On December 16, people interested in UFOs received an early Christmas surprise. The New York Times---a longtime leader in mainstream UFO debunking efforts---published two articles on the subject in one day.
These were not the vacuous, snarky pieces that typically emanate from the newspaper that publishes “all the news fit to print.” These were, in fact, two good articles that gave genuine information.
The main article, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,” offered several bombshells. Mainly, that the Pentagon, from the end of the George W. Bush presidency and through at least the first term of Barack Obama, spent millions of dollar investigating UFOs. Granted, $22 million over roughly five years is less than a pittance in Pentagon numbers. But that anything was spent at all is significant. We are talking from 2007 until (officially) “the 2012 timeframe,” in the imprecise words of a Pentagon official.
The program’s name was also typically vague---Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification (AATI). It was managed by a career intelligence officer named Luis Elizondo, who has been very straightforward about the program and the incredible nature of what it analyzed. According to Politico, which also published an article on this that came out soon after the Times pieces, Elizondo “described scores of unexplained sightings by Navy pilots and other observers of aircraft with capabilities far beyond what is currently considered aerodynamically possible.” Moreover, he said, these occurred near nuclear facilities, ships at sea, and power plants. Clearly, this is not random but intelligent. According to Elizondo, "We had never seen anything like it."
Recovered UFO Materials
UFO skeptics, as ever, wave all this away. Still, isn’t anyone curious about the revelation that the program contracted out to Bigelow Aerospace to study “metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo [who managed the program] and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena.”
In any normal world, this would prompt a massive, collective, “whoa.” But the bland statement is buried within the article in the Times. Most people seem to have missed it. For years, researchers have argued that U.S. military agencies (and several other national militaries) have recovered and studied UFOs. Indeed, a number of declassified documents, to say nothing of a virtual avalanche of testimony, have at least supported this claim. So now we have it acknowledged in the New York Times itself, although couched in disclaimers (“Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said...”).
Even with the disclaimers, however, don’t we want to ask what exactly constitutes these “metal alloys and other materials”? This is a reasonable question. We are talking about, quite literally, recovered UFOs. What, if any, were the conclusions generated by Bigelow Aerospace regarding these materials?
https://www.richarddolanpress.com/single-post/2018/01/01/The-Pentagon-and-UFOs-Assessing-the-Revelations
Click on the link to read the full article.
Comment:
This is a very good article covering the matter - pointing out that there were also investigations into physical remains. The particular case associated with the FA-18 Gun Camera images is very interesting. As a whole the observations, from the film and pilot report, rule out mundane explanations. As mentioned in another post, the Pentagon (USAF) pretended to shut down official interest in this stuff in 1969 whereas we have a paper trail that shows this was not true (JANAP-146).
The article covers a lot of ground, from the media being corrupt, which raises questions about why they would run with this story, and the fact there are professional 'debunkers' ready with any 'explanation' regardless of whether it fits the specifics of the case. The use of false explanations and false equivalences is a common tactic of debunkers. This strategy is easily exposed when you consider what was actually reported or recorded. Not everything turns out to be a unique/genuine UFO event (as opposed to the misidentification cases), but you can bet that on those rare occasions the whitewash explanations will be trotted out. The article mentions James Oberg from NASA. Although not mentioned he also has a defence securty background. This background explains his (illogical) non-explanation explanations regarding a number of cases.
The issue here is fairly straightforward, of credible sighting reports ... unless you are prone to being misled by authority figures making bad arguments (the disinformation). A fair amount of ridicule will discourage rational thought about the whole subject (of unusual aerial phenomena).
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 4th, 2018.]
Related:
Tom DeLonge's To the Stars Academy Posts Declassified UFO Videos - The Gov Just Released This UFO Video.. - Revealed: the Pentagon’s secret UFO-hunting program - Wake Up David Wilcock & Richard Dolan: Tom DeLonge WILL Bring Disclosure:
http://undebunkingufos.blogspot.com/2017/12/tom-delonges-to-stars-academy-posts.html
