Were They Muzzled?

By | July 24, 2020

The New York Times published another article on the UFO subject yesterday. Any time the most prominent voice for the establishment speaks about this subject, it’s important. Already there has been a noticeable ripple effect going on in the major media, generally serious in tone and adding more fuel to the fire that this phenomenon is real. 

Not only that, but this last article, once again by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, moves the discussion toward the retrieval of UFOs and artifacts by elements of the U.S. government. What was mentioned in the article doesn’t amount to anything like proof of UFO crash retrievals, but several quotes are definitely noteworthy. Statements by Eric Davis, Harry Reid, and Lue Elizondo are all worth reading — particularly Davis, who hadn’t previously been brought into the wider UFO conversation by the establishment media. 

Even so, the disappointment in the article was palpable. Part of it was due to the large buildup about this. For quite some time, we all knew that Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal were writing a new UFO piece for the New York Times. Many of us tried to help them out by not reporting on this overly much, but the problem was that the whole thing was outed when attorney Michael Hall surreptitiously livestreamed his conversation with Blumenthal at a time when Blumenthal was asking him about the Thomas R. Wilson notes by Eric Davis. Once Blumenthal realized they were being streamed, he demanded the video be cut.  But naturally, the word got out. Like most people, I never saw the video (very few did, I understand) but this is clearly what happened. So we all knew quite some time ago that something potentially explosive was being investigated by them.

Then we started hearing other rumors, that the investigation had moved more generally toward UFO crash retrievals. Well, that surely would be interesting, even if they didn’t cover the Thomas Wilson notes. One source on this matter said the upcoming revelations on crash retrievals would be “substantial.”

The rest of the world was oblivious to all this, of course, but there was a genuine crescendo of anticipation within the community of people who follow the UFO subject. 

Then came the article. Right away, the headline itself was a letdown. “No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public.” Did the editorial team even realize that, for all practical purposes, they had been scooped a full month earlier by Danny Silva (who, by the way, is a new member of our site)? The news is important, especially if the Rubio-sponsored Senate Intelligence Bill becomes law (the Senate just passed it yesterday, so it’s moving along). 

Now, there was some new emphasis on the fact that, if passed, this bill would require the “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force” to report on UAP/UFO activity, and this would include at least some information for the general public. But honestly, we already knew this. 

The statements in the article about crash retrievals are more significant, although even here they are not nearly as powerful as they could have been. For example, the article states that Lue Elizondo is “convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study.”

That’s great, and I don’t doubt that Elizondo is right, but the word convinced doesn’t carry much power. I’m going to take an educated guess that Elizondo has more to offer than his mere conviction. At the very least, one thinks the article could at least have given the reader reasons why Elizondo holds this conviction. But that doesn’t happen.

The article contains a few statements by former Senator Harry Reid which are interesting but also focus on what he thinks rather than what he knows. For instance, Reid “believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred.” He is quoted as stating he “came to the conclusion that there were reports — some were substantive, some not so substantive — that there were actual materials that the government and the private sector had in their possession.” Presumably of non-earth-based objects and technology.

Now, everyone needs to remind themselves that people like Reid and Elizondo have got to be extremely careful with how they make these types of statements. Everything has to be exact, and everything requires the potential to being walked back if need be. This is clearly the case with Reid’s ultra-carefully worded statement. 

Indeed, the Times had to issue a correction regarding Reid:


An earlier version of this article inaccurately rendered remarks attributed to Harry Reid, the retired Senate majority leader from Nevada. Mr. Reid said he believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred and that retrieved materials should be studied; he did not say that crashes had occurred and that retrieved materials had been studied secretly for decades. 

We are still in the era when, if you are a major public figure, you have to be very, very careful with how you parse your words, and how you are quoted. 

So all this is interesting if not conclusive. Even so (and true to form for the Times), the article throws a great deal of cold water over anything genuinely extraordinary about UFOs. For instance this statement:

No crash artifacts have been publicly produced for independent verification. Some retrieved objects, such as unusual metallic fragments, were later identified from laboratory studies as man-made.

Okay, thanks for that, New York Times. However, things become more interesting when the article gets to Dr. (not Mr) Eric Davis. Here we have something truly new for public consumption. I will quote the four paragraphs in the article that are germaine to Davis.

Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”

The constraints on discussing classified programs — and the ambiguity of information cited in unclassified slides from the briefings — have put officials who have studied U.F.O.s in the position of stating their views without presenting any hard evidence.

Mr. Davis, who now works for Aerospace Corporation, a defense contractor, said he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”

Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.

Now this is important, and offers the potential to generate forward momentum. Here we have Davis discussing materials that he presumably has studied that forced him to conclude “we couldn’t make it ourselves.”  And we have the equally provocative information that he gave classified briefings on “off-world vehicles not made on this earth” to an unnamed Defense Department agency, to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. All within the last year.

Of course, you have to expect skeptics on Twitter and beyond to smear Davis. What else can they do? 

So yes, there is good information in this piece. It even ended on with a decent quote from Senator Reid:

“It is extremely important that information about the discovery of physical materials or retrieved craft come out.”

But despite the positive information provided in this article, the marked decline of the New York Times, which has been on spectacular display for several years, is also evident here. In this case, mainly through what has to have been heavy-handed editorial control by its senior management.

I don’t say this based upon any alleged inside information I may have. Yes, I do have information gained from a variety of sources, but this conclusion is based on my own analysis and judgment. 

It seems evident that the senior editorial team at the New York Times severely limited and even sanitized what was contained in this article. 

I don’t know Ralph Blumenthal other than through a brief and friendly email exchange. But I do know Leslie Kean and respect her very much as a journalist. I know she is dedicated to doing good work on the subject of UFOs. And I do know of a number of instances of overbearing editorial control evinced by New York Times senior management. Operation Mockingbird may officially refer to the cold war era of CIA-influenced media control (of which the New York Times was an integral part), but that model has never gone away. It has morphed and is stronger than ever, and the New York Times continues to be a key player in that system. 

Do we think that UFOs are immune from the need for heavy-handed editorial control? Especially for a newspaper that, for seventy years, had consistently been ridiculed and debunked the subject?

Of course, this began to change in 2017, due to the efforts of several people who worked hard behind the scenes to make it happen. Not just Kean, Blumenthal, and Helene Cooper (who contributed to their article in 2017), but also Christopher Mellon, who was obviously instrumental in getting the major media to consider this story. Getting this story to the public was and remains very hard work. 

I tip my cap to all the people who have made these articles appear in the New York Times. But it is clear that the Times senior management has thrown multiple obstacles in their path, much to the detriment of the outcome. 

As to whether or not more will emerge, no one really knows. There was a potential hint in one of Blumenthal’s comments below the article itself (yes, he patiently and politely answered a ton of questions from readers). To one reader named Richie Farrell from Dublin, who expressed a bit of disappointment over the contents, Blumenthal replied: “Not everything can be reported all at once.”

Whether or not this is a hint of something more or not, only time will tell. Or, perhaps Leslie and Ralph can ditch the New York Times and find another home that will be willing to publish their genuine work. The Gray Lady ain’t what she used to be. 


45 thoughts on “Were They Muzzled?

    1. Greg

      My tentative opinion is that the muzzling comes from those in charge of what we can colloquially refer to as “the secret space program.” Bear in mind that hidden tech advances are probably more than building homegrown flying saucers; there could be breakthroughs in life extension, AI, energy sources, etc. All these advances may well be seen as opportunities to threaten adversaries, bribe selected allies (you can be 25 again!) and otherwise benefit the favored few, rather than humanity in general. Another source of muzzling is probably the Deep State (considered apart from the UFO wing), primarily its intelligence arms. If the UFOs are presented as mere mysteries (with crash retrievals presented as doubtful), then the cover up is perhaps more forgivable than if there’s been a cold-blooded secret space program, abductions by ETs have been long known, etc. People–perhaps unaware to this point– will start to ask, “Well if the government has been lying this badly about aliens, what else have they been lying though their teeth about? JFK? RFK? MLK? 9/11? ” Serious UFO disclosure can quickly lead to the disclosure of a tremendously wicked system of control with or without the mischief of ETs.

  1. WickyBu

    For those slightly more engaged with this subject, the article does seem to be a bit weak. However, if this is part of the slow drip feed aimed at the general public, then for some even this news could be quite an eye opener…possibly even mind blowing,
    I do hope more is to come.

  2. Craig Champion

    Thanks for the breakdown (after the letdown). I suppose, looking at history, one might ask, “would you have expected more from a preeminent Deep-State mouthpiece such as the New York Times?”

  3. whatif

    RE: Leslie and Ralph finding another home. That’s a double edged sword. Most of their sources talk *exclusively* to them because of the NYT qualifier. It may be a shell of its former self, but it still lends quite a bit of weight to their stories. The question I ask myself is, why are their sources talking at all? What has changed? Not in terms of the work carried out by TSTA, but more toward the confidentiality of the information they have. How is it they feel less bound to it?

    1. PressToDigitate

      The New York Post has been *FAR* more amenable to the subject, for a long time. They should put out feelers to taking their scoop on the subject across town to the [direct] competition . The New York Post was established in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton, and is the nation’s oldest continuously published daily newspaper.

      1. whatif

        Agree 100%. Personally, I’d love to see them hop over to the Post. My guess is the Times still carries slightly more overall prestige in MSM circles, but it’s also been circling the drain for at least a decade.

  4. Andromeda107

    I will give the New York Times some credit for even talking about this subject, or should I say being allowed to talk about this subject. You have to assume that the CIA still has there had in the cookie jar somewhere.I was a bit disappointed on the article, the only interesting part was when they talked about Eric Davis. I am not holding out high hope that anything major is going to happen,such as New York Times talking about the Eric-Davis Notes,or finding out about one of the special access programs that deal with crash retrievals or recovered alien bodies,but who knows, I could be wrong, I really hope I am wrong,

  5. Ron Holmes UK

    That is a fine piece of writing Richard, thank you, and I’m glad that you – as you ever do – continue to try to see the good people, desperate to do the right thing, through the ever murky haze of those lesser souls who preside over them. It must be immensely frustrating for them to continually have their hard work toned down and muted this way, and I think its within that frustration that our hopes lie – and not just with the specific journalists as in this case. Everywhere we look nowadays people are being told to withhold the truth, or just ignore it – and perhaps also that its for the common good that they do so. This approach has worked well for a very long time now, but things are different these days. I believe there’s now sufficient “blood in the water” on the subject of UFOs, largely thanks to TTSA and the release of their “tic-tac” , “gimbal” and “go fast” videos, that the general public’s curiosity has finally kicked in. I believe, as you suggest in your article, that journalists such as those who wrote the original piece will begin to consider what was previously unthinkable – and give up their hard earned positions in such “prestigious” publications for ones which actually allow them to tell the truth, the whole truth, warts and all. I also think the gradual enlightenment of the general public will increase the number of UFO reports being filed, and the subject will slowly – perhaps very slowly – begin to lose its social stigma. If we can reach a point where the simple mention of UFO’s in general conversation is not immediately rejected or ridiculed, we may yet see the day when the damn finally breaks. This may not be the exciting, overnight and far “sexier” form of Disclosure we’re all secretly hoping for on this forum, but it may be a far more realistic and practical way to achieve our ends.

    1. PressToDigitate

      I think it will be astonishing just how fast the notion that the UFOs/Aliens WEREN’T Real will instead become the subject of derision as ridiculous and ignorant. Of course, the *most* ignorant people will be those who go from having chided US as the ‘lunatic fringe’ for believing in UFOs beforehand, to suddenly deriding the [then] discredited skeptics for having been wrong this whole time. Overnight, all of your friends and relatives who laughed at your position on the subject will instantly have been “believers” all along.

      1. jennymemon

        If there is, as we hope there will be, finally some state admission of the alien presence, I personally, will not accept anything less than a full and frank (grovelling) apology from my own dear father, who has used the opportunity at many family ‘gatherings’ to publicly ridicule me (he thinks for my own good!) because of my beliefs in the UFO subject.
        I can not envisage any way of him ‘spinning’ this to salvage ANY credibility from his stance for all these years!
        I am planning to savour the moment, and then, if i am feeling charitable, I may partake with some banter on the subject with him (after I have revived him with the smelling salts).

  6. MarkH

    Hi Richard, the NYT seems to be pushing the threat narrative, playing down the ET one. Is that the only way to get the story traction and a wider subscription? if so the ET one would have achieved better results. So muzzled for sure.
    Will there be a follow up article? it would be good if they could come clean on the comment: “No crash artifacts have been publicly produced for independent verification. Some retrieved objects, such as unusual metallic fragments, were later identified from laboratory studies as man-made.”
    They had a big opportunity to prove they were an institution ‘off the people and for the people’ and have proved what we all thought was going to be delivered just the opposite. We didn’t have to be psychic to see that coming.
    We are still looking at these big institutions to validate our convictions when they stand opposed at every fork in the road.
    Disgruntled human here.

    1. Ed Coffman

      Good observation, Mark, on the threat narrative thing. That impetus in the “message” is what makes NY Times articles on UFOs to be Limited Hangouts. And it doesn’t help matters that the NY Times has to include a correction concerning what Sen Byrd has said “on the record.”

      Oh well.

      All the best, Mate.

    2. itsmeRitaC

      I must agree. Big authorities/institutions are not going to be big Truth givers. Period. And now with the space wars ratcheting up with the US the only player who would never sign on to any kind of peace treaties. Oh wait………….It sounds like i am talking about the good old manifest destiny spin from centuries ago. Nothing has changed, just the possibility of wiping out the human race has!

      1. itsmeRitaC

        I am back……………..I just saw the last ten minutes of ‘Disclosure’ about the triangle ufos. I won’t even mention more than to say that the very last comment, as the program was going to credits was to warn us all that the Aztecs believed that Cortez came with good intentions, and look at what happened to them….Yes. All life in the multiverse is the white man colonial killer. The whole show ends with that menacing voice, how dramatic……………………Be afraid. This is so obvious that i would laugh if it weren’t worrisome.

        On another note, i hope that none of these killer contractors really have much material from the ‘crashes’. All i need is a planet with even more grotesque weapons. In space and all…………………
        Regards, rita

  7. kwerner31

    I have a book called, “UFO Crash Retrievals: Status Report IV: The Fatal Encounter At Fort Dix-McGuire by Leonard H. Stringfield, June 1985. I am wondering if this might be one of the retrievals alluded to in this overall discussion?? In any case, journalism is always an incremental business, with piecemeal bits of information and insights, and various angles to each story. I thought they did an admirable job in at least covering the subject. Many editors would not really see any journalistic value to the topic at all, and would be unable to devote sufficient text/page space or time to reporting on these stories.

  8. kwerner31

    Also, as long as the power to analyze and decide what to release resides in a defense or intelligence federal agency, I doubt anything new will be revealed. Is this taskforce composed of representatives outside of the defense/intelligence arena? If not, that would appear to be a key point.

  9. PressToDigitate

    All of this is well and good, but does no one else see the “Red Flags” raised by what you’ve noted above? I haven’t even read the complete article (I keep getting blocked for not having a NYT digital subscription), but let me highlight the things that suspiciously don’t comport with what we already know about “government” involvement in the ETUFO subject since 1941:

    1. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader – Member of the “Gang of Eight” (Cleared for *Everything*), under unified government of his own party, professes no direct knowledge of programs beyond AATIP which he co-authored, having done so *because* he was not being briefed on such activities. Reid “believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred” and “came to the conclusion that there were reports — some were substantive, some not so substantive — that there were actual materials…” AYFKM? The man is 80 years old and essentially on his death bed from cancer; he has no need for anything and they can’t take anything away from him for anything he might say or reveal; not without confirming more than he could possibly say. He’s already told us all that he knows of substance – or he wouldn’t have needed to create AATIP to try to learn more in the first place. Those in uniform *have never not had* “an Affirmative Duty of Care” to inform their superiors – including, especially, their civilian leadership, of the Alien incursions, the Crash Retrievals, the Technology, and its implications, as these impact the safety and security of the American people. Rubio is doing *exactly* what Reid did, just in a somewhat more public way.
    2. “As recently as March” Defense Department agencies, and both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees remained in need of classified briefings to inform them – evidently for the First Time, after 79 years – that there had been retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.” Since Roswell, U.S. military personnel have suffered over 400,000 acknowledged casualties killed and wounded, not counting hundreds of thousands of veterans afflicted with PTSD, thousands of whom have died by suicide – and other maladies such as exposure to Agent Orange. The denial of superior Alien technology to our fighting men and women, on the battlefield, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which undoubtedly would have avoided many such casualties, constitutes the essence of “adhering to [America’s] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”, which is treasonable under the Constitution; *this applies whether or not one considers the Aliens, themselves, an enemy of the United States and/or Humanity*. In short, *There IS NO ‘National Security Exemption’ From Doing So.*
    3. That Elizondo himself insists he does not *know* but is strongly “convinced” of the historical reality of Crash Retrievals reaffirms other things he, Mellon – and Wilson – have said all along, to the effect that AATIP, like Bluebook before it, may have been “A” UFO program, but was never “THE” UFO program. Both Hynek and Elizondo have said that other “people”, claiming to be authorized, from elsewhere within the labyrinthine defense/intelligence bureaucracy, often showed up at incidents before them, collected the hard evidence, and extracted it before their (AATIP/Bluebook) investigators could get to the scene. With *NO PROOF* that these ‘MiB’ were even government employees, much less officially authorized – and, in fact, NO PROOF that they even were/are ‘Human Beings’, why is No One demanding to know their identities? Why has no one *EVER* demanded to know?
    4. In “people like Reid and Elizondo have got to be extremely careful with how they make these types of statements. Everything has to be exact, and everything requires the potential to being walked back if need be”, I think we are being played by not demanding an answer as to “Why?” Or rather, “Who EXACTLY, are these people all AFRAID of?” A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, the former lead staff Intelligence Officer for the Joint Chiefs both “not authorized” – and no indication – anywhere – that any ‘more senior’ colleagues of theirs, in uniform or out – have been accorded any greater access, in decades; nobody seems to be asking, “If neither uniformed nor civilian defense officials, nor the most senior political representatives legally charged with oversight, nor even those appointed under the SECDEF directly to study the issue, have access, THEN WHO DOES??”

    There are at least a half dozen Fortune 100 corporations that have been implicated as both ETUFO “Black Programs” Contractors, and which are Public Companies, that would have both civil and criminal liabilities under the False Claims Act and the Securities Fraud statutes, for these activities. An article on the front page of the New York Times about Reid and Elizondo alluding to hearsay about such activities won’t grab their attention and force Disclosure. An article on the front page of the New York Times about hundreds of thousands of people joining a Class Action lawsuit alleging Federal Contractor and Securities Fraud against them, seeking >$500 Billion in Damages, *and the stripping of Corporate Immunity for all individuals involved since 1947* (i.e. imposing *personal* financial liability on company Officers, Directors, Managers and Employees), probably WOULD grab their attention and force Disclosure. People would begin coming forward in droves to tell what they know, to absolve themselves from legal liability; it is thus not even necessary that such litigation prevail.

    We don’t need anyone’s ‘say so’ or permission to make this happen, nor could any of the ‘culprits’ prevent it if we did so. A “Take No Prisoners Ufology” for the 2020s. (Psssst, Richard! Wanna take Bets on how empty and lame the report they give Rubio will be in six months?)

    1. PressToDigitate

      CDR Fravor on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” (7/24)

      Tonight we were also watching the new biopic on Amazon about Madame Curie, “Radioactive”, and it got me thinking. From her definition of natural Radioactivity in 1898, just 40 years later, the first Nuclear Reactor was built and Einstein & Szilard were writing FDR on the feasibility of an Atomic Bomb (which was, in fact, detonated just seven years after that. From the first interconnection of Radio stations in 1922 to form the first Broadcasting Network, the Telstar I satellite was launched and operational, just 40 years later, transmitting live television programming between continents.

      But from 1980 until today – 40 years later – our knowledge of the ETUFO presence is not demonstrably superior to what it was then. As UFONSSv1 makes clear, we had, by then (even seven years earlier, in ’73), a comprehensive catalog of Sightings, Encounters, Abductions, Crash Retrievals, and the attendant official corruption. Have we made Quantitative progress? Sure, we now have more – I would argue, redundant – evidence along each of those lines. Qualitative? Not so easy. Many in-depth “exotic” accounts that organized Ufology dismissed 40 years ago have since become “respectable”, due, largely to that accumulating redundancy – yet examples were available back then, when researchers cared to listen and document them. So, no. Marginally, we know more details about cases we were already aware of then. Roswell is better corroborated, we have a few interesting tidbits about Area 51 & Hangar 18. We only know better now of what we already knew then, but didn’t know we knew at the time. Continued, that type of progress will never get us to “Disclosure”. Perhaps we should stop even using that term, or calling for it.

      Perhaps the term we need is “Exposure”, which is something that leaves the onus on us, to ‘Do It’, rather than some Gift to be Begged For from Officialdom. If the actual cognizant Officialdom are Alien [Hybrid Operatives] themselves, and if their Agenda is not in our Best Interests, then they can be expected to continue the same program of obfuscation that we’ve been so patient with for the past 40 years, until the secrecy no longer matters for them. Your “Spidey Sense” should be tingling at that prospect, because, by definition, it means “Disclosure” will come too late for Humanity.

        1. D.A.

          I found it interesting that the Army report states that Dr. Vannevar Bush was against the Army’s development of missile weapon systems, and that he believed that the Army had exaggerated the potential “benefits and advantages of missiles and satellites”. To that point, he actually delayed R&D of these weapon systems by insisting that the Army demonstrate their cost effectiveness over conventional technologies, which no doubt contributed to Nazi Germany’s technological dominance in this area. Ironically, by 1948 he was expressing frustration for aircraft companies for dragging their feet in the development of turbojet engines due to the costs associated with R&D and retooling piston engine factories, and automobile manufacturers for their lack of interest in developing more efficient internal combustion engines. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that sometime between the end of WWII and 1948, he underwent a change of heart with respect to the cost-benefit risks associated with the development of new and emerging technologies, and/or the advancement of existent technologies.

          1. PressToDigitate

            Exactly! And Bush’s philosophical approach to Computing underwent a similar metamorphosis. There was no direct reason to assume the evolution of cybernetics as he did in 1945, prior to the advent of even the Transistor, let alone the Integrated Circuit – if he hadn’t seen the *right* bits of Cape Girardeau Crash Debris under an Electron Microscope, and figured out what he was looking at.

      1. Greg

        PTD, agree. They’re acting as if MJ-12 and successors never existed. This wouldn’t be an adequate “disclosure” even in 1950.

        1. PressToDigitate

          Yep. These “drip-drips” are like a steam pressure valve; they open it just enough in each generation to keep the pressure [for Disclosure] from exploding. All that ‘The Disclosure Project’, the Missileers, the ‘Citizen Hearing on Disclosure’, TTSA, and ten years of “Ancient Aliens” have bought us is “Yes, we picked up the debris at Roswell”.


      2. D.A.

        Well put. Another term, you may want to consider as key with respect to this matter is the one you used to describe the growing library of information we have about Roswell, and that is “Corroboration”. The stigma that has been attached to the UFO subject by our governing entities (people in authority who may not necessarily be our elected officials) and their de facto MSM moderators, and the prevailing zeitgeist it has engendered over the decades, has led us as a society to where we are right now on this subject. And in the absence of full, substantive, disclosure by individuals in authority at, or near, the top of our “elected” government hierarchy–who themselves appear to be in the dark; mainstream acceptance of this phenomenon will not occur (outside of having an incontrovertible mass sighting with supporting material proof) unless an aggregate accumulation of corroborating information and evidence regarding previously disclosed events can be assembled by disparate sources with sufficient credibility (including MSM outlets such as the NYT; government or ex-government officials, such as Harry Reid, and to a lesser extent, Chris Mellon and Luis Elizondo; SMEs, such as Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff; and respected investigative journalists, writers, and historians, such as Richard, George Knapp, et al).

        Moreover, the induction period of exposure associated with this mounting aggregation of credible information and evidence needs to be long enough to ensure that a state of non-disruptive societal acceptance can be achieved–even if it is at the expense of appearing redundant to, and testing the patience of, those who already know. Once critical mass acceptance has been attained, we may very well see a lot of what we already know to be true regarding recovered UFOs and reverse engineering officially disclosed by high-level government sources–as well as the eventual disclosure of past (and present?) interactions with ET. In other words, the redundant trickle of corroborative information that we now see will at some point build to the point that acceptance of the phenomenon, coupled with public demand for more information about it, will create a crescendo of constructive interference great enough to burst the dam of official secrecy surrounding it, but that will happen only when enough people can look back and say: “See…I told you so.”

        1. PressToDigitate

          But for the duration of that induction period to not matter requires the intentions of the Aliens to be benign; an assumption which I do not believe is warranted. Therefore, we need it to happen *sooner* than They want us to know.

  10. Carolyn3

    Talk about deflating my balloon. Serious choke-hold with this article. It just seems like the same information but tossed around.
    I’m just exhausted with all of this.

  11. Headhunter01

    Richard, do you think (or perhaps know) If Leslie and Ralph have been PROPERLY briefed/informed about the Wilson notes?

  12. SunPower

    On referring to Mr. Eric Davis in the article.
    “Doctor Evil! I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called ‘Mister,’ thank you very much.” – Dr. Evil

  13. Chester_Hunter

    I am too slow a reader and thus, can’t read everything I want. But what I have read regarding this article being a “flop” is depressing yet, also, SOP.

    But then I was sent this clip by a friend from last night’s (or the night before) Tucker Carlson and Fravor seems to interpret the article to suggest the Pentagon will be releasing the key info related to having physical artifacts of that which was not created here on Earth. If that happened, would that not be THE game changer?


  14. itsmeRitaC

    A friend actually just sent me an email about this article, which i can’t get due to nytimes firewall and he is not conspiracy minded at all. He thinks i am in fact. 🙂 And *he* wrote, “limited hangout. Why now?” I didn’t even know he would use that term, which as we know, i think speaks to so much of our ‘news’ in general. Not at all just on this topic.

    I only found out about this article, btw, because of this site, Richard. That tells me it isn’t getting that much ‘press’ in general. I tend to keep up on world events and i found it here, yesterday.

  15. starfleet

    The New York Times has increasingly become an instrument of the Loony and dangerous Left side of Politics.
    It constantly undermines the goodness of our society and supports countries, authoritarians and international human rights organizations that would have our democratic system fail.
    Such hypocrisy. Where is the outcry over the plight of muslims and human rights in China? Where is the outcry over the atrocities in Africa. ? Where is the outcry over the violations of human rights and uncivilized actions by middle eastern dictators?
    The New York times cannot be trusted with disseminating any groundbreaking UAP data or information.
    But it’s journalists will promote dubious stories told by self serving individuals such as Elizondo, who has embellished, misled and lied about his involvement with UAP programs.
    Yes, there is a U.S Space Force now. However, it is legitimizing an already existing classified military program that was created in the mid 80’s. They do use craft that use exotic propulsion systems. They do lias with a highly classified, corporate, international UAP organisation involved with retrievals, research and reverse engineering.
    And, as it has been said in the the past, it would take an act of god to have this released to Governments and bureaucrats.
    And certainly not by The New York Times.

  16. Jay King

    Richard got a nice shout-out by Ralph Blumenthal in this, the first interview with Leslie Kean and Ralph since the article came out. An excellent scoop by Project Unity, this should be required listening for anyone interested in this story.

  17. TomTort

    Having conversations with two engineers, their conclusion on 911 is absolutely astonishing. After hearing their conclusions, I lost faith in the government. Researching and publishing the results would be a big concern and a worry. Just my opinion.
    Thanks for listening.

  18. Don.B

    To add to the story, Jay from Project Unity just released an interview with Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal regarding the recent New York Times article. Very excellent interview with great questions asked. Worth listening to.

  19. robert9905

    The article has its flaws but the article still has good parts in it. The quote from Eric Davis on crashes i find exciting. The idea we have debree just of eathly origins makes no sense. Eric Davis has a high security and knows the results of tests done on the materials. If in a Top Secret briefing he is saying the material was not human made believe it. https://youtu.be/uXmQHwmNa_4

  20. WickyBu

    Just listened to the ‘first ever interview’ with Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal on Project Unity’s YouTube channel regarding their article in the NY Times. Very informative and enlightening. They explained the rigorous editing process that takes place prior to publication, which helped to solve the mystery as to why some feel the story perhaps didn’t go far enough. Why they chose this particular outlet as their first ‘reach out’ to the public, I’m not sure. But kudos to Jay, however it came about.

    Having listed to them speak, it became abundantly clear that there is much more to this story, but as one would expect, only info that is verifiable by named sources and unclassified could make it into print. Apparently there were other reliable sources who were willing to be named, but space restrictions didn’t allow for a longer piece. Have to take them at their word. Leslie Kean in particular seemed to be itching to talk more about the stuff that didn’t make it in this article, but stopped short on a few occasions in the interview.

    So this is not the end of the story. More will follow, in the slow methodical fashion by which this topic , ie disclosure, seems to be going. After all, it takes a while to assimilate and digest this sort of thing and we don’t really want to blow too many people’s minds beyond repair!

  21. chris gaffney

    Hi guys,
    Let’s think of the positives here..
    We re all disappointed that the new York times latest article did nt go further even though it hinted there could be more info coming soon. Is always soon….
    Let’s think how far we are down this elusive disclosure journey
    Three years ago it would have been unbelievable for a major ( controlled ) media publication to mention UFO s and craft not of this world and not to ridicule the very idea.
    Yes we are frustrated !!!!!
    Hell yes we are disappointed but what can we do ?
    Rather that just being passengers on this journey let’s try to steer the ship.
    Last year the Irish Independent Sunday addition covered the ttsa / pentagon release and concluded the the fact Chris Mellon was involved that there could be some thing to it….that was a first by Irish media.
    Why don’t all of us like minded folks on this site do our little piece.
    Think of any radio / TV / news paper journalists that might be open minded enough to cover this information, try to contact them and present the evidence.
    If you like me are not confident enough to chat on radio or TV , we could try to arrange Richard ( needless to say we cannot speak on his behalf and prior consent would be required ) or Steve Basset or some one we know can present the evidence in a logical professional manner. Maybe do an interview or simply chat about the subject.
    We can all help push our narrative along and not just be observers. Let’s do our part to help reach the tipping point where there truly is no going back.

    Friends we ve come along way.

  22. Lynda

    Credit to the people here that are Dolan members that had anything to do with this article.

    Newspapers have their own processes and self-interest on scoops and stories. They are not going to look out for those who provide the information, or what they can scoop from others. I’ve learned never to expect what you provide for publication to be accurately or entirely used – even if you doublecheck it before publication.

    I felt Blumenthal’s rebuke for UFOTwitter was absurd, not because of UFOTwitter’s usual behavior, but for pushing on this story and giving too many of the details. Sorry, he didn’t make a deal with UFOTwitter.

    Project Unity deserves a lot of respect for all the hard research and work put in with Mr. X on this related project. I don’t know that I would have held the story back like he agreed to do, but at least he did get an interview on YouTube out of it. Keep pushing.

    People have waited on the media for over 70 years to spill the beans. Much of this time it has been controlled by the Pentagon. Regardless of whether that is still true or not, I have no desire to hold back information that is accurate. Keep pushing for truth and be part of the story.

  23. D.A.

    RE: “’Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force” to report on UAP/UFO activity, and this would include at least some information for the general public”:

    Does Anyone else see this as Project Blue Book, Part Deux?  I do, but perhaps with a different twist. If we can presume that the formation of the original Project Sign, which morphed into Grudge, and then later, Blue Book, ultimately stemmed from the public clamor surrounding the original UFO flaps of the late 40’s and 50’s, what can we assume was the impetus behind the formation of this new task force, which, like Blue Book, was similarly preceded by two other programs, AAWSAP ant AATIP? Interestingly, these most recent programs were not formed to quell public concern. In fact their disclosure, along with the formation TTSA, and the recent disclosure of information about “UAPs”, whether overtly, or through surreptitious means, is tantamount to doing the exact opposite, almost as if some one where gradually preparing the public for something. Just a thought.


    ***”Correction: July 24, 2020
    An earlier version of this article inaccurately rendered remarks attributed to Harry Reid, the retired Senate majority leader from Nevada. Mr. Reid said he believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred and that retrieved materials should be studied; he did not say that crashes had occurred and that retrieved materials had been studied secretly for decades.”***

    It’s still a no-no for “brave” journalists to say what everyone knows. The MIC / IC treat them like children, when they are not treating them as co-conspirators. The media, in turn, fearfully and under threat, treats US like children.


Leave a Reply