The UAP Report. Check the Box.
I’ll be honest. The UAP report is a curious document. It feels like the answer to a forced question that does not want to be answered. Many will correctly note that this is “preliminary” and point out that we should have low expectations, give it time. After all, what can a government agency possibly say with 6 months of preparation, infinite resources, and 75 years of evidence? Apparently, almost nothing. The intelligence community wants to have nothing to do with this request for openness. They don’t see it as a propaganda tool (at least not yet) where disclosure gets them something of value. They see it as an intrusion into their domain and that is not allowed. At present they successfully control and own the biggest story in Human history; we are not alone. Why would they want to give up control of that narrative before they are ready? Moreover, there is the potential that if they can open pandora’s box and reverse engineer this technology they will all but control the world. For this reason, the UAP Preliminary assessment was a check the box exercise designed to slow down, obfuscate, ignore, mock, and generally dampen any public enthusiasm around the idea that we the public have a right to know what is going on. This is their whale, and they are not giving it up.
If you don’t yet buy into my premise here, let’s explore this document with a skeptic’s mindset. No, not like a certain UFO debunker everyone knows about. I mean let’s give it an honest look and really focus in on a few characteristics will help to shed some light on this vague and cryptic document. Let’s try to understand what they are saying here even if we must infer what they mean. At face value this is a rather boring, tedious and almost juvenile document given the pedigree of it’s origin. To do this, we must observe the first rule of “Intelligence Club”, nothing written by the “Intelligence Club” should ever be interpreted at face value.
One of the first things the report calls out is that sensor anomalies are a factor. Really? Why talk about sensor anomalies being misinterpreted as UAP so early in a document? Normally a discussion of sensor behavior might involve using terms like malfunction, false positives or false negatives. This is normally relegated to the technical analysis of an event, and is handled by experts familiar with the sensor technology. It begins with an analysis of the sensor data, leveraging statistical techniques designed to give degrees of confidence around the data. Making it one of your opening points, mockingly tips everyone off to what will be a common technique in the future. Sigh… This early call out appears to be signaling to the media and allies that it is ok to question or even project an extraordinary UAP event, characterized by extraordinary evidence as nothing more than a sensor malfunction. This is said even before the executive summary! I would call this leading the jury if I were a judge weighing in on the matter. Judge to jury: “No need to state the obvious, please retract that statement as it unfairly characterizes this UAP as something real. please strike that from the evidence, for it is a mere sensor malfunction.” The intelligence community wants a potential “out” for every single UAP event they might have to deal with, and this is why they “lead” with sensor malfunction under assumptions so early in the report.
This is a gem. For those who have even slightly peaked into this subject across 75 years of extraordinary history, this lead in to the executive summary begs one to ask the question; Do you think we are that gullible? I feel no compunction to gloss over this Executive Summary description. I have no followers to string along with hope that the USG will be our partners in disclosure. I believe the ODNI literally laughed as they were writing this. The military has extraordinary evidence in their possession and we know it because hundreds of credible, and qualified trained military observers have come forward over the years as witnesses including astronauts for god’s sake. All have testified across decades to this fact, making public statements at great personal risk. Furthermore all one has to do is look at an endless array of FOIA requests to see how much high quality reporting on the matter already exists. Can you imagine what they have that we can’t see? This was clearly done to set the clock back 75 years, and it should make you angry.
Once again, we encounter an absolute refusal to admit reality here. They know reality, they have know about this for 75 years. What is extraordinary about this section is that it actually regresses the whole topic from “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” to “Other”. The rub is that they didn’t just say “Other”, they created a new expression they call “catchall other bin”. It is a bin folks! Eureka! We have a bin. Now that is progress. “Other” is like the kitchen sink, who knows what will end up in it. That is the point. Maintain control of the narrative through clever use of terms, even if those terms insult everyone’s intelligence. The ODNI deserves the academy award for “Catchall other bin” phrase. They are laughing at you. Moving on…
We have arrived at the central theme of this document, “Other”. Here they accomplish the narrative trick of regressing from UFO via UAP all the way to “Other”. Think about that. First parlor trick. Rename UFO to UAP and you can magically ignore 75 years of history. Next magic trick. Take UAP and use another term called “Other” to box every UAP that might be interesting. Now, this is brilliant. The ODNI has successfully disappeared an idea. I mean disappearance is a theme in intelligence community right? No surprise here that they would use a technique normally reserved for humans and apply it to an idea. As a literary technique, this is brilliant. Bravo! Shakespeare would cry at how the ODNI used “Other” to rub out UAP, after UAP rubbed out UFO. You see what is going on here? Now let’s get back to the narrative. The fiction in how they define Other (otherwise knows as UFO or UAP) is that they claim scientific advances are needed to allow a better understanding of “Other”. Now one could argue that this section signals their implied admission that UAP’s are not ours or the Russians or the Chinese. However, they reduce it to a small number of cases where observers or sensors witnessed unusual flight characteristics or signature management. Vague and cryptic language makes this “Other” boring and uninteresting, something Mick West can celebrate as prosaic. The point is that this language gives them a wet blanket to put out any fires of passion people might have around the issue. Most importantly it gives them all kinds of leverage and techniques to describe each of the 143 cases as some form of drone, AI, or atmospheric clutter exhibiting unusual flight characteristics.
What is the real intention of this document? It is to comply with the law, and to delay any real action for years or perhaps decades to come. They are just fine if the UFO community of activists and researchers continues searching for that illusive acknowledgement of truth we all desire from our government, even if we all know the truth already. Disclosure does not matter to them and this document is the best evidence possible for that. They just don’t care what the public thinks or does. Short of a movement in the streets, “Other” as they now refer to it, is off the table, and they just told us so. We need to accept that we will have to continue the struggle for disclosure. It will have to be forced out of them. Future history will tell one of two stories about what follows after this moment. One story is that the military industrial complex delayed disclosure once again and Humanity continued it’s inexorable march forward towards multiple, simultaneous existential crisis. The other story is that Humanity overcame a small minority of people holding us all hostage and found a way to embrace a future together as one civilization ready to face it’s future. One species in a very very busy galaxy. Which story gets told is based solely on regular people taking heroic actions, seeking, demanding, and insisting on nothing short of the truth. We need to make this our story, Humanity’s story. It is not for either the military industrial complex or the national security apparatus to own. No one group gets to define the future of Humanity in secret. That must not be allowed.
