The difficult task of holding accountable those who obfuscated UAP truth
RUMBLINGS, MURMURS AND rumoured whispers are gathering pace. Congressional hearings into ‘unidentified anomalous phenomena’ (UAP) is a term that many within the Pentagon do not want to address openly. The argument for hearings is one which is likely to become an extremely difficult and messy debate, spanning over the next few years. Simply put, we can’t have our cake and eat it without acknowledging the difficult ‘UFO’ historical reality - that the anomalous have potentially been here since at least 1942, coming and going with impunity. Arguably, there has been a critical failure in how the system has reacted to them, whatever they are. Congressional representatives such as Andre Carson have been particularly vocal in recent months and taken to the media to request hearings. Congressional hearings on ‘UFOs’ would be taken to the hill for the first time in over 50 years.
But would it be different this time?
Undeniably, yes. The wealth of military testimony with verified sensory array data, radar data, gun-camera footage is far more compelling than anything that has come before. The UAP reporting legislation that was created in 2019 allowed for military personnel to come forward without reprisal, and that is what they have done.
Could the US Congress witness military testimonies regarding the UAP subject?
The data is there, it is in the hands of congress and the oversight committees – what this data means for us as humans remains to be seen – but it is now established that there is something to this phenomena. This is essentially the difference between the hearings of 1966 and now.
So what might be involved in such hearings?
There will be a lot of uncertainty and difficult questions which may not have immediate answers. Possibly, the complexity of the anomalous phenomena means that we may not know the answers for a very long time. Congressional oversight will be paramount to ensuring UAP are taken seriously and that will allow for the process to accelerate. One of the main questions will be of accountability, aka, will congressional hearings face up to the concept of cynically intentional disinformation and obfuscation, both historical and present day. The Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General investigation is still ongoing and apparently covers a range of issues from the mishandling of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) to the position of Luis Elizondo and how the former director’s emails were deleted by someone within the DoD, rumoured to be from within his former office at OUSDI. Then we also have the potential issue of historical oversight into UAP, or lack there of.
There will be a time in the not so distant future, when transparency efforts will shine a light on all the dark corners of how the United States Government has (mis)handled the UAP issue. The IG investigation will no doubt be classified under national security interests, but equally there is a possibility that some data will be made unclassified. My own assumption is that we may find more open data provided to the public on the manipulated AATIP disinformation campaign, than we do on any potential ‘special access program’ that might have been without congressional oversight. The legal and national security ramifications would be astronomical, you might understand to a certain extent why certain elements of any such investigation would be held back. But again, the problem remains that we don’t have enough data to move forward on this and force the issue. Not without data, not without transparency.
We are also faced with another problem, that of accountability vs. amnesty. How can we be sure that any laws even have been broken with regard to hiding anomalous data? Additionally, how can we be sure that any government secrecy on UAP isn’t just highly classified? From an analyst perspective we can never be sure, we simply do not have anything close to thorough data which can be confidently concluded upon.
Historically, there have been unverified conspiracies about how some special access programs (SAP) have used certain defense contractors to hide away unwelcoming truths about the anomalous phenomena. The stories of recovered crashed discs and alien bodies might be buried so deeply that it would take an act of god to expose that side of the issue. If indeed there is any truth to it. Some UAP analyst have suggested that this radical UAP technology is the new arms race, more rewarding than nuclear weaponry and which ever nation obtains it first will rule the world. Others have suggested that the exposure of this unwanted reality, and the government’s attempt to keep it secret, would irreparably damage national security and I personally would agree with that statement. The cost of this issue comes with a burden that requires strategy to ensure safe passage.
If and when open UAP congressional hearings occur over the coming few years - as UAPMediaUK understand to be sooner rather than later - it will be arguably based on what the mainstream understands right now about UAP, rather than a deep Ufology dive into crashed saucers and alien bodies. The focus will possibly be on congressional oversight and the lighter negligence and obfuscation issues that have plagued unclassified UAP data – AAWSAP - AATIP – UAPTF – and other efforts that might have been shut down by certain individuals in certain areas within DoD. Additionally, we would expect questions will be asked about any possible surveillance/hostility intent of these UAP transmedium devices and objects, the origins and/or the behavioural search patterns displayed. Then there is the difficult question about the potential for enemy nations to have already obtained and applied this technology – if they already haven’t. How can congressional oversight committees defend against something they were never told existed?
Over the past few weeks, certain people have been named on the internet via multiple sources that included a book (Skinwalkers at the Pentagon) by George Knapp and James Lacatski. Gary Reid (OUSDI), Kate Borowic (DIA) and Marcel Lettre (OUSDI) are also rumoured to have played some part in recent UAP issues, however it must be made very clear that there is nothing to suggest any wrong doing by any of these individuals. We simply do not know any roles, positions or motivations. Equally, we need to be careful as we don’t know the full role of Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough, long rumoured to have been active in various ‘Anti-transparency UAP campaigns’ beyond her role as a spokesperson. The Inspector General’s investigation is the final word on any UAP determination at this point and we must trust and respect that the internal legal system is competent in their approach to such sensitive issues.
Having said that, we must consider the frustrations and temperament of a world who fully understand the implications of any individual who has illegally interfered with unclassified UAP information or any program which investigated UAP. Should it be hypothetically found that a group of individuals from the rumoured OUSDI (and/or other places) conspired to delete AATIP/Elizondo emails in an attempt to manipulate the media and congress - then they must face accountability for their hypothetically criminal actions. However, again we need to be very careful about concluding on limited data. We don’t know if any individuals from any specific agency were even involved or committed any illegal act.
One thing we do know, is that UAP will prove to be the biggest issue in history once the full truth is known and the implications are realised. Those who criminally obfuscate the anomalous will face legal charges, professional gross negligence issues and also, credibility issues with smearing their own legacy. History always tells us that it loves a monster, and this UAP issue is the issue for providing that. A persons legacy is after all, what remains of them in the years after their service is finally complete. It is never too late to do the right thing, no matter how difficult it may seem at the time. Let’s hope people choice to be a hero, not a monster.
Should any journalist, current member of Parliament, or member of the House of Lords, wish to reach out and discuss how the UK could play their part, you can reach us securely at [email protected].
