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

UFOs and Nukes Researcher Robert Hastings Refutes WSJ Article

New Wall Street Journal UFO Article Badly Misses the Mark

In a recent article titled, “The Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America’s UFO Mythology”, the Wall Street Journal attempts to foist its own disinformation on all of us. Several knowledgeable persons have already indignantly responded on X, or in podcasts such as WEAPONIZED, hosted by journalist George Knapp and researcher Jeremy Corbell. I have instead directed an email to the Journal’s Correspondence and Corrections Editor, Judi Walsh, also copying the article’s two authors, criticizing one particular part of the factually-inaccurate, arguably-absurd piece. It has been inserted below. Thus far, I have not received a response from Walsh or the authors.

By Robert Hastings The UFO Chronicles 6-12-2025

My email:

From: ufohastings@aol.com

To: judi.walsh@wsj.com, wsjcontact@wsj.com

Cc: joel.schectman@wsj.com, aruna.viswanatha@wsj.com

Tue, Jun 10 at 6:25 AM

Ms. Walsh,

I am the leading civilian researcher on the topic of UFO/UAP activity at US nuclear weapons sites, as described in declassified US Air Force documents and the testimony of 167 vetted USAF veterans who were involved in such incidents at various bases during the Cold War era and beyond. Those individuals were independently interviewed by me between 1973 and 2010.

CNN's livestreamed coverage of my September 27, 2010 "UFOs and Nukes" press conference in Washington D.C. is available at http://www.ufohastings.com, on the homepage. Seven of the veterans participated, and most are still available for questioning by the WSJ's reporters, should they be interested in doing that.

At the press conference, a former Minuteman missile targeting officer stationed at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, Captain Robert C. Jamison, revealed his team's involvement in retargeting ten ICBMs that had been simultaneously knocked-offline on the evening of March 24, 1967. This missile-shutdown event was the one mentioned in your recent article, in which the authors wildly speculated that the missiles' mysterious loss of functionality was due to a test involving an Electromagnetic Pulse generator, meant to demonstrate their vulnerability to EMP during wartime. As [redacted] has already brought to your attention, the available facts easily debunk this groundless claim.

According to Captain Jamison, multiple targeting teams, including his, were given an unprecedented "special UFO briefing" prior to being released to the field, during which it was stated that a "UFO" had caused the multiple-missile failures. The teams were instructed to report a UFO to their command post, should one be sighted while they traveled to the full-flight shutdown site at Oscar Flight, near Roy, Montana. They were further instructed that, should a UFO appear while they were on-site at one of the Launch Facilities--underground missile silos--they were to quickly enter the silo and close the personnel access hatch, while leaving their Security Police escort above ground so that he could provide updates to the base via a two-way radio.

The other Air Force veterans appearing at my press conference provided similar accounts of their own UFO-related experiences, at other bases, during different time-frames.

Indeed, as my four-decade-long research project has convincingly established, bona fide UFO incursions at US nuclear weapons sites—fissile material production plants, weapons test ranges and storage facilities, nuclear bomber and missile bases—occurred as early as January 1945, and as recently as October 2010, and the incidents over that period numbered in the hundreds.

Nevertheless, given the embarrassing lack of factual rigor evident in your reporters’ recent effort, I rather doubt that my research findings will be of much assistance to them. Assuming that the article was not an intentional attempt at disinformation, their profound ignorance of the UAP topic, coupled with their clearly unjournalistic bias, renders them unqualified to educate your readers.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Hastings

So, we will see whether I receive a response from any of the Wall Street Journal staff members, and/or whether my email is posted online by their website. I’ll update those reading this post.

Visit Robert's Site ►

READ ROBERT'S BOOK

UFOs & Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites
[ad]

See Also:

	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

VIDEO | "Aliens Have Been Coming to Asia for Decades . . ."

Tweet

By JAMES HOOKWAY
The Wall Street Journal
5-6-11

     KAO KALA, Thailand—Everybody from fund managers to jet-setting diplomats is talking about the world's center of gravity shifting to Asia. Now, extraterrestrials appear to be taking notice, too.

Trackers in Colorado at the Mutual UFO Network, one of the oldest unidentified-flying-object research organizations in this world, say that since the slump of the Western banking system in 2008, UFO sightings among Asia's fast-growing economies have accelerated. Suspicious UFOs have shut down airports in China, buzzed resorts in Borneo and lit up the night sky in Myanmar.

. . . More

See Also:

The Journal of UFO Research Is China's Largest UFO Journal

UFO Explodes Over Phu Quoc Island

Vietnamese Government Confirms UFO Explosion (VIDEO)

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE

ABOUT DONATIONS

↑Grab this Headline Animator

2008: Worst UFO Media Year Ever!

By Billy Cox
De Void
1-1-09

     2008 started out as just another mediocre year for the mainstream media’s ineptitude with UFO issues. But boy, did that ever change.

It began reliably enough early last January, when Editor & Publisher, the exhausted industry watchdog monitoring the extinction of newspapers and their advertising revenues, found time to chide The Wall Street Journal for wasting 1A real estate on UFOs. The WSJ actually played that story straight by tracking down fellow eyewitnesses to Dennis Kucinich’s 1982 UFO sighting. The E&P was just doing what it's supposed to do. Zzzz.

A few weeks later, the libertarian Cato Institute — those stalwart sentinels for government transparency — decided to terminate the services of adjunct scholar Dom Armentano for writing an op-ed piece in the Vero Beach News-Press. The economics professor’s crime? Advocating the declassification of federal records on UFOs. Had Armentano gotten the hook for writing about racism or some other more conventional corruption, this would’ve been news. But it was only UFOs. So who cared?

And as the months went by, UFOs continued to provide the media intelligentsia with easy rhetorical devices in which to gauge the stupidity of the American people. Eric Alterman flogged the horse in March: “Vastly more Americans believe in flying saucers and 9/11 conspiracy theories than believe in the notion of balance – much less ‘objective’ – in the mainstream news media” Nicolas Kristof took a whack in April: “There’s this embarrassing fact about the United States in the 21st century. Americans are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution.”

So 2008 was shaping up as a garden-variety yawner. Until the drama over Stephenville, Tex., shook down. And as a result of the MSM’s evaporation in the aftermath of this still-unresolved national security fiasco, De Void has proclaimed 2008 as The Media’s Worst UFO Year Ever.

To be sure, there was an initial stampede to the Stephenville region shortly after Empire-Tribune reporter Angelia Joiner’s accounting of the Jan. 8 UFO incident made the wires. TV crews came from as far away as Japan to get the story, and why not? There were plenty of loquacious witnesses to the lit-up, bigger-than-an-aircraft-carrier flying machine that glided silently over the little cow town and reversed its course. Eyewitnesses included cops and a pilot. Better yet, several reported military jet fighters scrambling after it.

An Air Force Base at nearby Fort Worth denied it had planes in the air that night, which was good enough for Newsweek. The emaciated weekly magazine didn’t waste any precious print on the story, but it did run a “Web Exclusive” by a “lecturer in English at Yale University” who attributed the suppertime sighting to sleep deprivation.

But then, not quite two weeks after the incident, as the hoopla subsided, Carswell Field made the surprise announcement that yes, it did indeed have warplanes in the air on the 8th. Not one or two, but 10. Ten F-16s. “Routine training missions.” Its press release said nothing about the UFO. Which raised another question – why bother with issuing a press release at all? Why not just let the event die a natural death? The official statement went against the USAF's own interests. It meant the eyewitnesses were credible.

Carswell’s reversal generated another brief wire-service cycle, but it had nothing to fear from the media.

In May, Dateline NBC promoted a UFO ratings-month special called “Ten Close Encounters Caught on Tape.” Host Hoda Kotb was more into rhymes (“Tonight, an extraterrestrial creature feature!”) and lame cliches (“The experts can argue until they’re as green as the little men whose existence they debate”) as she reviewed UFO cases from as far back as half a century ago. This lady had network resources to work with. And she said nothing about Stephenville. Zilcho.

The reason for Carswell’s embarrassing press release became clear in July when the Mutual UFO Network uncorked an online bombshell – a 77-page evaluation of radar records from 4 to 8 p.m. on Sept. 8 near Stephenville.

In response to MUFON’s Freedom of Information Act request, the FAA produced a 139-meg CD tracking 2.8 million radar hits during that time span along the UFO flight corridor on a southeast beeline toward Crawford, site of President Bush’s “Western White House.” The timeline tapered off at 8 o’clock sharp, the end of MUFON’s request window – with the UFO just 10 miles from Bush’s ranch, and six miles from its restricted air space.

Although the F-16s ventured into unauthorized civilian air space and pulled to within a mile of the object, which carried no transponder and flew at speeds between 49 mph and 2,100 mph, they were nowhere near the craft when it reached Crawford. Neither Carswell nor any other Defense Department entity released radar data, but the former turned over its flight logs for that evening, all of which had been redacted.

“Four days after our FOIAs hit the FAA, they (the military) knew we’d show they had planes all over the place that night,” MUFON investigator Glen Schulze told De Void. “They didn’t have much choice. Fort Worth radar data shows the F-16s from takeoff the landing at Carswell Air Force Base.”

This was an incredible story. Especially the non-responses from various military bureaucracies. There was a brief allusion to the MUFON report on Larry “non sequitur” King. But no wire service coverage. Not even The Wall Street Journal. During the first public presentation of the data in San Jose, Calif., in July, the San Francisco Chronicle showed up, but its reporter didn’t have a clue.

“A chart full of purple dots and black arrows that may or may not indicate aliens flew over President Bush’s Texas ranch in January,” wrote Steve Rubenstein. “The dots and arrows on the chart are as plain as day.”

Schulze, a resident of Littleton, Col., couldn’t even draw ink from the hometown media. But he pointed out that the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News managed to cover Denver rez Jeff Peckman’s press conference, which advocated spending municipal funds on an extraterrestrial liaison committeee.

During the September sweeps, ABC Prime Time aired a rehash of Peter Jennings’ “Seeing Is Believing” report from 2005. There was a brief mention of Stephenville, but reporter David Muir didn’t bother to question military authorities about the FAA records. Which appear to have documented a serious breach of national security. Just for the record, when contacted by De Void, Carswell PIO Maj. Karl Lewis says his employer has no comment on what he describes as MUFON “speculation.”

Finally, in November, during the last ratings period of 2008, CNN’s Miles O’Brien filed a week-long UFO series (pre-empted by the terror attacks in Mumbai) without mentioning the Stephenville case once. Internet cassandras charge O’Brien was terminated immediately thereafter because he dared to venture into The Great Taboo. CNN said it canned O’Brien and its entire science staff as a cost-cutting measure, and there’s no reason to doubt that. No sinister government agency could've possibly been threatened by O’Brien’s UFO reporting.

Stephenville was the only UFO story that mattered in 2008, because it was one of those rare instances where federal records supported eyewitness accounts. It showcased a military response to a threat against the home of the United States president. And the Air Force got away with its lack of accountability (again) because the press wasn’t interested.

Which raises another question: If the MSM’s stunning financial collapse hits critical mass this year, will anyone notice?

More . . .

See Also:

UFOS: Keeping Anderson Cooper & CNN Honest
Part I

Jennings UFO Show—Coup de Théâtre (Part One)

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator