I previously wrote about preparing the general public for mass disclosure, how such a thing may be gone about, and some of the questions, challenges and complications involved.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently released a report called, “Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon [PDF]“
Unsurprisingly, the report’s tone comes off as dismissive, pointing the finger elsewhere than what the alternative information communities have called for, and is largely framed in a war-based context.
I really don’t have much of an assessment about the assessment other than can be drawn from the following questions:
- How long has everything in this report already been known within various portions of the intelligence community?
- What are the sources of information gathering for this report? What sources were known and weren’t included? Why? What about MUFON?
- Can previous credible US Government and Military reports be included in the data? If not, why not?
- What kind of action is being taken on suspected unknown sources for information gathering of this sort?
- What kind of inter-agency sharing was and wasn’t included in the report?
- Why such an emphasis on (technological) sensors?
- Who all would be spoofing observations and why?
- Who all is the authority on judging observer misperception and what is the criteria for their expertise?
- Why is language like “could be” and “may be” being used?
- What manner and extent of human intelligence and other forms of non-machine/mechanical/computational/AI/technological intelligence are and are not being used? Why?
- Hypothetically, if a non-violent force deemed a UAP was trying to end war and violence on a global/planetary level would this be considered a national security threat? Why or why not?
- What is the following sentence implying: “We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.” If data is lacking why assume and point this out? What does this indicate given the previously mentioned, “some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity”? Why the seeming contradiction? Why include such ambiguous statements?
- To what extent will normalizing “future collection, reporting, and analysis” promote biases and increase or decrease data quality? How is this known? What corrective countermeasures are being considered?
- To what extent do certain personnel with certain clearances already have access to the recommendations and outcomes of everything mentioned in this report and beyond?
- To what extent could this task force be an experiment for other intelligence programs and/or a front program for what kinds of agendas by whom all?
So is this report a tiptoe towards disclosure? How does, and how doesn’t, and how could this all relate to various spiritual paths and meditation practices?