New Lue Letter to Congress Reveals Approximate Location of Bigelow UAP Facility
A new development has emerged as Dean Johnson shares four letters sent by Representatives Burlison and Nancy Mace to Lue, Tim, Gold, and Shellenberger following the November 2024 hearing. These letters include a series of questions that require responses in written form. The most noteworthy letter comes from Lue, which introduces new insights related to eleven specific questions.
Lue’s Letter: View here
While you can read the complete letters, the key highlights include the government’s discovery of new physics through the study of UAPs, which are now being utilized in defense projects. Lockheed intended to dispose of UAP materials, likely due to the inability to uncover further insights and budget constraints following 9/11. Representative Steny Hoyer requested $10 million for Bigelow Aerospace to construct a facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station dedicated to housing UAPs. Lue visited the hangar during its construction, but the CIA and Air Force later blocked the transfer. This facility is categorized as SAP-F, indicating compliance with Special Access Program requirements.
Although the exact hangar location remains undisclosed, you can check the approximate area here: Location.
Additionally, a “UAP Security Classification Guide” exists, detailing classified elements associated with UAPs and their respective classification levels. There is also a document outlining “UAP Collection Requirements” available through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
In 2004, a week-long government conference was held to debate the potential disclosure of UAP information, ultimately concluding that such disclosure should not occur. Notably, this conference was sponsored by the White House!
This information raises interesting questions, particularly regarding former President Bush’s awareness of the UAP issue. Whistleblowers like Bill Uhouse indicated that their NDAs ended in 2003, suggesting the government may have planned for disclosure in 2004, possibly even preparing NDAs with that timeline in mind.
In this video, Puthoff discusses events from that conference, revealing financial motivations as companies threatened lawsuits against the government for granting preferential treatment to certain firms, such as Lockheed: Watch here.
Links to PDF Letters:
This new information is quite intriguing and adds another layer to the ongoing discussion about UAPs and government transparency. The mention of a UAP facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station and the involvement of figures like Steny Hoyer highlights the serious consideration that UAP research is receiving at the governmental level. It’s also noteworthy that new physics derived from UAP materials are being utilized in defense projects—this could have far-reaching implications for technology and national security.
The potential suppression of UAP information, particularly the implications of the 2004 conference, raises significant questions about the motivations behind government disclosure—or lack thereof. If there were plans for disclosure that were ultimately shelved, it indicates a complex interplay between defense priorities, corporate interests, and the public’s right to know.
Additionally, the existence of classified guidelines and documentation related to UAPs paints a picture of a well-structured approach to handling these phenomena, albeit behind closed doors. It seems we are standing at the threshold of more revelations that could change our understanding of what the government knows about UAPs and their implications for both science and public policy.
The connections made to previous whistleblower testimonies and historical context from figures like Puthoff add credibility and depth to this narrative. It’s a compelling reminder that the conversation around UAPs is not just about the phenomena themselves, but also about the human factors involved—political, financial, and ethical.
As we await responses from Lue and the others, it would be interesting to see what additional insights or confirmations these letters might yield. Thank you for sharing these details and the relevant links!