“Major things happening” - Matthew Pines
Matthew Pines, the Director of Intelligence at SentinelOne, spoke recently about the UAP Disclosure Act being resubmitted for the NDAA, and the “major things” that are coming this summer to support it, including Lue Elizondo’s book, two documentaries with new people backing David Grusch’s claims, and “someone everyone would recognize.”
- Matthew Pines is the Director of Intelligence at SentinelOne and a National Security Fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. He was recently interviewed on a podcast where he talked about the UAP Disclosure Act being reintroduced into this year’s NDAA, and what we can expect this summer. And he opened up with a bit of news that broke recently: AARO was involved in the effort to spike the UAPDA last year!
- “AARO tried to basically kill [the UAPDA]. They gave the defense department the ability to comment on the draft legislation and the Pentagon was like, red line out all the references to technologies of unknown origin, biological materials, and then give the role, that the Senate wanted to give to this independent review board, they wanted to give that role to AARO itself. It's like ‘oh you should just give it to this group inside the Pentagon to investigate the Pentagon.’”
- “The Senate's not buying it. They’re doubling down on the definitions and they specifically say that this legislation is necessary because credible evidence indicates that UAP records exist that have not been subject to mandatory declassification as a result of overbroad interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and a misapplication of Transnuclear Foreign Intelligence. Inside the Atomic Energy Act, there's provisions to classify special nuclear materials and Intelligence on foreign nuclear capabilities that we gather, that are not subject to the same sorts of disclosure and declassification procedures. The argument is that we've been compartmenting these programs in that apparatus of secrecy since the Manhattan Project.”
- “I'm not saying we have some anti-gravity super stuff, I'm just saying the fact that it hasn't diffused into our broader technological paradigm isn't proof that it doesn't exist, and it would likely be something that would complicate any disclosure effort. Because if we did have, say, technological platforms that we've weaponized, the gang of eight wouldn't want to harm the strategic advantage those systems give us.”
- “I think what's happening, you can infer from some of the statements that Senator Rounds, the lead co-sponsor of the bill has given, is he wants to have accountability and disclosure and transparency, but he doesn't want to harm National Security. I think they're pointing obliquely at the fact that they want to try to cleave those things. They want to try to ensure that there can be a necessary recognition of the core truth: The existence of non-human intelligence is not government information, it's a fact of reality. The capabilities of the US military to do things with certain aerospace platforms is government information that they definitely need to protect.”
- “So the problem is, maybe historically, as you would imagine, if we had certain technologies of unknown origin, well, of course what we would probably use them for is to inspire really advanced capabilities… So that would mean that the apparatus of secrecy, the compartments, the engineers, the whole structure, that the Senate is trying to get better accountability of, and then to selectively disclose in a controlled fashion, those are like conjoined twins, and of course the folks that have been managing those alleged Legacy programs have no interest in making that easy. They have every interest in basically saying these are so conjoined you cannot disclose really anything about this… without fundamentally compromising our national strategic advantage.”
- “The Senate has said in the bill, what's motivating this push for disclosure is the risk of technological surprise from our adversaries. We shouldn't assume we're the only ones that have such programs… and that would put a whole lot of anxiety behind the gang of eight like ‘wait a second, maybe it made sense to keep this a secret during the previous era, but now that China's potentially catching up, the game has changed, and the balance between disclosure and secrecy is different.’ So ensuring the public interest and fostering open science and technological research and development is an explicit objective they write as to why you need this records review board to foster transparency.”
- “So we're in this position now where, coming into the summer, there's going to be some major things happening. The objective, essentially, of the things that are going to happen the rest of this year, is to get as close to the full package that's in the UAPDA passed… They reintroduced it about two weeks ago and basically changed nothing… That will likely come to the similar sort of contention in conference committee later this year, probably November-December, where behind closed doors will be a debate about how much of this package will actually make it into law… So that’s the fight that’s happening now, and there's going to be a wave of of public discourse that's going to start next month in August that is designed to generate such momentum to push the UAPDA across the line.”
- “What's going to start this will be a book that's coming out by a gentleman named Lou Elizondo, who was kind of the original guy started this all in 2017. He helped get those videos out to the New York Times. He was an… absolute boss inside the Pentagon. He was a member of what's called the Intelligence Support Activity, kind of like Delta Force, but would go behind enemy lines to scout things out. He was a counterintelligence officer, counterterrorism officer, did a bunch of stuff, and was tapped to run the UFO program inside the Pentagon in 2008. So he's coming out with his tell-all book called Imminent in August. It’s gonna be a wild book, I’ll tell you that.”
- “Then there's going to be two documentaries coming out with people that no one's heard of yet, that are going to make pretty eye-opening claims, and those people will have the credentials to back those claims up. Basically, that everything David Grusch said, and essentially what the UAPDA says, which is that there are these legacy programs to retrieve and exploit, reverse engineer, technologies of unknown origin and biological materials. Those programs exist. The Senate legislation is premised on those programs existing. The purpose is to investigate those programs and to force the information and records and materials that they hold into a more formal and legitimate and accountable process, and to disclose certain elements of those programs to the public.”
- “I don't think the job is to say anything new, it's to get more senior people to say basically the same thing. David Grusch was sort of the first door opener to establish into the discourse this concept of retrieved craft and biological materials. That was like the ‘oh what?’ and you saw the people in Congress being like ‘what are you talking about.’ And then the Senate comes out with this bill that says ‘biological materials,’ ‘technologies of unknown origin,’ defines legacy programs. It ensures that nobody that's on this review board can be associated with the legacy programs… The objective this year, just to make it more practical, is to have more and more senior people come out ratifying those core statements, not going any further than that, and trying to hold the line to then trigger a formal process.”
- “Because what the folks pushing for disclosure don't want is what they call ‘catastrophic disclosure,’ which is the sort of uncontrolled spilling of all the stuff associated with this topic in a way that would cause social disruptions… The objective isn't to convince everyone at the same time. In fact, that's the exact opposite objective. Because if everyone all of a sudden went from thinking this isn't true to thinking it is true, well, you could have disruptive social effects. So the objective is to increase the number of people that think this is true by a few percentage points every few months… where you establish a sort of rolling consensus on these things.”
- ”I believe the coup de grâce will be coming sometime this year with someone that everyone would recognize, if they pay attention to the news.”
References
- What Bitcoin Did: Matthew Pines Interview
- That UFO Podcast: Matthew Pines Interview
- Douglas Dean Johnson: The proposed Pentagon/AARO rewrite of the 2023 UAPDA
Episode 51, posted on