New York Times Reporting and the Armchair Analyst

> "Government officials assert that foreign surveillance activities, alongside weather balloons and other airborne debris, account for most recent unidentified aerial phenomena—government jargon for UFOs—as well as many incidents from previous years."

Which officials are we referring to here? Can we have names? Furthermore, I urge readers to pay attention to the mention of 'foreign surveillance'—a phrase that rings a bell. This discussion of UFOs tends to overlook over seven decades of history, including events like Fravor's Tic Tac encounter from 2004.

> "The Pentagon and intelligence agencies have been perplexed by these sightings for years, giving rise to theories involving extraterrestrial visitors or advanced technologies from hostile nations. However, officials maintain that many incidents can be explained with more commonplace reasons."

It raises questions about how we have shifted from certainty to confusion over the years. Supposedly, officials have avoided engaging with this subject altogether. For the past 75 years, ridicule and dismissal have been the norm! The 2017 New York Times article finally shed light on the fact that the U.S. military has been studying UFOs seriously for decades, with investments exceeding $20 million, even after Project Blue Book concluded there was nothing of interest.

> "Intelligence agencies are expected to deliver a classified update to Congress by Monday, revising a report from last year indicating that nearly all incidents remain unexplained. The initial document assessed 144 incidents between 2004 and 2021 reported primarily by U.S. military personnel."

The first statement here is misleading. While not bolded, it is still misleading. Current data suggests that about half of 366 incidents from the last year are unexplained, which is far from 'nearly all'. The original report indicated that only one event was attributed to a weather balloon. The incident involving David Fravor was not related to foreign espionage or trash. It demonstrated a remarkable ability to evade detection, traveling over 60 nautical miles in mere seconds before halting mid-air, a maneuver known only to Fravor, his wingman, and the Nimitz Carrier Group.

Any journalist failing to address the extraordinary aspects of these phenomena while trying to downplay their significance is not doing justice to the subject.

> "This article draws on interviews with American officials who are privy to the findings of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies regarding these incidents. The officials spoke under anonymity to discuss classified matters."

At this point, anonymity is unhelpful. I want to know who these officials are, Mr. Barnes, so I can understand your relationship with them. Follow the money. Generic references to 'Americans' familiar with the situation are vague and unhelpful. Anonymous sources are more likely to have ulterior motives than someone like Lue Elizondo, who risked his career and family to advance this narrative.

David Fravor also risked his reputation and family. It is time to call out these unnamed individuals.

> "Some incidents have been attributed to Chinese surveillance using relatively standard drone technology, while others are thought to involve Beijing's interests. China, having previously stolen plans for advanced fighter jets, seeks to gain insights into how the U.S. trains its military pilots, according to American officials."

This is the third time China has been implicated in this article. It raises questions about their alleged technology. What nation hasn’t attempted to acquire our technology? Russia has done it, too. We practically gifted a large amount of military equipment to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Did you consider the possibility that the Chinese might have purchased souvenirs from the Taliban? Do you genuinely believe our government values technology when they leave it behind? Why mention Beijing specifically? That is implied by mentioning Chinese surveillance, correct? Asserting that China seeks insights into our training methods is as trivial as stating that most children enjoy pizza.

And what is this talk of 'ordinary drone technology'? According to Graves, Fravor, and others, these unidentified objects outperform our technology. Can you name a single drone capable of dropping from 80,000 feet to sea level, entering the water, and then returning to space? Just stating the facts.

> "A significant portion of the data regarding these unidentified phenomena remains classified. Although Congress has been briefed on some conclusions surrounding foreign surveillance, Pentagon officials have kept most information secret, primarily to prevent China or other nations from knowing that their espionage efforts against the U.S. military have been detected."

Here we go again with the foreign surveillance narrative! How many times can this assertion be repeated in one article? It’s astonishing that you claim we refrain from discussing Chinese surveillance because we don't want them to know we're onto them! I’m sure Beijing has kept up with this article. I'm confident they have read every piece over the last two years discussing Chinese drones. They likely even viewed the public Congressional hearing where Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray stated, “It’s just drones.”

The widespread narrative of Chinese drones spying on us, while we do nothing about it, is troubling. Perhaps the U.S. has realized it’s outmatched by these superior drones and has decided to concede. Should we all start learning Mandarin?

> "However, such official secrecy has unintentionally allowed conspiracy theories about government deception to flourish."

You know what else breeds conspiracy theories? Lies. The U.S. government has been misleading the public regarding UFOs since the 1940s, long before anyone worried about Chinese drones. The most significant evidence of government deceit is Project Blue Book, followed by the media's refusal to cover genuine UFO stories, culminating in dismissive articles like this one from the New York Times, which overlooks the concerns expressed by both commercial and military aviators.

> "Sue Gough, a spokesperson for the Defense Department, stated that the Pentagon remains dedicated to transparency while balancing this with its obligation to safeguard sensitive information, sources, and methods."

Kudos to Sue Gough for her stance. I have no doubt she voiced this, and she is correct. She has also publicly affirmed that the U.S. government does not deny the existence of UFOs and that we cannot explain them. Where is that quote, Mr. Barnes?

> "While the Pentagon will not rush to conclusions in its analysis," Ms. Gough stated, "no single explanation accounts for the majority of unidentified aerial phenomena reports."

That much is true. After more than 75 years of investigation, they still cannot utter the words, “it’s aliens.” However, quoting Gough’s statement, "no single explanation accounts for the majority..." makes me wonder if it’s taken out of context. Of course, no single explanation can apply universally, but if I take it at face value, it contradicts your earlier statement that “weather balloons or other airborne debris explain most recent incidents...”

So what is it? Is there a single explanation that fits most cases, or do we not understand half of the incidents, or is there a sudden increase in unexplained aviator health issues that leads us to mistrust pilots' reports?

> "It remains unclear how much of the new intelligence report will be disclosed. However, officials indicated that most resolved cases have proven to be either errant objects in the sky, like balloons, or surveillance activity."

We’re not interested in resolved cases, sir. We want to know about the inexplicable occurrences. We want insight into what Congress is seeing during closed sessions.

> "Officially, many older incidents remain unexplained, and the available data is insufficient for Pentagon or intelligence officials to draw final conclusions."

This is true for anything, right? If only we had more information, we would be satisfied? Except for Roswell. In 1997, the last official military statement about Roswell was that it was a weather balloon, while genuine journalists pointed out that the photographs provided were taken a decade later. The military's response was to dismiss further questioning.

Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Barnes? Do you want us to accept that there is nothing to see and return to sleep while Chinese aliens invade our airspace?

> "In many instances, observed phenomena are deemed 'unidentified' simply because the sensors failed to gather sufficient information for a definitive attribution," Ms. Gough stated, referencing cameras, radar, and other data collection devices. "We are working to address these deficiencies to ensure we have adequate data for our analysis."

Another interpretation exists. According to Jeremy Corbel, advancements in sensing technology have led us to collect more data indicating that the phenomena we have been disregarding since the 1940s are more significant than we initially believed. The UFOs that were sighted over the White House, which the military dismissed as weather phenomena, might actually be the same type that Nimitz encountered.

But, only a journalist aware of that incident would question their unnamed sources, right?

> "Other officials maintain that despite the evidence being imperfect, the grainy videos do not depict extraterrestrial beings."

Which officials? Are you combining anonymous sources? Without a way to verify your sources, you can assert anything without checks and balances. How can we be sure you’re not fabricating this narrative because of an aversion to the alien concept?

What your analysis fails to mention is that the data also does not indicate any Russian or Chinese insignias on these speculated drones. The U.S. military insists they are not theirs. So, if they are neither ours nor theirs... who do you think they belong to?

> "Optical illusions, combined with the characteristics of classified sensors, have caused mundane objects, like drones or balloons, to appear unusual or alarming."

Wait a second. Who claimed to be frightened? Are military personnel expressing fear? Lt. Graves mentioned concerns about potential mid-air collisions, but that isn’t fear. It sounded like David Fravor was quite thrilled when the UFO engaged him, exclaiming, “I am engaged, I am engaged” to the ship. That’s exhilarating, and while fear is a natural response, especially without weapons, it shows that it wasn’t a weather balloon pursuing Fravor.

> "In May, the Pentagon revealed that previously released images of green triangles, which appeared to resemble alien vessels, were actually drones captured through night-vision technology."

Yes, we all witnessed that. I don’t know anyone in the UFO community who accepted that explanation.

> "Military officials declined to specify when or where the images were obtained. However, they believe these incidents represent attempts to surveil military operations."

(Ring the bell again.) This is unfortunate, as knowing the timing and location could potentially disprove the drone theory. Drones have limitations regarding range and capabilities. Their ability to fly long distances versus hovering, coupled with reports of these objects entering and exiting water... but perhaps China has triumphed in the drone war.

> "Skeptics and optics experts have long argued that many videos and sightings reported by naval aviators are merely optical illusions that make ordinary objects—weather balloons, commercial drones—appear to travel at impossible speeds."

Yes, 'skeptics and experts' have suggested a myriad of explanations like swamp gas, ball lightning, Venus, and those elusive military flares that hover and change direction against the wind. If only visual observations were the sole criteria, they might hold some weight. Aircraft radar tracked these objects. The Nimitz Carrier Group radar recorded them as well. Moreover, back in the 1950s, UFOs were tracked over the White House at incredible speeds! They were observed by pilots and personnel in the control tower! These objects outperformed the jets deployed to intercept them. It’s evident that we are dealing with the same phenomenon, and radar technology has significantly advanced since then.

These objects are even tracked underwater! No visual confirmation exists for these underwater entities traveling at speeds that defy human capabilities in that environment. They can navigate through water, air, and space. How do you explain that, sir? Can you name a single drone capable of flying thousands of miles, hovering over U.S. Navy ships for hours while we observe them, and then re-entering the water before returning to base? Nuclear-powered drones? We probably shouldn’t shoot down nuclear-powered drones.

> "Military officials have largely reached the same conclusion."

Please provide their names. Was Lue Elizondo one of your sources? How about retired officer Robert Salas? Did you consult David Fravor, Underwood, Graves, or Dietrich? Fravor has openly stated that it's aliens. Did you speak with him? What about Haim Eshed? The Israeli space defense force chief didn’t pull this out of thin air—he declared in 2018 that UFOs are real, they are extraterrestrial, and a galactic federation exists with the U.S. in collaboration. Did you interview Eshed for your critical piece?

Let’s assume you did speak to your unnamed sources. Do you think they might have an agenda that does not involve cooperating with Congress or the American public's demand for transparency? Journalists should still dig deeper to uncover hidden truths, right? Have you considered why the Air Force has yet to respond to Congress's requests for UFO information?

> "Aside from the green triangle images, the other recordings released by the Pentagon have not been classified as surveillance incidents, at least for now. However, officials do not believe any of them depict alien encounters either."

Why not? You began with a strong assertion that “everyone is certain it’s China.” Would stating that officially escalate tensions? We are already on that brink. Has anyone asked the Chinese if they are conducting surveillance? Just curious.

Which officials are asserting that it is definitely not aliens? What insight do they possess that the rest of the world lacks? Are they dismissing the alien theory due to personal bias, or do they have irrefutable evidence that this technology is human-made? Show us that evidence, rather than citing unnamed sources claiming it isn’t.

I am John. I am asserting it’s aliens. How about that? I lack credentials, but at least I’m not hiding behind anonymity.

> "One of the videos, known as GoFast, seemingly captures an object moving at extraordinary speeds. However, military analysis suggests this is an illusion created by the angle of observation against the water. Pentagon calculations indicate the object is traveling only about 30 miles per hour."

Yes, I’ve seen that. Some video analysts on YouTube have disputed that claim. Can we trust that Navy pilots are genuinely skilled?

> "Another video, referred to as Gimbal, shows an object that appears to rotate. Military officials now believe the optics of the classified imaging sensor, which is designed for targeting weaponry, create the illusion of unusual movement."

Isn’t this the video where a fleet of such objects was observed?

With this level of spin, one must question whether the military intentionally released this information to incite controversy. If they have knowingly released misleading information, we must ask: what is the broader agenda? Why invest millions over two decades in investigating UFOs? Why did Lue Elizondo and Christopher Melon have to resort to subterfuge to bring this evidence to light? What game is being played within the military's upper echelons?

If this is human technology, why not release all the footage instead of these brief, sanitized clips? The government has reused FOIA requests citing classification? Why? They can edit out sensitive content. What we want to see are the UFOs!

Your sources seem intent on downplaying this issue, only fueling conspiracy theories. Simply stating there is no evidence without naming names only adds to the fire. Furthermore, you cannot claim this is due to the fear of alerting the Chinese. Your article has already made that clear, Mr. Barnes. The Chinese can read English. The New York Times is a prime source of misinformation for them. When you know it’s misinformation, it becomes advantageous.

> "Pentagon analysts are still perplexed by some of the military-collected videos. In one case, an object hovers over water, moves erratically, and then darts away, creating challenges for officials attempting to explain it. However, analysts who have scrutinized that video, along with eyewitness accounts from aviators, are convinced it does not depict alien technology."

They are baffled, yet convinced. That’s an interesting contradiction.

> "Nonetheless, the Pentagon's or intelligence officials' attempts to dispel theories about extraterrestrial visitors have largely failed. The Pentagon has established and reorganized groups within the department to improve data collection regarding these incidents and provide clearer explanations."

“Efforts by the Pentagon or intelligence officials to stamp out theories about aliens have largely failed”... because it’s aliens!

“Efforts by the Pentagon or intelligence officials to stamp out theories about aliens have largely failed”... because the NSA, CIA, and FBI have perpetuated, encouraged, and toyed with the American public for the last 75 years.

The groups that have been established, dissolved, and re-established before our very eyes? You mean programs like Project Blue Book, Project Sign, the Condon Report, Project Grudge, Project Silver Bug, the Robertson panel, The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which fell under the ADVANCED AEROSPACE WEAPON SYSTEM APPLICATIONS PROGRAM (AWSWAP), The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF), and... I’m sure I’m forgetting a few.

The reason this issue persists is that it predates us—certainly long before the New York Times dares to discuss it in current articles. That would necessitate a degree of intellectual honesty, thorough academic research, and, frankly, just integrity.

> "Military officials have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the images depict extraterrestrial visitors—statements often downplayed by the media or overlooked by lawmakers. In May, Pentagon officials testified under oath that the government had not recovered materials from any extraterrestrial landings on Earth. Yet, this testimony did little to quell enthusiasm for theories surrounding alien visitors."

Once again, which military officials are making these claims? Are we talking about Jesse Marcel? Robert Salas? Lue Elizondo? Oh, those Pentagon officials who testified under oath? Are you referring to Scott Bray and Ronald Moultrie? They may be honorable individuals, but they lack knowledge about aliens. Moultrie's attempt to bond by mentioning his fondness for Star Trek fell flat.

Moultrie was questioned about Robert Salas's assertion that UFOs disabled nuclear missiles. He replied, “We didn’t study any outside sources.” How is that possible? He was unaware that our missiles had allegedly been deactivated? He stated it fell outside of his jurisdiction. The malfunction of our missiles does not fall under anyone's jurisdiction? Perhaps we should invite that person to Congress.

> "Publicly, military and intelligence officials have been hesitant to propose alternative theories, partly due to insufficient information, as seen in the case of the three videos, or because they wish to keep their surveillance knowledge confidential to avoid empowering China or other nations to conceal their activities more effectively."

Once again, with the Chinese spying narrative! How many times have we rung this bell from your article? I wonder how many angels have gotten their wings from this repetition. China knows we are aware, so let’s abandon this farce and return to discussing the aliens.

> "The inability to classify or explain many unidentified incidents has allowed UFO enthusiasts to argue that the government remains ignorant about these occurrences—thereby leaving open the possibility that aliens have visited the United States."

UFO enthusiasts often possess more knowledge on this matter than you do, sir. Let's engage in dialogue with your sources, as it’s evident you don’t know what questions to ask. Yet, yes, if your sources are Moultrie and Bray, they are not privy to the secret alien, Area 51, Cosmic Clearance narrative.

> "Intelligence officials concluded long ago that utilizing conspiracy theories as a facade for classified programs breeds distrust in the American government and paranoia."

It’s no longer paranoia when you catch the government in a lie, as seen when the 2017 New York Times article revealed the government was genuinely interested in and researching UFOs! The NSA, CIA, and FBI have acknowledged in writing that they infiltrated UFO groups with spies and spread misinformation. It takes a significant event, like witnessing a massive ship hovering over your residence in Phoenix during March 1997, to recognize a lie when the government claims it was merely military flares.

> "Some American officials believe that the secrecy surrounding Chinese surveillance of military installations risks fueling conspiracy theories and increasing distrust in a society that is increasingly divided."

If I had a bell, I would ring it morning and night, throughout the land... I would ring out justice, freedom, and love among my brothers and sisters... while also clarifying that it’s aliens, not the Chinese. Ooooh, oooh.

Mr. Barnes, are you hoping for a conflict with China? Do you harbor animosity toward the Chinese people?

> "We do not want potential adversaries to know precisely what we can detect or understand, or how we reach our conclusions," Mr. Bray stated. "Consequently, disclosures must be evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis."

“And so we act like bumbling fools on national television. You think I’m stumbling around for ten minutes because I lack PowerPoint skills or a tech-savvy assistant to help me prepare for a Congress presentation while the entire world observes? I’ll get some laughs, and the Chinese, who are far superior hackers than I, will lower their guard, and then we’ll catch them!”

After witnessing that debacle, I feel much better.

Reflection

As an armchair analyst, I recognize I may have misinterpreted certain aspects. I might have been overly critical of Mr. Barnes. I probably should extend kindness and praise to Bray and Moultrie. After all, they are merely the latest scapegoats. They have been tasked with sacrificing their credibility for the greater good, much like Jesse Marcel. The only distinction is that Marcel encountered aliens. Bray and Moultrie will likely never see the interesting parts of this story.

Even Congress is unlikely to be privy to the intriguing details, and whatever Bray and Moultrie present during closed-door sessions, you can bet the individuals controlling the UFO secrets have armed those two with misdirection. This is akin to the information they provided to Mr. Barnes.

Congress will not receive any substantial revelations from the individuals knowledgeable about extraterrestrial matters. Congress believes they still wield authority. They have not held power since the assassination of Kennedy, which was likely connected to UFOs as well.

But perhaps all of this rambling serves as evidence of a disturbed mind—a byproduct of an extensive campaign where the NSA, CIA, and FBI have utilized deception against their own citizens because they lost sight of the true enemy. Perhaps I, too, am just another misdirection agent in a long line of madness.