Article by Victor Garcia July 27, 2019 (foxnews.com)
• Representative Mark Walker, R-N.C., is the ranking member of terrorism and counterintelligence as a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Walker was on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News on July 26th, where he said that he is “concerned” about recent reports by U.S. Navy pilots of encounters with unidentified aircraft that some have speculated could be extraterrestrial.
• Walker stated, “It comes down to some of the new infrared radar systems that we’re putting on some of our new (military) jets (that) are detecting some things out there.” “We are concerned about it.”
• The New York Times reported that Navy pilots had seen “strange objects” with “no visible engine or exhaust plumes” flying at hypersonic speeds at an elevation of 30,000 feet along the East Coast. The Pentagon confirmed the existence of a program to investigate UFOs, but it is unclear whether that is still operating. Last month, Politico reported that three senators had received a briefing from the Pentagon on the UFO encounters.
• In a letter to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer earlier this month, Walker relayed his concerns and asked whether the Navy was still logging the reported sightings, fully investigating the origins of the accounts, and dedicating resources to track and investigate the claims. Walker also asked Spencer in the letter if investigators had “found physical evidence or otherwise that substantiates these claims” of extraterrestrial UFOs.
• At one point, Tucker Carlson said to Walker, “There must be theories about what these objects are what these aircraft are.” “What’s the most plausible theory, do you think?” Walker replied, “We don’t know for sure. The question that we’re wanting to get to is, is this something that’s a defense mechanism from another country?”
Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., told Fox News Friday that he is “concerned” about recent reports by U.S. Navy pilots of encounters with unidentified aircraft that some have speculated could be otherworldly.
“We are concerned about it,” Walker, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “As the ranking member of terrorism and counterintelligence, we have questions. It comes down to some of the new infrared radar systems that we’re putting on some of our new jets are detecting some things out there.”
In a letter to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer earlier this month, Walker relayed his concerns and asked for more information on what he referred to as unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP).
Specifically, Walker asked whether the Navy was still logging the reported sightings, fully investigating the origins of the accounts, and dedicating resources to track and investigate the claims.
Walker also asked Spencer in the letter if investigators had “found physical evidence or otherwise that substantiates these claims.”
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.
In relation to an extraterrestrial presence, we may be dealing with “Hyperobjects” or “Multiple Objects.” For intelligently influencing an Intelligent Disclosure we would need to study Developmental Psychology and how human consciousness and subjectivity may deal with these objects.
Consciousness can be understood as the capacity to experience meaning, in fact, forms of meaning, including how to interpret them. The meanings of experience are normally related to objects of experience and, ultimately, even consciousness itself can be understood as an object of its own experience. Therefore, epistemology and ontology are not separate. Meanings can be of multiple kinds like sensations (pain, pleasure), sentiments/feelings, concepts, ultimate spiritual meanings…any form of meaning.
Leading a ‘sensible’ human adaptation to emergent, culturally and instinctively-challenging global issues requires a global form of integrative perspective-taking. This would be a level of interpretation capable of appreciating the importance of previous forms of interpretation in such a way that its possible to work with individuals interpreting reality under such previous levels. Moreover, it would be a form of interpretation that operates under a more extended experience of “meaningful time” in which for practical purposes the motivation to act in the present experience includes more of the past and of the future.
A creative, adaptive political and cultural acknowledgment of a globally active, advanced, non-human extraterrestrial presence on Earth is akin to intelligently dealing with culturally-challenging, global issues like “climate change.” These are issues which are so widely distributed in space and in time that only fragments of their meaning can be grasped simultaneously by most people. They trump traditional ideas about what a thing is in the first place. These issues are called “hyperobjects” by Timothy Morton, author of “Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World” (2013). They require a completely different way of thinking and being in the world; quite likely post binary, connecting the subjective and objective realms of experience and inclusive of a type of science in which the non-physical consciousness, information and subtler forms of energy are used to modify physical matter.
On the other hand, integrative philosopher Sean Esbjörn-Hargens consider climate change and similar issues as “multiple objects.” This is an object that is objectively real but enacted through different subjective perspectives producing different meanings about it. I think that the “global technologically advanced, non-human, presence related to UFOs” can also be considered as a “multiple object.”
In the following article, Gail Hochachka studies the multiple responses to the issue of “climate change” under the aegis of Developmental Psychology. With a greater capacity for taking multiple perspectives, individuals may be able to deal with “hyperobjects” or with “multiple objects” more appropriately. Hochachka also shows how individuals operating under different interpretive levels of development “make meaning” including greater or lesser degrees of the present, past and future considerations accompanying different degree of abstraction and personal identifications.
I recognize the crucial importance that TTSA has played in moving the UFO subject into the mainstream, serving as a bridge between the highest levels of secrecy and the general public. However, it is time for many more serious cultural influencers to join a serious conversation regarding the “global, technologically advanced, non-human presence related to UFOs” beyond the influence of those in the know within military and intelligence circles who may only be able to interpret the situation under particular valid but partial limited perspectives. But we must rise to the challenge surpassing conventional modes of thinking.
If UAP intelligences are able to handle a more extended present, a present that includes more of the future and of the past in a non-linear way as Luis Elizondo suggested (as a personal opinion) during a MUFON interview (see the May 2018 edition of “The MUFON Journal”), their conscious capacity for doing so may be similar or above an integrative perspective-taking capacity. At the very least, they would also be able to adequately understand “hyperobjects” or “multiple objects” and think in global and species-wide terms in constructive and adaptive ways. And this would entail that eventually most of humanity would also need to rise to an integrative perspective-taking capacity.
“What if there were other species or even humans, where their understanding of the present, that optic, that spark, is maybe a little bit bigger? Maybe that optic is a little bit wider. Rather than being a point, maybe it’s a range. Maybe the understanding of the present isn’t a point, but it’s a range, and maybe there’s elements of the future and the past that are experienced as the present, and, therefore, what we perceive as linear space-time maybe others don’t. In fact, maybe these are things that have lived here forever, before us. Maybe, we share the space with them.” (Luis Elizondo).
Whether UAP or UFO intelligences pose an actual physical threat or not (and I surmise that most don’t), not rising to a capacity for understanding tantamount to dealing with “hyperobjects” may produce a cultural type of threat since we would not be able to adapt. We would need to adapt to cultures that may not want to conquer us as technologically advanced cultures did on Earth against less technologically developed ones. However, their understanding of complexity, consciousness, information, in a post-materialist way capable of transcending our spacetime-limited cultural traditions may be a threat if we are unable to rise to the challenge. It would require the greatest shift for human civilization since the taming of fire and the discovery of stone tools. What if (just like “hyperobjects” or “multiple objects”) “they” (the UAP or UFO intelligences) may be already participating inside of us as we may be participating inside of them? What if we can only understand this if we rise above a rigid, binary distinction between objectivity and subjectivity? Rigid distinctions between “us” and “them” would melt along with rigid distinctions between our “present” linear, interpretive experiences and non-existing pasts and futures.
Gail Hochachka’s study would also be useful to cultural leaders willing to influence the ways society may respond to a “global technologically advanced, non-human presence related to UFOs” inasmuch as its reality is becoming uncontroversial. With the aim of promoting a healthy, adaptive response to the technologically advanced, non-human presence in society, we need to study Developmental Psychology and how a greater number of individuals may intelligently or constructively relate to “Hyperobjects” or “Multiple Objects.” The good news is that human capacity seems to be able to reach an integrative level suitable for an adequate, intelligent cultural adaptation and flourishing under the new circumstances. We just need to implement ways to promote the massive psychological development of individuals up to that level. We need the political will beyond the hyper nationalisms in vogue today. Realistically speaking, only perhaps by being forced to deal with the extraordinary realities at hand will activate that political will.
Hochachka’s study can be useful to the intellectually serious disclosure activist, UFO researcher, experiencer or exopolitician since a “global, technologically advanced, non-human presence related to UFOs” can also be considered a “hyperobject” or as a “multiple object.” Again, understanding the human capacity to intelligently relate with such objects would be crucial for politically and culturally influencing or guiding a policy of “intelligent disclosure” in an adaptive, positive, constructive manner.
Hochachka, Gail (2019). “On matryoshkas and meaning-making: Understanding the plasticity of climate change.” https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0959378018309762?token=D77478FF2E973E616FF618580A7BDC87B07DB7D8FC1B7012979A7BD5F00FD8B1B43CC12B5F15030D6CC5D9FAF61D1D2D
Hochachka, Gail (2019). “On Matryoshkas and Meaning-making: Understanding the Plasticity of Climate Change.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378018309762
The National Security Agency has responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning direct communications between Seth Rich, a former staffer for the Democratic National Committee, and Julian Assange and/or Wikileaks. The NSA issued a “Glomar Response”, where it chose to neither confirm nor deny the requested information due to its existence or “non-existence” being “properly classified”.
The NSA response reveals that communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks are subject to classification laws. Their release will have major national security implications that directly impact US Russia relations, and may facilitate disclosure of suppressed secret space program technologies.
I filed the FOIA request after communicating with Ty Clevenger, Esq., who had on October 10, 2017, filed an FOIA request regarding communications between Rich and Assange, along with many other individuals. In his original FOIA letter to the NSA, Clevenger requested:
All documents, records, or communications referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and any of the following: Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, Rao Abbas, and/or any person or entity outside of the United States. (pdf available here)
The NSA wrote a final response to Clevenger on October 4, 2018:
Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph (c) of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET. (pdf available here)
The Clevinger’s FOIA request and the NSA’s response was the subject of an article by Mark McCarty published by Medium.com on April 19, 2019, where he analyzed its consequences for those claiming Rich was the real source of the DNC emails being handed over to Wikileaks. Unfortunately, McCarty’s article was taken down by Medium.com and he was removed as an author from the site in what appears to be a flagrant case of censorship.
“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange.
And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files, 32 pages, but they’re all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore you can’t have them.
That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices.”
In closely examining Clevinger’s request and the NSA’s response, what is left unclear is exactly who Rich was communicating with that the 15 documents (32 pages) were referring to.
This was due to the initial FOIA request by Clevinger being very broad in scope since it asked for multiple individuals that Rich was communicating with in addition to Assange/Wikileaks. Basically, the NSA’s response, as cited above, made it unclear whether the information it had concerned communications between Rich and Assange, or Rich and one of the other named parties.
In order to narrow the scope of the inquiry into Rich’s communications, I filed my own FOIA request to the NSA on April 27, 2019:
I am researching the circumstances surrounding the death of Seth Conrad Rich (“Seth Rich, born January 3, 1968), who was murdered in the District of Columbia on July 10, 2016. I request all documents, records, or correspondence referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange or Wikileaks.
I received the following response by the NSA on May 1, 2019.
We have determined that the fact of the existence or non-existence of the materials you request is a currently and properly classified matter in accordance with Executive Order 13526, as set forth in Subparagraph (c) of Section 1.4. Thus, your request is denied pursuant to the first exemption of the FOIA which provides that FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign relations and are, in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.”
Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information; (c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or
(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.
The NSA’s response is known as a “Glomar Response”, which is different from a regular denial of a request for official government records as explained by Nate Jones from Unredacted.com:
The Glomar Response is different than a regular FOIA denial—when an agency states that it has the records but that it will not release them. When an agency replies with a Glomar Response, it refuses even to admit that documents exist; this makes research (and the appeals process) much more difficult.
The NSA’s decision of neither confirming nor denying the existence of direct communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks affirms that the NSA is unwilling to directly admit such correspondence exists and makes it difficult for researchers to reach a definitive answer. Nevertheless, what the NSA’s response does reveal is that the alleged communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks are a matter of national security.
The NSA response is a startling admission given what has been previously learned about Rich’s role in handing over the DNC emails to Assange and Wikileaks as discussed in my previous article on Rich. Basically, we know that law enforcement sources told journalists Seymour Hersh and Sean Hannity/Fox News that Rich was the source for the DNC party email links.
In addition, Binney was part of a group of former U.S. intelligence officers that wrote a report released on July 24, 2017 explaining why it was impossible for the DNC files to have been downloaded by online hackers, and the most likely explanation was an inside source with direct access to the DNC server who leaked the files through a thumb drive:
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.
The NSA’s responses to Clevinger and my FOIA requests take on even more significance given recent attempts to debunk any purported connection between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks. Michael Isikoff, writing for Yahoo News on July 9, 2019, insisted that the Russians were the real source of the leak and not Rich:
Russian government-owned media organizations RT and Sputnik repeatedly played up stories that baselessly alleged that Rich, a relatively junior-level staffer, was the source of Democratic Party emails that had been leaked to WikiLeaks. It was an idea first floated by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who on Aug. 9, 2016, announced a $20,000 reward for information about Rich’s murder, saying — somewhat cryptically — that “our sources take risks.”
Many mainstream news sources ran with Isikoff’s story which neglected to discuss Binney’s intelligence assessment, the NSA FOIA responses, and what Seymour Hersh had been told about Rich being the source for the leak. It appeared that Isikoff’s story was an attempt to get in front of a developing story stemming from Assange’s looming extradition to the US, and his expected testimony tying Rich to the DNC emails released by Wikileaks.
The conclusion that emerges from the NSA FOIA responses and what other researchers have revealed is that the Deep State has framed Russia for a domestic leak by a disgruntled DNC employee, Seth Rich. The Deep State’s purpose was to undermine Trump’s presidential campaign and his subsequent administration through concocted Russia collusion charges, and to impede meaningful cooperation between Trump and Putin on a host of global policy issues.
One of these global policy areas concerns the official disclosure of exotic aerospace technologies secretly used by the US and Russia in their respective secret space programs, which I have described elsewhere. The disclosure of such technologies could do much to resolve global security and energy problems, but would have major repercussions for the petroleum and pharmaceutical industries that are dependent on antiquated fuel and medical technologies.
What has clearly emerged since the DNC emails were leaked is that the mainstream news media, along with major social media companies such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google, have all colluded to deceive the US and the global public over the real source of the leaked DNC emails. As the truth emerges about Rich being the true source for emails leaked by Wikileaks in 2016, the role and power of the Deep State in manipulating public opinion so brazenly for over two years is about to be exposed. This exposure will open the door for exotic technology disclosures that can revolutionize life on our planet.