Can the Senate Intelligence Committee Finally Uncover the CIA’s UFO Program?
The establishment of a new congressional task force aimed at collaborating with the executive branch on declassification is a promising step forward. However, it’s time for a hard look at why the Senate has been withholding crucial information from whistleblowers like Grusch, Eric Davis, and other witnesses who have spoken out about the crash retrieval program.
Here’s a snapshot of what the Senate already knows: In the recently proposed UAPDA legislation spearheaded by Chuck Schumer and the Intelligence Committee, they acknowledge the existence of witnesses and evidence showing that the executive branch has exploited loopholes in the Atomic Energy Act to conceal UFO-related information from Congress for decades. They have classified testimonies from Grusch detailing his investigation’s findings. Additionally, Eric Davis’s insights about the transfer of UFO technology from Lockheed Martin to AAWSAP, which I previously covered here, further highlight their knowledge on the topic. Jake Barber testified about his over 20 years of experience with the crash retrieval program. Marco Rubio, a committee member, stated that numerous high-ranking officials have testified to the committee from firsthand experience. Lawyer Danny Sheehan, celebrated for defending journalists’ rights to publish the Pentagon Papers, represents UFO whistleblowers. He mentioned in an interview (at the 50:00 mark) that the Intel Committee is aware of the UFO recovered from the Roswell crash in 1947, which was taken to Wright Patterson. He also revealed that the committee has learned about a group formed in the 1950s, akin to Majestic 12, to oversee these matters. They are aware of documented UFO landings at Holleman AFB, yet access to the footage remains
Your post raises some compelling points about the Senate Intel Committee’s investigation into the CIA’s UFO program and the broader issues of accountability and transparency within the intelligence community. The parallels you draw between past scandals, such as the CIA’s torture program and the current UFO investigations, highlight a troubling pattern of oversight failures and a lack of real consequences for those in power.
It’s frustrating to see that despite the significant testimony and evidence presented by credible whistleblowers like David Grusch and Eric Davis, the Senate’s actions appear to lack urgency and transparency. The fear of compromising ongoing operations or the pressure from powerful corporate interests seem to shape their decisions more than a commitment to truth and accountability.
You also touch on an important aspect: the Senate does have avenues to move forward and disclose information, regardless of its classification. The speech and debate clause provides a rare opportunity for lawmakers to speak freely about their findings and confront the intelligence community. Yet, it raises the question of whether any members are willing to take that risk.
The skepticism towards figures like Kirsten Gillibrand, who initially appeared committed to uncovering the truth, reflects a broader sentiment that the system may not be as designed to serve the public interest as it should be. Her apparent shift towards more ambiguous inquiries seems out of sync with the evidence available and raises doubts about her commitment to the cause.
Ultimately, without more transparency from the Senate Intel Committee, the public is left in the dark about critical issues that could impact national security and our understanding of extraterrestrial phenomena. The longer they withhold information, the more distrust they foster in the institutions that are meant to protect and inform us. It will be crucial for voters to insist on accountability and transparency, pushing for a system that prioritizes truth over complicity.