Mellon, Chris
: The Debrief,
: The Debrief, : The Debrief, In the past, extreme and excessive secrecy has been displayed in efforts to hide … unclassified or classified
UAP-related information, illustrated by the AARO predecessor’s UAP Security Classification
Guide, first distributed internally on le (see graphic below) which is itself heavily
redacted, removing most indications of the type of UAP report content requiring classification. This is a binding
secrecy regulation – don’t be fooled by the word guide
, it is absolutely mandatory. The secrecy regulation
specifically states that only a general statement of an increase in UAP sightings can be released to the public, and
without [releasing] any further information regarding when [or] where
a UAP sighting
[has] been reported
as that is classified. Additionally, the times and places
of UAP
detections are classified and are required to be “unspecified” and can’t be released; it is not “U”
(Unclassified) s1p. 6, subparagraphs. 4.1b-c.
The internal Pentagon talking points on the UAP subject are a gag order that specifically forbids DoD officials from
even revealing to the media and the public the fact that virtually everything
about UAP is unreleasable, citing
the above UAP Security Classification regulation (produced by AARO’s
predecessor, the UAP Task Force). Specifically, it states: Except for its
existence, and the mission/purpose, virtually everything else about the UAPTF
[UAP Task Force] is classified, per the signed Security Classification Guide.
Similar UAP security regulations no doubt are applied throughout the US Government. There is not one single item of government information about a UAP sighting that is not classified according to this secrecy regulation. Why is that? How can the US Government be transparent about UAP sighting incidents if nothing will be released? (See John Greenewald of The Black Vault, in "What’s NOT in AARO’s recent “Historical Record” UAP Report"? from his X/Twitter post on le ).
How can this be, when DoD itself confirmed, prior to the creation of this (excessive) classification guide, that the
three famous Navy UAP videos I provided the New York Times and Washington Post were unclassified, and their release
would not damage national security? In fact, by bringing a major intelligence failure occurring in US airspace to the
attention of policymakers, the public release of those videos clearly advanced national security. The bureaucratic
fiasco of this classification guide occurred despite a broad consensus in government, including among our military and
intelligence officials and members of Congress, that over-classification
is a major problem that needs to be addressed. As Avril Haines, the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) said in a letter to Congress in en , Over-classification of
government secrets both undermines national security by blocking the intelligence community’s ability to share
critical information and erodes the basic trust that our citizens have in their government.
Air Force intelligence agency efforts to … manipulate public opinion
on UAP since the 1950s are what caused
the harsh stigma attached to the entire UFO subject in society. But this powerful anti-UAP stigma is not investigated
or historically documented by AARO – or even mentioned – contrary to its
legal obligation (more on this below). In addition to the AF-instigated Robertson
Panel of en , and all that followed after it, there are even admissions by a retired USAF OSI
officer of allegedly spying on civilian UFO researchers and spreading disinformation on behalf of the Air Force.
The unclassified version of the historical AARO Report (AAROR) was released on le . But prior to that, AARO quietly released the report 2 days in advance to several friendly media outlets to cultivate favorable media coverage. These outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, faithfully carried the government’s message forward, apparently without consulting any of the scholars and researchers who could have helped them understand the report’s numerous errors, omissions, and shortcomings to provide a more balanced assessment. More objective reporting would have uncovered numerous major problems and serious errors in the AARO Report.
What follows are only a select few of the many issues and questions raised by the AARO Historical Report.