This just came out and I think anyone interested in this document should take the time to listen. I have not spoken with this person, although she did gain a lot of useful information from one of our members, Franc Milburn. I’ll be communicating with her a little later today, if all plans hold.
This video does not prove the Wilson note is legit, but it goes a long way (in my opinion) toward corroborating important data points within it.
She has a part one also, which I have also linked below, but she herself corrects information from part one in her second video, and the second video clearly stands alone and is frankly sufficient, in my opinion.
I’d be interested in the thoughts of anyone who cares to comment.
I know her and have interacted with her on a completely separate topic (Chris Bledsoe). She is as sharp as a tack and very engaging. Glad you will be speaking with her. I am also very glad Wilson docs are regaining consideration.
Very good, very interesting webcast. There are a bunch of those being made, including yours of course. After finishing watching these, I watched a recent one on Mystery Wire with George Knapp doing his usual excellent job of interviewing an Englishman named Paul Sinclair who looks addresses ufology and possibly was a child abductee. He also deals with high strangeness incidents (including animal mutilations including dolphins)/cryptids and said something that made a lot of sense. He said that Ufologists should entertain looking at the other high strangeness issues and, conversely, cryptozoologists should consider issues involving UFOs when both types of events seem to be connected. The Skinwalker ranch show seems to show that connection.
It is very interesting and informative to access a lot of these new or fairly recent (within the past several years) webcasts. After a while, a person can find sources of material that appeal to their level of beliefs and enrich their knowledge about these compelling phenomenon.
I think her research is in a very interesting and apt direction, but it’s not well presented. Could you perhaps make a video breaking it down for us, or perhaps do an interview with her where you summarize her findings and ask her follow up questions. The only thing I’m sure of after watching both videos is that that am 1000000% sure she is not a disinfo agent, lol just kidding, such things don’t actually enter my mind. She seems great + I equally share her enthusiasm for the documents, but only wish I could share her eye for detail and her level of reading comprehension when it comes to government reports.
This is good work from Britt. I think it strengthens the overall case that the Davis-Wilson Memo speaks to facts about VADM Wilson’s efforts to get access to the UFO crash retrieval WUSAP
This is also a reasonable circumstantial case that NG is the firm referred to in the Davis – Wilson memo. That surprises me as most of us had lined up Lockheed Martin as the prime suspect. But it’s enjoyable to be wrong when the truth is as important and exciting as this.
Her honing in on the B-2 program as a babushka doll that the crash retrieval program hides within is IMO valid. It fits the criteria we’d need to set:
• Timing (in place through the ‘80s and ‘90s)
• Air Force funded, rather than Navy/Marines.
• Big Bucket of Money- the B-2 is a hyper-expensive aircraft and its development ran massively over budget.
Supporting Britt’s work, this 1989 Washington Post article about the black budget world alludes to how tightly the GAO was controlled in its access to information about the B-2. (Incidentally it also quotes Paul Kaminski, one of the Pentagon officials referred to in the Davis-Wilson Memo.)
Going well beyond Britt’s hypothesis, the B-2 has also long been speculated to have incorporated some electro-gravitic technology into its design. That suspicion has been based on publicly available patents and the believed lack of conventional thrust from its engines: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/anti-gravity-and-us-20030128-gdg6iv.html
Perhaps Northrup, and later NG, was the keeper of the great secret all along and they pulled off some key breakthroughs which then helped to develop the B-2? That would explain quite a lot.
I think Britt’s hypothesis is good. But I’m not sure that dyed-in-the wool sceptics would see it that way. They’d look at her evidence and dismiss it as evidence of difficulties in oversighting the B-2 program. Ie/ they’d buy the cover story, as they usually do.
Thanks for sharing,very interesting indeed. She managed to get her hands some interesting documents , possibly documents that just maybe making reference to a
EWD notes, can’t hear what comes out your conversation with her.
Since “Disclosure” has ultimately Failed, with the legally-mandated candor of the June 24th report effectively ignored – almost in total – by the Deep State, we must seek other strategies to reveal the hidden data, truths, atrocities, and assorted *Crimes Against Humanity* – both Human and Alien – that continue to be concealed by the Coverup. There are tools which Ufology has never attempted to exercise, which now represent among our only hopes to discover the underlying realities of the ETUFO problem before Orwellian Censorship, Surveillance, Repression and Social Engineering *forever end* our dreams of an ‘Open Cosmos’, and free exchange with ETs under mutually respectful conditions.
To finally ‘get at’ the criminal diversion of funds behind these Unacknowledged Special Access Programs, it is necessary to bring Fraud charges against those *outside* of government who willingly participated in the criminality required to maintain the Coverup all these years. Fortunately, the law empowers us – any American – to do exactly that. The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733 of 1863 (a/k/a “Lincoln’s Law”), permits U.S. Citizens to sue federal Contractors who have defrauded the United States; it imposes penalties of 3x the amount taken by fraud, plus fees and costs, and awards the citizen complainant(s) a portion of the total damages recovered. Since nothing in law excuses (or even *can* excuse) Pentagon (or Intelligence Community) officials in fraudulently diverting funds from programs legally appropriated by Congress to programs that are not, no Bureaucrat, Rogue Spook, General or Admiral can (or could have) just waived this stuff through with “a wink & a nod” in any way that is exempt from the False Claims Act. It has no “exemption” for “National Security”. The law doesn’t let us go after those *government* officials responsible, cognizant, or culpable in the frauds, but it gives no ‘shelter’ to any Contractor involved, either.
The beauty of this is that the mere *potential* for such liability to attach to a Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, SAIC/Leidos, Raytheon, AECOM etc. – or any other public company – *ALSO* creates secondary liability for the Contractors’ *Management* to their respective Shareholders, for engaging in the criminal conduct with the potential to subject the Company to damages, fines or other legal penalties, thus degrading the value of their investments. Under derivative shareholder liability doctrine, *actual* such losses need not have already been incurred by stockholders for them to have grounds to sue those corporate officials who participated in or signed off on such illegalities. The immunities available to corporate officers are invalid in this context, and they face severe personal financial repercussions should such litigation eventually prove successful. (i.e. Many will *TALK*.)
These legal tools, once invoked, are powerful weapons to force “Exposure”, *whether or not they ultimately succeed* on the merits [before juries of *the public*], because of the rights of “discovery” inherently available to such Plaintiffs in these cases. This means binding Subpoenas for Access, Documents, and Testimony under penalty of perjury. Daniel Sheehan may not be the quintessential ‘Ambulance Chaser’ required to pursue this, but I am certain that *somewhere in Ufology* there are rabid young lawyer larvae that would be hungry enough to do this justice. Following the June 24th UAPTF debacle, we can either *escalate* the battle with such Lawfare tactics (from begging “Disclosure” to forcing “Exposure”) and ‘Kick Down the Doors’ of the Secret Keepers, or we can just wait around for them to declare Ufology a form of “Domestic Terrorism”, and come kick down *OUR* doors – for indulging in [Officially declared] “Misinformation”. Forget the Pentagon – go after the Corporate Contractors. THEY have more to lose by staying quiet than by Spilling The Beans…
Britt’s analysis is interesting, especially the reported Lockheed Burbank 1986 document “loss”. However, I think it is somewhat misguided to suggest that Lockheed could not “mishandle” it’s classified UFO technology documents. Modern history shows that determined whistleblowers and foreign agents can penetrate highly secure environs.
FYI- In 1986, ISAAC, whom I have (in all probability) identified as a renowned JPL / Caltech employee, worked using a part time cover job, right near Burbank – in Pasadena, California.
Recall Eric Davis’s statement with Open Minds TV:
“The crash retrieval program is a very small program. It is not a huge government infrastructure. It is a very poorly funded program. I do know that the program was terminated 1989 for lack of progress in reverse-engineering anything that they had – any of the hardware that they had. And they´ll resurrect it maybe every so often – so many years will go by and they´ll try it again. And they may still succeed but the compartmentalization is a killer. Scientists cannot communicate with other scientists to get help. …
I find it interesting that the 1989 program suspension information by Dr Eric Davis corresponds with ISAAC’s account of the PACL CARET program finishing a few years after he left. ISAAC said: “PACL closed up shop a few years after” 1987.
I wonder if, in 1986, the detection of missing photographs and missing photocopied pages could have caused enough PANIC that a blunderbuss official brought in the GAO. The natural cabal leadership response (directed via a DoD request) would be to
a) widen the investigation as much as possible in an attempt to hide the reverse engineering program whilst
b) at the same time, try to discover the extent of the problem and the leak.
Discovery of the fact that reverse-engineering documents (including original photographs) were missing would have sent burdensome security checks into overdrive – likely very much annoying many civilian scientists working on the program.
i) Was the extra oppression of burnt-out scientists the straw which broke the camels back?
ii) Decades later, was the risk of uncontrolled disclosure (as demonstrated to authorities by ISAAC’s 1986 act of defiance in collecting evidence) subsequently used as a pressure point by pro-disclosure power groups?
iii) Did a group of senior government officials manage to prise open the internal doors of military-industrial politics enough to trigger the New York Times article in 2017, thereby inexorably changing the course of the push-me-pull-you narrative to favour some limited form of official Disclosure with an appearance of marginally better government oversight / program access?
Per his 2007 account, ISAAC states:
“I worked at PACL from 1984 to 1987, by which time I was utterly burned out… I left somewhere in the middle of a 3-month bell curve in which about a quarter of the entire PACL staff left for similar reasons.
I was also starting to disagree with the direction the leadership wanted to take as far as the subject of extra-terrestrials went. I always felt that at least some form of disclosure would be beneficial…
So, about 3 months before I resigned… I decided to start taking advantage of my position… Normally, we were to empty out any containers, bags or briefcases, then remove our shirt and shoes and submit to a kind of frisking. Work was never allowed to go home with you, no matter who you were. For me, though, the briefcase search was eventually enough.
I started photocopying documents and reports by the dozen. I’d then put the papers under my shirt around my lower back, tucked enough into my belt to ensure they wouldn’t fall out… As long as I walked carefully they wouldn’t make a crinkling noise. In fact, the more papers I took, the less noise they made, since they weren’t as flimsy that way. I’d often take upwards of 10-20 pages at once. By the time I was done, I’d made out with hundreds of photocopies, as well as a few originals and a large collection of original photographs.”
Some other comments
1) Remember that intelligence-connected plutocrats (financiers potentially like the Morgans) would likely be only marginally influenced by the named corporate shell hiding their coveted NHI / ET technology and reverse engineering programs. Marginally influenced by pragmatic reasons such as investment in land with title, infrastructure, cleared personnel, research equipment – all replaceable with sufficient time.
2) Programs of privatised research would likely have been split into credible, somewhat related, cover projects in order to both fund and securely access relevant, top science personnel. Those classified cover programs themselves would then likely have been covered by other less classified projects in order to form an opaque-to-scrutiny clandestine onion.
3) People and companies can wear multiple hats whilst obscuring their real function. Recall that in late 1996 / mid-1997 Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman attempted to merge corporate entities but this activity was subsequently blocked by the US Government. Around the same time, circa 1996, Lockheed acquired (by divestment) Loral Corporations defense electronics and system integration businesses. Later, in 2008, the remnant Space Systems/Loral was purchased by Northrop Grumman. The deck chairs move around as part of industry “consolidation”.
4) Systems Integration and joint program / partnership works mean that several major contractors (with many, many PRIVATE subcontractor agents and “consultants”) can intricately collaborate on various clandestine research initiatives.
5) Auditing hidden complexity is a game of whack-a-mole. A government assessment of an internal audit / self-audit process does NOT mean a thoroughly objective investigation of ALL assets and personnel MUST take place. Instead, it implies that an analytical sub-set of established systems and processes are subjectively assessed to the satisfaction of the lead auditor and his/her team who sign off on corporate compliance.
6) Given that corporate names and project names shift over time, I believe researchers are better served in
Following the men behind the money…
We can talk and research all we want. They are laughing in our faces.
I don’t believe they are laughing in our faces, or anywhere else for that matter. It appears that they have had some very nervous moments since 2017, during which time the videos and the Wilson documents have become public. The formation of the congressional committe report was a stalling tactic, that unfortunately has worked with the general public, at least for the time being. But, the non-public parts of the report, which Richard has touched on, will at some point become public knowledge and the thread will continue to unravel even swifter.
I’d like to reflect on a couple of topics with regard to the analysis of the Wilson Memo. Firstly, I’d like to say that the “Gate Keepers” of the program sounds right to me for a big program. Program security requirements are part of the contract, so it makes sense the project layer was there to look out for contract compliance. Contractors should be managing access for their own workforce, not government official. I have to say I find it hard to believe that any security manager and project lawyer would allow such a meeting between briefed and uncleared personal; these guys are amongst the most trusted and unyielding.
It would seem to me that prospective employees have to be approved by the governmental powers that be before being allowed to be part of a government proprietary program; contractors should not be unilaterally granting access to anyone without permission. Denying Admiral Wilson access is not necessarily a job for the contractor in question, except that basic security requires to prevent unauthorized access in general.
The program personnel list should allow employees to know if someone else is briefed and at what level. On sensitive programs, the list of program personnel should be classified commensurate with program security requirements, sooo….providing such a list to an uncleared person and outside an approved facility is a very significant security violation.
The size of the program seems to be indication of a full scale development program, not a research program. I agree with the mentioned Dr. Davis’ comment that some technology R&D projects are small and often underfunded. Some of these project can be really small with only a dozen or so working on it.
It seems to me that back in the 80’s, even although there may not have been DoD-wide unclassified general oversight guidelines applicable to all DoD programs, there were most probably plans and procedures on both the government and contractor sides, although they would have been specific for a given program. These program-specific plans and procedures would be classified IAW the program security classification guide. If the program was cancelled, all documentation could be destroyed (eventually) and program participants debriefed.
Personally, I would not like to be in shoes of the program manager, the security manager, the project lawyer, Dr. Davis, or Adm. Wilson right now because the occurrence and recording of the alleged conversation, if true, would normally require a serious investigation into whether or not national security laws have been violated.
Thanks for this comment. But don’t you think the Gatekeepers would have agreed to meet with Wilson, if only to get him off their back? Agreed that he wasn’t cleared and they didn’t have to tell him anything, legally. But he was clearly angry and seemed as though he was making waves. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that they would throw him a bone, so to speak, to shut him up? Especially if perhaps the manner in which they provided him with information was not technically a violation? After all, what if they simply talked about the program in general terms, which seems to have been the case, and provided nothing that was actually dealing with science and tech? Also, I suspect they might well have been deceiving him with the comment about little to no progress being made. I don’t know, it seems to me that this is plausible. But then again, I’ve never been in that world.
“Doesn’t it seem reasonable that they would throw him a bone, so to speak, to shut him up?” Depends on the level of classification of the program as defined in the program security classification guide. I don’t think it’s reasonable to reveal highly classified information to someone who has no need to know. I just cant imagine a security manager allowing any kind of security violation, not matter how much of a pain the person was being. At risk for the contractor is losing the contract and facing federal prosecution.
“ Especially if perhaps the manner in which they provided him with information was not technically a violation?” In general, if the program is not a SAP, but only has classified information, then revealing the existence of such a program is not usually a security violation. Discussion about such a program is usually discouraged, but not in violation of any laws per se. But if program is an “unacknowledged” SAP, for example, then revealing anything at all about the program is a security breach; there is no way to discuss this type of program in any way or in any terms. So either the hypothetical program in question was 1) not a SAP, 2) an acknowledged SAP that allowed discussion of a general overview at the unclassified level or 3) there was a major security problem…. I’m sure you can verify this with others that have worked in the black world.
Another unusual part of the story is the meeting place. It makes no sense to me with what I’ve read that they met in a car. Contractors are a little more civilized and have an unclassified area to meet with uncleared workers and especially for such a distinguished guest, which brings up another topic and that is the lack of discussion of the “visit request” . Guests just don’t show up; visit requests have to be submitted and approved, security clearances have to be exchanged, meeting agendas have to be established…. under normal business protocol.
Thanks for the consideration. Nice discussing with you.