“Catastrophic” UFO Disclosure

• Listen on Apple Podcasts
• Listen on Google Podcasts
• Listen on Spotify
• Watch on YouTube

In this episode we discuss the ongoing efforts in Congress to reconcile the NDAA, where top Republicans are fighting to water down Senator Schumer’s UAP Disclosure Amendment, especially the clause that gives the government eminent domain powers to claim any UFOs being held by private aerospace companies. We also look at why everyone’s using the phrase “catastrophic disclosure,” which comes from a leaked slide by retired Army Colonel Karl Nell, which outlines a gradual ten-year disclosure plan that would ease the public into accepting the reality of UAP.

UAP Disclosure Amendment at Risk

• We’ve talked before about the UAP Disclosure Amendment. Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, it’s an amendment attached to the NDAA to create a JFK-style review board with the goal of declassifying and disclosing all government records about UFOs.
• The Senate version of the NDAA, which included Schumer’s amendment, passed in July, and the House version, which included a more narrowly scoped amendment from Rep Burchett, also passed, so now there’s a formal process to reconcile the two versions.
• After Thanksgiving, it came out that a group of top House republicans were working to block the amendment. Rep Mike Turner (who represents the district of Ohio that contains Wright Patterson AFB) and Mike Rogers of Alabama, got the support of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.
• The reasons for their objections weren’t clear. At one point, there was reporting that they were arguing that this review board was too similar to AARO, and were demanding that AARO be defunded first.
• You might remember that the Schumer amendment includes an eminent domain clause that is designed to recover crashed UFOs from private aerospace companies.
  • Liberation Times reported “…widespread concerns surrounding eminent domain language, posing a risk of aerospace companies losing invaluable materials. It is understood that an alternative mechanism is being proposed to replace this language, allowing the release of materials without necessitating companies to relinquish custody.”
• There was also some confusion around Rep Burchette’s separate amendment, which requires the DoD to declassify military knowledge of UAP. The Republicans were arguing that these were competing, and pushing to only accept the narrower Burchett version, while Burchett himself said that his amendment was only intended to supplement the Schumer amendment, not replace it.
• There was even a bit of confusion where Rep Matt Gaetz was trying to argue that Schumer’s amendment wouldn’t release anything for 25 years, which isn’t quite right.
• On Thursday, Rep Luna held a press conference with Reps Burchett, Moskowitz, and Gaetz, pushing back, and talking about the need for disclosure.
  • Rep Luna: “I think that Schumer’s efforts here are probably the floor as to where we would like to see disclosure begin.”
  • Rep Burlison: “It’s time for Tim’s amendment to be passed and as well as the Schumer amendment….It’s my belief that both of them will put us in a better place.”
• A source with knowledge of the NDAA negotiations said: “We’ve got a problem. Russia or China may beat the United States to disclosing the facts around a non-human intelligence if we don’t get our act together fast. This should be motivation enough for Republican leadership to fight for the UAP Disclosure Act. They should be doing everything in their power to get it passed expeditiously. I’m baffled.”
• Daniel Sheehan, Lue Elizondo’s lawyer, who is involved in the process: “Mike Turner said we want the eminent domain provision out of here, and we want the subpoena power out of here. And when our people that were working on this responded to the statute by saying, ‘Why would you be so worried about the eminent domain provision if you don’t have any of the technology, as you keep on insisting?’ At which point they retreated to an abstract argument on behalf of libertarian values of not having to state, you know, overreach, and to be able to seize private property.”
• About a week ago, it looked really grim. People like Chris Mellon were encouraging everyone to call their representatives and put pressure on them. The vibe was very down, with lots of discussion about what to do when the Schumer amendment was axed. People like Garry Nolan talked about this being a process, and people like Daniel Sheehan and Jeremy Corbell strongly implied that first hand witnesses would go public if it failed.
• The good news is that since then, the mood has shifted, and there is more confidence now that it will pass, but may need some compromises. The latest news I’ve read sounds like the amendment will remain, with the presidential review board intact, but the eminent domain clause and the subpoena powers may be stripped. That said, this is changing on a nearly daily basis.

Sol Foundation

• Back in August, Dr Garry Nolan, a well-respected Stanford immunologist, who we’ve discussed before, formed a new think tank called the Sol Foundation. It was established to “research the philosophical, policy, and scientific implications” of UAP.
  • Members include:
  • Garry Nolan: exec director of the board
    • “Nolan said that he doesn’t have a line office or role with the company, since on account of his association with Stanford University he is not allowed to hold a position as the officer of a company outside of the university.”
  • Dr Peter Skafish (sociocultural anthropologist), director of research
  • Diana Walsh Pasulka (author of American Cosmic, religious studies professor): board member
  • Charles McCullough III (former ICIG, Grusch’s lawyer): legal council
  • David Grusch: senior founding advisor
    • We actually found this out when he testified to Congress, because his resume listed his current job as COO of the Sol Foundation!
    • Nolan, discussing the title change: “I think you have to understand that at the beginning of setting up any enterprise, everybody wears many hats. And so, to the extent that we had to give him a name or a goal or a purpose, that seemed the right thing at the time. Now, he’s a senior founding advisor. He’s a founder of the Sol Foundation, and each of us have different roles, and as we grow the organization we’ll start to name people into more specific roles as it seems fit.”
• About page: “The time has come for serious, well-funded, and cutting-edge academic research into the nature of UAP and their broad cosmological and political implications. Such a claim would have been beyond the pale of respectability just five years ago, but the U.S. government’s recent and continued acknowledgments of UAP have changed them from a subject unworthy of academic consideration into a scientific and intellectual problem of unfathomably broad stakes. Now that UAP are considered real enough by Congress to be addressed with federal legislation, we are forced to consider the broad consequences of this for the future of science, technology, economy, politics, law, religion, culture, and all other human institutions and endeavors.”
• Nolan, in the Debrief: “In a way, I want to make the discussion not only legitimate, but boring. I want to make this an academic discourse–a professional discourse–that people can engage in, in an area where they will not be ridiculed for coming up with an idea… We need to approach UAPs with the same methodology that I do with cancer research.”

Sol Foundation Symposium

• Now, the reason we’re talking about the Sol Foundation is that on November 17, they held their first annual symposium at Stanford, and invite-only two-day event that was like a who's-who of the UFO field.
  • Some notable speakers:
    • Dr Eric Davis (of Wilson memo fame)
    • Dr Avi Loeb (of the Galileo project)
    • Leslie Kean (of the NYT story)
    • Chris #UFODaddy Mellon (former deputy assistant secretary of defense)
    • Dr Jacques Vallée (legendary UFO researcher)
    • Karl Nell (retired Army colonel, liason to UAPTF, corroborated Grusch’s claims in the Debrief article)
    • and a secret unannounced speaker: David Grusch himself!
• They caught a bit of heat for not livestreaming, and asked attendees not to take photos or video. Nolan was reassuring people on Twitter that it was recorded and they’re going to release professionally edited video, they just didn’t want a serious academic conference to turn into a media circus.
• Attendee: “The scientists walked through excellent presentations that showed analysis and findings related to materials, physics, historical info, sensor data, etc. There wasn't any room for arguments because there wasn't speculation, only conclusive findings that were evident based on the data they had. Everyone did an excellent job establishing the following: ‘This is what the data says. Here are further questions we have. Also, we need more data plz?’”
• Attendee: “David Grusch was the surprise guest speaker from zoom.”
  • Grusch: “Let us advocate for transparency, not for ourselves, but for the generations to come, as we embark on a journey toward a more enlightened and interconnected world.”
  • He took some questions. He said reverse engineered tech has been integrated into conventional programs. He said that the phenomenon probably does not have a singular source.
• Attendee: “Chris Mellon spoke about his thought process regarding whether it was responsible to start the avalanche of disclosure. Overall, yes he thinks it is worth it, but I think he really struggled with the responsibility of pushing for disclosure.”
  • He turned his talk into an article where he outlines the arguments for and against disclosure from a national security perspective. In the end, he still concludes in favor of disclosure, but here’s an interesting concern he raises:
  • “What if disclosure precipitated a change in the behavior of an alien civilization, given that they no longer had an incentive to remain elusive and clandestine? What is the risk potential that disclosure might cause some governments to overreact, precipitating fearful and aggressive interactions? If these risks are substantial, does it still make sense to release such disruptive information?”
• Attendee: “Close to the end of the day, Hal Puthoff (a controversial scientist who’s been involved in remote viewing experiments, and helped found To The Stars Academy with Tom Delonge) told a story about his history with disclosure. He said that in 2004 he was invited to a conference, but the person wouldn't tell him what it was about, just that he'd be very happy if went. He decided to go, and when he arrived he saw some familiar faces in the CIA, DIA, and the military as well as some unfamiliar faces. About twenty people total. The leader of the meeting said to assume the US, Russia, and China all have recovered craft they are reverse engineering. They were brought together to consider the implications of disclosure. They started listing, in as much detail they could, all the potential effects from disclosure. For instance, if company A had tech that they reverse engineered, company B would sue them and the government. The stock market would go crazy. There would be impact on various religions, and on down the line. Once they got a full list they split into four groups and ranked a quarter each of the list from -9 to 9 depending on if they thought the effect would be net positive or negative. Even though most of the participants said they were pro-disclosure leading into the meeting, every group ended up with a negative total, so the group recommended against disclosure.”
• Attendee: “Karl Nell presented a dense DoD-style set of slides explaining the thought process behind the design of the Schumer amendment, including the political reality and purpose of the legislation and the definitions and use of the terms NHI, etc in the bill.”
  • He called for a 'UAP campaign plan' to compel transparency as well as 'a Manhattan Project' to successfully reverse engineer recovered UAP craft. He said he wanted transparency on covert UAP programs 'on or before conclusion of the decade.'
  • A photo of one of his slides, showing a potential timeline for disclosure, with milestones through 2034, leaked online and caused a bit of hubbub.
    • Redditor: “This isn't a plan for disclosure, it's a plan for researchers to figure out what these are and to be able to demonstrate they exist (not demonstrate to the public, but demonstrate scientifically, which is the normal demonstration phase found in the scientific model).”
  • The slide shows five phases, and the link is in the show notes if you want to look at it.
  • Well, actually six phases, but Phase 0: Shaping was marked as complete. It included NIDS, AAWSAP, AATIP, the NYT article, UAPTF, etc. All the recent UFO history stuff we’ve talked about since 2017.
  • Phase 1: Demonstrate Existence. Targeted at Jan 2024. Shows ongoing parallel “lines of effort” spread across four sectors: government, philosophy, science, and private sector. At this stage, the approach is reactive, and involves generating hypotheses, with the objective of government acceptance.
  • Phase 2: Correlate Signatures. Targeted at Jan 2025. Shows continued effort across all sectors, with the approach shifting to be more persistent and forensic, with the objective of academic acceptance.
  • Phase 3: Characterize Performance. Targeted at Oct 2030. Shows government effort ending at a decision point, with the approach shifting to be proactive and predictive, with the objective of public acceptance.
  • Phase 4: Determine Nature, Oct 2034, was marked as “after disclosure???” with the approach shifting to targeted and integrated, with the object of the “five Ws answered.”
  • Phase 5: Engagement, had no date associated, but showed the approach shifting to interactive and scientific discoveries, with the objective of the “strategic end-state.”
    • The strategic end-state of all the lines of effort had three points: Proper oversight restored, scientific understanding advanced, and catastrophic disclosure avoided.
    • Nell: “Catastrophic Disclosure is all the information being dumped out there by an adversary or a non-human intelligence, to create societal disruption.”
    • Nolan: “I don't think what the people behind the scenes realize is that the frustration that's boiling over, even from people inside, is just gonna cause a form of disclosure that is uncontrolled. A lot of things can go wrong if the information is put out in the wrong way. So Karl was trying to prepare the instruments of power, the instruments of government and society in a careful way, to accept the information more readily. It was 8-10 years or something like that. Some people didn't like that and said "That's ridiculous, it should be done immediately." It doesn't need to be done immediately, it needs to be done carefully. And that means you have to prepare the ground.”

References

• Liberation Times: Black Friday: Republican Leadership Takes Axe To UFO Transparency Legislation
• The Debrief: The Battle for UAP Disclosure in Washington
• The Debrief: UAP Disclosure Act Receives Pushback from Lawmakers on Capital Hill, as Bipartisan Fight for Transparence Continues
• About the Sol Foundation
• The Debrief: The Sol Foundation: How a New Think Tank of Academics is Applying ‘Cutting-Edge Research’ to the UAP Mystery
• Sol Foundation: First annual symposium event details
• StillChillTrill: Sol Symposium Overview
• JamesJ: Day one at the Sol Foundation symposium
• JamesJ: Day two at the Sol Foundation symposium
• Chris Mellon : Should the US Government reveal what it knows about UAP?
• Karl Nell: Disclosure timeline slide
• Karl Nell: “Catastrophic disclosure is… to create societal disruption.”
• Garry Nolan: “The frustration boiling over is gonna cause uncontrolled disclosure.”
• Daily Mail: Retired US Army Colonel says secret UFO projects should be made public by October 2030 - to beat America's rivals and get ahead of a 'catastrophic' leak

Episode 33, posted on December 3, 2023

• Previous: Kirkpatrick Retires, Speculative History of UFO Reverse Engineering
• Next: David Grusch Has Firsthand Knowledge