Schumer Says UFO Act Modeled on "Huge Success" of JFK Records Act

[Roger Odisio]

18 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'm not sure how you/we would know the best records are still not being released?  Personally I'd bet anything really sensational (say like the Hosty note) or the JMWAVE inquiry into Cuban involvement in a conspiracy (which was confirmed to us via documents from the act's releases) went missing decades ago.  Sort of like the stuff from Angleton's private files - when an agency itself gets to decide what gets destroyed vs what is kept  you can pretty well guess how that will play out. 

Still, with the right staff and powers beyond that given even the ARRB with the JFK Act, I think the UAP legislation could have been at least equally effective if it has passed as written in the Senate. As it stands now there will nothing to truly force serious collections of UAP incidents, especially historical ones from within military files such as those at NORAD or the NMCC.

It's important to note that the definition of a JFKA record, defined by the ARRB, not the legislation itself, covers a lot more than records held by government agencies.  A record is *any* information relevant to understanding the murder, regardless of what form it takes or who possesses it. The Darnell and Wiegman films, hidden by NBC, are just one example.

It follows that we have no way of knowing what we don't know.  Or put another way, how much of the relevant information we have so far seen.  Or how big a job it will be to see the rest.

Agencies like the CIA have no doubt destroyed records.  But there is so much information out there they can't control.

Section 12 (b) of the JFK Act says the search and making available of JFKA records shall end only when NARA's archivist certifies to the President and Congress that all records have been released. Despite what he is trying to do with his "transparency plan", Biden has no such power to end the record releases.

However, the Judge in the MFF law suit has initially ignored section 12 (b) and claimed NARA is separate agency from the ARRB with no responsibility to search and release records.  Leaving alone the question of whose job it has been to do that since the ARRB closed 25 years ago and paving the way for Biden's illegal "transparency plan".

Bill and Larry are working on that problem in the law suit.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

It's important to note that the definition of a JFKA record, defined by the ARRB, not the legislation itself, covers a lot more than records held by government agencies.  A record is *any* information relevant to understanding the murder, regardless of what form it takes or who possesses it. The Darnell and Wiegman films, hidden by NBC, are just one example.

It follows that we have no way of knowing what we don't know.  Or put another way, how much of the relevant information we have so far seen.  Or how big a job it will be to see the rest.

Agencies like the CIA have no doubt destroyed records.  But there is so much information out there they can't control.

Section 12 (b) of the JFK Act says the search and making available of JFKA records shall end only when NARA's archivist certifies to the President and Congress that all records have been released. Despite what he is trying to do with his "transparency plan", Biden has no such power to end the record releases.

However, the Judge in the MFF law suit has initially ignored section 12 (b) and claimed NARA is separate agency from the ARRB with no responsibility to search and release records.  Leaving alone the question of whose job it has been to do that since the ARRB closed 25 years ago and paving the way for Biden's illegal "transparency plan".

Bill and Larry are working on that problem in the law suit.

 

RO-

Thanks for your addition to this conversation. 

I surely admire the work of Larry Hancock and others on what has been released, and of the ARRB, and the work Larry Schnapf and others to release the remaining records. 

I stand by my sentiments:

1. I am deeply skeptical that the remaining records are being suppressed for bona fide national security reasons. 

2. So why would such records be suppressed? 

3. We don't know what we don't know about the remaining records. So assuming the remaining records are benign, or contain no real information, is not a valid position. 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RO-

Thanks for your addition to this conversation. 

I surely admire the work of Larry Hancock and others on what has been released, and of the ARRB, and the work Larry Schnapf and others to release the remaining records. 

I stand by my sentiments:

1. I am deeply skeptical that the remaining records are being suppressed for bona fide national security reasons. 

2. So why would such records be suppressed? 

3. We don't know what we don't know about the remaining records. So assuming the remaining records are benign, or contain no real information, is not a valid position. 

 

 

I posted the note because I keep seeing discussions of outstanding JFK records being framed solely as information being withheld by government agencies, mainly the CIA.  Many don't seem to know that while the JFK Act is written with reference to agency records, Congress delegated to the ARRB  the job of defining what they were supposed to look for.  What is a JFK record.

It took the ARRB until the middle of 1995 to define the term (which left them only 3 years to do the job). And when they did, they defined a record as broadly as possible because they wanted the term to include everything relevant to understanding the murder..

And so people should broaden their horizons when discussing what information belongs in the JFK Record Collection at NARA. There is much that should be in the Collection but isn't.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Roger Odisio said:

I posted the note because I keep seeing discussions of outstanding JFK records being framed solely as information being withheld by government agencies, mainly the CIA.  Many don't seem to know that while the JFK Act is written with reference to agency records, Congress delegated to the ARRB  the job of defining what they were supposed to look for.  What is a JFK record.

It took the ARRB until the middle of 1995 to define the term (which left them only 3 years to do the job). And when they did, they defined a record as broadly as possible because they wanted the term to include everything relevant to understanding the murder..

And so people should broaden their horizons when discussing what information belongs in the JFK Record Collection at NARA. There is much that should be in the Collection but isn't.

 

Excellent points.

 

[Marcus Fuller]

I know next to zero about the JFK records act but I must confess to being very interested in the UFO topic and have followed it very closely for a number of years. As far as I understand it it was designed to allow the US government to take ownership of any recovered craft or tech and to give whistle blowers extra protection. The guy who objected to it the most had his campaigns etc funded by Lockheed Martin.

For anyone interested in the subject I'd suggest watching a couple of videos or podcasts featuring David Grusch. He was a top level military intelligence guy who was tasked to look into secret black budget programs where non-human craft/tech was allegedly being recovered and back engineered. When he was threatened and had some other professional and safety issues he came forward with what he had found. 

It appears that there is very strong evidence that the US has at least 9 non-human craft in its possession. 

[Larry Hancock]

Marcus, the backstory on Grusch is a bit different than that; he was assigned do a DOD group which was reviewing information on the subject after Congress began to raise the issue based on UAP incidents related to the US Navy off both US coasts.  During that assignment he came into contact with a number of people who have been making a variety of claims over the last couple of decades. You will find he is largely repeating the claims from the Disclosure Project associates, individuals have  been bringing those stories forward for about that period of time, some are solid, some not so much.  There is actually no "very strong evidence" about non-human craft or bodies no matter how much of that has made it into movies ( I say that having followed the subject pretty deeply since 1964).

If  you would like to dig into what some of the current research on UAP's. is doing, from propulsion studies, though image capture to intentions studies I would refer you to the group I work with - the Scientific Coalition for UAP studies - at this link:

https://www.explorescu.org/

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Marcus, the backstory on Grusch is a bit different than that; he was assigned do a DOD group which was reviewing information on the subject after Congress began to raise the issue based on UAP incidents related to the US Navy off both US coasts.  During that assignment he came into contact with a number of people who have been making a variety of claims over the last couple of decades. You will find he is largely repeating the claims from the Disclosure Project associates, individuals have  been bringing those stories forward for about that period of time, some are solid, some not so much.  There is actually no "very strong evidence" about non-human craft or bodies no matter how much of that has made it into movies ( I say that having followed the subject pretty deeply since 1964).

If  you would like to dig into what some of the current research on UAP's. is doing, from propulsion studies, though image capture to intentions studies I would refer you to the group I work with - the Scientific Coalition for UAP studies - at this link:

https://www.explorescu.org/

LH-

I do have this reservation about statements the US government is withholding evidence about actual UFO craft, or alien beings, it has in its possession.

The US, as a percent of total earth landmass, is somewhat limited. 

We can assume if there were UFO crashes, or aliens that have been captured or seized after death, they would be roughly distributed around the planet, or at least around global population centers. 

So...are the governments of Russia, China, Brazil, Mexico, India, and other nations, also in possession of UFO crafts and beings, and they are also withholding such evidence? 

This does not rule a lone UFO crash on US soil, just by happen-stance. But it does seem against the odds. 

I am entirely open to the existence of UFOs. I be darned if I know what they are. 

 

 

[Larry Hancock]

Ben, UAP reports cover such a wide range of phenomena that it would really be best if there were a taxonomy to guide the conversations.  However the physical constructs that I focus on myself are pretty well defined in shape, performance and even acoustic and EM effects...there are good papers on that on the SCU site at the link I posted.

I don't claim to have a clue to their origins but the team I'm working with is now into its fourth year using the practices of strategic intelligence to evaluate the most probable intentions in both the military and public domains.  We have published two peer reviewed papers on the military domain and our first on the public domain activities will come out in January.  As with most intelligence work all we can do is assess the relative probabilities during the three decades we have studied but its been a fascinating trek and at least we are offering something tangible  for discussion.

[Jonathan Cohen]

15 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

It appears that there is very strong evidence that the US has at least 9 non-human craft in its possession. 

Nonsense, as Larry has pointed out above.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Ben, UAP reports cover such a wide range of phenomena that it would really be best if there were a taxonomy to guide the conversations.  However the physical constructs that I focus on myself are pretty well defined in shape, performance and even acoustic and EM effects...there are good papers on that on the SCU site at the link I posted.

I don't claim to have a clue to their origins but the team I'm working with is now into its fourth year using the practices of strategic intelligence to evaluate the most probable intentions in both the military and public domains.  We have published two peer reviewed papers on the military domain and our first on the public domain activities will come out in January.  As with most intelligence work all we can do is assess the relative probabilities during the three decades we have studied but its been a fascinating trek and at least we are offering something tangible  for discussion.

Well, I am open-minded. I hope you can wrest records out of the government's grip. 

[Larry Hancock]

Well first off, we actually have enough historical data including detailed radar, optical and electronic emissions to do a pretty strong job of characterizing what is obviously unconventional technology.   Beyond that there is enough detail in over the 30 years of existing, Air Force  unidentified flying object records which we do have to perform a reasonable intelligence analysis of UAP intentions, especially in the military domain.  Those studies have already been done and are available on peer reviewed reports on the SCU web site - they are extensive, illustrated and "deep" - and not nearly sensational enough to get popular readership or press attention. Here is a link to one a physical characteristics study as an illustration:

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/An%20Evaluation%20of%20UAP%20Shapes%20and%20Characteristics%20Powell%20et%20al.pdf

In terms of "wresting" though, its very different from the JFK record challenge.  After 1970 their was literally no centralized collection of UAP reports and no official field investigations.  Not that there were not serious military incidents, but the only records of them were in the form of situation reports, operations reports or national security alerts at NORAD, NMCC, SAC or with Navy commands.  So the legislation asking for UAP reports to be simply handed over is relatively useless.  That's why we needed a Review Board and appropriate staff to go out and prospect for documents from all government agencies (although most have no doubt been destroyed simply due to aging and standard document retention practices).

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Larry Hancock

[Marcus Fuller]

14 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Nonsense, as Larry has pointed out above.

Solid refutation there Jonathan, thanks for again adding nothing of worth to the conversation. Schumer Amendment just done for the 'lols' was it? 

[Marcus Fuller]

On 12/18/2023 at 2:19 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Marcus, the backstory on Grusch is a bit different than that; he was assigned do a DOD group which was reviewing information on the subject after Congress began to raise the issue based on UAP incidents related to the US Navy off both US coasts.  During that assignment he came into contact with a number of people who have been making a variety of claims over the last couple of decades. You will find he is largely repeating the claims from the Disclosure Project associates, individuals have  been bringing those stories forward for about that period of time, some are solid, some not so much.  There is actually no "very strong evidence" about non-human craft or bodies no matter how much of that has made it into movies ( I say that having followed the subject pretty deeply since 1964).

If  you would like to dig into what some of the current research on UAP's. is doing, from propulsion studies, though image capture to intentions studies I would refer you to the group I work with - the Scientific Coalition for UAP studies - at this link:

https://www.explorescu.org/

Thanks Larry. That's the group with Luis Elizondo isn't it? Or at least I believe he has been involved in one way or another?

[Larry Hancock]

Yes, he spoke at one of our conferences and a couple of our Board members have been connected to him for some time.  I've never met him myself.  I'm on the Board but stay largely involved with research projects rather than the outreach and affiliate work that we also do. 

[Marcus Fuller]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Yes, he spoke at one of our conferences and a couple of our Board members have been connected to him for some time.  I've never met him myself.  I'm on the Board but stay largely involved with research projects rather than the outreach and affiliate work that we also do. 

I know a few people who I'm sure would love to talk to you about it as they have UAP related podcasts, Youtube channels etc. I'd certainly give it a listen.