Hi Everyone,
The last few days have seen yet another (somewhat) interesting development from the USG regarding UFOs, or as they love now to say, UAP. This is the PURSUE initiative. That stands for Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters. This was announced just a few days ago, on July 31, and you can read the memo (it’s very short) here.
I am aware to two diametrically opposite reactions. One by Avi Loeb and the other by Matthew Brown. Essentially, Loeb sees this as a potential breakthrough in USG transparency on the matter of UAP. And to be fair, there are some things about this memorandum that could give cause for hope. Brown on the other hand has a very skeptical position, one which I definitely sympathize with. He is after all a whistleblower who got a severe runaround and backlash as a result of his good faith effort. He sees it as a potential trap. That is, the USG can bring the whistleblowers in with the promise of being able to discard their NDAs (under very controlled conditions of course) but might only be looking to collect as much info as possible and then just bury it. Which is what happened to him, and worse.
When you read the memo, there’s absolutely nothing to make a potential whistleblower feel safe. Hell, if I were in such a position, I would be extremely hesitant to come forward. At least based on the current language of the document.
Now it’s true that supposedly there will be a follow up memo that will clarify the procedures on all this. Who knows. Maybe there’s just a chance that there will be some genuine protections placed in there.
Personally, I am unwilling to praise or condemn just yet. I want to see how this develops when the follow up memo is public. But I am doubtful.
The way I see it, and how I described this in the video, is essentially as another round in the Red Queen game of disclosure. That is, as the Red Queen says to Alice, you have to keep running faster and faster just to remain in the same place. That applies to much of our world, and definitely to the process of UAP disclosure or transparency. Think of it as a kind of arms race.
Witnesses find new ways around classification barriers. The government then responds. Maybe they clamp down further, or maybe they create official reporting channels, as we see here. Or, Congress may strengthen whistleblower protections, and you find agencies interpreting those protections through new procedures, designed to protect them and make things difficult for those whistleblowers. This happens in every aspect of our world. One response provokes a counter response, which in turn provokes yet another response, and so on for infinity.
Regarding the UFO scenario, we aren’t dealing with just two sides. I think very likely we have multiple agencies and goals, all interacting with each other. Public and/or Congressional pressure, bureaucratic responses designed to protect, seriously insider/contractor moves of their own for additional protection, and so on. We’ve seen this going on for some time.
Forty years ago, Reagan Admin accountant Charles Bowsher stumbled into a Pentagon SAP UFO program. This was obliquely mentioned in the Davis-Wilson notes. The result was that they brought Bowsher into the program, just enough to keep him quiet. Then a few years later hid the SAP even more effectively under a reorg that happened in the early 1990s. And so it goes.
Here is what I wrote for the YouTube description:
The new White House PURSUE initiative promises to loosen the secrecy surrounding UAP by allowing government personnel and contractors to report sensitive information through authorized channels without violating their nondisclosure agreements. Avi Loeb sees this as a potentially historic breakthrough, while whistleblower Matthew Brown warns that government reporting channels can identify witnesses and absorb their information without protecting them or producing genuine disclosure.
In this talk, Richard Dolan examines what the new memorandum actually does, what protections and oversight it leaves out, and why PURSUE may represent both a real opening and a new mechanism of containment within the evolving struggle over UFO secrecy.
I’m not especially worked up one way or the other about this — not yet, anyway. But I am interested to see how it develops.
Oh yes …. Sound quality on this video is less than great. I’ll get it fixed next time.
Richard
Richard and Friends,
As I posted previously regarding this iniative, I do hope anyone with information will come forward so the Executive and all those involved have as complete a picture as possible.
Still, as I shared, if they refuse, there is little anyone can do to protect them given we don’t even know who to protect them from.
Honestly, at this point, I must say that some are simply being paranoid and cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Both Grusch and Lue went through harassment, removal of their security clearances, they did lose their former pensions, though I believe David’s has partially been restored, and both have been threatened with procescution for treason and had overt physical threats, dispite the laws that make such actionsi illegal.
Still, they came forward and gave evidence of high crimes to authorities at great personal risk.
We have many laws to protect Whistle-blowers when retaliated against. Unfortunately, we have many people very willing to break those laws.
Those that are seeking personal remedies tailored to their specifics demands and a request for pre-emptive amnesty before testifing, from the Executive, will not receive further compromise.
As I shared there is more than enough testimony already from the 40+ first hand legacy program witnesses who have testified under oath to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and their respective Inspector General’s Office, and for those that haven’t spoken up as yet, I believe they would, and will be surprised, by how much is already known and simply hasn’t been acted on todate.
It’s always great to have a proponderence of any evidence to a crime, and though we’d all like to rectify the wrongs committed against whistle-blowers, if those with knowledge of crimes refuse to trust anybody, there is simply nothing more anyone can do.
Kirkpatrick is long gone. AARO has absolutely no law enforcement authority whatsoever. They don’t even have subpoena power. They can not prosecute anyone for anything that anyone testifies to. These remaining current high profile Whistle-blowers are well known and have already admitted that they have knowledge of crimes and refuse to give States evidence as former federal employees, which in itself is a crime.
Who they worked for and in what capacity is well known to authorities. It’s not as if people like Eric Davis are unknown to the Pentagon, AARO, and PURSUE.. He worked for the CIA and everything he did is known by all of them already. So, testifying to AARO would not be ground breaking or some attempt to out them or trap them in some fashion, and I would share that none of the 40+ first hand Whistle-blowers that testified to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, all of whom had NDAs, were never outed or prosecuted for giving States evidence.
If it’s that these current witnesses all want the freedom to speak publicly where or whever they want about anything, until such time that law enforcement and intelligence can protect other innocent individuals that might be outed in their public testimony, the Whistle-blower must first testify securely as you would in any criminal investigation.
When Lazar came forward and soon after outed his director by name, that should have been withheld until his potential criminal investigation was conducted to prevent guilty parties from fleeing or hiding, or destroying evidence.
Burlison has pledged his offices protection and so has the President and agreed to be present at any debriefing.
As I’ve shared several times Whistle-blowers are, and have always been free to report crimes to authorities regardless of any NDAs signed under USC 2302. Once they have given States evidence they are entitled to physical protection by the U.S. Marshall service under the witness protection program. Though they must first testify to authorities.
I believe the wrongs done to Whistle-blowers can, and only will be corrected if these individuals share what they know.
If they don’t, it will not deter the Executive, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee , the Office of Special Counsel, and the Department of Justice from pursuing and prosecuting the crimes they already have a proponderence of evidence and testimony of.
Allan Lavigne Former A.P.R.O Investigator 1974-1980
To me, PURSUE seems like a trap. Not only do I trust Matthew Brown’s experience and perspective on this, but I also don’t think the initiative is going to gather any information the administration doesn’t already have.
Just look at the Bigelow interview with Knapp from today. He mentioned he personally briefed Trump on the topic. On top of that, you have Burlison pointing to FFRDCs and writing letters to Mitre Corp requesting specific videos. That letter included the exact name and location of the file, which almost certainly came from Grusch.
The administration already holds actionable intelligence it hasn’t acted on. So if PURSUE isn’t a genuine information-gathering campaign, given they already have everything they need to disclose, you’re pretty much left concluding it’s a trap.