Immaculate Constellation

[Micael]

So now for a bit of a two part story, first an article of the controversial nature, but what’s interesting is who commented on it and in what manner, see down below.

First the article, The Hidden Truth Behind a 1960s Nuclear Test: A Non-Human Craft Fell Down To Earth https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/th ... n-to-earth
It has a lot of stuff in it but focuses initially on how a nuclear test accidentally, supposedly, brought down a UFO.

This prompted Harald Malmgren to comment on X:

I want to thank @ChrisUKSharp for publishing Geoff Cruickshank's deep dive into the events around one missile test in 1962 that I worked on in my capacity as and advisor to The Joint Chief's. He has done an excellent job of explaining the significance of the test. It helps us understand why JFK, LBJ and soon after, I myself, all rushed to visit @LosAlamosNatLab soon afterwards.

Now who’s Malmgren? He was one of McNamara’s ”whiz kids”, advisor to JFK, LBJ etc. Later did a double act with Herman Kahn where they held talks together and so on. See this for more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Malmgren
So someone who was in the inner circles of the presidential administration when this test, and the supposed additional element, occurred. He’s skirting around outright confirming it (he clearly knows how to word things like a politician), but he nevertheless does seem to imply that the article is truthful. That you may of course think what you will of, but still worthy of noting.

The article, as I said above, does touch on some other things. Including a claim that has circulated for years, that JFK told Marilyn Monroe the truth about the UFOs as pillow talk, and that she was planning to tell the world, only to wind up dead.
That part prompted another user to comment this:

The only thing that puzzles me is why JFK would share the greatest secret in human history with an emotionally unstable person like Monroe. Seems reckless for the highly intelligent Kennedy

To which Malmgren again stops short of confirming, but also seems to imply that there might be some substance to it:

When my Swedish mother decided I had reached that moment when I was becoming a young man, she forewarned me that a man is born with two heads: when one grows strong, the other goes soft

Malmgren has also made some related posts, those times as well without going into any detail. Still though:

IMG_2742.jpeg

I can’t help but observe that it seems that some people of note have decided that it is finally time to start lifting the veil now. Unless it’s a massive psyop, but I’m starting to lean towards it not being that.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

I think the 1962 incident he mentions is the Bluegill Triple Prime upper atmosphere nuclear test. It might have been a 'hot x-ray' weapons test Two KC-135s were photographing the x-ray bloom from different locations. When it initiates and the flash begins to fade you see what looks like something dropping from one plane. The other plane's has some covering that area. Interestingly while the other tests in the series were declassified there seems to be stuff with this one that is until the 2050s.

37 days before Bluegill there was an Atlas missile test in the Atlantic where the missile is seemed to be 'chased' by 3 objects. USAF noticed it but could figure out what it was.

The video combining both is at Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons ... september/

[Micael]

Yeah I think that’s it.

Another comment from Malmgren now, a pretty unambiguous one:

[Micael]

Now someone asked Malmgren if he were told if they were believed to be hostile or not, his reply:

I was given no advice regarding friend or foe of the disabled UFO tag along

[Edit] I noticed this from him as well posted in November:

How much government UAP knowledge Trump is thinking to disclose, and how fast, and how soon is probably under discussion by a handful close to Trump. As they consider what to do&when they must be mindful China and Russia must also be readying their own UAP disclosures...Soon?

China has also experienced increased UAP events. China has set up UAP monitoring in other parts of the world (with a major site in Patagonia). There is risk that Xi Jinping decides to leap ahead, to announce his leadership of all humanity to address otherworldly life.

[Micael]

So on the topic of disclosure. Several of the well known names associated with the UAP topic have in the last few weeks stated that ”something big” is coming soon. The date given varies a bit depending on the person, from ”very early January” to ”before the end of January.” Some have declined to give further details, however others have said that what’s being referred to is that a number of whistle blowers from within the black world of UAP retrieval/reverse engineering etc. have decided to jointly come out with their identities and proof in some form. The most specific claim is that there’s people from six different black sites involved in this.

Now I have no clue if there’s any substance to this, but since several people have alluded to this being a thing now, and some seem positively giddy over it, I am leaning towards that perhaps we’re going to hear something very interesting very soon. If not then several people’s reputation is going to take a bit of a hit.

As a side note, I’ve now seen a claim multiple times from people that was a part of AAWSAP/AATIP that they managed to identify in which organization’s possession one of the supposedly recovered craft were, and that organization agreed to hand it over to AAWSAP. It was Lockheed Martin, and apparently their then VP James Ryder was the guy who they had conversations with and who agreed to it, but while they agreed to do so they needed written authorization from the entity within the government which actually held ownership to it in order to effectuate the transfer. That never came, supposedly after an forceful intervention by Glenn Gaffney, Director of Science & Technology for the CIA at the time. He supposedly also tore Ryder a new one for his part in this. Senator Harry Reid who was the patron of AAWSAP was supposedly very agitated by this turn of events. It’s interesting that they’re naming names like that, especially painting Gaffney in a negative light like that. If they were just making things up I’d think that they’d just say a ”senior CIA official” or somesuch.

[Micael]

One more Malmgren comment of relevance:

The official films of the October 1962 test of shoot down of a mock incoming missile were published and made available on National Archives. However, the UAP that was shadowing the test of the incoming missile fell into sea and was recovered by a US Navy recovery team. The Navy denied access for films of the recovery or details of what was recovered on grounds that reporting on the recovered UAP was not a designated part of the Los Alamos anti-missile test. I had need to know about the test results, but not the unexpected UAP event. The Navy had power to deny details to me or even to the WH of what was recovered by the Navy.

One thing I’m noticing across all the various people that are commenting on events in this field prior to lets say the 90’s is that the Navy keeps popping up as a player at a frequency one might not have expected. To the point that they almost seem more involved/invested than the airforce was.

[Nightwatch2]

One more Malmgren comment of relevance:

The official films of the October 1962 test of shoot down of a mock incoming missile were published and made available on National Archives. However, the UAP that was shadowing the test of the incoming missile fell into sea and was recovered by a US Navy recovery team. The Navy denied access for films of the recovery or details of what was recovered on grounds that reporting on the recovered UAP was not a designated part of the Los Alamos anti-missile test. I had need to know about the test results, but not the unexpected UAP event. The Navy had power to deny details to me or even to the WH of what was recovered by the Navy.

One thing I’m noticing across all the various people that are commenting on events in this field prior to lets say the 90’s is that the Navy keeps popping up as a player at a frequency one might not have expected. To the point that they almost seem more involved/invested than the airforce was.

3/4 of the globe is water

[Micael]

One more Malmgren comment of relevance:

The official films of the October 1962 test of shoot down of a mock incoming missile were published and made available on National Archives. However, the UAP that was shadowing the test of the incoming missile fell into sea and was recovered by a US Navy recovery team. The Navy denied access for films of the recovery or details of what was recovered on grounds that reporting on the recovered UAP was not a designated part of the Los Alamos anti-missile test. I had need to know about the test results, but not the unexpected UAP event. The Navy had power to deny details to me or even to the WH of what was recovered by the Navy.

One thing I’m noticing across all the various people that are commenting on events in this field prior to lets say the 90’s is that the Navy keeps popping up as a player at a frequency one might not have expected. To the point that they almost seem more involved/invested than the airforce was.

3/4 of the globe is water

Yeah, and there has been various claims of a connection between UAPs and bodies of water, but most of the ones with more detailed claims have been anonymous so I’m not sure how credible they are.

Malmgren was also asked how knowledgeable a certain fellow very familiar to this board was on the UAP topic, Gen. LeMay:

In retrospect years after: Very knowledgeable

At the time Le May made only a passing reference to UFOs, but I later discovered he had long been deeply investigating any info gathered about UFO phenomena

[kdahm]

I'm pretty much highly dubious about any claims that UFOs or UAPs, or whatever the TLA of the week is, have any sort of known extra-terrestrial origin. Despite the claims by some who were around in the 60's and somehow kept the "secret" until now.

1. What's the probability that the US government could keep an actual big secret for 60 years? Watergate leaked in a couple of years, Iran-Contra wasn't much more, the F-117 had decent rumors for a few years, and people post classified documents to win arguments on WarThunder.
2. Where is the great technological advance from that period? If there was debris and parts recovered, there should be some unexplained jump in what we know and can do. Pretty much everything is either evolutionary, or easily explained by existing lines of research.
3. It's very hard, if not impossible, to hide in space. Between sky surveys, infrared telescopes, and radio telescopes, sneaking up is difficult barring some extraordinary technology. Which then begs the question of why get spotted in atmosphere in the first place.
4. Pareidolia, mis-identification, and other similar issues with human cognition reduce the value of witness statements absent any other evidence.

So if someone wants to claim that it is something, there is a very high hurdle for any proof to clear.

[Micael]

I'm pretty much highly dubious about any claims that UFOs or UAPs, or whatever the TLA of the week is, have any sort of known extra-terrestrial origin. Despite the claims by some who were around in the 60's and somehow kept the "secret" until now.

1. What's the probability that the US government could keep an actual big secret for 60 years? Watergate leaked in a couple of years, Iran-Contra wasn't much more, the F-117 had decent rumors for a few years, and people post classified documents to win arguments on WarThunder.
2. Where is the great technological advance from that period? If there was debris and parts recovered, there should be some unexplained jump in what we know and can do. Pretty much everything is either evolutionary, or easily explained by existing lines of research.
3. It's very hard, if not impossible, to hide in space. Between sky surveys, infrared telescopes, and radio telescopes, sneaking up is difficult barring some extraordinary technology. Which then begs the question of why get spotted in atmosphere in the first place.
4. Pareidolia, mis-identification, and other similar issues with human cognition reduce the value of witness statements absent any other evidence.

So if someone wants to claim that it is something, there is a very high hurdle for any proof to clear.

Well I’ll make some remarks on these points:

First I would note that ”extra-terrestrials” is just one among the suggestions for exotic explanations that have been floated. Inter-dimensional beings etc. are other proposals.

1. This is the one point I would disagree the strongest about. Because there’s frankly been a plethora of claims and claimed leaks with various documents and so on for decades. Those have been dismissed as lies and nuttery, but they are out there. There’s a small army of ex-military people who’ve said that they’ve been involved in it in various capacities, as an example. So if there is actually any truth to the notion that there are recovered craft and so forth, the US has been anything but successful in keeping it from leaking. They have however been considerably more successful in discrediting the leaks and obfuscating the truth.

2. That is a fair point. I did note a claim earlier in the thread by an individual involved in AAWSAP that while there had been attempts at reverse engineering for decades, they had been unsuccessful atleast up until 2012. If something is sufficiently exotic and beyond our technological level to the point that we can’t even (yet) figure out how the systems of the craft actually works, a claim like that could make sense. Or, alternatively that if we were just able to figure a small part of it such an achievement might not necessarily stand out too much amongst other ”normal” technological developments.

3. Yes, but that would presume that their objective is not to be seen. They might just not care very much, just here to study the weird walking apes and assess whether we are a threat, or some other objective that isn’t immediately apparent to us. One thing that various people have claimed is that the UAPs are very frequently spotted in conjunction with nukes or nuclear power installations. If there is some truth to that, that could be a clue. Perhaps they consider nukes to be the only tech we have that can seriously threaten them and want to keep a close eye on what we do with it? Perhaps some other reason entirely.

4. I would argue that if you have multiple witnesses with a background in relevant civilian, military and scientific positions that consistently claim that some exotic material/craft have been recovered and studied and deemed to not be of human origin, that will make it difficult to dismiss it as simply mental tricks. Individual observations without physical proof, yes there’s likely an element of what you describe in that. That’s also one reason why I don’t tend to focus very much on such accounts. Ie: ”I saw a UFO” is less useful. ”I’m was a senior US Navy scientist and was read into a crash retrival and reverse engineering program” is a bit more useful. If a whole bunch of people from multiple organisations assert that it adds to the usefulness further.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

Adding to #1: How many of the 'leaks' were real? Maybe some are maskirovka. Giving everyone something to chew on and look in the wrong direction.

Why not Roswell? Convenient original story that has a perfectly logical explanation but you keep dropping hints of something else. Same goes for Area 51.

My personal opinion on all this and the UAVs is that mix of Chinese and people seeing want to see adding to it. Could it be ETs? I doubt it just because of distances, being in the backwaters of the galaxy, and why us? But I can be wrong.

[warshipadmin]

kdahm +1

[Micael]

Adding to #1: How many of the 'leaks' were real? Maybe some are maskirovka. Giving everyone something to chew on and look in the wrong direction.

Why not Roswell? Convenient original story that has a perfectly logical explanation but you keep dropping hints of something else. Same goes for Area 51.

My personal opinion on all this and the UAVs is that mix of Chinese and people seeing want to see adding to it. Could it be ETs? I doubt it just because of distances, being in the backwaters of the galaxy, and why us? But I can be wrong.

Oh they are certainly not all real, especially some are particularly suspicious as they are inconsistent compared to multiple other accounts. That particular group are probably people either just lying, or believe what they say themselves due to mental illness etc.

The more interesting group I would argue is the one that are generally not contradictory with one another, and somewhat consistent in their claims. If we assume that they aren’t truthful then we have to start to wonder about why they are so consistent, and pretty quickly the logical conclusion then is that they are coordinated in their claims, ie someone or someones are effectively masterminding a narrative. The follow up question then naturally becomes why? Is it just elaborate maskirovka to cover up something else? The boldest claim amongst those who favor this explanation is ”Project Blue Book” which is described as a long term project to eventually engineer a fake alien invasion and use the chaos to bring about a new world order etc. (Short version.) I don’t give that notion much credit myself.

Now Roswell is interesting, more than one might think. Because while there can certainly be ”non-alien” explanations for what happened, the latest official explanation (in a string of revised explanations) doesn’t jive very well with a number of eye witness accounts. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there were any aliens or somesuch, but I very much doubt that the official explanation is truthful either. If not aliens there’s something else that happened and got covered up, and it ain’t some balloons with test dummies.

Are they ETs? Are they trans-dimensional beings? Are they humans from the distant future after we managed to crack time travel? Are they…maybe nothing at all? I don’t know for sure, but there’s a lot of data now that suggests that there’s something of note going on. I think that we need to figure out what exactly that is, because it could be very a very important something.

[Craiglxviii]

I’ll throw something into the mix here.

There have been UFO sightings since humans have been flying. In the pre-WW1 to early 1920s period there were “black airships”. These resembled dirigible airships but flew higher, faster etc.

It has been postulated that UFOs tend to resemble human technology but at one or two removes.

Question; how does this gybe with what has been observed more recently?

[Micael]

I’ll throw something into the mix here.

There have been UFO sightings since humans have been flying. In the pre-WW1 to early 1920s period there were “black airships”. These resembled dirigible airships but flew higher, faster etc.

It has been postulated that UFOs tend to resemble human technology but at one or two removes.

Question; how does this gybe with what has been observed more recently?

Yeah, this is what’s called ”mimicry”. I find it an interesting idea/postulation, but it’s probably one of the hardest claims to actually present some evidence of. If someone (say a pilot) says that he saw a really weird looking drone with a different lighting pattern to the standard ICAO one, then the conclusion will be that it’s some sort of rogue experimental drone operated by a party not caring too much about regulations. How do you go from there to evidencing non-human involvement?

With that being said, some of the recent observations have been claimed to show signs of mimicry. Such as drones that give look similar to commercial aircraft at a distance, but which fly low and slow enough and maneuver in a manner more consistent with a drone. But the videos I’ve seen of these supposed instances from this last swath of sightings appear inconclusive. Yes, there are some that do seem to move/maneuver quite oddly, inconsistent with what you’d expect from a fixed wing aircraft of such sizes, but at the same time the video resolution is insifficient to entirely discount that it is such an aircraft. So, like I said above, really hard to prove anything along those lines.

I do suspect, just my personal opinion, that there might be some man made drones that have had lights and paint applied in a way that makes them look more like manned aircraft, in an attempt to obfuscate some drone operations. Whether there’s also non-human mimicry craft flying around or not, I don’t know.

[Micael]

User ”Post Disclosure World” has got a good point here with regards to the topic at large, I think:

Many know I'm extremely open about being wrong about UFOs. I'd go so far as to say it's part of my brand.

But allow me to disabuse those skeptics who cling to an objectively incorrect narrative.

If we ever do get UFO transparency, and that means we're not alone, this will prove that there has always been significant evidence of UFOs. It would dismantle any narrative of "I'm just waiting for some evidence."

If the Phenomenon has been here for decades, it has obviously left traces behind. I’d go a step further: no government could cover up non-human intelligence without leaving evidence behind that they have been doing so.

It's simple. Let's stay objective.

[Micael]

Someone asked Malmgren a question based on a statement from another source that the AEC would deny some information to the president at times.

Answer:

World War II, Washinton consensus was nuclear weapons should not be up to political discretion. Law enacted placing control over nuke&nuke energy by Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), not DOD. AEC. "Q" superior to all other classifications. Since,AEC sometimes denied POTUS access.

Then when asked the follow up question of who had Q clearance he answered this:

Q clearance provided to enable work on nuclear weapons&nuke energy, but subject to "need to know." On October Blue Gill XW50 X1 test success AEC determined info on UFO tag along denied to POTUS and to me although Q cleared. Solution was come to Los Alamos for specified names.

[Edit] And someone asked this in response:

So theoretically if that type of “Q” information about the tag along were ever sought to be declassified, I take it that would have to come through the AEC as well?

Through DOE, now encompassing nukes & other security vital technologies

This is interesting, because it to a degree seem to support assertions by others that a major player (or even main player) in this whole thing has been and remains to be the DoE. Not the DoD as it is often made out to be in fiction. Another small note is that it always seems to be the Los Alamos National Laboratory that is mentioned in relation to UFO/UAP retrieval/reverse engineering matters. Never any of the other DoE laboratories or other components.

[Edit 2] He keeps giving some interesting conments

Mathew Pines just publicly explained in a London podcast interviews the elaborate, intricate US security controls by our DOD, DOE, & other agencies. I might add hidden links such as US Navy with UAP retrievals from Los Alamos nuke tests, not under DOD oversight

[David Newton]

Since, AEC sometimes denied POTUS access.

That is utter nonsense. AEC is within the executive branch.

There is NOTHING in the US executive system that can be legally denied to a US president. He literally IS the executive branch. Now illegally denying things to a US president is another matter. That, of course, can happen. However if a direct, lawful order is given by a president and is disobeyed than that is illegal per se in and of itself at the very least. Other, more serious, charges may also be due.

[Poohbah]

Since, AEC sometimes denied POTUS access.

That is utter nonsense. AEC is within the executive branch.

There is NOTHING in the US executive system that can be legally denied to a US president. He literally IS the executive branch. Now illegally denying things to a US president is another matter. That, of course, can happen. However if a direct, lawful order is given by a president and is disobeyed than that is illegal per se in and of itself at the very least. Other, more serious, charges may also be due.

Various departments of the Executive Branch routinely deceive the President or withhold information from him.

[Micael]

One thing that I have noticed is that there is, what appears to me, to be a certain disinformation campaign going on by certain individuals that have a focus of ”debunking”, downplaying, dismissing, and redirecting. Some of this come from named individuals active on X/Twitter, and they seem very engaged, beyond the point of being what I would consider a normal sceptic. I did see one of them be confronted by another individual who claimed that he had received information that the first fellow had an association with the CIA in the past and asked him to confirm or deny that, but no reply. Just more of the above.

Then we have what could be described as people with (claimed) insider knowledge who either directly or indirectly attempt to dismiss certain observations, footage and so on.

This Sarah Gamm that come up in the below quote is one I’d put in that category. As you note the story she’s spinning is being called out to be a lie towards the end.

Weaponized...

"That [Jellyfish] video is not a UAP. I can't provide what it is because the analysis to that is classified." ~Gamm

"[Sarah Gamm] straight up lied." ~Corbell

~~~

Gamm, Corbell, Knapp and the Devious Jellyfish Lies

Vinnie - @disclosureteam_: "So did you see the Jellyfish video that Jeremy Corbell released during your time at the [UAP] Task Force?"

Sarah Gamm: "So yes, I have seen that...I did see it. I cannot provide what I know the analysis to be. But this is also giving me a good moment to say something that is very important to me.

"So, first off, that video is not a UAP. I can't provide what it is because the analysis to that is classified and I'm not (laughs) risking that. But, I'm going to say (laughs)...like, it's so frustrating for people. I did not do the analysis on that video. So the people that did...You end up getting somebody that does unauthorized disclosure, which, in the Intelligence Community, is leaking information. So like a Snowden. Snowden went in, leaked information on an unauthorized disclosure. That's illegal!"

(Audio was shaky so forgive me if I got any of that partial transcript wrong. It seems that she started to say, 'That's a felony,' and then changed to, 'That's illegal.' Maybe I'm hearing things. And to compare a leak of an alleged UAP (that some claim is a bunch of party balloons) to what Snowden did is laughable.)

Gamm: "And when these people leak stuff like this, you leak 5% of what it is. They don't provide what the analysis actually was."

(So, is she also opposed to the Go Fast, Gimbal and Tic Tac (FLIR1, which originally leaked in 2007) being released through a loophole or back door in 2017/2018, by Elizondo and Mellon? We don't have the full story (or full videos) on those videos, either, but they were extremely important in getting the media talking about this subject again and getting the general public engaged.)

Gamm: "So it's really frustrating from a person on my end that some of the data that was leaked, from when I was on the Task Force, we would spend very good efforts on and someone would leak a still photo or a screen shot, or whatever, and only provide that screen shot. And that's not the story. That wasn't our hard work. That was...and I can't provide examples of the instances of that I'm talking about

"But, I just wanna say, whoever's leaking these videos, screen shots, whatever? Please stop. It's not helping. It's not helping anything and it's illegal."

(My opinion: Whoever's leaking these videos, screen shots, or whatever, of alleged UAP, please keep doing it.)

~~~

Weaponized from December 31st, 2024

@g_knapp: "Toward the end of the year, in an attempt to debunk the Jellyfish video, somebody comes forward and says she worked for UAP TF. She was a key member of UAP TF, the UAP Task Force. She was a key staffer, maybe...and one report, she was the manager of UAP TF. And boy, we looked at that Jellyfish video. We dismissed that whole thing, we debunked the whole thing long ago. Well, that's total bullsh*t, because we know when people associated with the Task Force got it. It was after they left the Task Force. They saw it a year later. We wanted to get their impression of it, and we showed it to them - you can guess who they are - in a hotel room, long after they had left the service. UAP TF did not have that video, they did not analyze it. We can get into a whole discussion about whether the person in question ever actually worked for UAP TF, or was an associate, or had something to do with it. But there was no debunking of the Jellyfish video, that's crap. But there was an interesting attempt to dismiss it, wasn't it?"

@JeremyCorbell: "Yeah, so that, unfortunately, that was Sarah Gamm, and it really took me by surprise because I'd met her, and, you know, we communicated some. But she straight up lied. And it was so bizarre to me, she could have called me, could have texted me. The claim she made was that UAP TF had resolved the Jellyfish UAP case, that she was part of the analysis team."

(From the interviews I have watched, Gamm did NOT claim to be part of the analysis team.)

Corbell: "And we know that's bullsh*t because we did show it to the top dogs, the UAP TF, after UAP TF ended, and they had never seen it before. We showed them in a hotel room in Huntsville, Alabama, and so we know that's a false claim, that this was never analyzed by UAP TF in any way. They didn't have it. AARO didn't have it until way later, after our reporting, and they obtained the original footage. And they only posted part of it. So it was very bizarre to me that somebody would make a verifiably-false claim. And I could have jumped on the news and and said, 'Oh, that's complete bullsh*t.' But I didn't. I was like, watching this to see why would somebody do this.

"So that is, again, a fundamentally bullshit lie that maybe people, you know, will just pick up on online and try to, you know, massage that into some false reality. I don't know what's going on with that, but I do know it to be absolutely fictitious, and that's very disappointing. It's disappointing because our jobs as journalists are to inform the public about matters that are for the public good and to attack something fictitiously like that. There's gotta be a reason, I don't know. We'll have to figure that out later."

Knapp: "Well, it seemed to me one possible guess that you and I kicked around in private was that maybe somebody was trying to goad us into reaching out with people who had maybe helped us obtain information, and then people could figure out if they're watching our phones or email. They could figure out who we're talking to about this and identify them. Because they don't know who helped us get this information. So, if that was the case, that was pretty devious."

That’s just an example. But my point is that I’m seeing signs of a disinformation campaign that seems to aim to ”bury the story.” My guess is that this has been instigated by a group of people within the intelligence community, but it appears to not have a huge amount of people involved in it. Nor any real indication of networks of bots on X to amplify the message, and so on. That leads me to think that this is not organized by an intelligence agency through its normal operating structure, and lack access to the full capacity and means of an agency. I think that what we’re seeing is a group within the community that is operating off the books, utilizing assets that they are able to call on personally without getting it authorized as an official project. It has made me think that various claims from various people that there exist a shadowy group of ”gatekeepers” within the government, the goal of which is to stop disclosure, hold some merit.