April 12, 2021

About that UAP Task Force report we’re supposedly getting

If you’re the sort of person who regularly reads UAP Research, you’ve probably already heard the news. With the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) this week, the long-anticipated language instructing the Pentagon to inform the Senate Select Intelligence Commitee on how they will better handle the internal tracking and distribution of information relating to UAP events is on the books. It also means that the clock is ticking for the unclassified report on the activities of the UAP Task Force that the SSIC ordered.

Good times, eh? Everyone in the ufology community seems quite excited. Danny Silva posted an update today along those lines. And if you’re not following Dean Johnson on Twitter, you might consider doing so because he really stays on top of these frequently complicated legislative issues as they relate to questions involving UAP.

I find myself with reservations suggesting that perhaps we shouldn’t be getting our collective hopes up to sky-high levels just yet.

Now for the bad (or at least not as good) news. I’m not here to join in on the releasing of balloons and general air of celebration. You can find plenty of that elsewhere at your usual ufology resources. I find myself with reservations suggesting that perhaps we shouldn’t be getting our collective hopes up to sky-high levels just yet.

My reasons for this are based on years of having to deal with government entities and attempting to pry information from their tightly clenched claws. It’s often a daunting process. And while the members of the Senate do have at least a bit more leverage, their ability to get the Pentagon to discuss sensitive issues is not unlimited, nor is their leverage in forcing such matters irresistible if the military is up on its hind legs.

[The Senate’s] ability to get the Pentagon to discuss sensitive issues is not unlimited, nor is their leverage in forcing such matters irresistible if the military is up on its hind legs.

The point here is that the SSIC gave the Pentagon a rather easy out when they issued their demands regarding the activities of the UAP Task Force. One portion pointed out flaws in how the various branches of the service and military departments communicate and share UAP incident information. The task force could come back and say that they recognize the problem and they have assigned someone from all of the various departments to be responsible for such cooperative sharing. They might even provide some names. And that would be that.

The report that everyone is salivating over is the other major piece of the puzzle. The Senate wants it finished in 180 days in an unclassified form, though a classified addendum (that won’t be publicly released) can be attached to handle sensitive information. Allow me to rain on your parade for a moment with a prediction.

The Pentagon will probably list a few generalities in the unclassified report, perhaps restating that the three videos they released are real, the objects in them are unidentified, and they own them. It might talk about the goals of the task force, though only in general terms. Anything beyond that, assuming they’re in the mood to be more generous with the Senate, will be locked up in the classified addendum. And why should we suspect this? I’ll tell you.

The Pentagon has no intention of sharing any specifics of UAP incursions or other incidents beyond what they’ve givens us from the Nimitz and Roosevelt encounters. We know this because they channel any and all requests for such additional information through Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough. If you ask the individual military branches or other intelligence offices anything about it, they send you to Ms. Gough. (A retired military intelligence officer who literally wrote the book on controlling the flow of information and perceptions.)

Many of us have asked Ms. Gough for more information. And after the initial release of the videos, each and every question seeking additional details has received the same cut-and-paste, boilerplate response. Here’s one example from Tim McMillan when one of his requests cut a bit too close to the bone.

To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of reports, observations or examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.

DOD does not discuss publicly the details of reports, observations or examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.

I’ve gotten the exact same response from her multiple times, word for word. So have many others reporting on this subjecting and seeking information. Gough is being fairly unambiguous about this. The official stance is being filed under our old friend, “generic national security concerns.” They will not be revealing “details of reports, observations or examinations of reported incursions.” Yet that’s precisely the sort of thing we’re itching to ask them about.

It also remains possible that even the Senate won’t get much of anything. There are no funding provisions tied to the language of the IAA so the Senate doesn’t have much of anything to hold over the head of the military to force them to comply. The Pentagon has done things like this in the past. They respond by saying that they’re not being given enough time to comply with the request and will require an extension. And possibly another extension. And another.

I’ll stop being such a wet blanket now and let everyone get back to the revelry of “Disclosure December.” But let’s do it with measured expectations, taking into account the secretive nature of the government and their tremendous reluctance to come clean and admit that they’ve been up to something that the public won’t like. For example… lying about one of the most remarkable discoveries in the history of mankind for more than seventy years.