Boldly Going... Somewhere
The UFO thing continues to heat up.
For decades, UFO researchers (known by the pithy name “ufologists”) have been trying to prod their political leaders into answering a basic question: what does the American government know about UFOs and UAP? Those politicians have been, at best, reluctant to take on this question for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is the fear that their careers might be damaged if they are seen to treat the topic of “little green men” with any seriousness.
All of that has changed.
Yesterday, the New York Times published an article entitled “Bipartisan Measure Aims to Force Release of U.F.O. Records.” The legislation, pushed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, would “create a review board to declassify documents related to unidentified aerial phenomena across the government.”
Personally, I found the article a little weird because it failed to mention David Grusch, the whistleblower who recently testified that the US is in possession of multiple craft of unknown origin. That extraordinary testimony has driven most of the current UFO conversation. Why was he left out of the article altogether? Weird. Further, the tenor of the Times piece suggested that the reason for the legislation is to put to rest lingering suspicions that the US is hiding something rather than to expose what the US does know. This attitude seems at odds with the bill’s supporters Senators Marco Rubio and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of whom have indicated during interviews that they believe the government actually is hiding something. So: is Schumer pushing this legislation to debunk UFO nonsense or is he pushing for transparency with the goal of eventual “disclosure” (the catchall term used by the UFO community to mean public revelations of non-human intelligence)?
It was a little perplexing.
That’s why today’s follow-up article in The Hill caught me a little off-guard. That article, entitled “Senators to offer amendment to require government to make UFO records public” goes over much of the same territory as the Times article but includes this:
“For decades, many Americans have been fascinated by objects mysterious and unexplained and it’s long past time they get some answers,” Schumer said in a statement. “The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena.”
What’s odd here is the unequivocal language he uses, stating that the American public has a right to learn about non-human technologies and intelligence. He’s not saying that the American public has a right to learn about these things “if they exist,” or “if they should one day be found.” Instead, he’s stating their existence as fact. Is that just sloppy language or an admission of something? If the remarks were made off-the-cuff to an interviewer, I might be more inclined to believe the former but this was released as a statement, meaning that the language was crafted by his office and vetted. Wouldn’t they understand that goobers like myself would read his remarks as confirmation that the American government knows about such technologies and intelligences?
Why is all of this happening now?
Clearly the Grusch testimony hastened interest in the topic. Of course, the knock on Grusch was that he reported merely what he “heard,” not what he himself witnessed. Senator Rubio has stated, however, that other whistleblowers with first-hand knowledge of reverse-engineering projects have already come forward to testify.
On the House side, Tennessee Republican Tim Burchett recently did an interview with the Event Horizon podcast in which he said – also unequivocally:
'They [extraterrestrial craft] can travel light years or at the speeds that we've seen defy physics as we know it,'
'They can fly underwater and don't show a heat trail.'
He continued to explain that if these otherworldly beings have technology unlike anything we know on Earth, then 'they' could 'turn us into a charcoal briquette.'
'We are out of our league,' the congressman continued. 'We couldn't fight them off what we wanted to. That's why I don't think they're a threat to us, or they would already have been.'
When asked if he’s seen evidence that we are not alone, he has said, “100%,” which gibes with the Dr. Garry Nolan interview I wrote about here.
Pressure is building in both chambers of Congress to hold hearings. And hearings are coming. Politico reported yesterday “House plans to hold long-planned UFO hearing,” the sub-title of which intriguingly reads, “That’s what it’s about: aliens,” a quote also attributed to Mr. Burchett. I don’t know if the Senate is also planning on holding hearings, but after the Schumer legislation, one has to imagine those hearings aren’t too far off.
Will Grusch testify at the House hearing, which is purportedly happening at the end of the month? Will any of the other “whistleblowers” come forward? I don’t know, although Rep. Luna, another Republican legislator pushing for these hearings told Ask A Pol that “We have some great witnesses. You guys will see those name as soon as it becomes public information.” In the same interview she says, “It’s important that instead of trying to make this conspiratorial and poo-pooing it, that people are actually understanding that it’s very likely that there’s other life forms out there and that we’re not alone in this universe.” If Burchett and Luna weren’t such nutjobs on other issues, I’d give their statement more credence but I still think it’s notable, especially because her last name is “Luna.”
Not sure why there doesn’t appear to be equal enthusiasm from Democratic members of the House. Maybe because they think their Republican counterparts are weirdo fringe types and/or maybe because they have different/less information. I don’t know, but I would be lying if I said it wasn’t a little bit worrying from a “God, I hope there’s aliens” perspective.
At the beginning of the year, many prominent people in the field, like former AATIP director Lu Elizondo, were implying that 2023 was going to be a big year for the field. I was cautiously optimistic that we might get some forward momentum going, but I have to admit I’ve been surprised at the accelerating pace we seem to be experiencing a little bit over halfway through the year. The House hearing could end up being important if the promised whistleblowers materialize or it could be more of a bust if they end up being anything like previous hearings on the topic. Regardless, to my eye, it does appear that this is unfolding in a semi-controlled fashion. Step by step, somebody or somebodies out there are driving this forward. I have no idea where it’s all headed, but wherever we’re boldly going, it’s starting to feel increasingly consequential.
If you’re interested, here’s the proposed legislation.
Let me know where you guys think this is all headed, if anywhere.
Is it all just to distract us from other things going on at the moment? Hey look at the little green man, not at the big orange man?
I saw an interview with Harry Reid where he was very aggressive about the idea that we should know more and that UFOs were a threat, citing an incident where a nuclear facility was compromised in a UFO event. Later, someone else, I can't remember who, said the soldiers involved in the nuclear event experienced feelings of peace and were telepathically warned that the human race needed to pursue peace, not destruction. Subsequently, that someone else theorized that the UFO phenomenon was being pushed by the government right now to justify a deepening of our military complex. Which, ya know, as an American, sounds like us to me.