(a 🧵)🚨 "...a story looking at the recent push for disclosure around UAPs..."
This was how the author (I was under the impression there was only one) described the recent WSJ two-part UAP piece. As promised, I waited until Part 2 came out to fully judge, but the final piece is clearly NOT what was pitched. Part 1 was largely unsourced with no real evidence presented, while Part 2 seemed to not be a "Part 2" at all, but dove in to mostly information that's already been published before with the exception of one thing that did interest me, but I'll get to that a different day because I'm not entirely convinced there's truth to it.
In this thread, I will not share any private communication out of respect to the author. Not that there is much to share in that regard (it was all phone calls, primarily), I do try to respect private communications with anyone if I don't explicitly get permission to share. Though I am happy to share 100% of what I sent over, because, well, I wrote it.
My conversations with the WSJ journo took place over numerous days that stretched out over a couple months. I was first approached on January 21st, and I was called numerous times from then over the course of the following few months. I spent, collectively, hours on the phone throughout those calls helping where I could, and saying I couldn't help where I couldn't if I didn't know. In case anyone wonders, and if it isn't obvious, you don't get paid for your time.
Topics included the Luis Elizondo story I've covered for years, the TTSA CRADA (which clearly were both in Part 2), but also the UAP cover-up overall, historical documents, UAP photos, the blanket over-classification of UAP visual imagery, tactics by the DoD to cover-up issues relating to this when using FOIA, AAWSAP, UAP Task Force, NASA UAP briefing material, CIA material often lost and the fact CIA material goes back decades/post Project Blue Book, the work of Travis Taylor in connection to the UAPTF, Jay Stratton with his work in the same, their joining the private industry, the DIA's connection to UAP, the cover-up and lost records at the DIA, Hal Puthoff and James Randi's debunk material found in the CIA archive (it specifically came up), the DoD's "unidentified helicopter" wave through the 1970s, and that was just stuff I sent evidence over of. I was asked numerous other questions on all sorts of things during those phone calls.
My angle has never been pushing the "alien" hypothesis. Rather, I push hard on why the secrecy exists. If you take most of the skeptical angles on UAP, much of the secrecy, to the extent it goes to, and the tactics that we see to cover it up, doesn't make sense. And as most of the world (and mainstream media) focuses on UFOlogy post 2017, the history (with evidence) shows this goes back much father, some of which, remains unexplained. And with the passage of time, the government loses more and more of that history (like the documents just disappear) and after filing 11,000 FOIA requests or so, I can tell you that although lost documents happen, it seems oddly unique to the UAP topic where the more interesting historical UAP records have all been lost from agencies including the CIA, NSA and Air Force.
So, with that in mind that the records I sent over were not trying to push the "alien" narrative, here is a breakdown of the material. Although I understand story angles can change, and the above list of issues is quite long and would require a book to properly cover, what the story was told to me (which is why I spent time helping) was wildly different than what was published. In addition, I found it strange that the document which WSJ made reference to (but didn't publish) seemed to magically appear on the DTIC's website in February of this year, coincidentally, within less than 2 weeks from the WSJ seemingly reaching out to people like me to research their story. A curious coincidence? Maybe. See the attached images for proof of that (images show Part 1 and Part 2 of the TEMPS [Transportable Electromagnetic Pulse Simulator] Final Reports, 1973).
That said, you will find * 100% * of the documentation I sent over in this thread, based on our conversations. The text I included in this thread below is what I sent to the WSJ, in its entirety. Nothing was edited or removed or altered.
This was how the author (I was under the impression there was only one) described the recent WSJ two-part UAP piece. As promised, I waited until Part 2 came out to fully judge, but the final piece is clearly NOT what was pitched. Part 1 was largely unsourced with no real evidence presented, while Part 2 seemed to not be a "Part 2" at all, but dove in to mostly information that's already been published before with the exception of one thing that did interest me, but I'll get to that a different day because I'm not entirely convinced there's truth to it.
In this thread, I will not share any private communication out of respect to the author. Not that there is much to share in that regard (it was all phone calls, primarily), I do try to respect private communications with anyone if I don't explicitly get permission to share. Though I am happy to share 100% of what I sent over, because, well, I wrote it.
My conversations with the WSJ journo took place over numerous days that stretched out over a couple months. I was first approached on January 21st, and I was called numerous times from then over the course of the following few months. I spent, collectively, hours on the phone throughout those calls helping where I could, and saying I couldn't help where I couldn't if I didn't know. In case anyone wonders, and if it isn't obvious, you don't get paid for your time.
Topics included the Luis Elizondo story I've covered for years, the TTSA CRADA (which clearly were both in Part 2), but also the UAP cover-up overall, historical documents, UAP photos, the blanket over-classification of UAP visual imagery, tactics by the DoD to cover-up issues relating to this when using FOIA, AAWSAP, UAP Task Force, NASA UAP briefing material, CIA material often lost and the fact CIA material goes back decades/post Project Blue Book, the work of Travis Taylor in connection to the UAPTF, Jay Stratton with his work in the same, their joining the private industry, the DIA's connection to UAP, the cover-up and lost records at the DIA, Hal Puthoff and James Randi's debunk material found in the CIA archive (it specifically came up), the DoD's "unidentified helicopter" wave through the 1970s, and that was just stuff I sent evidence over of. I was asked numerous other questions on all sorts of things during those phone calls.
My angle has never been pushing the "alien" hypothesis. Rather, I push hard on why the secrecy exists. If you take most of the skeptical angles on UAP, much of the secrecy, to the extent it goes to, and the tactics that we see to cover it up, doesn't make sense. And as most of the world (and mainstream media) focuses on UFOlogy post 2017, the history (with evidence) shows this goes back much father, some of which, remains unexplained. And with the passage of time, the government loses more and more of that history (like the documents just disappear) and after filing 11,000 FOIA requests or so, I can tell you that although lost documents happen, it seems oddly unique to the UAP topic where the more interesting historical UAP records have all been lost from agencies including the CIA, NSA and Air Force.
So, with that in mind that the records I sent over were not trying to push the "alien" narrative, here is a breakdown of the material. Although I understand story angles can change, and the above list of issues is quite long and would require a book to properly cover, what the story was told to me (which is why I spent time helping) was wildly different than what was published. In addition, I found it strange that the document which WSJ made reference to (but didn't publish) seemed to magically appear on the DTIC's website in February of this year, coincidentally, within less than 2 weeks from the WSJ seemingly reaching out to people like me to research their story. A curious coincidence? Maybe. See the attached images for proof of that (images show Part 1 and Part 2 of the TEMPS [Transportable Electromagnetic Pulse Simulator] Final Reports, 1973).
That said, you will find * 100% * of the documentation I sent over in this thread, based on our conversations. The text I included in this thread below is what I sent to the WSJ, in its entirety. Nothing was edited or removed or altered.
The CIA “material” I referenced theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
UAP Task Force / NASA briefing material (interesting tell on what they don’t want to tell you regarding UAP): theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
Navy UAP Photo secrecy (I have another story along the same lines with the videos): theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
Documents on the TTSA CRADA with the Army: theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
This is the root of the present day UAP secrecy: theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
Here is some stuff on the NPSMS: theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
AAWSAP Documentation – all from the DIA: theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
DIA and CIA reports theblackvault.com/documentarchiv…
James Randi / Hal Puthoff
https://x.com/blackvaultcom/status/1642553144189284358
"Unidentified Helicopter" Documents theblackvault.com/documents/ufos…
Again, the above is not pitched as proof of "aliens" nor was that our discussion. But a lot of this material that may not be as sexy as dead alien pilots or biologics or whatever, it is real. It is verifiable. And it shows a mystery where not everything is explained, all shrouded in secrecy at the highest classification levels that it can get. And when push comes to shove on getting the documents through legal channels in an attempt to get them declassified, sometimes with requests and appeals that last more than a decade, they mysteriously disappear and are lost.
Sure, the WSJ has the freedom to post anything they want. But to waste peoples time, and then produce lazy journalism with no real sourcing or evidence, it should be called out, no matter what the masthead is.
Sure, the WSJ has the freedom to post anything they want. But to waste peoples time, and then produce lazy journalism with no real sourcing or evidence, it should be called out, no matter what the masthead is.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
