|
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), long considered a bastion of serious journalism, as readers know recently published a two-part series on UFOs/UAP. For those of us paying attention to these matters, on its face it, prior to the read it was presumed given |
By The UFO Chronicles
6-30-2025 |
At the heart of Greenewald’s critique lies the assertion that the WSJ framed the entire UAP issue as an orchestrated disinformation campaign—primarily by the U.S. military to mask classified aerospace technologies. This framing is not novel; Cold War-era narratives often suggested that UAP sightings were encouraged to conceal stealth aircraft like the U-2 or SR-71.
What is problematic, Greenewald contends, is not the inclusion of this hypothesis but its presentation as the primary explanatory model, unsupported by robust sourcing. The series leaned heavily on anecdotal recollections, such as a story of an Air Force colonel allegedly planting fake UFO photos in a Nevada bar. According to Greenewald, such stories were offered without corroborating documentation, effectively reducing decades of global UAP data to the level of rumor and myth.
Perhaps the most serious allegation Greenewald levels against the WSJ is the deliberate omission of government-verified documentation. According to Greenewald, he provided the paper’s reporters with hundreds of pages of primary source material—obtained legally through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)—showing long-term, classified interest in UAPs across multiple agencies including the DIA, CIA, NSA, and DoD.
These “heavily redacted and classified UFO specific documents” span decades before and beyond Project Blue Book’s official closure in 1969. Greenewald emphasizes that if UAPs were nothing more than Cold War-era misidentifications or misinformation, such persistent classification—well into the 2000s and beyond—would make little logical sense.
By omitting these materials, the WSJ not only narrowed the scope of the article but arguably misled its readers about the state of official knowledge and concern. The result is a narrative vacuum—one that falsely suggests there is no "there" there, when in fact substantial government documentation confirms otherwise.
The WSJ series introduced a claim about “Yankee Blue,” an alleged Air Force hazing ritual in which personnel were tricked into believing they were part of a classified UAP retrieval program. The articles claimed this practice was so persuasive that it led individuals to whistleblow under false assumptions, and that even Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines was briefed and stunned by the discovery.
While intriguing, Greenewald sought to verify this account by filing multiple FOIA requests with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) and other oversight agencies. As of his broadcast, no records confirming investigations or official documentation of Yankee Blue were found.
Again, the WSJ’s failure to corroborate this sensational claim—or even provide the alleged memo—violates basic journalistic standards. In the absence of documentation, presenting such narratives as fact risks crossing the line from skepticism to disinformation by omission.
Another significant gap in the WSJ reporting was the failure to address documented incidents of UFO/UAP incursions over nuclear facilities and military installations, both in the U.S. and internationally. Greenewald referenced declassified reports from the 1970s describing encounters with unidentified helicopters and craft over Strategic Air Command bases and nuclear storage facilities.
Whether these were terrestrial, foreign adversary, or genuinely unknown in origin, they represent verifiable, unresolved cases involving national security infrastructure. The WSJ not only ignored these cases but also failed to investigate how often UAP sightings involve highly restricted airspace—an analytical dimension critical to any good-faith inquiry.
Instead, the paper chose to cast doubt on one well-known nuclear incident involving Robert Salas in 1967, by citing an EMP weapons test document that was not contemporaneous with the event and appears to misalign with the technological timeline. No sourcing or technical analysis was provided to support the implication that EMP testing could explain the missile shutdowns.
Greenewald also highlights a double standard in how evidence is weighed. Critics of whistleblowers like David Grusch and Luis Elizondo often decry the lack of hard documentation supporting their claims. Yet many of those same critics celebrated the WSJ article, which itself provided no documentation to substantiate its central claims about misinformation campaigns, safe contents, or hazing rituals.
Perhaps the most important theme in Greenewald’s video-editorial is the misplaced trust in journalistic prestige. The Wall Street Journal, he notes, is a masthead that commands credibility. But when that reputation is used to publish poorly sourced claims under the guise of investigative reporting, it becomes a vehicle for institutional bias rather than public service.
Greenewald makes clear that the WSJ had every opportunity to tell a more complete, balanced story. They had interviews with researchers, access to primary source documentation, and ample time to investigate claims. That they did not reflects not a lack of information, but a lack of editorial will.
The call for UFO/UAPs transparency has been extant since the birth of modern day Ufology in 1947. Conversely, this is goal has been led by independent researchers, such as John Greenewald and or Independent UFO organizations along the way—the Fourth Estate which should be the spearhead in this endeavor has been a hindrance at best and or erroneous propaganda machine at its worst. The Wall Street Journal’s recent articles, as criticized by John Greenewald continue in this vein.
The call for UFO/UAPs transparency has been extant since the birth of modern day Ufology in 1947. Conversely, this is goal has been led by independent researchers, such as John Greenewald and or Independent UFO organizations along the way—the Fourth Estate which should be the spearhead in this endeavor has been a hindrance at best and or erroneous propaganda machine at its worst. The Wall Street Journal’s recent articles, as criticized by John Greenewald continue in this vein.
They present a narrow hypothesis (disinformation) as definitive explanation. They ignore decades of declassified documentation. They promote unverified anecdotes over publicly available evidence. And they selectively report claims that align with their narrative, while excluding equally credible counterpoints.
In doing so, the WSJ has not advanced the public conversation—it has obscured it. And that is perhaps the greatest disservice of all: Not the conclusion the paper drew, but the conversation it chose not to have.
As Greenewald reminds us, skepticism is not the rejection of possibility. It is the insistence on evidence—consistently applied, transparently sourced, and fairly examined. That principle must guide all inquiry into UFOs/UAPs, from FOIA requests to front-page stories. Anything less is not journalism. It’s misdirection.
VISIT THE BLACK VAULT'S SITE ►
See Also:
Analysis of “Was It Scrap Metal or an Alien Spacecraft?” (WSJ)
UFOs and Nukes Researcher Robert Hastings Refutes WSJ Article The UFOs-Nukes Connection Press Conference: Witness Affidavits and Declassified Documents
REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
No comments :
Post a Comment
Dear Reader/Contributor,
Your input is greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM, non-related links, etc).
Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments/comments to the issues and subject matter of this article and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW