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.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteSpartacus01
ReplyDeleteI 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.