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 twoarticles 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?

Effects of UFOs on Human Biology

That revelation was followed by another one: “Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes.”

There has been a lot of quiet talk about this over the past few years. Former U.S. Airman First Class

So, these are things that researchers essentially already knew, but now the New York Times confirms that U.S. taxpayers funded, via the Pentagon, studies of such physiological and biological effects. Again, we want to know: what conclusions, if any, were found? More to the point, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to flesh out this story?

An Extraordinary Encounter

We don’t yet know all the UFO cases studied by the AATI Program. But at least one high profile encounter has now reached us: the November 2004 incident involving the USS Princeton one hundred miles off the coast of San Diego. This was the theme of the other article published by the New York Times on December 16.

Briefly, Commander David Fravor and Lt. Commander Jim Slaight were each flying F/A-18F Super Hornets on a routine training mission. It turned out that for the previous two weeks, the Navy had been tracking extraordinary unidentified objects that would appear at 80,000 feet, dive to 20,000 feet, stop and hover, then drop out of radar range or shoot straight up.

Now something once again appeared on Navy radar, and Fravor and Slaight were ordered to investigate. The weather was clear and perfect. Fravor got in the closest and saw a whitish object he described as “tic tac shaped” hovering 50 feet above churning water. He estimated it to be about 40 feet long. As he initiated a circular descent and approached the object, it ascended as if to meet him. He then dove straight at the object, at which point it sped away nearly instantly.

didn’t give an estimate of the object’s speed, but he did describe it as accelerating from a dead stop just over the water to an altitude of 12,000 feet and being out of sight, all within two seconds. He would only state that its speed was “well above supersonic,” or “like the bullet out of a gun.” Just for fun, we can do our own rough estimate of the speed, based on his information. During the interview, Fravor stated that there was more than fifty miles of visibility that day, with “easy” visibility of ten miles. It’s reasonable to think the object travelled at least ten miles within two seconds, and perhaps over fifty miles.

If you take the more conservative estimate of ten miles, that translates to 300 miles per minute, or 18,000 mph. If you want to be more liberal with the data, just multiply by five. Incidentally, Fravor added the object displayed no exhaust or discernable method of propulsion. He could only conclude that the object was “not from this world.”

Silence from the Hierarchy

And yet, as far as has been reported, no one seemed to care about these events. In his interview with Politico, Elizondo pointed out that "if a Russian 'Bear' bomber comes in near California, it is all over the news. These are coming in the skies over our facilities. Nothing but crickets."

His observation is spot on. If such technology were Russian or Chinese, the U.S. would be losing its collective mind. And yet, no one seems to believe it’s Russian or Chinese. Which begs the obvious question: to whom does this tech belong? Something “beyond next generation,” as Elizondo put it. If I think about what that phrase means, it would seem to be something vastly beyond not only what we currently have, but what we can imagine doing for the foreseeable future. And yet, there it is, easily outperforming some of our top fighter-interceptors.

Can we really think that no one in the military hierarchy cared about these events? I believe that there are those who very quietly care a great deal. But why stir the pot, so to speak, when there is absolutely nothing you can do about it?

On a related note, can we realistically think that, given the extraordinary nature of these events, and the truly incredible implications of the technology encountered, that no other funding has been allocated to study or deal with it?

There is a reason Elizondo was only hearing the sound of crickets. Because the study of UFOs continues to be revolutionary. It always has been, and this is why the most intense levels of secrecy have surrounded it since the Second World War.

Bigelow, the Pentagon, and MUFON

A few other random thoughts arise from all this.

It’s interesting that while Bigelow Aerospace was contracting with the Pentagon to analyze physical pieces of UFOs and more, it also had a relationship with the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), in which Bigelow’s organization provided money to MUFON to assist in on-site investigations of UFO encounters and sightings. The relationship ended acrimoniously. MUFON members believed Bigelow was simply using the organization to siphon its best cases while Bigelow appears to have been unsatisfied with the ragtag and sometimes less-than-professional nature of MUFON’s investigations. Probably both sides had a point, but the reality is that Bigelow’s relationship with MUFON now appears in a new light, as part of a larger effort to obtain hard data about UFOs.

White House Stonewalling on “Disclosure”

Another random thought. You might remember there were quite a few citizen based initiatives throughout the 21st century that, either explicitly or implicitly, sought to obtain some sort of government acknowledgement on the reality of UFOs. From the Disclosure Press conference of 2001 organized by Dr. Steven Greer, to the numerous X-Conferences organized by Stephen Bassett, as well as press conferences involving Leslie Kean (who co-authored the two pieces in the New York Times), James Fox, Robert Hastings, and others. None of these events elicited the slightest positive response from any branch of government.

In 2011, Bassett organized a “We the People” petition to the Obama White House to formally “acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race.” It garnered 12,078 signatures, more than enough to force a response from White House spokesperson Phil Larson, who simply stated that not only did the U.S. government lack evidence suggesting extraterrestrial life beyond or on our planet, but that there was “no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.” All this, while Elizondo and the AATI existed and actively studied UFOs.

Just two years after that, Bassett organized the massive Citizens Hearings on Disclosure. Forty witnesses and researchers testified for an entire week about the reality of UFOs at the National Press Club in Washington, DC before six retired members of Congress and the Senate. I was actively engaged in this hearing, and saw firsthand the dramatic transformation of each member of the panel. The information presented to them clearly rocked their world.

All of this is to say that a mere scratching of the surface finds more than enough reason to warrant the most detailed and profound investigation of UFOs. But there is indeed an establishment in this society, and organizations like the New York Times are part of it.

Why Publish These Articles?

Which begs another question: why would the New York Times publish anything at all on this matter? Without question, the paper has a spotty track record of accuracy and honesty in its reporting. Some of this can be traced to its history of cooperation with the U.S. military-intelligence community (as in the case of Operation Mockingbird). Perhaps this explains why the Times willfully lied about UFOs as far back as 1947 when it promoted the military’s explanation of Roswell (weather balloon). For, whatever else you believe about Roswell, it wasn’t a weather balloon.

The New York Times promotes deceptions well beyond UFOs, of course. The fiction about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, promoted actively by the George W. Bush administration, was frenetically disseminated by the NYT, resulting in the destruction of that entire nation, and arguably much of the Middle East. More recent lies about Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all promoted by rabid neocon warkhawks, were repeated in the Times and led to tremendous human suffering.

Well, of course. Along with the Washington Post and CNN, the New York Times is the voice of the establishment, that is, of the most powerful members of our society. They are the embodiment of “mainstream.” Such institutions are not here to radicalize the population with truth and such.

So to repeat: why publish these two articles? It’s a fair question to ask. Was this simply a great scoop by dedicated journalists, or is there something else at work here?

Look, I am not impugning these journalists as some have done by referring to this story as some sort of “false flag” (a claim that not only makes no sense, but obliterates the meaning of the term). I am glad and grateful they wrote these articles. But we can’t ignore the fact that these were published where they were.

Anyone paying attention knows that this story was really opened up by the To the Stars Academy press conference two months ago by Tom DeLonge, formerly of the rock band Blink 182. Elizondo presented there, along with several other impressive scientists and officials from the world of science and the intelligence community. Although the participants said it wasn’t “about” UFOs, everyone knows that is precisely what it was about. This press conference is where the 2004 sighting first received a wide audience. It was clear from this event that high-level people were taking UFOs seriously, even in our 21st century. It’s fair to say that this press conference jump-started a process.

The establishment could have continued to ignore this developing story, just as it usually does. But I suspect this was a story that needed to be confronted head-on, and so enter the New York Times, almost as if it were the official voice of the government.

This story looks to me to be an exercise in damage control. Again, this is not to state that the authors were consciously seeking to do this. But authors answer to editors, who answer to publishers. And you can’t just throw things out there willinilly if you are writing for the New York Times. You just can’t.

How likely is it that what has been reported is the entire story? Clearly there is much more going on here. These two articles, dramatic as they are, strike me as cauterizing a wound. You keep the main story contained by releasing a portion of it and hope that nothing more is needed.

There are the telltale signs of classic NYT debunkery, even in these pieces. Indeed, one of the titles make you wonder. “Glowing Auras” sounds definitely spooky, sci-fi, and woo. The phrase black money just has to be in quotes, since after all you can’t recognize that such a thing really exists. And finally, it’s amusing to see that the Times continues to insist on keeping periods in the word UFO. This isn’t the 1950s; UFO is recognized by everyone around the world. You’d think that after all these years these people could take the pole out of their collective asses, breathe deeply, and just use the damn word. I can’t help but think that, by not recognizing the word UFO fully, the Times isn’t fully recognizing the reality of the phenomenon. It’s subtle but real.

More tangibly, the Times almost compulsively had to throw cold water over its own piece, which presumably is why it quoted two skeptics early on. One, James Oberg, a former NASA employee, has been a prominent debunker for many years. Offering no specific rebuttals to the information in the article, he simply stated that people who saw such things were usually either misled by their own perceptions or else probably saw some new tech that no one wants to reveal. This ignores specifics such as the incredible encounter of Commander Fraser and the USS Princeton. The other skeptical comment in the article on “Glowing Auras” was by an astrophysicist from MIT who offered one of the blandest statements imaginable: “what people sometimes don’t get about science is that we often have phenomena that remain unexplained.”

Seriously? There is no reason whatsoever to include such literally meaningless statements as these except as necessary filler -- a psychological placeholder. That is, while you read powerful testimony that tells you the U.S. military encounters and studies real UFOs, the skeptical mantras continue to ruminate in your mind.

Disclosure?

I’ve been asked many times if these new revelations constitute “disclosure.” To which I answer, no, they do not. We are not getting a statement from the government that UFOs are real and they don’t know what they are, much less that UFOs are alien in nature. Nothing of the sort has happened. Moreover, the skeptical commentators refuse to give this story any meaning, and most of the news establishment, while admittedly giving the story fair coverage, already seem to be going back to telling you about Putin’s plans to destroy American Democracy.

It does seem to me, however, that the UFO reality just became a bit more real as a result of all this. It will be harder for authorities to dismiss. Skeptics may rail all they want, but rational, critically-minded people are seeing that there really is something going on, and it surely seems very important. There also appears to be a very large story lurking behind what we have already learned.

Those who have studied their history know that this sort of thing has happened before. Uncomfortable revelations about UFOs have been arising for many years, and each time it seemed to some that the end of secrecy was near. This time may be no different from the others. In my view, nothing seems capable of derailing the American-Now-Global system that wants 24/7 control over the information that reaches your eyes, ears, and brain. Presidential elections clearly don’t make a difference, no matter what the supporters and detractors of Donald Trump think. New guy comes in, old policies remain in place.

I’ve said so many times that UFO Disclosure is a paradox that I’ve stopped saying it because it became a cliche in my mind. And yet, I continue to feel that it’s impossible and inevitable. Impossible because there just appears to be no motivation for those holding the power to release this information. It’s way too disruptive.

It also appears to be inevitable. Nothing stays the same, certainly not in our time. I don’t know where we are headed with all this, and I will urge you not to trust those who claim they do. No more predictions, please. But it does seem to me that history began moving a little bit faster on December 16. Let’s all take a collective deep breath, stay focused, and above all remain curious enough to keep asking questions.

Richard Dolan

Rochester New York

January 1, 2018

A Secret Space Program? Yes.

entered on the knowledge that within the classified world there were certainly technological developments that have been kept secret, sometimes for a long time.

Famously, the stealth fighter was fully operational and secret for six years before it was officially announced, while stealth technology itself had been in the works for more than a decade before that, without a peep to the rest of us. I recall my conversation with a former scientist at NSA from the mid-1960s who told me of NSA computer clockspeeds exceeding 600 mHz, a speed not reached by the consumer market for 35 years. Today, there are rumors that NSA or some other intelligence agency has achieved quantum computing---no one outside that world knows for sure.

Beyond that, rumors and allegations never cease about radical tech coming from the ‘black world.’ I have long credited the ARV story emanating from Brad Sorensen via Mark McCandlish. If true, it means that clandestine reverse-engineered flying saucer craft have been manufactured secretly and have been operational since at least the 1980s. Along these lines we have the statements coming during the 1980s and 1990s to respected aviation and aerospace journalist James Goodall. One of Goodall’s sources from within Groom Lake (Area 51) told him, “we have things in the Nevada desert that would make George Lucas envious,” and “we have things out there better than Star Trek, Star Wars, or anything you see in the movies.” And so on.

It’s not that we should take such claims as gospel. But there is a history, a pattern. Moreover, the sources of many of such claims come from individuals whose backgrounds have been confirmed, even if their stories have not. When it comes to UFOs and all things related, it’s a fact that we are dealing with things that are classified and secret. There is no getting around that fact, something most full-time debunkers seem conveniently to forget time and again. Unfortunately, those of us who research and investigate the secret world of the UFO cover-up are handicapped not merely by the intrinsic difficulty of the subject, which is substantial, but by the secrecy and obfuscation that perennially accompany it.

Still, over the years I have concluded that not only is there a probable “breakaway civilization,” utilizing classified technological breakthroughs, most likely derived in part from alien technology, but that this includes a secret space program. The two go together. That is, if you conclude, as I do, that ...

1) UFOs are real

2) We have recovered some of this technology via Roswell and elsewhere

3) We have secretly been studying these breakthroughs over the many years

... then, it’s reasonable to assume that:

1) The classified world has made key breakthroughs over the years, some of which have been monetized, and others which are probably too important even for commercial profit and are being used covertly. Things such as radical propulsion technologies, for starters. There would undoubtedly be other breakthroughs, but who knows what.

2) Such breakthroughs would enable these people to do things utterly off limits to the rest of us, including, crazy as it might seem to many people, to go “off-world.”

3) There would be little to no incentive for those in-the-know to let the rest of us know what’s going on. It’s too big, too explosive a secret. It will only voluntarily be let out when it’s no longer important, which is usually the case with big secrets. All too often, we learn about important things after they become irrelevant.

There is more I can say here about all this, but in fact I’ve said it repeatedly here, here, and here, and many other places. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

The New Whistleblowers: Andy, Corey, and the Rest

For many years, there have been a number of other people, often described as “whistleblowers,” who have claimed to have participated in such secret space programs. Now, on the face of it, you could say that, assuming there is such a thing as a secret space program, it’s entirely conceivable that someone from the program would eventually speak out.

Some of the most prominent of these people include Andrew Basiago, Randy Kramer, and Corey Goode. These three individuals have each claimed to have gone to Mars for extended periods of time. That’s explosive enough, of course, but they have also stated that they have engaged in time travel. I met Andy back in 2012 at a conference in Santa Clara, California. I found him to be very personable and intelligent. Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe his story. I don’t believe that he went through a “jumproom” to Mars. I don’t believe that he did these things with a young Barack Obama in the 1980s. And I don’t believe that, as a child, he time travelled back to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, despite the fact that he claimed he was in a photograph depicting it.

I realize there are strange things beyond the circumscribed fence of our officially sanctioned reality. But I am not obligated to believe every story that crosses my path, especially those that are obviously self-aggrandising, and particularly those that don’t provide evidence.

So over the years I have mostly ignored Andy’s claims and stories. Although I have personally considered them unfortunate, I never had a desire or felt a need to do much about them.

I developed the same attitude regarding Corey Goode, who lately has become even more prominent than Andy. Like everyone else interested in ufology, I watched his claims sweep across the field starting in 2014. Corey claimed to have gone to Mars on a “twenty and back” program starting in his late teens, and then, at the conclusion of his program, was sent back to Earth. But not at his age in his late 30s, and not to an Earth twenty years later. Instead, he was “age regressed” and “time regressed” back to his teenage body, back to the same year he left. Mom never even knew he left the house.

Clearly, I found this story problematic and was amazed at the willingness of so many people to take him at his word. His story is perfectly designed to counter the obvious objections people might have to it: no paperwork, no twenty-year disappearance, no family member who can vouch for him, and so on.

My main issue when it comes to Corey Goode (or Andy or Randy Kramer for that matter) isn’t that I “disbelieve” them, per se. Yes, I find their stories to be unlikely. But the real problem has been that none of these people have provided the evidence that an independent investigator needs to make a determination one way or the other.

There is a concept in science and philosophy called falsifiability. If something is falsifiable, it doesn’t mean it’s false. It means you have the ability to test it, to investigate it, to determine whether it is true or false. It could tell you that my suitcase weighs thirty-five pounds. That’s falsifiable because you can take my suitcase and put it on a scale. Now, I could tell you that five years ago I checked a thirty-five pound suitcase at the airport for one of my flights. That is probably not falsifiable--unless perhaps you find the airline records.

In the instance of my suitcase, you might not doubt my claim, even if you can’t prove or disprove it. After all, it’s perfectly mundane and common.

But when it comes to significant claims being made--really big claims that are not only radical on their own merits but which transform the field (and bring fame and money to those making them), then we clearly need a higher standard than “he seems like a good guy with a detailed story so I believe him.”

Again, I must emphasize that none of these whistleblowers has made a claim that an independent investigator can confirm. Everything is based on trust. Believing such stories without genuine evidence takes us down a dangerous road within an already treacherous field that is constantly in the crosshairs of a skeptical establishment.

The MUFON Symposium

Personal opinions aside, I have had no desire to be in a war with anyone in this field. I don’t have the time or energy to expend on such things. This, despite the fact that nearly every week I receive messages from people who want me to attack these people. For my part, I prefer to do my own research and focus on the fascinating nuances of the UFO phenomenon itself.

But I was unable to stay out of the controversy for a specific reason. Six months ago, I was asked by MUFON Director Jan Harzan to speak at the MUFON International Symposium. It had been six years since I had last spoken there

I decided to accept Jan’s offer to speak at the 2017 Symposium. He then asked me if I would speak specifically about the secret space program. In fact, I didn’t want to, and told him so. I had explored it in the past and was looking at other things. But he really wanted it, and so I thought, sure, I can do fresh research and present my findings.

Several months later, I learned that MUFON had organized this into the conference’s major theme, and that Corey Goode, Andrew Basiago, William Tompkins, and Dr. Michael Salla were not only presenting on that very topic, but that i would be featured on a panel with them. (In fairness I should add that MUFON has also invited other researchers, including Mark McCandlish and Michael Schratt, both highly credible, as well as bringing Gary McKinnon in by Skype).

Before I continue, let me have a word on Michael Salla and Bill Tompkins. I’ve known Michael for over a decade, and have had several long conversations with him. What I say here I have said to him personally: I believe he has done genuine and good research on a number of matters, but has a tendency to be too trusting. From my perspective, it’s always been like that. There are people who love his work, and there are haters. I am neither, but am always looking for information I can use. Sometimes I get good information and insights from his work and so I find him worthwhile to listen to, even if I don’t approve of his quickness to jump to conclusions.

Bill Tompkins is an interesting case. He is in his 90s, and recently wrote a book entitled Selected by Extraterrestrials, which details his life and claims about having participated in the Navy’s top secret program to create a secret space fleet. Unlike the other alleged whistleblowers, Tompkins has a career that has been confirmed: he did work at Douglas Aircraft for many years and has very impressive credentials. That counts for something. I should add that Dr. Salla and Dr. Bob Wood have both done a great deal of work to investigate and confirm Tompkins’ background and found what they believe is at least some corroboration to Tompkins’ claims.

Even so, I have my doubts about Mr. Tompkins. It’s not widely known, but I had the opportunity to be his publisher. After I learned about his credentials from Bob Wood, but before I read his manuscript, I had agreed in principle that I would publish it. But after reading the manuscript, I had to decline. I found the tone of this book to be perfectly designed to bring disrepute to the field and I wanted nothing to do with it. I found a number of obvious errors in the book and what seemed to me examples of self-aggrandisement that didn’t sit well with me. I wished Tompkins well and that was that. I haven’t made my final judgment on Tompkins, and perhaps I never will. If evidence can be brought forth to substantiate his key claims, then I will look at it.

In any case, when I learned I would be on a panel with Corey, Andy, Bill, and Michael, I phoned Jan and politely asked him what was he thinking. I mentioned my concern about MUFON’s decision to bring in individuals with claims that are inherently impossible to verify. MUFON, after all, is supposed to have evidence-based standards.

Jan explained himself as well as he could, essentially saying that he wanted to bring in diverse and interesting opinions and to let attendees decide for themselves. Well, MUFON is allowed to do what it wants, and of course the public is allowed to say what it wants in return. But this left me in an interesting position, and I realized it was time to begin expressing my thoughts on this more forthrightly.

I did this through a few different radio interviews, most definitively with Bill Ryan earlier in July 2017. That interview is on Youtube and gives a good overview of my thoughts (and his) on the matter of these whistleblowers and claims. Judging from the responses, it is obvious to me that the interview has touched a chord with many people out there.

Since then, Andrew Basiago has called me a liar and disinformation agent, but to my knowledge none of the other individuals concerned has.

In fact, I spoke recently with Corey Goode and said to him the same essentials as I am writing here. It’s nothing personal, I said, and while I am skeptical of his story, that is less important than the fact that his claims don’t allow for me to confirm them independently. To Corey’s credit, he didn’t take offense and we spoke cordially and candidly.

I want to make this point as clear as I can. My opinions (and yours, for that matter) don’t mean very much. What matters is the evidence that can be brought forward for these stories. I hold it as possible that there is something in these accounts that is true. After all, I believe that radical technology is being withheld from us. I believe the ARV story and more. But if a story gives me no chance to confirm or deny its basic claims, then it’s essentially useless to me as a researcher.

This is especially so if I cannot even confirm the basics of the person’s alleged career. I’ve said this many times. You can’t be considered a whistleblower if you can’t confirm that you are who you say you are. William Binney is a whistleblower. We know who he is. There are other real whistleblowers. If you can’t even confirm the basics of your alleged career, then you are not a whistleblower.

Disinformation or Something Else?

About a year ago, in an interview with Jimmy Church, I said that if I were responsible for managing the secret space program, I would want to find people who had truly outrageous stories to tell. I would then make sure they received enough publicity to make the whole thing seem crazy. This would keep the mainstream far away while also derailing many genuine investigators and sending them down false leads.

We have to consider this as a genuine possibility. Especially when we consider American history from Cointelpro, through the false flags and color revolutions it has organized around the world, to Snowden’s leaks, and even former Obama official Cass Sunstein’s call for infiltration of allegedly anti-government organizations. If someone wanted to guard the secret space program while laying waste to the UFO field, they very well might cultivate such alleged whistleblowers.

There are many possibilities to what these people are saying. For my part, I don’t adhere definitively to any one of them. I don’t know the answers.

1) Could it be that they participated in a program and were utterly messed with upon being let go? I have known several ex-U.S. military people who were severely damaged mentally (intentionally) so as to protect the classified secrets they were exposed to. I consider this a crime, and one that ought to result in prosecution, were it not for the fact that our system is hopelessly and irredeemably corrupt and has been so for ages. By the way, at least one credible account has come to me describing the same thing happening to a former high-level KGB officer.

If this has happened to one or all of the alleged whistleblowers, is it possible that there is a kernel of truth somewhere in their claims? After all, the hallmark of disinformation is to place an important truth within several obvious falsehoods. That way, the truth is also discredited and the the secret can safely continue for a time longer. When you are running an important secret program, it’s all about buying time, and every little bit counts.

2) Could it be that one or more of them are simply mentally unbalanced? This is not for me to say, but I’ve met my share of such people and they exist. In this case, I really have no idea.

I would like to add something here. If any of these individuals have some form of mental disturbance, whether from induced trauma or simply a random act of the universe, they have my sincere sympathy. If any of them have been subjected to serious traumas, it might be that the only way they could piece their mental life together has been by creating a belief system they can live with, one that helps them make sense of their life and which shields them from an even darker reality. Such a belief would be so important to them that they might feel impelled to maintain it at all cost.

Again, this is all speculative.

3) Is it simply a case of people concocting a good story? Let me tell you a story from my past.

Many years ago, I had a close friend named Bill who was one of the funniest, smartest, and kindest people I ever knew. He died back in 1990 and I miss him to this day. Bill was a member of the DuPont family, so he said. He also talked extensively about having gone to the Juilliard School of Music, one time guest conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra, and even giving a grand piano recital as a child prodigy for Queen Elizabeth. Back then, my much younger self believed my friend. After Bill died, one of our colleagues investigated him. This was all during the pre-Web era, but nevertheless she found (shocker) that Bill wasn’t part of the DuPont family. Instead, his mother had been a secretary at DuPont. Bill never attended Juilliard, never guest-conducted the Philadelphia Orchestra, and certainly never met the Queen of England!

My dear friend was a pathological liar, at least when it came to his own accomplishments. Relating to everything else, as far as I can tell, he was perfectly honest. The interesting thing is that his lies about himself didn’t stop him from being a good and trusted friend to me or to many other people. Bill just liked to glorify himself.

The thing I learned from Bill is that you can be a good person and still lie. Conversely, you can be a real prick and still be telling the truth. When we investigate claims of any sort, we have to remember that personalities must always take a back seat to evidence.

One more thing about lying. When someone is lying to you, most of the time you believe them. That’s why they lie, after all. Because it often works and some people are very good at it. Many people who are genuinely honest have a hard time imagining why someone else could possibly lie. They are trusting to a fault.

So are these whistleblowers lying? Again, I don’t know. If someone is able to document a provable lie, then we need to know. But as of now I am not making any such assertions.

4) Is it a case that these people really did the things they claim, with little to no distortion in their story? If so, then I would think they still realize they have many hurdles to overcome in terms of credibility. I get the distinct impression that some of them realize this while others do not.

Moving Forward

I remain willing to engage in a civil discourse with Corey, Andrew, Bill Tompkins, Michael Salla, or anyone else who has made claims. In a sense, I understand their position, since I know what it’s like to speak to staunch skeptics about the UFO subject.

However, in any sort of engagement I have with such people, they must realize that the onus is on them to provide their evidence. That is what I do regarding UFOs. A story that is inherently unverifiable just doesn’t count, nor does it help if some other random person seemingly supports the story. Words alone aren’t good enough. Nothing can be taken at face value.

I have been in this field long enough to feel a responsibility for defending it. There are countless people out there who would like nothing more than to see the study of UFOs lying in ruins. That would be a great tragedy.

One of the problems of our era is that people seem to enjoy drama and anger. Social media amplifies the situation, allowing sentiments to spread through a community like a forest fire. I would like to encourage the supporters and critics alike to take a step back, take a breath, and before you continue running your mouth and continuing along your personal warpath, please remember that it’s always best to stay away from personal invective and adhere to the facts, wherever they lead.

No one ever became interested in ufology because of the infighting among researchers. They became interested because this is one of the most fascinating subjects of all time. There is something very important going on here, and the only way we have a chance to succeed in learning the truth is by adhering to the main and true path: studying the phenomenon itself with as much care as we can give it.

I was as surprised as anyone by the victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Like many other independent analysts, including most recently Julian Assange, I had been certain that the establishment would not allow a Trump presidency to happen.

For sure, the power elite closed ranks and did everything possible to ensure a victory for Clinton. This included not only the Democratic party (which previously played dirty pool against Bernie Sanders), but the entire mainstream media machine, the financial community, the EU, and even the Republican party itself. If nothing else, I had concluded that the media alone had done a sufficient job of demonizing Trump – multiple negative headlines daily for more than a year – to make him unelectable to the American people.

For more than a year, we have been told that Trump is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, liar, cheat, and narcissist. The attack bears all the marks of a coordinated effort among the major news outlets: CNN, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, USA Today, and the rest. It reminded me very much of the concerted med

It is important to understand why Trump was demonized. To be sure, his character makes it easy. There is no shortage of narcissistic, sexist, or otherwise offensive statements in his repertoire from which to draw. But I have never and will never believe this is why he was demonized. Ultimately, Trump is a disruptor, and his disruption falls squarely against the two key pillars of the American ruling elite’s ideology: neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

Unlike traditional liberalism and conservatism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism are not opposites. Neoliberalism is just another name for transnational globalization, while neoconservatism is nothing other than the U.S.-dominated global empire project. They work together, two inhuman, anti-human processes that ensure a tiny minority of people control and own all the water, minerals, drugs, GM foods, and everything else worth owning in this world. Hillary Clinton, as the ultimate representative of such an agenda, received unwavering support from all segments of that establishment, certainly from the media. Trump, on the other hand, was vilified.

This is because, at least in his rhetoric, Trump showed that he is not a reliable globalist or empire-builder. Say what you want about him, but more than once he spoke to hard-core Republican gatherings against the 2003 war in Iraq and the unconscionable destruction in 2011 of the most prosperous and successful nation in Africa: Libya. What George W. Bush did to Iraq, Obama and Clinton (and Cameron and Sarkozy) did to Libya, leaving it in a smoking heaping ruin from which it may never recover in our lifetime. As an aside, I remain astonished at my self-described “progressive” friends who consistently overlook the obliteration of Libya, all based on lies and greed. The wreck of that nation will forever be a black stain on the careers of Obama and Clinton, and on the legacy of the United States as a whole.

For Trump to speak out about these wars, as incompletely as he did, nevertheless took political courage and he was right to do so. He spoke out forthrightly against the perfidious TPP and TTIP, agreements which go far beyond “free trade” and truly hand over national and local rights to transnational corporations, seemingly for all time. Trump also never signed on to the obscene anti-Russian hysteria promoted by Clinton and the entire rest of the national security establishment, whether they be Democrats or truly insane members of the Republican party like John McCain or Lindsey Graham. And, despite his obvious lack of deep understanding of the problems concerning Syria and the rest of the Middle East, he has at least shown a willingness to work with the legitimate (and secular) government of Bashar al-Assad in fighting the jidahists that have overrun that country. It is true that rhetoric is one thing and action quite another, but Trump’s rhetoric alone placed him in a position diametrically opposed to everything the past several war-making presidencies have stood for.

It is interesting now to see riots developing across the U.S. in response to the Trump victory. Predictably, they seem to be led by young people who, as is always the case with the U.S.-CIA-NGO model of color revolution, are the most easily manipulated. A year of CNN demonization has convinced them that Trump is the next Hitler, and they are acting accordingly.

While Trump has said a number of things that do not sit well with me and other civil libertarians, I repeat what I have said elsewhere. If you are concerned about fascism coming to America, don’t look for a fist pounding demagogue. Look instead at a government that can read every email you have ever written, GPS you at any time, know your internet habits better than you do, surveil you literally wherever you go in any major city, and use your information against you if they decide, however loosely, that you are an enemy of the state. That is fascism, and the U.S. has been living that bipartisan nightmare for 15 years. Thank you George W. Bush. Thank you Barack Obama.

Trump might make that situation worse, or he might not. But without a doubt his rhetoric has spoken directly to those who feel left behind by globalization, to a middle class that has been effectively disemboweled over the last generation, in which economic hope has all but evaporated. Trump has played to that part of the electorate, and only time will tell whether or not he is sincere, or can deliver.

An interesting sidelight to the recent presidential campaign has been the discussion around Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta, and their relationship to the UFO phenomenon, specifically the matter of “disclosure.” That is, whether or not President Hillary Clinton would disclose the reality of the UFO phenomenon to the public if she were elected. To those people not following this, such talk might seem crazy nonsense. But it is true that Podesta has long discussed his interest in the subject and even generated a New Year’s tweet about wanting #disclosure. More recently, we learned via Wikileaks that rock star Tom DeLonge had been communicating with Podesta, introducing him to several prominent generals and members of the aerospace community regarding the UFO reality and even possession of ET technology. The leaks do not give a strong indication of Podesta’s attitude, except that he seemed at least moderately interested. Regarding Hillary herself, we all remember her appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel show when she briefly talked about the subject, even correcting Kimmel on nomenclature (UAP, not UFO), before continuing lamely about maybe going to Area 51 to see what it’s all about.

All this sparked a great deal of discussion among some people following all this. My friends and colleagues Steve Bassett and Grant Cameron in particular were of the opinion that Hillary (or even Obama himself) might disclose the truth about UFOs soon. For my part, I never held this opinion and never hesitated to say so. I have never seen a motivation for such a politically experienced operator as Podesta to want true disclosure. As my co-author and I concluded in our study A.D. After Disclosure, this subject is too radical for any politician to handle. At least not without some crisis that might force their hand. But to disclose because it’s “the right thing to do,” or some such? Not a chance. Not Podesta, and certainly not Hillary Clinton. I never believed they would ever disclose – unless, I suppose, as an extremely partial and selective disclosure designed in some way to further the political ends of supporting their neoliberal-neoconservative vision. And if that were the case, count me out. I’d rather live with the aliens.

But all this talk about Hillary and Disclosure is now moot. It’s never going to happen. What then, about The Donald?

I am not aware of any major statement Donald Trump has made about the UFO subject. I don’t know whether or not he takes it seriously. But we need to realize that 2016 is not 1996. Talking about UFOs is not the kiss of death it once was. Times are changing and for all I know Trump just might bring it up. Because Trump is so much more disruptive to the established order than Hillary Clinton could ever be, I might just think he would be more likely to entertain the ultimate disruption of UFO disclosure. At the very least, he would seem more likely to surprise us than she would.

For my part, I don’t expect UFO disclosure coming from the U.S. government any time soon. While I personally believe in the value of speaking the truth on this matter – and in my judgment there is no question that the phenomenon is real, serious, and a matter of national security around the world – I don’t see sufficient motivation coming from Washington for some time. There is still too much for the power elite to lose.

I remember eight years ago several opportunistic individuals were stating their conviction (or alleged inside knowledge) that Barack Obama was going to disclose the UFO reality. I never for a moment believed that, and I don’t for a moment believe the Clinton faction, or most likely the Trump faction, would ever willingly get aboard the Disclosure Train.

Having said all that, we live in revolutionary times, technologically, socially, economically, and now politically. Our world is in flux and in such a situation, things can happen unexpectedly. The Trump victory means that the neolib-neocon establishment is on the back foot for the moment. Don’t expect that to last too long, unless a miracle occurs and the Trump administration actually moves against them. I’m not counting on it, but then again some people like to buy lottery tickets. Odds seem about the same to me.

The reality is that the U.S. is a global empire that is resisting with all its might the inevitable development of a multipolar world. That brings great danger, and a lot of crazy people inside Washington who think they can stave off the inevitable. Those people had the ear of Bush, Obama, and Clinton. They were and remain very dangerous. They are still in the U.S. government and will be there to greet President Trump. The question of UFO disclosure is merely one of many treacherous issues that the coming four years will see play out. Personally, I am more concerned about a false flag designed to throw us into another major regional war, complete with all the fascist trappings it will bring.

Richard Dolan

Brisbane, Australia

10 November 2016

It has now been fifteen years since America’s lurch into neofascism. No, there was no formal announcement, no statement from the President congratulating us for living under the protection of a fascist police state. And yet here we are. A situation, by the way, into which America dragged its allies and much of the world as well. A nightmare from which we cannot seem to awaken.

For those too young to remember, there was a BeforeTime. It surely wasn’t ideal: the poisoned pill of national security and empire was swallowed long before 9/11 and had already worked its way into the American and global system. But it was a time when Americans lived with the assumption that they still had rights. The 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle were a case in point, when more than 40,000 demonstrators shut that city down, at times even preventing the World Trade Organization from properly convening. The global anti-globalist movement reached a crisis point during those four days, and it surely seems in retrospect that our handlers at the top of our food chain decided that wasn’t going to happen any more.

Less than two years later, the hammer came down. A distinctly American form of insanity followed, egged on by the confluence of power held by the national security crowd and its voice of propaganda. That is, what we call the mainstream media: all the major TV and radio networks from Fox to NPR, and newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times and the rest of the crowd. Everyone piled on with one voice: revenge and protection against the threat of “terrorists,” and oh yes, we might have to sacrifice some privacy and other rights--temporarily--in order to get the job done. Enter the USA PATRIOT Act.

Everyone knows this litany, or at least that is what I used to tell myself. But in an age when no one seems to know anything beyond their Facebook feed (or, God forbid, their Instagram page), in which history and political theory has vanished from the American classroom and psyche, it has to be acknowledged that not everyone knows it. We still have many sleepwalkers among us.

Even so, there are also many who are in various stages of waking up. That 9/11 was a false flag is finally becoming something that more and more people are talking about, usually quietly but sometimes openly. There are studies, websites, and books galore that anyone can look at. The histrionic denials from the establishment against such silly “conspiracy theories” (a phrase coined by the CIA in 1967, by the way) are obvious and fool only the most simple minded. And yet, despite this, the propaganda machine continues to spin its false narrative on behalf of the national security/homeland security state. People have learned to duck their heads and do little more than quietly grumble, knowing that somehow things are wrong, but unable usually to put their finger on the problem.

There is much talk in America today of the threat of authoritarianism and fascism, particular if one of the Presidential candidates wins the election. That is, we are told, if Trump wins, you had better watch out. Well, indeed, anyone who engages in such military and police state ass kissing should be feared. And yes indeed, I fear that. The reverse side of it, of course, is that his opponent Hillary Clinton is a proven regime changer and destroyer of nations (Honduras, Libya, Syria) who is every bit as much of a neocon as Dick Cheney.

The truth is, fascism doesn’t look like a podium pounding demagogue. It looks like a government that can read your emails and texts at any time, that can GPS you 24/7, that propagandizes you, scares you, and tosses in the occasional false flag at you to keep you in a constant state of fear and submission. Sorry to say, but the barn door opened fifteen years ago and those horses have long left the stable.

What we need is a fresh understanding of what America has become. Of what the true structure of power in this world looks like. Of why propaganda and false flags are being used against us.

The short answer is that there are two basic reasons: neoliberalism and neoconservatism. These are not opposites but instead go hand in hand. They are the twin ideological pillars of America’s ruling class.

Neoliberalism (or “new” liberalism) is not your classic liberalism in which the defense of human rights is the paramount objective. It is nothing other than the ideology of globalization. It is, in fact, the defense of transnational corporate rights.

Neoconservatism is its necessary counterpart. It is not the old conservatism of your grandfather; not the defense of “traditional” values and rights or any such thing. It is the “new” conservatism. Rather than conserving the classic American republic, neocons defend Empire.

For Empire is a necessary component to the globalist, neoliberal vision. After all, if you are pushing an anti-human neoliberal agenda upon the rest of the world, you will need to knock some heads. That is America’s role as global policeman. And just as American cops these days are famous for knocking their fellow citizens around, so too is the American GloboCop well known for enforcing the neoliberal corporate agenda on everyone else.

In such a situation, where jobs are being siphoned away at home and the demands of the oil empire and petrodollar system require global enforcement, an Empire will need to deceive and lie. After all, you can’t have the U.S. President announce to the world that America will invade Iraq because Saddam has begun selling his oil in euros. You can’t say that you are going to induce regime change in Libya because Gaddafi is about to roll out a gold-backed dinar that will threaten American and French financial interests. People might resist such blatant Empire maintenance. Instead, you create fictitious charades of weapons of mass destruction or non-existent carpet bombing of the Libyan people and get the job done. No matter if you turn entire nations into smoking heaps of rubble that will never recover in your lifetime. At least you continue to keep your party going for a little while longer.

Orwell once told us, “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” It’s also true that in an age of corporate globalism enforced by the American Empire, lies and deception are precisely how the power elite gets what it wants. It is how that elite controls us for its enrichment. It’s bad enough that we pay these people to be lied to, that we pay them to destroy entire nations in our name. It’s even worse that so many of us are even now not awake to that fact.

But as bad as things are, they can improve. Look around. You will see signs of it everywhere. People who are waking up. People who realize that their newspapers and TV news are lying to them. On this fifteenth anniversary of the tragic death and destruction of 9/11, we are best served not by blind nationalism and more games of follow the leader into the next war. Instead, it is our job to strip away the illusions we have been fed and to begin the arduous but rewarding job of telling truth to power.

I wrote the following piece a few hours before the alleged deciphering of the placard of the Roswell Slides was announced, indicating the body depicted is that of a two-year-old mummified child -- although the deciperhing itself is being claimed to be a hoax.

This is very much in line with how it has gone for the entire episode, which I participated in as the closing speaker to the event in Mexico City on May 5, was surrounded in controversy, debate, and invective.

I will simply add that when you throw yourself into the public arena, controversies are hard to avoid. It's just part of my life. I try to manage through the twists and turns the best I can. The only things I can fall back on is (a) doing my best, which is often inadequate, (b) being brave enough to speak my mind when I feel I have truth, (c) having the integrity to be candid and honest at all times, even if it disappoints other people, and (d) treating others with grace and respect as much as possible. I don't do anything perfectly. All I can do is to give things my best effort. At the end of the day, and at the end of one's life, that is really all we have.

[The following was originally posted to Facebook May 8]

Since returning from Mexico City, I have been in communication with many people regarding the so-called Roswell slides. I attended the event in the first place because it seemed to have the potential to unveil important information. I had not seen the slides beforehand, but did have conversations with some of the principals who had. During those conversations, I was also told about the analyses performed on them. So I decided to go, and at no point was I ever asked to endorse the slides.

After arriving and seeing the slides, and especially hearing the analyses in more detail, I felt the overall picture presented was compelling. The analyses by Jose de Jesus Zalce Benitez, Richard Doble, and Dr. Luis Antonio de Alba Galindo argued that the body depicted was not a human being. Since I am not a physiologist, I never felt qualified to debate that point.

My problem is this: when I simply look at the pictures, I see what many other people are seeing -- an interesting museum piece. One that looks like other examples that are on the web. With the acknowledgment that looks can be deceiving, I still keep coming back to that.

On top of this, there have been some very good critiques coming in. Recently, Nick Redfern posted a good analysis on the “Million Dollar Museum” in New Mexico, which he suggests may be where the slides were taken. Perhaps this is the answer, or perhaps it’s something else. But it is clear that the arguments promoting the slides as depicting an extraterrestrial have to overcome some serious objections.

It’s frustrating that the analyses by the three scientists have not been published in text form on a website where others can read them and respond to them. I told the group in Mexico City that this needs to happen as soon as possible, and they agreed. But it has not yet happened.

Although I previously stated the slides would not easily be debunked, it seems more relevant to me that they don’t need to be debunked so much as to be proven to be something anomalous. That is where the burden of proof lies.

For all the hoopla that accompanied and followed the Mexico City event, and all the furor that followed it, I feel it was a worthy endeavor. I believe the people involved are honest.

But for me, until the proper analyses are published, and until we have had time to read critiques of those analyses, and until there are strong replies to some of the critiques that are currently published, I cannot consider these slides as evidence of extraterrestrials.

Probably the most interesting current controversy in ufology concerns what have become known as the “Roswell Slides.” This involves two Kodachrome slides that were allegedly found in the home of a deceased couple. There is a long backstory to this, much of it written by Anthony Bragalia here, here, and here. Also by many others, including Nick Redfern and Kevin Randle.

It’s a fascinating story, and according to the latest analyses done on them (none of the specific results of which have yet been made public), the slides appear to be from 1947 film stock. Nailing down the date of exposure is another matter and may not be possible. Not surprisingly, they have been dubbed the Roswell Slides, despite the fact there is no direct link between these slides and Roswell, only surmise. And in fact, the name is unfortunate, since connecting them with Roswell has not added any clarity to the conversation, but has only added noise.

Like many who study UFOs, I followed this development from afar, observing both the support and dismissals the slides have received, despite the fact that they have not yet been released for public analysis. Only a blurry image is currently available.

I have never presumed that I am in a position to critique the way this has been handled by the people involved. It’s never been my business or concern. Like most others following this, I have held the position that we can better make a decision about everything once the information is available for everyone. Until then, I have not seen the point of supporting or dismissing them -- at least not to excess. In a case like this, I see nothing wrong with (A) arguing the slides are of potential significance and warrant greater study and investigation, and (B) arguing that caution and skepticism remains in order.

Both positions are reasonable, in my view. Position A is not hard to understand. After all, the so-called Dream Team investigators have stated the preliminary analysis shows the creature in the slides is not a human, not a mummy, not a doll, not an animal, and appears on film stock from 1947. If this turns out to be so, how can that not be of interest?

Position B is also valid. Kevin Randle pointed out, even if the slides turn out to be on 1947 film stock, can we really be sure they don’t depict a mummy or dummy? Perhaps a public analysis will enable us to come to such a conclusion, but for that we will have to wait. More significantly, there doesn’t appear to be a confirmed chain of custody of the slides following the deaths of their original owners, Hilda and Bernerd Ray and when they turned up a few years ago. It is a gap of roughly two decades. We are told certain things about how they were maintained during the interim and brought to the attention of researchers Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, but how can such things be confirmed? The chain of custody problem is a definite problem for those seeking to prove these images depict a dead alien.

In addition, we might wonder how Hilda and Bernerd Ray would have come into possession of such images. Yes, they appeared to have some money and means, and travelled quite a bit. Yes, they had original images of General Eisenhower and golfing legend Sam Snead. But as Randle pointed out, this doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal -- many people would have been able to photograph those people at the time. It does not explain how they would have had access to what would have to be highly classified information. I am not saying such a thing is inherently impossible. Leaked data regarding UFOs has been taking place since the 1940s, but it’s still a reasonable question to ask.

Of course, one fact of potential significance concerns the background of Bernerd Ray. He was the President of the West Texas Geological Society, which at the time also ‘folded in’ the State of New Mexico. Literature searches confirm that he worked the Permian Basin (which includes the Roswell region) in the 1940s. It’s clearly a suggestive connection if nothing else.

Most recently, Nick Redfern has written a critique on why he believes the slides do not depict an alien being. In fact, says Nick, he believes the figure depicted in the slides is indeed a mummy. He may be right about that, or he may not. I would not care to jump in until after (A) seeing the clear slides myself and (B) reading detailed analyses by experts in mummification.

Incidentally, despite his skepticism that the slides depict an alien being, Nick continues to support the idea that they warrant further study--even if he is personally no longer interested in them. I agree with him--they do. And I cannot agree with those commentators who dismiss the slides outright as another “Alien autopsy hoax.” There is no reason the slides shouldn’t get their own public hearing and analysis before such a judgment is made.

That had been my feeling all along. Then, in February 2015, to my great surprise, I was asked by Jaime Maussan if I would attend the event being planned in Mexico City on May 5 -- Cinco de Mayo. It is there, presumably, when all will be revealed regarding the slides. Or all that is currently known, at least.

I had much hesitation about participating. I asked Jaime, what could I possibly contribute to any of this? I had no information on this controversy than what I had been reading along with the rest of the world. There are also other researchers who have been looking into this far more carefully than I have. Jaime’s reply was that he wanted me to offer my thoughts on the future of ufology and the potential for the end of UFO secrecy--that is, “Disclosure”--if there were to be general agreement that the slides are authentic. I did co-author a book on the potential ramifications of Disclosure, and do find it interesting to speculate on this subject.

I didn’t agree to participate, however, until after I had a long conversation with Don Schmitt. Of all the people with a connection to the slides, I know Don the best. He helped to fill in many of the blanks I have had on the controversy, and I came away with an even stronger feeling that this is indeed a fascinating development in the UFO field. I also had a long and productive conversation with Tony Bragalia, for whom I have a lot of respect.

So I have decided to attend. My remarks will have nothing to do with the authenticity of the slides, or their alleged lack thereof. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to jump in, and it’s a debate that others can engage in. The event will either be history in the making, a much-ballyhooed flop, or -- most likely, I am thinking -- something in between, where there will continue to be important unresolved questions concerning the slides. Not enough for either a homerun or a strikeout. We shall see. In any case, I think I will appreciate getting an up-close perspective on all this.

Some have criticized the event itself as being too sensationalistic. Indeed, the conversations on this subject have been marked by extreme opinions, especially by a few skeptics who seem to revel in trivializing the subject matter and the researchers associated with it. Some don’t like the fact that the event is being organized by Jaime Maussan. Or they don’t like the fact that this big reveal smacks more of a marketing campaign than a research analysis.

There will always be things to criticize by those people who are simply intent on finding something to criticize. Nearly everything in UFO research is messy. Plus, there is a perennial shortage of funds to do things the way we would all like. No research money, for starters. Nor, with a few exceptions, is there much funding in the way of presenting highly professional conferences. So when an opportunity comes along in which the evidence can be presented in a professional manner to a large audience, is this really what critics want to focus on? Isn’t it more relevant to restrict one’s analysis to the actual slides and the story behind them?

I won’t be participating in the arguments and mudslinging that has accompanied this development. For my part, I will be happy to have a ringside seat at the event in Mexico City and the opportunity to provide a bit of commentary.

As of now, I am not expecting these slides or this event to be a make-or-break event in ufology. But they are fascinating to me, and I do think they have the potential to be of real interest.

Richard Dolan

Rochester, New York

March 2015

I was not in the mood to acknowledge or commemorate 9/11 today. Not through any disrespect to people who lost loved ones -- after all, I nearly lost my father that day, except that he had Tuesdays off back then. But I am not interested in commemorating a lie that has betrayed my country.

But even if you are one who believes the official story as promulgated by GWBush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and now everyone on Team Obama (as if you can believe these people, since no one in the know seems to), do you think these wars, all of which have been justified by 9/11, have been worth it?

According to a study from the Harvard School of Economics, the cost of the wars from the last 13 years is about $6 trillion. For that amount of money, not only has America reduced several nations to ruination (and directly led to the rise of ISIS), but it has destroyed its own future.

That money won't come back. It marked the turning point at which America failed to turn. We could have created an infrastructure we could be proud of. Or, we could have simply not spent the money and we would all be better off. Instead, we spent what we did not have in order to lay waste to entire regions of the world.

I believe in love and forgiveness, but I have not found forgiveness in my heart to those people who have betrayed my country. The country I will always believe in, and which will always exist in my heart. I will never give up on her.

Earlier today, I spent some time with a man who had grown up in Uganda during the regime of Idi Amin. During that time, one of a brutal military dictatorship, any open resistance to the political regime usually resulted in death or long-term imprisonment.

During the early 1980s, when his country was in a state of chaos, he went into Kenya as a young man, and remained there as a refugee for ten years. Then, in the early 1990s, he was able to emigrate to the United States.

His employment in the U.S. has been more-or-less bare bones. He's never had much money, and about eight years ago injured his back and has been on disability. He's gone through some hard times.

Still, his earlier years left him with some perspective. Back then, he lived through constant warfare, privation, separation, fear, and death. So for him, no matter how hard life in the U.S. may have been for him, or continues to be, he sees things a little differently.

"I live in peace," he said to me. "You must understand what that means. No military gangs trying to kill me, no constant threat of guns, no more separation from my family, no scavenging for food or wondering if I will be able to feed myself or my family. I live in peace now. I count my blessings every single day."

There are so many problems in this world of ours. Corruption, lies, ignorance, inequality of opportunity, poverty. But the worst is warfare. Warfare destroys the foundations of what makes us a civil society. Indeed, it is the negation of civil society. It destroys the things we build, it disrupts our lives, it wrecks our environment, it results in the theft of other people's rights and property. And it kills people--horribly, brutally.

It disturbs me when I read apologies for how "beneficial" war can be for the economy. That seems to be a trend these days. But war is never good, not for the economy, not for anything. It only destroys.

I want to live in peace every day. I want to appreciate that beautiful gift as my Ugandan friend does. And I do not want to support a trillion-dollar-a-year military establishment that kills people around the world, that steals money from investments that could genuinely enable us to create a beautiful and worthwhile civilization.

Let us please make the decision to live our lives with as much integrity as we can, with a commitment to truth, justice, and especially peace at all times.