Govt. UFO Report Seems To Have Learned From John Durham

Authored by Robert Arvay via American Thinker,

One of the headlines at Space dot Com says, “UFOs will remain mysterious without better data, NASA study team says.”

Well, duh — what a disclosure.  Who would have thought that better data are needed?  The writers of the Durham Report could have done a better job than NASA has concerning UFOs.  Yes, the same Durham report that told us all about everything we already knew, concerning high-level seditious crimes — and then eschewed further prosecutions.  That report.

There were signs early on that the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) was not going to finally get around to a long-awaited, full-throated research effort regarding UFO/UAP phenomena.  Disappointingly, the official descriptions of the office, while at least calling attention to the potential seriousness of such phenomena, has the appearance of yet one more paper-pushing “alphabet” bureaucracy.  It seems more interested in keeping 9-to-5 hours than being prepared to be called out of bed at 3 A.M. to respond on scene to an incident.  Ho, hum.

This is in stark contrast to the sense of urgency displayed by the “men in blue“ who descended (by helicopter) onto U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (Nimitz and Roosevelt) to confiscate all audio-visual recordings associated with detections of unexplainable aerial phenomena by crew members of those ships.  Those incidents reflect quick-time, no-nonsense responses by a secretive government force that is highly interested in the sightings and motivated to conceal them from the public — even silencing witnesses.

AARO has also restricted its scope to current UFO sightings and rejected calls to look into some rather spectacular sightings that have occurred in earlier years.  The Davis-Montham Air Force Base Incident of 1952 is but one of many that cry out for explanation.  True, we should not expect a complete overhaul of every past UFO event, but on the other hand, at least keeping a file on the most significant of them, for reference, is the least one would expect from an agency assigned to investigate what may eventually turn out to be the most world-changing encounter in human history.  AARO seems utterly disinterested in doing that, or in applying the most basic and effective investigative tools at its disposal.

Oh, look, here’s another interesting sighting report that just came in.  See, we’re doing a good job.  Now, where can we put this one?

We cannot be sure of what is going on behind closed doors in Congress.  There are unsubstantiated reports that, in secret hearings, some members of Congress have been…what is the word?  Shocked, amazed, worried?  The question arises: why would government not tell us what it knows, or at least has evidence, about UFOs?

The stock answer is “national security.”  Okay, that may be true, but in an environment in which government agencies blatantly lie to us about matters concerning only their own career security, the public is fully justified in being skeptical.  The Air Force is understandably not eager to confess to the public that there are Chinese spy balloons in our skies, balloons that were brought to their attention only by nonmilitary people, and then which, because of White House interference, it failed to shoot down while they could have been recovered on land, with reporters present.  How embarrassing.

How much less is the government willing to say, yes, there are unidentified aircraft in our skies, which exhibit capabilities that we do not have and cannot get?  Would we all panic if the government said the best explanation, considering all the known facts, is that these craft are from another planetary civilization?

I am not saying that any such thing is the case.  I am merely saying that I find it odd that the federal government seems comparatively nonchalant about what is potentially the most paradigm-shifting set of events in human history.

(For those who may be interested, my blog at THE UFO PARADOX covers a much wider scope of this subject than can be covered in any one commentary.)