This is what we’ve been waiting for?

By | July 23, 2020

The New York Times just published an article by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, presumably the long-awaited piece everyone has been talking about.

If this is the sum total and there is nothing more,  then this is a disappointing article, to say the least. 

There are a few interesting new bits of information, but most has been known already.

 One intriguing statement concerned Eric Davis. (Why, incidentally, does the article refer to him as “Mr. Davis” when it is well known he has a Ph.D?)

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.”

There are a few other tidbits here and there that are interesting, but overall the piece is shockingly lightweight. It would be interesting to learn why this turned out to be so.

[RD Edit] Super Host and Moderator Jay King pointed out to me that there was a bit more than I initially acknowledged, in particular, the quotes from Senator Harry Ried and Lue Elizondo (along with Davis) attesting to the reality of retrievals of crashed or acquired UFOs. Here is the final quotation of the article, by Reid:

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

So, yes, there was a bit more than I initially stated. Still, overall, there were opportunities in this article for genuine analysis that just never happened. No recognition of implications, and in general just not a whole lot. 



32 thoughts on “This is what we’ve been waiting for?

    1. jennymemon

      Yea, fits in nicely with the old and Nazi quote, ‘the bigger the lie, the more will believe it’. The lies dont come much bigger than this!

  1. dodge

    We’ll have to take the win here, but maybe they balked on publishing something more substantive?

    Time will tell, but this was not putting any paste back in tube I suppose.

  2. Doctor3j

    I repeat here one of my observations on many UFO disclosers. THEY like them to look like nut cases or eccentrics. The key person involved, Luis Elizondo, is shown in a large color picture. He looks like a nut case; corpulent, tattooed, poorly dressed; hardly credible.

    But for the first time in a major pub, two people are very craftly quoted as having knowledge of crash retrievals. MR Davis and Harry Read. Mellon must be jealous, or more likely, he let these two men, who are very old and at the end of their careers, come out of the closet in a way. This was designed to prompt more interest. Like who is this Davis? That’s when you’ll see Mellon. Who got the not of this earth briefings and why haven’t they told us?

    And as I have said they are in a hurry playing the UFO card before the election.

    1. PressToDigitate

      It wont happen before the election. The Deep State needs their sock puppet Biden in place before they let any more out. Its all about who’s sitting in the Big Chair when the music stops. That’s why the CIA has gone to such great lengths, waging not one, but TWO illegal coup attempts to get Trump out of office. Trump isn’t controlled by the Intelligence Community – or the Aliens – and these two may be one in the same at this point. Come January, thanks to their plandemic, they will have a favored stooge back in that Big Chair. The problem is, the ‘official narrative’ we’re going to get on the ETUFO subject under those circumstances cannot be trusted by either the American people, or Humanity in general.

    2. John_Bruno

      Just as Corso and Trudeau had a pact.. last one alive tells all. And Lt Colonel Philip Corso did just that. My thoughts on this NYT article, may be a warm up (or testing the waters) for a bigger story? I sure hope so!

    3. Susan Schmieding

      Having tattoos and wearing jeans does not mean you are a nut case in today’s world . Look at the average person in public today.

  3. PressToDigitate

    The Aerospace Corporation is one of those entities that people have associated with covered-up ‘deep black’ UFO work for decades. It is technically a non-profit, and privately held; like Battelle Memorial Institute and a few others, its books are as ‘opaque’ as the could possibly be. There are no shareholders with standing that can sue for further information on their activities. This is *not* true of SAIC/Leidos, AECOM, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, L3/Harris, or several other aerospace/defense contractors that also must have had deep involvement with ET/UFO programs.

    The Legal Department of an Institute could wage effective “Lawfare” in several ways; one is for the Institute to simply buy a few shares of each into its permanent endowment (which it would, anyway), and file what are known as “Derivative” shareholder liability lawsuits, which are based on the fiduciary responsibility of Management, and any potential failures of that responsibility. Diverting funds from a legitimate, approved defense contract, to ETUFO activities that were never appropriated by law is such a failure, theoretically subjecting the company to contract fraud liability, and, thus, management to liability to shareholders for committing such crimes on behalf of the company. Its totally irrelevant to the federal contract fraud provisions whether some secret bureaucrat or General gave them “a wink and a nod” to do so, and the *False Claims Act* enables anyone to sue on behalf of the United States for recovery in such cases, with triple damages and a fee – in which the citizen-litigant shares upon recovery.

    The FCA, known as “Lincoln’s Law”, could be a very useful tool for disclosure – as much for the information that would be revealed in “discovery”, by the corporate official placed under Oath, as for the financial rewards to a litigant, such as the Institute. Whistleblowers are protected in these cases, and we can likely obtain a few from each such contractor, once it became known that FCA litigation along these lines was to be pursued.

    The litigant/whistleblower(s) are awarded up to 30% of the total damages under FCA, plus legal fees and costs. Since the total is 3X the amount of the contract fraud, you can see that this rapidly adds up to a whole lot of money. Anyone that can turn ETUFO Contracting into the next Tobacco, Asbestos or Glyphosate will earn enough to build their own Flying Saucer.

    1. Headhunter01

      Nicely spoken Mr. Digitate! Had to laugh at your punch line “… will earn enough to build their own Flying Saucer”. Fantastic! Grtz.

  4. Craig Champion

    Geez, tepid indeed. I wonder to what extent the editor/editorial policy is to blame vs. the two reporters…

  5. Brian X0067

    The NYT & NYP articles seem to be buried; perhaps they’ll be more prominently displayed with a higher circulation.

    “Mr.” Eric Davis is odd – could there be any doubt about Eric Davis’s credentials?

    1. stelzie

      Without the link, I couldn’t even find the article on the Times website. This is super lame, and to me evidence that Times editorial is intentionally undermining this piece. Why would they do this when it is being picked up by major media around the world?

  6. whatif

    Meh. I suspect the article was heavily edited to the point where key information was all but eliminated. Could have been a last minute decision, who knows. Perhaps a key source got cold feet? Or threatened with suicide. Are the Clintons involved? 😉

  7. Jay King

    Ralph Blumenthal has begun replying to comments on the bottom of the actual article, and crucially this is one response:

    “Richie Farrell
    Dublin, Ireland
    7h ago
    I was hoping for some mind blowers, names of companies and what they had. I suppose you have done this by proxy via Dr. Eric Davis’ statements. Nonetheless a solid article, great times when NYT are reporting on this. Keep up the good work.”

    Ralph Blumenthal
    Contributor, former Times reporter
    6h ago
    @Richie Farrell Thanks. Not everything can be reported all at once.”

    He also defended Eric Davis several times from some random Davis/Wilson deniers that showed up, as well as responded to a few comments that mentioned you by name, Richard.

    When looking at comments to find Blumenthal’s replies, use the filter tab “NYT Replies”

  8. Sennao

    A difficult thought experiment for those immersed in UFO history and culture.

    How shocking will this article be for ordinary people? What will be its general impact? To what extent will it create fertile ground for future revelations?

    Perhaps this should be the measure of what has appeared.

  9. FamousAmos

    Tucker Carlson last night apparently covered this NYT article.
    Skip ahead to 36:37 to hear this ~50 sec segment.
    He states the Pentagon has “recovered off-world vehicles not made on this earth”

    1. PressToDigitate

      OMG! FamousAmos, did you see that?
      This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated”.

  10. chris gaffney

    Biggest disappointment since Highlander 2
    And that was bad

    Still baby steps in the right direction

  11. stelzie

    What do you make of the major correction to the piece where they correct the most explosive part of the article (in my opinion), Senator Harry Reid’s quote that he believed the US government is in possession of a crashed vehicle, and has been studying it in secret for decades. It has been corrected to say that crashes “may have occurred.”

    Also I’m curious if you think that Eric Davis’ quote on “off-world vehicles not made on this earth,” and it’s similarity to the language used by Davis in the Wilson document. Do you think he said it this way as an indirect confirmation that he wrote the document? Thanks!

  12. clarsson19

    Actually, shouldn’t the cup be viewed as at least half full? This message will enlighten (if not downright startle) the public at large, perhaps sparking the avalanche that will set the truth free. A select and aware group such as RDM would likely be disappointed by any public communication on these issues, which must be tailored to a wide and “naive” audience, lest you loose all credibility from the very onset. Surely, everyone here has gotten that “look” from a close friend while perhaps, even cautiously, approaching this taboo subject. So, as Richard is often fond of saying, and other comments above have chimed in, “Take the bloody (OK that last word is my editorializing) win.” This is still a highly significant step forward.

  13. TomTort

    This is a start. Sadly, so many people I know think this is possible or consider Alien visitation just nonsense. It is amazing how many people I have questioned don’t even care.
    I wonder what response one would get if someone did a “man on the street” interview on Alien visitation. The average “John Doe” is a curious individual. I hear people are ready for disclose, but what demographic are they referring.

Leave a Reply