congressional Inquiry
Division, Office of Liaison, wrote, “There is no agency, nor has there ever
been, at Fort Belvoir, Viriginia, which would deal with UFOs or have any
information about the incident in Roswell. In addition, there is no Project
Moon Dust or Operation Blue Fly. Those missions have never existed.”
Most of what Madison
wrote was the truth. There may well not have been any agency at Fort Belvoir
that dealt with UFOs or Roswell, which, course, doesn’t mean that such agencies
might not exist at other installations. And he is accurate in saying there is
no Project Moon Dust because Moon Dust was the code words dealing with UFO
material.
So, Madison wasn’t
lying, he just didn’t have access to all the information he needed to properly
answer the questions put to him. However, when the documents were presented and
properly vetted, meaning the source of the documents was legitimate, Colonel
George M. Mattingley, Jr., wrote, “…Upon further review of the case (which was
aided by the several attachments to Mr. Stone’s letter), we wish to amend the
statements contained in the previous response…”
Cliff Stone |
The point is that even
people at the highest levels aren’t read into all programs and a denial by
Gough that she had no knowledge of such a program doesn’t mean there is no such
program.
The real problem here
is that Shellenberger has not identified his source. Years ago, decades really,
we were presented with documents suggesting a cover up of the Roswell UFO
crash. These papers, known as MJ-12, appeared at the home of a UFO researcher.
Well, photographic film arrived and when developed, revealed the existence of a
special group known as MJ-12 to exploit and direct the recovery of the Roswell
UFO.
The trouble with these
documents was that we didn’t know who had sent them. We didn’t know where they
originated. Finally, we didn’t have the originals which could have been tested.
What good would it do to test the paper on which they were printed? We all know
that it was photographic paper.
Investigation into the
information provided by the MJ-12 documents suggested they had been created in
1984 rather than 1952 as alleged on the documents. In 1984, there was a believe
that the Del Rio UFO crash, which in the MJ-12 documents, is mentioned as El
Indio-Guerrero crash. But there is no evidence and the lone witness changed so
much about it over the years, that it is clear that it was invented. You can
read one analysis of the case here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/08/absense-of-evidence.html
The point is that
originally the MJ-12 documents caused a stir not only in the UFO community but
among the news media and those interested in UFOs. Investigation revealed the
flaws and the major flaw was we didn’t know the original source. Without that,
we were left with an interesting aside into the possibility of a cover up.
Eventually, nearly everyone agreed that the documents were a hoax and that was
underscored by the lack of the original source.
That’s where we are
with Immaculate Constellation. We have no source and we don’t even have copies
of documents suggesting there is something to the claims. At least, MJ-12 had
documents, which led to the revelation that it was a hoax. For an in depth analysis see Case MJ-12: Updated.
I’ll note here that for
years Stan Friedman held up several documents that related to UFOs that were nearly
all redacted. There were only one or two words on a page that could be read.
This was proof of the cover up. However, we now have the unredacted versions of
those documents and realize that the missing information had nothing to do with
UFOs but with intelligence collection methods in certain parts of the world. That
information would have been of value to our competitors in the world and was
rightly redacted. This merely shows that sometimes, we over react to government
secrecy.
We can look to whistleblower
David Grusch. He talked of high-level, important people who told him about UFO
crashes, but he supplied no names. I can deduce some of those names and while
they had once held important posts in the government or were respected
scientists, that didn’t say anything about Grusch’s sources other than we have
the names. Didn’t prove what they had told Grush, or that Grush overheard, was
accurate information, only that they might have said it.
I point all this out because we now have more information about an important government program hidden from the public which, supposedly hides information about UFOs or rather UAP. But we have no way of vetting the information. We have no way of finding corroboration. We just must believe the stories told by this unidentified source. And I ask, “Why?”
Here's something else
that hasn’t been considered and that is that this collection of UFO images
might not have a thing to do with alien visitation, but is, instead, images of
terrestrial craft that have been flying around various locations in the US. It
might be that the images are held in secrecy because revelation of them might
provide information of intelligence value to our competitors. In other word,
national security might have raised its ugly head.
I could go on about
other great stories circulating or circulated in the UFO field that intrigued
and excited people inside and outside the UFO community that blew up when we
finally were able to get to the sources.
Right now, I can’t
verify that Immaculate Constellation exists, but then I can’t reject the tale
either because the evidence to do that doesn’t yet exist. I can only caution
against drawing any concrete conclusions now because we simply don’t have
enough information to just either way to justify any conclusion.