by Jon Rappoport
In the current wave of UFO disclosures, the press (in particular,
the New York Times) has decided to
use Luis Elizondo, a career intelligence case officer, as its
This choice reveals a time-honored strategy of elite news
cherry-pick who is
reliable and who isn't.
Of course, the press
presents its case as flowing FROM the source.
But that's not true,
because reporters and editors could have used other "reliable
sources" to tell a different, or even contradictory, story.
Everything depends on who, at the moment, is pumped up and ushered
on to center stage, and tagged as "reliable."
I'm not saying Mr. Elizondo is telling lies from wall to wall.
But, for example,
Where was the Times
when reports began to emerge of
UFOs appearing at a missile base in
Montana (1967) and
shutting down launch-capability?
There were a number of
professional military observers at the time.
They could have been
deemed "reliable sources," but they weren't. For decades, this event
has been suppressed or downplayed by the mainstream press.
"Well, we did look
into it, but we concluded there just wasn't enough there. We
didn't go with the piece because the confirmation was thin."
That's a frequent excuse.
Often, it doesn't hold
water. It reflects an arbitrary decision to ignore a valid account.
This is how the game is played.
"Reliable source" can be managed, on a case by case basis.
"Let's see. We can
imply the steep rise in autism is the result of more careful
monitoring of cases, or a genetic problem, or the rapid
expansion of the CDC vaccination schedule. Let's do a piece on
Who can we tap for
comments? Round up the usual list of expert sources and get
suggests a stronger link to genes than previously supposed.'
When I was writing my
AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century,
in 1987, I decided to look into the widely promoted notion that HIV
had spread to humans, in Africa, through contact with green monkeys.
When the US press wants
to promote a "new disease," they inevitably go to far-off places
around the globe for their "origin story."
The last time I looked,
no new epidemic has ever begun in Brooklyn. I called a prominent
AIDS researcher at Harvard. Without pause, he told me the green
monkey theory had no evidence to support it.
Well, obviously, the
press hadn't used him as a "reliable source." They might use him to
comment on other matters, but not this one - because "green monkey"
was the preferred scenario for the moment.
On the UFO front, the Times could have jumped with both feet into
Disclosure Project years ago
(twitter). Greer had scores of military and intelligence officers
who were testifying to all sorts of UFO contact. But back then, the
story was verboten.
So the sources were
Sometimes, the graduation from nonsense-story to breaking news isn't
the decision of a major press outlet. The newspaper or broadcast
network takes its cue from a "higher authority."
The CIA or the Pentagon,
for example. Or from an anonymous heavy hitter who will never be
Depending on the topic of
the story, the heavy hitter could exist within the core of,
This is the "green light"
What was once a
studiously ignored piece suddenly turns into an imperative to
publish. The chosen news outlets jump into action. The green light
can also click through indirect means.
Consider the name, Jim
Semivan. He is on Tom DeLonge's team at the newly formed
To the Stars Academy, the group
which includes Mr. Elizondo, mentioned above.
Here is a thumbnail bio
of Mr. Semivan from Simon & Schuster publishers:
"Jim retired in 2007
after a 25-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency's
National Clandestine Service.
At the time of his
retirement he was a member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence
Service. Jim served multiple overseas and domestic tours along
with senior management positions in CIA headquarters.
He is the recipient
of the Agency's Career Intelligence Medal."
Semivan's emergence in
UFO disclosure activities would alert the New York Times that
it should pay attention to any information coming out of To the
Semivan is more than a
witness or a researcher. He's a high-level man connected to
the intelligence community. If he backs up a story, it's
I'll give you a name:
Dolan is the
author of books on UFOs, and he is
a publisher in the same field.
A highly intelligent
observer, when he makes inferences from data he explains his
reasons. He possesses a formidable knowledge of UFO incidents over
the course of decades.
Major media outlets could
go to him as a direct source for articles, or as a guide who could
point them to credible stories.
But that doesn't happen.
Because Mr. Dolan could
unleash "too much information." He could open up too many cans of
worms. And he doesn't have an official position in government or
He is reliable, but not in the media sense of the word. He
could give, say, the reporters at the New York Times far more help
than their editors could - but that doesn't matter.
What matters to the Times and other mainstream outlets is the agenda
of the moment. And who will bolster that agenda.
Why isn't long-time UFO researcher
Grant Cameron writing op-ed
pieces for the Times? He has a very interesting take on how various
UFO spokespeople have been used by the military-intelligence
Alas, Cameron makes too
much sense. He goes too deep...
So instead, a Times
reporter writes a human-interest story about his father. The father
was a veteran UFO watcher, who sadly died before the US government
"admitted UFOs exist," a couple of weeks ago.
At any time over the past 40 years, the Times could have assigned a
couple of reporters the job of assembling a history of bullet-proof
UFO-encounter stories. For a major article.
An article that would
have settled the issue once and for all:
UFOs, whatever they
are, exist, and they exhibit extraordinary capabilities.
But "it wasn't time."
Now, it is... The green light is on. But it is only glowing for
certain people, and for chosen news companies. The 'Reliable
Therefore, when the Times, or a comparable media operation,
discloses UFO revelations, the stories - accurate or not -
reflect a purpose that is hidden.
That purpose is never the unvarnished and complete truth.
Over the past 35 years, working as a reporter, I've spoken
off-the-record with a number of mainstream journalists. They readily
admit to making "partial disclosures," otherwise known as limited
hangouts. They explain this as "sticking to the facts at hand." But
that's not true.
They also admit their
editors keep them from digging deeper on a story.
Digging deeper would, of course, expose unpleasant scandals the
public shouldn't be aware of. And in the process, people who are
deemed unreliable sources would be vindicated.
If THAT happened, the
whole proprietary media egg would crack.
The public would understand, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that
big media cherry-pick their
sources, and mainstream news is a stage play.
An acid test:
If the New York Times
gave the first five pages of their paper to a few independent
UFO reporters for a week, those reporters could write a slew of
hard-hitting factual pieces that would shake the foundations of
knowledge about UFOs.
Sales of the paper would
skyrocket, and names like Luis Elizondo and Jim Semivan would fade
far into the background.
The public would realize
that verified sightings of UFOs go back at least 50 years. And that
would be just the beginning of
"Reliable source" is a pliable term. In the media landscape, it
implies that editors and publishers are in charge of defining it, at
any given moment, to suit their agenda.
If tomorrow, for example, the Times decided that the famous
Lockheed Skunkworks, located in the
desert (Palmdale, California), was their primary target, as in -
what have they been building out there for years? - a whole new raft
of reliable sources would come into play overnight.
Setting their hounds
loose, with no restrictive deadline, the Times might experience what
it's like to operate as an actual news outlet. They would eventually
penetrate many cover stories.
What would they discover?
The former director of the elite Skunkworks,
Ben Rich, before his death, is
reported to have said (UCLA School of Engineering speech, March 23,
"We now know how to
travel to the stars… There are many in the intelligence
community who would like to see this stay in the black and not
see the light of day."
Now there's a potential
source - an insider's insider.
Did Ben Rich say that? Is
it true? If it's true, how did Lockheed develop/obtain the
Why not pursue that lead and run it down?
"Well, we don't like
to rely on dead sources, especially when they make bizarre
Who says the
claim is bizarre?
The CIA? The
automatically listed as reliable?
Is "hard to
believe, hard to fathom" an unimpeachable standard for
barring investigations without further thought?
instance, the whole CIA
MKULTRA Mind Control Program
bizarre and hard to believe, before it was exposed?
Thousands of events and
programs are impossible, before they turn out to have happened.
The idea that the New York Times, the number one media
outlet in the world, isn't devoted to the truth - that idea
would be very hard for many people to believe - until it's shown to
"Hi, I'm major media.
I depend on reliable sources.
I decide who is
reliable and who isn't, on any given day of the week. I use
these sources to construct and shape Reality for the masses.
That's my job.
I spend gargantuan
amounts of money in this effort.
After all, inventing
Reality is an awesome mandate. You can't fool around with that.
You must be convincing. If I tried and failed, the consequences
would be devastating. A few billion people would see holes in
This is not permitted
Ah, but it is happening.
The Reality Manufacturing Company is at DEFCON 1, red lights
are blinking, and systems are going down...