The Pentagon and UAPs: A small but welcome paradigm shift.

Ok. It's been more than five years since I wrote my last post on this blog! Not sure where the time went but I did start a new permanent Government job back in 2017, so was very occupied with applications prior to that. This means I had to pretty much abandon this blog whilst my time turned to much more mundane public sector matters for a while. I'm now considering (almost permanent) retirement in the next year - so maybe I'll have more time to write about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Who knows?

I felt compelled to write now because of the unfolding events concerning the soon to be released report into 'UAPs' (Scientific American article) and the revelations around encounters in restricted US airspace by highly-trained US navy pilots, supported by video, radar and Forward-looking Infrared (FLIR) data

I'm sure those of you with a keen interest in this will have greedily digested what information you could online about this subject which I won't repeat here (I know I have!) - but I've included a couple of useful links below.

As we get closer to the formal report's publication, I've noticed that in the last couple of weeks or so there appears to be a bit of a backlash from those who maintain that the exposure about the released videos from the US navy and the soon to be published report are part of some larger 'Psy-ops' on the part of the US military or intelligence agencies, or at the very least, some attempt by certain agencies to secure greater defence and military funding.

Whilst this can't entirely be ruled out, such counter-arguments seem weak. If there is a concerted effort to deceive the public through some 'false-flag' operation, one has to ask simply "Why?" to get as many speculative explanations in response as there are for what's behind Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. And regarding the argument for securing additional funding, there is a long, published history of the military industrial complex spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on secret or 'black' projects without apparent authorisation from any US Administration or Congress. Why should that change now?

From my perspective the buzz surrounding the report will sort of reset the clock back about 70 years - but hopefully in a good way - before the debunking exercises that were Project Blue Book and the Condon Committee Report successfully made the subject taboo and something to be ridiculed. Many commentators have already said that this new report could allow the subject of UAP to become more mainstream and be considered more seriously. 

If so at least it would be a small - but very welcome in my view - paradigm shift. We'll have to see how this pans out...

Recommended links (for those who've been living under a saucer/triangle-shaped rock the last few months):-

The Guardian

The Phenomenon (trailer)

Sixty Minutes

David Clarke and Nick Pope - For heaven's sake make up!

I see that there's been an exchange of fire between two of Britain's 'UFO experts' recently, especially coming on the heels of the final release of the MOD's UFO Files.

The Huffington Post article by Lee Speigel gives a good summary so far of these two having come to blows.

Whilst, I tend to favour Pope's view - and those of others such as Timothy Good - that these are not all the files that the relevant UK authorities possess concerning UFOs (note I'm not specifically concerned with just MOD's files here), I do wish these two would try and settle their differences.

One of the most recent salvos in this exchange was by Pope seemingly and indirectly referring to Clarke as a 'useful idiot' (which was in both the Reuters and UFOs and Nukes articles I referred to in my last post), which I thought was unkind given Clarke's work to have the MOD files released. Pope now appears to have offered an apology for his remark. It also doesn't help matters that - if certain claims being made about him are true - Pope might not have been the UFO sceptic he maintained he was before working for the MOD (the HuffPost article by Lee Speigel gives details).

As Lee says in his article:-

"If there are any losers here, it must be the public, for the confusion this has brought up. After tens of thousands of pages of UFO files have been released by the U.K., who are we supposed to believe about how significant (or not) those documents really are?"

The two protagonists - like many others in the UFO community - seem more concerned with attacking each other (and perhaps protecting their own reputations) than making a collective effort to continue to search for answers.

Despite the arguments put forward by both supporters and sceptics generally, the phenomenon of UFOs and UAP persists. Of those cases that come to light, there are still a significant number that cannot be put down to chinese lanterns, balloons, experimental aircraft, drones, meteorological or astronomical phenomena, the mental state of observers etc.

The observable universe apparently stubbonly refuses to fit into the neat world-view of either hardened sceptics or avid supporters. In addition, whilst I favour 'cock-up' or 'WYSIWYG' (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) rather than 'conspiracy' to explain much Government activity, it would be foolish to think that any Government is entirely 'open' or 'transparent' on a topic such as this.

Still both Clarke and Pope - whatever flaws they might be considered by some to have (including each other) - are well-known and dare I say, respected names in the field and are bolder than I (and many like me), by publicly having just such an association with the UFO phenomenon, whilst I - through necessity - must remain anonymous.

That is why I think it is important that they acknowledge their differences in a mature, gentlemanly fashion and just try to get along.