UFO Revelations by Former Senior CIA Officer Jim Semivan

In a remarkable July 2025 interview with Chris Lehto on "Lehto Files," former CIA Operations Officer Jim Semivan delivered what may be the most candid assessment of the UAP phenomenon ever provided by a senior intelligence official. After 34 years in the CIA,

By The UFO Chronicles 2025

including 25 years as an operations officer in the National Clandestine Service, Semivan's central message is both sobering and profound: "We don't know what the phenomenon is."

This isn't a statement born of ignorance, but rather the honest admission of someone who has seen classified evidence, has interacted with people in the legacy programs studying UAPs for eight decades, and personally experienced the phenomenon that has baffled the world's most sophisticated intelligence apparatus.

The Life-Changing Encounter

Semivan's journey from UAP skeptic to insider began with a personal experience in the early 1990s that fundamentally altered his worldview. What he describes as a "typical encounter" involved classic abduction scenario elements: awakening immobilized in bed to find three entities at the foot of his bed, described as resembling "Bibendum" (the Michelin tire man) but in black armor rather than white. The experience included fragmented memories of being outside his house with his wife, observing three orbs in the sky that merged into one before shooting away.

More significantly, both Semivan and his wife experienced unexplained physical effects. His wife suffered from unexplained bleeding for 17 days, while Semivan discovered a perfectly round hole "the size of a pencil eraser" on the back of his neck. When he shared this experience with a deep-cover CIA officer, the colleague immediately asked about bleeding and neck marks, revealing an internal awareness within the intelligence community about such phenomena.

This encounter connected Semivan to what he describes as "the invisible college" - a network of intelligence professionals, military personnel, and scientists who have been quietly studying UAPs within the government for decades.

The Intelligence Community's Eight-Decade Struggle

Perhaps the most revelatory aspect of Semivan's testimony concerns the intelligence community's long-standing engagement with UAPs. According to Semivan, the phenomenon has been studied by government programs since the 1940s, with the CIA and Air Force taking the lead after President Truman's National Defense Act of 1947. The Roswell incident, occurring near a nuclear facility, marked the beginning of what would become an eight-decade investigation.

The startling revelation: despite all this time, resources, and access to classified evidence, the intelligence community remains fundamentally baffled. Semivan emphasizes that even those with "cosmic clearances" - the highest levels of security access - admit they don't understand the phenomenon. They may possess "downed craft" and "startling" photographic evidence, but the essential nature of what they're dealing with remains a mystery.

The Phenomenon as a "Wicked Problem"

Semivan characterizes UAPs as the ultimate "wicked problem" - a term from systems theory describing issues with so many interconnected elements that they become essentially unsolvable1. Unlike poverty or climate change, which are complex but theoretically addressable, the UAP phenomenon presents challenges that transcend our current scientific, philosophical, and sociological frameworks.

The phenomenon appears to be multidisciplinary, involving not just aerospace technology but consciousness, quantum mechanics, biology, sociology, and spirituality. It demonstrates what Semivan describes as "25th-century physics" to our 21st-century understanding. The entities involved appear to possess capabilities that suggest reality itself might be malleable, including the ability to:

• Control human consciousness and plant memories
• Operate with apparent omniscience
• Manipulate physical reality in ways that defy known physics
• Remain "classically indifferent" to human concerns while demonstrating godlike capabilities

The Catastrophic Disclosure Dilemma

One of the most thought-provoking aspects of Semivan's testimony concerns the dangers of disclosure. He distinguishes between "limited disclosure" and "catastrophic disclosure," with the latter involving a presidential announcement revealing the full extent of government knowledge about non-human intelligences.

The potential consequences of such disclosure are staggering. Semivan cites studies suggesting that if 25% of the population becomes sick, ill, or simply disassociates from reality, civilization could collapse - food production would cease, essential services would fail, and social order would break down. The psychological impact of learning that humanity is not at the top of the food chain, that we may be viewed as "property" by superior intelligences, could be devastating.

Furthermore, catastrophic disclosure would create an information vacuum that would be filled by unreliable sources. Without complete answers from the government, public figures, experiencers, and various media personalities would shape the narrative, potentially creating "new religions" based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

The Phenomenon's Control Over Disclosure

Perhaps most unsettling is Semivan's suggestion that the phenomenon itself may be controlling the disclosure process. He describes the entities as "classically indifferent" to humanity while possessing capabilities that appear godlike. This indifference, combined with their apparent control over when and how they reveal themselves, suggests that any disclosure timeline may not be entirely in human hands.

The phenomenon's relationship with nuclear technology is particularly concerning. Semivan notes its "affinity for nuclear material," pointing to incidents at nuclear facilities worldwide. This pattern suggests either a monitoring function or a more active intervention in human affairs related to our most destructive capabilities.

The Deeper Reality Question

Semivan's most philosophical observations concern the nature of reality itself. Drawing parallels to quantum mechanics, he suggests that our understanding of physical reality may be fundamentally flawed. If quantum physicists tell us that space is mostly empty and reality is based on probabilities rather than mechanistic certainties, what does this say about the nature of consciousness and existence?

The phenomenon appears to exist at the intersection of the physical and consciousness, suggesting that our materialistic, mechanistic worldview may be incomplete. Some individuals, through mystical experiences or psychedelic substances like DMT, seem to access similar non-ordinary states of consciousness where contact with non-human intelligence occurs.

The Positive Potential of Disclosure

Despite his concerns about catastrophic disclosure, Semivan acknowledges significant potential benefits. Full disclosure could:

• Generate entirely new academic disciplines • Revolutionize our understanding of physics, consciousness, and reality
• Provide humanity with its "real history" and birthright to truth
• Unite humanity against an external challenge (echoing Ronald Reagan's famous speculation)
• Validate the experiences of countless individuals who have encountered the phenomenon

The challenge lies in achieving these benefits while minimizing the risks of social collapse and psychological trauma.

The Intelligence Professional's Perspective

Throughout the interview, Semivan provides insights into the culture and operations of the CIA that illuminate why the UAP issue has been handled as it has. The intelligence community operates on a strict need-to-know basis, with information compartmentalized to prevent unauthorized disclosure. Presidents typically receive general briefings but may not access the most classified "second part" of briefings without extensive waivers and commitments.

The CIA's mission to "prevent another Pearl Harbor" means that phenomena demonstrating superior capabilities must be studied, regardless of how little they're understood. However, the agency's inability to develop effective responses or countermeasures after eight decades of study speaks to the phenomenon's truly anomalous nature.

A Call for Cautious Courage

Semivan's ultimate position is one of cautious support for disclosure. He doesn't oppose revealing the truth but emphasizes the need for responsible management of the process. He quotes T.S. Eliot: "Humankind cannot bear very much reality", suggesting that the timing and method of disclosure are crucial considerations.

His advice to researchers and podcasters like Lehto is to continue their work, as open dialogue is essential for preparing humanity for whatever revelations may come. He advocates for exploring "corollary areas" - mysticism, consciousness studies, near-death experiences, and other phenomena that might provide context for understanding our place in a larger, more complex reality.

The Meaning of Being Human

In concluding his remarkable testimony, Semivan reflects on what it means to be human in the face of such overwhelming mysteries. Drawing from Aldous Huxley's deathbed words, he emphasizes the importance of kindness and compassion. Perhaps in acknowledging our limitations and embracing our humanity, we can better prepare for whatever truths about the phenomenon may eventually emerge.

Conclusion: The Honest Unknown

Jim Semivan's interview represents a watershed moment in UAP disclosure - not because it provides definitive answers, but because it offers something perhaps more valuable: an honest assessment of the limits of human knowledge when confronted with the truly unknown. After 34 years in the CIA and decades of studying the phenomenon, his central message remains: "We don't know what the phenomenon is."

This admission, coming from someone with access to the most classified information available, should humble us all. It suggests that the path forward requires not just scientific rigor and government transparency, but also philosophical humility and psychological preparation for realities that may challenge our most fundamental assumptions about existence itself.

The phenomenon, whatever it is, appears to be both ancient and ongoing, both physical and consciousness-related, both indifferent to humanity and deeply involved in our affairs. Understanding it may require not just new science, but new ways of thinking about reality, consciousness, and our place in the cosmos.

As Semivan suggests, we may be living in what he calls a "consensus reality" rather than the true reality. The question is whether humanity is ready to discover what lies beyond the veil of our current understanding - and whether we can handle the truth when it finally emerges.

See Also:

CIA Veteran Discloses Alien Abduction During Knapp Interview

	Pascagoula Alien Abduction: Multiple, New Witnesses Come Forward
	UFOs and Nukes Researcher Reveals His Alien Abduction Encounters
	Seeking USAF Veterans Who Had Abduction-Like Experiences at Nuclear Missile Sites

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

USAF Security Policeman Sights Orbs Near ICBM Launch Site

Between 1973 and 2010, I interviewed 167 former/retired US military personnel regarding their nuclear weapons-related UFO encounters. More than a hundred of those accounts were presented in the second edition of my book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. [ad] Since 2010, I’ve more or less ceased investigating the topic, primarily due to advancing age. Recently, however, another military veteran contacted me after reading a post by Joe Murgia on X (@TheUfoJoe) regarding my work. I was of course interested in what he had to say.

By Robert Hastings The UFO Chronicles 7-8-2025

Former US Air Force Security Policeman Devin C. Lingo emailed me and briefly summarized an incident he witnessed while stationed at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in 1995, involving two orbs maneuvering near a Minuteman-III nuclear missile launch facility (LF).

I asked Lingo to provide me with his DD214 document, which is a Department of Defense record of his military service. It confirmed that he had been stationed at Malmstrom beginning in February 1995, and had been a Security Police/Security Forces member assigned to the 12th Missile Squadron.

Once his bona fides had been established, I called Lingo. He told me,

At the time, I was an Airman, a trainee, preparing to become a full-fledged member of an Alert Response Team (ART). The person supervising my training was an Airman 1st Class named Brent Mullings. Our particular group of ARTs would rapidly respond to alarms at any of the Fox Flight missile sites, to determine whether or not there was a real security threat.

On the day of my sighting, we had six alarms at one LF! That was a record, at least for me, during the years that I worked there. The site was Launch Facility Fox-2, located on Pishkun Road, just west of the town of Choteau, Montana.

The first Outer Zone alarm came in around 6:00 p.m. We quickly proceeded out there to investigate. Our alarms were triggered by the sensors on the IMPSS pole at each site. That’s the Improved Minuteman Physical Security System, which is basically a motion-detection system. Almost all of the time, an alarm was set-off by a wild animal or something like that.

That evening, we discovered a rabbit inside the fence. I tried to scare it away by throwing rocks at it, but it kept hiding inside a culvert. Eventually we left but, over the next several hours, we had to return five more times to reset the alarms.

I asked Lingo why they didn’t just shoot the rabbit. He responded, “The only way we had to kill it was with our duty weapons—M-16 A2 rifles—and that wasn't an option. Had we returned to base after our [shift] and turned-in our weapons to the armory with missing rounds, it would have been a big deal. Also, I personally wouldn't have felt good about killing a rabbit over an alarm.”

He continued,

My orb sighting took place during our last visit, at roughly 4:00 a.m. I had gotten out of the truck and was standing on the site access road. As I was facing west towards the Rockies, in my peripheral vision I saw a small reddish glow in the sky. For a moment, I thought that it might be the Northern Lights.

I turned my head to the right and immediately saw that it was actually a small, glowing object, just hovering there. I couldn’t tell how far away it was. As I was trying to figure out what I was looking at, another object just like it, but blue in color, suddenly appeared. It was to the left of the red one. They were very close together, from my perspective, and at the same altitude. Both seemed to shimmer as if they were energized somehow.

I was stunned! I had no idea what I was looking at. After a few seconds, the red object blinked-out. Gone, just like that. A second or two later, the blue object shot straight up into the sky and instantly disappeared. There was no noise.

During this final alarm of the night, Brent felt sorry for me because I had already conducted the five previous searches, so he decided to run the final one himself. So I just stood there on the LF access road, covering him and giving status-updates to our Flight Security Controller on the two-way radio.

During the time-frame when I noticed the orbs, Brent was doing his detailed search on the LF. His focus would have been on searching the ground within the fence with his flashlight. I’m sure that he didn’t see them.

I was the new guy, the trainee, so I quickly decided that I wouldn’t mention what I saw to Brent, or anyone else. I was afraid that they would think I was crazy. I was worried about losing my PRP.

(RH: Anyone assigned to work with or around nuclear weapons is subject to a Department of Defense directive known as the Personnel Reliability Program, or PRP. An individual whose conduct, on or off-the-job, is judged by his or her superiors to be suspect and, therefore, a potential threat to the weapons, may be ordered to undergo psychological evaluation and risks being relieved of duty. In short, if one wishes to continue working with nuclear weapons while serving in the U.S. Air Force, reporting a UAP is definitely not a good career move. Unfortunately, this situation has undoubtedly resulted in a great many sightings at ICBM sites going unrecorded over the years, something arguably detrimental to US national security.)

Lingo continued,

So, that’s where I left things. I never talked about the incident, but I sure wondered about what I had seen! I don't believe that any other members of my squadron ever mentioned seeing anything strange in the sky. Even if someone had seen something out of the ordinary, there's a high probability that they would never have reported it out of fear of ridicule.

The only other sighting that I'd heard rumors about happened on the east side of Malmstrom, which would have been the 10th Missile Squadron or the 490th Missile Squadron. I was told that sometime during the years prior to 1995, a couple of Security Policemen were at a launch facility when some sort of triangular craft started hovering above them. I don't have any information on how long the encounter lasted or what the fallout was.

Lingo may have been referring to an incident at Alpha Flight, as described to me in 2003 by former Security Policeman Joseph M. Brown. One spring night in 1992, his two-man team, and a second team located a few miles away, observed a bright object erratically racing around the sky for several minutes. At some point, the men became unnerved by what they were seeing and began anxiously discussing the sighting with each other over the radio, whereupon the Alpha Flight Security Controller, who had been listening-in on the tense exchange, broke into the conversation and asked about the situation.

Finally, the aerial object instantly stopped in mid-air and remained stationary. As the sun rose, the craft’s triangular shape could be seen through binoculars. Then it disappeared. When the two teams returned to base, they were debriefed by their commander and pointedly told that any further mention of the UFO would jeopardize their PRP status. This incident is covered at length in my book. [ad]

Lingo said that after leaving the Air Force he had consulted the state-by-state UAP-sighting database at The National UFO Reporting Center website, to learn whether any sighting report in Montana in 1995 might have matched his own.

He told me, “On 9/25/1995 there were two sightings in the towns of Ronan and Polson. One of them states that there were red and blue strobing lights observed. The other just says that the witness saw lights. Both reports stated that the objects were in the eastern sky. Both towns are many miles west of Choteau, at roughly the same latitude, just on the opposite side of the Rocky Mountains. I had been just west of Choteau myself, so what those witnesses reported could have been what I saw. I’ve often wondered whether those sightings related to my incident.”

VISIT ROBERT's SITE ►

See Also:

	UFOs Have Closely Monitored US Missile Tests Since the 1940s
	AARO Interviews 'UFOs and Nukes' Witnesses
	UFO Activity at Nuclear Weapons Sites, Including Disabling Ballistic Missiles

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

UFO Cultism at the Wall Street Journal?

"The 'just isn't possible' cult (yes, CULT) of editors and reporters is alive and well among what fragments remain of real, hard-hitting journalism in the USA ..."

By now it's easy-peasy to regard George Adamski's alleged flying saucer photos and wild tales as the concoctions they were, and I certainly have no less curiosity in what drives "contactees" such as Buck Nelson, who enthralled us -- make that a specifically narrow segment of us -- with his adventures as laid out in his obscure book, My Trip to Mars, the Moon and Venus. The "space brother" cult enjoyed a veritable field day of public interest during the 1950s, is probably gone for good, but one should never say never.

By Robert Barrow The UFO Chronicles 7-6-2025

However, as if smacked with behemoth-sized bird droppings from the sky, UFO research is suddenly drenched with poisonous excretions from something of a different cult: That of respectable journalists who work for a respectable newspaper who insist upon ignoring perfectly good UFO evidence in exchange for pure bull you-know-what with no respect whatsoever. Unfortunately, this is not merely sporadic cult-nouveau territory in many American newsrooms.

I've long been appreciative of the Wall Street Journal as a source of fair reporting, but this time around, with two articles tackling the UFO subject in June, the WSJ got it wrong, disastrously wrong. If you stayed current with my links to Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles, Kevin Randle and The Black Vault you already know the facts.

These days, I'm far removed from the UFO issue which once consumed my writing hours for newspaper and magazine articles, but I can still smell journalistic decay when its stinking fragrance becomes widespread enough to draw flies. It's a funny thing how every once in a while some esteemed publication or public figure emerges from the shadows and performs an incredibly absurd jack-in-the-box hatchet job on the entire history of the UFO subject, totally disregarding tons of hard-mined evidence acquired for eyes willing to see over the decades.

In June, the Journal bungled it all up via an editorial policy which apparently wasn't editing for facts and reporters who flat-out ignored the documentation placed on a platter before them. If they weren't also pleasantly guided along by intentional government-generated misinformation with a clear agenda I would be very surprised. After all, the formula hasn't changed much despite ongoing official promises to get to the truth. Deep state or freak state may be in charge ultimately, take your choice.

The very concept that a SIGNIFICANT percentage of UFO observations and dramatic encounters going back decades can be chalked up to top secret devices, classified testing, gullible military personnel and pilots and joking diversionary tactics is just ridiculous, and even a cursory examination of even lesser known but admirable cases clearly indicates suitable explanations lacking.

In my declining years I'm a "one trick pony" in that I've put all my eggs into one UFO basket, and that basket is the Pascagoula, MS incident of 1973 in which two now deceased fishermen, Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker reported an encounter with a UFO complete with bizarre creatures which examined them physically. Multiple witnesses have come forth over the years and there was clear electronic evidence of something tangible emerging from the sky. Yet, as is the instance with multiple cases of crushing interest and intrigue, you won't find this one highlighted by the WSJ in June, nor in many other "respectable" publications. Believe me, I know firsthand how, particularly at the editorial staff level, the most important UFO-related stories and topics get squashed. Or ridiculed out of existence.

Many of us thought a new day had dawned in recent years as the UFO issue appeared to gain value and even urgency among public officials and the media. Maybe we were wrong. All we can do now is wait as government inquiries continue in the face of poorly researched, blatantly stupid or purposefully misguided reportage destined to influence public minds already perpetually unfamiliar with UFO history and facts. The "just isn't possible" cult (yes, CULT) of editors and reporters is alive and well among what fragments remain of real, hard-hitting journalism in the USA, and we dare suggest that the sun will continue revolving around the Earth for this bunch, innately blinded by the comforts of mass conventionality.

Welcome back, deja vu, welcome back, though we all know you never really left.

VISIT BOB's SITE ►


See Also:

The Black Vault Lays Bare the Fallacies of the WSJ Articles

Analysis of “Was It Scrap Metal or an Alien Spacecraft?” (WSJ)

UFOs and Nukes Researcher Robert Hastings Refutes WSJ Article

	UFO Myth to Government Disinformation Myth
	1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO Incident Botched by David Duchovny
	UFO Sightings at ICBM Sites and Nuclear Weapons Storage Areas
	My Evidence: The Account of Minute-Man Missiles Being Disabled, While UFOs Hovered Over The Launch Facilities

The UFOs-Nukes Connection Press Conference: Witness Affidavits and Declassified Documents VISIT Bob's SITE ►

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

The Black Vault Lays Bare the Fallacies of the WSJ Articles

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

WSJ’s long-held good standing that they would approach the topic with journalistic neutrality, being fair and balanced (no pun intended) if you will; however, rather than serving as a balanced entry into a complex field, the articles—according to veteran researcher John Greenewald (and many others) of The Black Vault—represent a glaring case study in narrative bias, selective sourcing, and evidentiary omission.

Greenewald’s critique (video below) delivered in a detailed livestream dated June 28, 2025, raises several scientifically and journalistically significant concerns. His experience—as an extensively interviewed source who saw none of his evidence-based input included—offers a unique vantage point for assessing not only the WSJ’s reporting, but the broader implications for public understanding of UAP data.

Misdirection by Design: Framing the UAP Topic as Disinformation

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.

Selective Silence: Ignoring Documented, Declassified Evidence

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 “Yankee Blue” Incident: Reporting Without Verification

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.

Ignoring the Global Scope: The Helicopter & Nuclear Incursions

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.

Bias by Comparison: Hypocrisy in Evidentiary Standards

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.

Misused Authority: Mistaking Mastheads for Truth

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.

Conclusion: A Call for Scientific Integrity in Journalism

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

	UFO Myth to Government Disinformation Myth
	1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO Incident Botched by David Duchovny
	UFO Sightings at ICBM Sites and Nuclear Weapons Storage Areas
	My Evidence: The Account of Minute-Man Missiles Being Disabled, While UFOs Hovered Over The Launch Facilities

The UFOs-Nukes Connection Press Conference: Witness Affidavits and Declassified Documents

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Analysis of “Was It Scrap Metal or an Alien Spacecraft?” (WSJ)

"... the WSJ article’s dramatization of UFO investigations contains several misrepresentations. It overstates what AARO was tasked to do, mischaracterizes Kirkpatrick’s role, and repeatedly uses loaded language to mock UAP research ..."

The Wall Street Journal’s two-part investigation of UFOs (parts titled “The Pentagon Disinformation that Fueled America’s UFO Mythology” and “Was It Scrap Metal or an Alien Spacecraft?”) presents an out of character, specious narrative that various UFO

By The UFO Chronicles 6-25-25

accounts, imagery, etc., over decades were spawned by the Pentagon itself to mask highly classified aircraft and weapons programs. In part II, it misrepresents the mission of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and the role of its director, Sean Kirkpatrick, and it repeatedly uses loaded language to marginalize UAP (unidentified anomalous phenomena) reports. Crucially, the story relies heavily on second-hand anecdotes without citing any verifiable documents, omitting key contextual facts, and contradicting established government findings. Below we point out these issues, contrasting the article’s claims with the public record.

AARO’s Official Mission vs. WSJ Portrayal

By law and Pentagon directive, AARO’s purpose is to collect and analyze data on unexplained aerial (and other) objects around U.S. military and sensitive sites, and to “mitigate any associated threats to safety of operations and national security”. The Department of Defense announcement establishing AARO (July 2022) explicitly states its mission as “synchronize efforts…to detect, identify and attribute objects of interest in, on or near military installations…This includes anomalous, unidentified space, airborne, submerged and transmedium objects”. In short, and generally speaking—AARO was created to bring scientific rigor and intelligence tradecraft to UAP sightings (e.g. determine if they are foreign drones, balloons, sensor glitches, etc.), not to hunt for aliens per se. Its official mission statement is to “minimize technical and intelligence surprise” by systematic detection, identification and analysis of UAP.

The WSJ article, by contrast, characterizes AARO’s work almost entirely as debunking a phantom “secret U.S. alien program.” Phrases like “CIA-sponsored UFO study groups,” “mythology,” “UFO true believers,” and “secret program to harvest alien technology” pervade the text. This framing is misleading. The article implies Kirkpatrick and AARO were on a crusade to prove or disprove extraterrestrial hypotheses. In reality, Congress directed AARO to review historical UAP claims and produce a “Historical Record” report, but as one part of its tasking under the NDAA – a task described as separate from its core safety mission. The AARO website explicitly notes it “accepts reports” from government personnel about programs dating to 1945 “to inform AARO’s congressionally directed Historical Record Report”. In other words, Kirkpatrick’s inquiries into decades-old UFO anecdotes were undertaken because Congress mandated them, not simply to prove or disprove alien accounts.

Likewise, the article’s emphasis on Kirkpatrick as a maverick or lone truth-seeker is at odds with the facts of his appointment. Defense.gov records show Dr. Sean M. Kirkpatrick was officially named AARO director on July 15, 2022 by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security. He was brought in for his scientific background (he had been Chief Scientist at DIA’s Missile and Space Intelligence Center), not as an alien hunter or debunker. The DoD announcement presents AARO’s charter under his leadership in formal terms: dealing with “objects of interest … to mitigate any associated threats”. There is nothing in the official mandate about hunting aliens or reverse-engineering “off-world technology.” Indeed, Congress on its face gave AARO unprecedented access to classified programs to determine the truth about UAP claims, not to conceal it.

Rhetorical Framing and Language Choices

Throughout the WSJ piece, the authors use loaded language that trivializes legitimate inquiry into UAPs. For example, they describe Pentagon investigators as a “growing collection of UFO true believers” who had spent years in “the outer reaches” of intelligence researching “psychic powers and teleportation…not to mention…werewolves”. This innuendo primes readers to view all UAP-related efforts as fringe fantasy rather than a serious matter. The article repeatedly calls UFO lore “mythology” and recounts (at length) anecdotes – from chupacabras to tortilla reflections – suggesting UAP reports are laughable. Headlines and phrases like “Was it scrap metal or an alien spacecraft?” and “spoiler alert: the idea didn’t fly” sensationalize the subject while minimizing its complexity.

By contrast, official U.S. science and defense sources treat UAP as a potentially real phenomenon worthy of careful study. A 2023 NASA panel on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena emphasizes a “rigorous, evidence-based approach” and notes UAP study is “a unique scientific opportunity” (with NASA working “within the broader whole-of-government framework led by” AARO). The Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), AARO’s predecessor, explicitly collected and analyzed hundreds of UAP reports to inform safety protocols (many were ultimately attributed to mundane causes). But the WSJ article itself never acknowledges this official context. Instead, its consistent framing – “true believers,” “myths,” “legend” – serves to marginalize UAP reports as mere belief or fantasy, ignoring that Congress and the military have taken them seriously enough to stand up a dedicated office.

Lack of Verifiable Evidence Behind Claims

The WSJ narrative rests almost entirely on unnamed witnesses and colorful anecdotes – “thousands of pages of documents, emails, text messages and recordings” are referenced, but none are shown or cited.

Similarly, the Journal’s account of “witnesses” is imbalanced. It quotes David Grusch and Luis Elizondo (notable UFO whistleblowers) at length, then quickly notes that investigators found no records to support their stories. But it provides no source or evidence of what investigators did find (beyond hearsay).

Omissions of Context and Contradictory Facts

The WSJ story omits many publicly documented facts that would put its narrative in perspective. The Journal casually rehashes the Roswell events again and melds the account with “UFO culture.”

Likewise, the authors fail to acknowledge that Congress and federal agencies treat UAP as legitimate security and science issues. Apart from AARO’s formal mandate, there is a bipartisan “House Caucus on UAP” overseeing investigations, and government agencies (DOD, DNI, FAA, NASA) have published annual UAP reports, launched scientific studies, and encouraged reporting via established channels. None of this consensus is mentioned. NASA’s recent Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Report, for instance, explicitly endorses data-driven inquiry into UAP, yet the WSJ article never acknowledges that a major federal science agency has invested resources into UAP research.

Comparison with Official Sources

Contrasting the WSJ narrative with public records highlights the discrepancies. The Pentagon’s own press release announces AARO’s creation as a normal counterintelligence measure, not an admission of aliens. The WSJ article, however, largely ignores these mainstream assessments and instead highlights only the more dramatic unsubstantiated claims.

By contrast, citing official documents yields a very different tone. In short, the government’s own vocabulary treats UAP sightings as data points to analyze, not as gospel. The WSJ piece substitutes that nuance with sensationalism, e.g. in its headline question “scrap metal or an alien spacecraft?”, as if the only alternative explanation is an alien one.

Tone and Bias Assessment

Taken together, the WSJ piece exhibits a clear skeptical bias toward UAP claims. It consistently frames UFO investigators as gullible or conspiratorial, while portraying Pentagon denials as obvious truth. The narrative voice is that of debunking journalists rather than detached reporters. Almost every sentence about UFO proponents is laced with sarcasm or disbelief (e.g. calling witnesses “UFO true believers” or describing paranoia about stock markets and religion if aliens were disclosed). In contrast, statements from official sources are often described dismissively or in passing. For example, the article quotes a Pentagon spokeswoman’s denial of any UFO cover-up but does not interrogate that denial; the quote appears only as a perfunctory “Pentagon spokeswoman said… inaccurate,” without further analysis.

This tone suggests the authors came in with a presumption that UFOs are largely myth. Even when reporting facts (the alloy test result, Grusch’s claims, etc.), the language is chosen to diminish their significance (“material isn’t from outer space,” followed immediately by “spoiler alert…” sarcasm). By comparison, more neutral outlets would balance such reporting with the broader significance of a government probe and the reasons why it was undertaken. The WSJ's framing sets up an “us vs. them” scenario: on one side, enlightened officials and skeptics; on the other, credulous fringe figures. (Sound familiar?) That kind of agenda-setting undermines journalistic neutrality.

In conclusion, the WSJ article’s dramatization of UFO investigations contains several misrepresentations. It overstates what AARO was tasked to do, mischaracterizes Kirkpatrick’s role, and repeatedly uses loaded language to mock UAP research. It makes grand claims based on unnamed sources without providing documentary evidence. Those facts should temper the wildest implications of the article.

Sources: Official DoD releases and AARO documents on mission and findings; AARO website (reporting guidelines); NASA UAP Independent Study final report; U.S. Air Force Roswell investigations report; Wall Street Journal, Schectman & Viswanatha (June 2025), excerpts; etc.

See Also:

UFOs and Nukes Researcher Robert Hastings Refutes WSJ Article

	The Black Vault Lays Bare the Fallacies of the WSJ Articles
	UFO Myth to Government Disinformation Myth
	1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO Incident Botched by David Duchovny
	UFO Sightings at ICBM Sites and Nuclear Weapons Storage Areas
	My Evidence: The Account of Minute-Man Missiles Being Disabled, While UFOs Hovered Over The Launch Facilities

The UFOs-Nukes Connection Press Conference: Witness Affidavits and Declassified Documents

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE