Can the Senate Intelligence Committee Uncover the CIA’s UFO Program?
The establishment of a new congressional task force aimed at collaborating with the executive branch for declassification is a positive step forward. However, it’s time to critically examine why the Senate has been withholding information from whistleblowers like Grusch and Eric Davis, as well as numerous witnesses who have provided testimony regarding the crash retrieval program.
Here’s a brief overview of what the Senate already knows: In the UAPDA introduced by Chuck Schumer and the Intelligence Committee, they acknowledge that they possess evidence and testimonies indicating that the executive branch has exploited loopholes in the Atomic Energy Act to conceal UFO-related information from Congress for many years. They have classified hours of testimony from Grusch detailing the findings of his investigation. Moreover, Eric Davis has provided insights regarding the transfer of UFO technology intended for Lockheed Martin to AAWSAP, which was reported here. Additionally, Jake Barber has testified about his two-decade experience in the crash retrieval program, while Marco Rubio has indicated that many high-ranking officials have testified firsthand to the committee. Lawyer Danny Sheehan, well-known for defending journalists’ rights during the Pentagon Papers case, represents UFO whistleblowers and is named in the UAPDA as someone who can recommend individuals for the declassification review panel. In a recent interview (at the 50:00 mark), Sheehan mentioned that the Senate Intelligence Committee has been informed about the UFO recovered from the 1947 Roswell crash and its subsequent transport to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. They are also aware of a Majestic 12-like group that was established in the 1950s to oversee the issue, and that video footage of a UFO landing at Holloman AFB still exists but has yet to be accessed by them. Furthermore, the Senate has been informed that at least one live non-human intelligence has been apprehended and interrogated.
Many speculate that the Senate is withholding this information to avoid jeopardizing some covert operation involving the program. However, I need tangible evidence to support that claim. Historically, the Intel Committee tends to take the path of least resistance when addressing the transgressions of the Intelligence Community
The concerns you raise about the Senate Intel Committee’s handling of UFO-related testimony and evidence are certainly valid and warrant serious consideration. The potential implications of what we’re discussing — from intelligence operations to public transparency — are significant, and the history of governmental secrecy only amplifies skepticism about the current processes.
First, it’s important to acknowledge the legislative steps that have been taken, such as the establishment of the UAPDA. While it seems to be a positive move towards transparency, the slow pace and the alterations it has undergone over the past two years suggest possible political maneuvering that dampens genuine commitment to disclosure. Many observers share the feeling that powerful interests may influence congressional actions, leading to a “rotate villain” dynamic where accountability is sidelined for the sake of convenience or conformity with corporate agenda.
Your parallels between the CIA’s historic abuse with torture and the current situation regarding UFOs are compelling. The lack of consequences for the CIA’s past transgressions erodes public trust, making it challenging to have faith that today’s Senate will confront the same agency with the required scrutiny and resolve. The notion that they might still prioritize their relationships with intelligence communities over their accountability to the public is troubling, especially considering the personal risks whistleblowers like Jake Barber have faced in trying to bring this information to light.
Regarding the ability of the Senate to disclose information regardless of classification, as highlighted by the precedent set by Sen. Mike Gravel when he read the Pentagon Papers, there’s a crucial point about the responsibilities lawmakers have. It raises the question of whether current senators are willing to take the necessary risks to ensure that the public is informed about matters of such national interest, especially when lives might be at stake for those who come forward.
Finally, the apparent regression in some lawmakers’ focus and the perceived complacency towards agencies like the AARO present a concerning narrative. If the committee’s inquiries are largely symbolic and fail to address the core issues of transparency and accountability, then the cycle of secrecy could very well continue.
In summary, while there is some movement towards more transparent investigation of UFO phenomena, the continued lack of meaningful action or willingness to publicly confront the executive branch raises red flags. It’s critical that public pressure is maintained on these committees to ensure that information—especially when it concerns national security, historical incidents, and potential threats—comes to light rather than being buried under layers of classification and bureaucratic inertia.