Richard Dolan の批判 : WSJ が UFO 情報撹乱工作を仕掛けてきた

June 17, 2025 · 57 min read

前置き

静止画像

情報源 : 動画(38:28)

THE REAL REASON for WSJ's Information War Against UFOs The Richard Dolan Show

要旨 by AI

WSJのUFO情報戦：真相と戦略 - 詳細ブリーフィング資料

このブリーフィング資料は、リチャード・ドーランのポッドキャスト「THE REAL REASON for WSJ's Information War Against UFOs The Richard Dolan Show」の文字起こしに基づき、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル（WSJ）のUFOに関する記事の主要なテーマと最も重要な事実、またはドーランの主張をレビューします。ドーランの主観的見解や感想は除外し、記事の事実とされる点とドーランの主要な主張に焦点を当てます。

WSJ記事の概要と主要な主張

WSJは、「ペンタゴンの偽情報がアメリカのUFO神話を煽った」と題する記事を発表しました。これは複数部構成のシリーズの第一弾とされています。記事の執筆者はJoel SchechtmanとAruna Viswanathaで、彼らは以前にもUFOに触れる記事を執筆していますが、いずれも懐疑的なトーンでした。

WSJ記事の主要な論点：

UFO神話の起源はペンタゴンの偽情報キャンペーンにある：米国における現代のUFO信仰、特に墜落したUFOやリバースエンジニアリングプログラム、政府の隠蔽工作に関する主張は、実際の遭遇や異星の技術から生まれたものではなく、冷戦期以降のペンタゴンによる意図的な偽情報キャンペーンに由来するというのが中心的な主張です。
- 国防総省による情報操作の具体例：1980年代の元空軍大佐が、エリア51近くのバー経営者にUFOの捏造写真を渡し、基地で試験中の実験機から世間の注意をそらそうとした事例。
- 軍の機密プログラム内における「ヤンキーブルー」と呼ばれる「機関的ハラスメント」。新兵を秘密の異星技術回収作業に配属されたと信じ込ませ、非人間的な飛行物体やリバースエンジニアリングの噂を軍関係者内で広め、それがやがて世間に漏洩したと主張。
- 1967年のマルムストロム空軍基地事件の新たな説明。この事件では核ミサイルが停止しましたが、WSJ記事では、UFOとの遭遇ではなく、米政府自身が行った電磁パルス（EMP）実験が原因であったと主張しています。
偽情報の目的：これらのUFOに関する話の拡散は、軍にとって複数の重要な機能を果たしました。「外国の敵対勢力をアメリカの能力について誤解させる」「機密航空機の存在を隠す」「様々な種類の機密国家安全保障作戦の隠れ蓑を提供する」といったものです。
政府による神話の捏造： WSJの記事は、UFOを取り巻く神話、特に回収された異星の機体や政府の秘密知識のアイデアが、戦略的な理由からアメリカ政府関係者によって意図的に捏造されたものであると強く示唆しています。彼らは、2024年のアロー・レポートなどの最近の報告書を引用し、非人間の技術や政府による隠蔽の信頼できる証拠はないという考えを支持しています。
冷戦戦略に起源を持つ物語の自己増殖：記事は、UFO物語のこれらの側面が冷戦期の偽情報戦略の一部として始まり、それが現在、大衆の想像力の中で独自の生命を宿していると論じています。

ドーランによるWSJ記事への批判と主張

リチャード・ドーランは、WSJの記事を「徹底的なUFO物語の再構築の試みであり、情報戦の一部」と見なしています。

WSJ記事に対するドーランの主な批判点：
- 信頼性の低い情報源と証拠の欠如：記事は「数千ページにわたる文書と20人以上の現役および元政府高官へのインタビュー」に言及しているものの、具体的な文書、機密解除された報告書、または名前の明示された情報源はほとんど提供していません。主張のほとんどは匿名の情報源または非常に曖昧な逸話に基づいています。「空軍将校がUFO回収プログラムが実在すると信じ込ませるために凝った嫌がらせの儀式を演出した」という話は「非常に奇妙」であると指摘しています。
- 過去の報道姿勢との連続性： WSJは2017年以降、UFO/UAPの話題が盛り上がる中でも、ほとんど傍観を決め込み、関与する際も非常に懐疑的または皮肉なトーンでした。今回の記事は、その姿勢の「集大成」であり、「調査」ではなく「リフレーミングの努力」であると見ています。
- 情報の意図的な省略：記事は、ペンタゴンが確認した海軍のUFO映像、デヴィッド・フレーバーのようなパイロットの証言、レーダーデータ、過去7年間にわたる公的・非公的な議会ブリーフィングについて一切言及していません。ドーランは「それらのどれもが、彼らの物語に合わないため、ただ除外されている」と主張しています。
- 「アロー・レポート」の不十分な引用：記事は2024年のアロー・レポートを「最終的な言葉」として引用していますが、報告書の内容を要約するだけで引用せず、その報告書に対する批判も無視していると指摘しています。歴史的・国際的文脈の無視：1940年代以降の膨大な数のUFO目撃情報（National UFO Reporting Centerだけで10万件以上）を無視していると指摘しています。
  - 米国政府が「UFOを創造した」という主張は、「この現象が数十年にわたり軍事・情報機関の最高レベルで引き起こしてきた非常に広範で現実の懸念を無視している」と述べています。
  - CIA、FBI、空軍、海軍、NSAがUFOを真剣に扱ってきた歴史的事実を強調しています。特に1952年には、首都上空を含む目撃情報の急増により、CIAの科学情報局が内部調査を開始し、H.マーシャル・チャドウェル科学部長が「これらの異常な物体が高度なスピードで敏感な施設上空を飛行している目撃情報は、通常の自然現象や既知の航空機に起因しない」と述べるメモを作成したことに言及しています。
  - 1953年のロバートソン・パネルが、「事実に基づいて目撃情報を否定するためではなく、一般の認識を管理し、市民の関心を阻害するために」招集されたという歴史的文脈を強調し、これは「現実に関心のない機関の行動ではなく、制御できない現象に脅かされた政府の行動」であると主張しています。
  - WSJ記事が、UFO現象の「国際的性格」に全く言及していないことを「全く驚くべきこと」と指摘しています。ソ連、フランス（GAPON）、英国、中国、ブラジルなど、多くの国々が独自のUFO調査プログラムを持ち、レーダー追跡される構造のある飛行物体や核施設との相互作用に関する事例を研究してきたことに触れ、「ペンタゴンの心理作戦に起因するものではない」と断言しています。
- 記事の真の目的は情報操作：ドーランは、WSJの記事がUFOの謎を解明しようとするものではなく、「それを埋葬し、すべての機関を免責する物語に置き換える」試みであると見ています。「これは真実を暴くことよりも、認識を管理することにある」と主張し、これを「ダメージコントロール」と呼んでいます。
- 議会へのメッセージとしての記事：記事の「トーン、タイミング、枠組み」は、一般大衆ではなく「議会」に向けられたメッセージであると主張しています。特に、「UAP開示法（UAPDA）」の再審議を控える中で、この法案の前提を「信用失墜させるための突然の動き」であると分析しています。
  - UAPDAは、国防総省や情報機関の権限外に独立したレビュー委員会を設立し、UFO、非人間の技術、政府のUAPプログラムに関連する歴史的記録をレビュー、機密解除、公開する法的権限を与えるものです。
  - また、民間企業や請負業者が保有する非人間の物質を米国政府に引き渡すことを法的に強制する「領域権」の規定も含まれています。
  - さらに、開示の構造化されたタイムラインを義務付け、不確実な遅延や選任されていない政府高官による決定を排除します。
  - ドーランは、この法案が可決されれば、「UAPをめぐる秘密主義が外部からの強制的な説明責任に服する初めての機会」となり、これは「国家安全保障にとってではなく、この秘密を何十年も守ってきた支配構造にとって実存的な脅威となる」と主張しています。

ドーランの核心的な主張と提言

ドーランは、WSJの記事が示すような「大規模な情報操作」の背後には、より深い動機があると主張します。

金融システムと市場の安定化： WSJは「グローバル金融システムの代弁者」であり、その役割は「市場、投資家の信頼、米国の地政学的優位性を保護する物語を安定させること」にあります。もしUFO開示が本当に実現すれば、防衛株や他の投資価値の喪失、エネルギー市場への影響、科学・金融・軍事機関への信頼の崩壊につながる可能性があるため、WSJの記事は「この謎を封じ込める」ために「完璧に理にかなっている」と述べています。
「物語の抗生物質」としての機能：この記事は、「確立された秩序の免疫システムがウイルス的脅威（この場合は透明性や開示）を検知したときに与えられる、物語の抗生物質」であると表現しています。これはジャーナリズムではなく、「システム維持」のためであると断じています。
抵抗と開示の間の闘争：ドーランは、このような大規模な抵抗が起こること自体が、秘密の壁が「ひび割れている」兆候であると見なしています。
真実の受容の難しさ：ドーランは、UFOの真実、すなわち「この世界に私たちだけではないこと、何か知的で、高度で、人間ではないものがここにいる」という事実は、「多くの人々にとって把握するのが非常に難しい現実」であると述べています。「私たちはこれに対する前例も、精神的なカテゴリーも持っていない。私たちの機関はそれを無視するように作られている。私たちの文化は準備ができていない。」と指摘し、人々がこの事実を拒否するのは「心が閉ざされているからではなく、それとどう向き合えばいいかわからないから」であると考えています。
UAPDAへの支持の呼びかけ：ドーランは、ダニー・シーハン氏のニュー・パラダイム・インスティテュートが主催する2025年UAP開示法案への請願を強く支持し、視聴者に参加を促しています。これは「UAP透明性やUFO開示に対する真の草の根の支持を示す完璧な機会」であると述べています。
諦めないことの重要性：ドーランは、真実が一度にすべて現れるわけではなく、膨大な抵抗に対して「少しずつ前進」していることを強調しています。「抵抗が騒々しく、必死で、組織化されたものになったとしても、それを敗北と捉えるのではなく、確認と捉えるべきだ」と語り、諦めずに「真実という糸」にしがみつき続けることの重要性を説いています。

このブリーフィング資料は、WSJの記事が現代のUFO言説に対する主要な反論の試みであり、それに対してリチャード・ドーランが、その記事自体が情報操作の一環であり、特定の政治的・経済的利益を守るための戦略的な動きであると強く主張していることを示しています。特に、今後のUAP開示法案の投票を前にした議会への影響を目的としているという彼の分析は、議論の重要な焦点となっています。

timeline と主要関係者

タイムライン

1940年代以降:
- 何十万、もしかしたら数百万ものUFO目撃情報が記録される。
- 米空軍、CIA、FBI、海軍、NSAといった米国の最高レベルの軍事・情報機関がUFOを真剣に捉える。
- ウォールストリートジャーナル（WSJ）の記事によると、米国防総省が冷戦期以降、秘密兵器プログラムを保護するために意図的なUFOに関する偽情報キャンペーンを実施。
1952年:
- 目撃情報が急増し、米国の首都上空でも確認される。
- CIAの科学情報部が内部調査を開始。
- CIA科学部長H.マーシャル・チャドウェルが、不明な物体が通常の自然現象や既知の航空機に起因しないことを示唆するメモをCIA長官ウォルター・ビードル・スミスに送る。
1953年:
- ロバートソン・パネルが召集され、目撃情報を事実に基づいて否定するのではなく、世間の認識を管理し、市民の関心をそらすことに焦点を当てる。
1960年代～1980年代:
- ソ連が世界で最も包括的な国家主導のUFOプログラムを実施し、円盤型航空機、電磁波干渉、核施設との相互作用に関する事件を研究する。
1960年代後半:
- UFO目撃情報がピークに達し、「コンドン委員会」がUFOに非常に厳しい結論を出す。
1967年:
- マルムストローム空軍基地事件が発生。核ミサイルがUFOとの遭遇中に何らかの形でシャットダウンされたとされる。
- WSJの記事は、この誤作動の原因が米政府自身が行ったEMPテストであるという新たな説明を提示する。
1980年代:
- WSJの記事によると、元空軍大佐がエリア51近くのバー経営者に加工された空飛ぶ円盤の写真を渡し、実験用航空機から世間の注意をそらそうとする。
1990年代初頭:
- ロズウェル事件の目撃情報が再び増え、米空軍がプロジェクト・モーグルとダミー人形墜落の偽情報を出して対応する。
2017年12月以降:
- UFO（UAP）の話題が勢いを増し、海軍パイロットが証言し、議会が調査を開始する。
- WSJは当初、懐疑的なトーンでこの話題に時折触れるが、大抵は傍観していた。
2023年:
- 未確認異常現象開示法（UAPDA）が初めて議会に提出されるが、完全に否決される。
2024年:
- UAPDAが一部の条項を削除された短縮形で可決されるが、法案はまだ生きている。
- アローレポートが発表され、WSJの記事はこのレポートを非人間技術や政府の隠蔽に関する信頼できる証拠がないことの裏付けとして引用する。
- WSJが「ペンタゴンの偽情報がアメリカのUFO神話に火をつけた」と題する2部構成または複数部構成のシリーズの最初の記事を公開。この記事は、現代のUFO信仰の多くが冷戦期の国防総省による意図的な偽情報キャンペーンに由来するという中心的な主張を展開する。
現在:
- UAPDAが今秋にも再審議される可能性が高いとされ、WSJの記事は投票前に世論を形成しようとする試みと見なされている。
- ダニー・シーハンが2025年UAP開示法のための署名運動を開始し、議会議員に直接届けられることを目指す。

登場人物

リチャード・ドーラン (Richard Dolan):
- UFO現象に関するポッドキャスト「The Richard Dolan Show」のホストであり、この文字起こしの元の発言者。歴史家であり、UFOに関する情報操作、特にWSJの記事の意図について批判的な視点を持つ。彼の視点では、WSJの記事は真実を解明するものではなく、情報戦の一部であり、UFO現象の開示を阻止しようとする試みである。
ジョエル・シェクトマン (Joel Schechtman):
- ウォールストリートジャーナルの記者で、UFOに関する記事「ペンタゴンの偽情報がアメリカのUFO神話に火をつけた」の共同執筆者の一人。彼の記事は、現代のUFO信仰が国防総省による意図的な偽情報キャンペーンに由来するという主張を展開する。
アルナ・ヴィシュワナータ (Aruna Viswanatha):
- ウォールストリートジャーナルの記者で、ジョエル・シェクトマンとともにUFOに関する記事の共同執筆者。彼女もまた、UFOに関する以前の記事で懐疑的なトーンで執筆している。
元空軍大佐（氏名不詳）:
- 1980年代にエリア51近くのバー経営者に加工された空飛ぶ円盤の写真を渡し、秘密の実験用航空機から世間の注意をそらそうとしたとされる人物。WSJの記事で言及されているが、氏名は公開されていない。
H.マーシャル・チャドウェル (H. Marshall Chadwell):
- CIAの科学情報部長。1952年のUFO目撃情報急増の際、不明な物体が通常の自然現象や既知の航空機ではないことを示唆するメモをCIA長官に送った。
ウォルター・ビードル・スミス (Walter Bedell Smith):
- 1952年当時のCIA長官。H.マーシャル・チャドウェルからのUFOに関するメモを受け取った。
エドワード・ルッペルト (Edward Ruppelt):
- 米空軍のUFO調査プロジェクト「プロジェクト・ブルーブック」の初代責任者。彼の著書の中で、我々の想像をはるかに超える能力を持つ航空機について言及している。
ニック・ポープ (Nick Pope):
- 元英国防省のUFO担当官。UFO事件が真剣に扱われていたことを公に証言している。
ダニー・シーハン (Danny Sheehan):
- ニュー・パラダイム・インスティテュートの創設者であり、憲法学者。2025年UAP開示法（UAPDA）の世間の支持を得るための嘆願書を作成し、配布している。

展開

（以下は Richard Dolan による "THE REAL REASON for WSJ's Information War Against UFOs The Richard Dolan Show" という podcast の文字起こしです。この文字起こしから、彼の主観的見解や感想を除外し、(1) 事実とされている事柄、(2) 彼の主な主張に重点をおいて整理して。）

Greetings. Last week the Wall Street Journal, actually I think four days ago, the Wall Street Journal, that paragon of the establishment, published the first part of what we are told is going to be a two-part series, or maybe a multi-part series, but I think two. It is a pretty strong take on the subject of UFOs, a really strong take, actually. (0:00:24)

This is the top of the article. It's behind a paywall. I was able to read it because some very nice person, a member of my website, provided me with the whole article, so I was able to read it. I'll link to the article, but you're going to need to find a way to get to that. If someone here has the article, they want to paste it in a comment, hey, I'm not going to complain, but that's up to you. (0:00:53)

But I do want to talk about this. So this is called the Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America's UFO Mythology. It's by Joel Schechtman and Aruna Viswanatha. They've written pieces for the journal before, and also which have touched upon UFOs, all in, not surprisingly, a very skeptical tone throughout. But the central thesis of this piece is very, very interesting. (0:01:22)

It's that really much, maybe all, most of the United States' modern belief in UFOs, and particularly claims involving crashed saucers, reverse engineering programs, and government cover-ups, all of that, this originated, this did not originate from real encounters or from actual alien technology, but rather it originated from intentional disinformation campaigns conducted by the Pentagon during the Cold War and beyond. So, yes, they were trying to make you believe in aliens. (0:01:51)

All right, well, before I continue, let me just remind you, if you like this video, please do share it, subscribe to my channel, all of that. So the article starts, it references a number of previously undisclosed interviews with more than, I think, two dozen current and former national security officials, as well as it says thousands of pages of internal documents. So according to the authors, the sources indicate that for decades, the U.S. military, and especially the Air Force, actively spread false information about UFOs to protect classified weapons programs. (0:02:37)

So there are a number of key examples here. One of them involves a former Air Force colonel in the 1980s. We do not know this man's name. He reportedly handed over doctored photographs of flying saucers to a civilian bar owner near Area 51. These photos were intended to distract public attention away from experimental aircraft being tested at the base. (0:03:03)

And the article really makes a case like this was not an isolated event. This was actually part of a larger pattern of strategic deception. There's another element of the article that talks about what is described as institutional hazing, essentially, within the classified military programs. They called it Yankee Blue. So they had multiple unnamed sources. (0:03:28)

All of them are unnamed. We're told that new personnel in certain black programs were sometimes misled into believing that they were being inducted into secret alien technology retrieval efforts. So the article basically claims that this contributed to the persistent rumors within military circles, within intelligence circles about non-human craft, about reverse engineering efforts. And then these rumors eventually leaked into public discourse. (0:03:58)

So that's basically that argument. They also revisited the famous 1967 Malmstrom Air Force Base incident. This is when nuclear missiles were shut down in one way or another, apparently, and I would say as far as the evidence and testimony goes, during a UFO encounter. Some people say it was something else that caused that. (0:04:23)

And in fact, this article does say something else caused it. It offers a totally new explanation. And it says that the malfunction of these missiles, there were quite a few of them, was caused by an electromagnetic pulse EMP test that was conducted by the US government itself. So the US knocked its own missiles out. It wasn't some unknown craft, but the US did an EMP test, basically as a test to see whether like a nuclear blast would knock out the missile. (0:04:55)

So rather than detonate a nuclear weapon, they detonated an equal EMP blast that would like equal that of a nuclear explosion, essentially. And so that's what they're saying. So that was the true cause of the incident, according to the article. (0:05:09)

And there's more. I mean, the article basically just maintains that all of this propagation of UFO stories and lore served several important functions for the military. First, it misled foreign adversaries about American capabilities. It helped to hide the existence of classified aircraft. It gave cover for different types of sensitive national security operations. So it didn't, it did not explicitly deny all, all unexplained aerial sightings. (0:05:46)

I don't think, I wouldn't say it went that far, but it did very strongly suggest that the mythology, and that's one of the words they use here, surrounding UFOs, and especially the idea of recovered alien craft and all the secret government knowledge, all of this was deliberately fabricated by American officials for strategic reasons. They also drew on some recent reports like the 2024 Arrow Report to support their idea that there's no credible evidence of non-human tech or evidence of a cover-up by the government. (0:06:27)

They argue that many of these aspects of the UFO narrative originated as part of a Cold War disinformation strategy that has now taken on a life of its own in the public imagination. That's basically the thesis. You can, you might be able to get a copy of the article. So there's a couple of revealing things about this article. (0:06:54)

One thing I just think needs to be pointed out here, relating to the Wall Street Journal in general. From 2017 onward, as the UFO, or now UAP, story gained momentum, really starting in December of that year. I mean, we had Navy pilots speaking out, we had Congress starting to launch inquiries. If you read, go back over the Wall Street Journal's pieces, I mean, mostly they remained on the sidelines. (0:07:16)

They did engage occasionally in this subject, and when they did, it was usually with a very skeptical reporting, occasionally I would say snarky editorials. What you never found with the Journal, or really with any of these mainstream publications, the legacy media, is a genuine curiosity, or what you might consider investigative depth. That was never the case with the Wall Street Journal. They had a very clear tone, very distant, very dismissive, and always aligned with official narratives. And that's really what we all have come to expect with the Wall Street Journal. It is one of the main pillars of the establishment. (0:07:55)

So in that sense, this latest article is not a departure at all, but I would say it feels more like a culmination. You have had years of skepticism, so the Journal did not shift to inquiry. No, they doubled down on their already chosen position on this. I think what's different with this article is the scale and the intensity of what they're really saying here. (0:08:23)

This is a complete attempt to recast the entire modern UFO narrative as deliberate Pentagon disinformation. So it's a continuation of the same attitude, but it's louder, maybe. And as I'm going to suggest, it's a much more strategic expression of the position that they've held all along. But first, before I get into that, I want to break down the article just a little bit more. (0:08:46)

So this piece is billed as like a bombshell. But the thing is, once you step back and really examine it, it reveals much more about the intent of the article and the authors than it does about the UFOs that it's claiming to explain. So let's start with the sourcing. They reference thousands of pages of documents and interviews with two dozen current and former officials. (0:09:12)

That sounds impressive, but the article actually offers no documents, no specific declassified reports, and very few names at all. Most of the claims rest on anonymous sources or really very vague anecdotes. For example, we are told that Air Force officers staged these elaborate hazing rituals to convince their own colleagues that UFO crash retrieval programs were real. (0:09:47)

First of all, that sounds really bizarre. But the story really never explains how or why you have multiple generations of military and intelligence insiders across decades and across agencies, why they would all share the same narrative of reverse engineered technology. That's not a prank. That is a pattern. And then there's the whole framing of the article. (0:10:12)

From the very first paragraph, you get this very dismissive tone. Sightings are reduced to costumed conferences in Las Vegas. They treat concerned whistleblowers like basically dupes. The whole history of UFOs is reimagined as this Cold War psyop. (0:10:28)

So basically, you, the reader, you're told there's nothing to see here. This is just all a clever misdirection. And yeah, you should be a little embarrassed for having believed it all. But then really what's the most glaring thing to me is what the article leaves out. There's no mention of the Navy videos confirmed by the Pentagon. There's no reference to pilot testimony from people like David Fravor. There's no acknowledgment of radar data or the public and the classified congressional briefings that have taken place over the last seven now years. Because none of that fits the narrative. So they just exclude it. (0:11:07)

And even the Arrow report that came out in 2024 and was cited in the article as a kind of final word gets the same treatment. It's summarized. It's not quoted. It's referenced. It is not, there's no interrogation of that report in the least. So there's no nuance. All the public criticisms from former insiders of the Arrow report, all of that is ignored as well. (0:11:38)

Really, when you look at this article, it's, this is not an actual investigation which it is billed at. It is, this is a reframing effort. It is really a part of informational warfare. It's not trying to solve the mystery of UFOs. What it is trying to do is bury it and replacing it with a story that just lets all the institutions off the hook. (0:11:54)

That's the real takeaway that I get from this. This is less about uncovering the truth. It's much more about managing perception. Mythology was manufactured and we've created this new story here. That is all over. There's no mystery left and all the institutions should face no further scrutiny as well. So that's not journalism, my friends. That is damage control really. So I want to step back a little bit more and I want to look a little more critically at this claim made by the journal. (0:12:35)

What you really see is this is just a neat little story that collapses even under the most modest scrutiny. For starters, there have been hundreds of thousands, millions maybe, of UFO sightings since the 1940s. The National UFO Reporting Center alone, one of my favorite websites, has more than 100,000 sightings that they've collected. The MUFON database has countless more. (0:12:58)

And around the world, there's just so many others. So to say that the U.S. government invented UFOs to cloak black projects ignores another problem, which is the very extensive and real concern that this phenomenon has triggered within the highest levels of military and intelligence organizations for decades. In fact, for an entire human lifetime. (0:13:25)

You go all the way back to the late 1940s, you have the U.S. Air Force, you have the CIA, the FBI, the Navy, later the NSA. All of them have taken UFOs seriously. In 1952 alone, you had such a spike in sightings, including over the nation's capital, that the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence initiated their own internal investigation, resulting in one of the most remarkable memos that I've become aware of in the declassified literature from Scientific Director H. Marshall Chadwell of the CIA to the Director of the CIA, Walter Beatles Smith, where he says, these sightings of unusual objects over sensitive installations at such altitudes and speeds are not attributable to normal natural phenomenon or known types of aerial vehicles. (0:14:14)

It's a pretty straightforward statement there. And then you have by 1953, the Robertson Panel convenes, not to debunk sightings based on fact, but to manage public perception and to discourage civilian interest. (0:14:28)

That is not the behavior of an agency unconcerned with reality. That's the behavior of a government threatened by a phenomenon that it could not control. And it's the behavior of a government that sought to minimize UFO reality, UFO consciousness, not to heighten it, as this Wall Street Journal article maintains. (0:14:55)

And this is a pattern that you see for decades. You have generals, you have defense analysts, presidents talking privately and occasionally publicly about their concern. You had Edward Ruppelt, he was the first head of Project Blue Book, talked about craft with capabilities beyond anything we could conceive. That's a quote in his book. Is that part of the disinformation program, Wall Street Journal guys? You have CIA documents repeatedly discussing the need to monitor UFO reports as potential indicators of Soviet or even non-human technology. (0:15:30)

The data, the documents are all there. And then you look globally. And, you know, again, the Wall Street Journal article makes no mention, none, of the international character of this phenomenon, which is quite astonishing because you cannot understand UFOs without going global. The Soviet Union maintained one of the world's most comprehensive state-sponsored UFO programs. (0:15:54)

From the 1960s through the 1980s, you had Soviet military and scientific institutions studying incidents involving disc-shaped craft, electromagnetic interference, interactions with nuclear facilities, just like many of the cases that we get here in the U.S. So, that's the Soviet concern. In France, the National Space Agency has maintained a dedicated UFO unit, GAPON, for over 40 years. (0:16:23)

In the U.K., you had the former Ministry of Defense officials, like Nick Pope, publicly attesting to the seriousness with which some of these cases were treated. China, Brazil, have all, and many other countries have had waves of sightings involving structured craft, tracked by radar, seen by train observers and all of that. (0:16:47)

So, you cannot chalk that up to some Pentagon psyop. These are sovereign nations, often adversarial to the U.S., running their own investigations completely outside the framework of American disinformation. So, to claim, as the Wall Street Journal does, that UFOs are a myth invented by U.S. military deception, it's not just historically inaccurate. It's intellectually lazy. (0:17:13)

It dismisses the depth of the military concern, all the scope of the evidence, and the sheer global consistency of this phenomenon. So, it's not fantasy. This is reality and has been recognized quietly by many of the world's most powerful institutions. So, you have to ask, why was this article so over-the-top? Why would these writers go so far? If you're reading this as a serious researcher, you have to be asking that. (0:17:45)

Why frame the entire modern history of UFOs, the crash retrievals, the whistleblower accounts, all the persistent leaks? You're going to label all of that as the product of an elaborate disinfo campaign or pranks and some kind of Cold War, I don't know, sleight of hand? The whole sheer scope of the claims of this article, it's almost theatrical. (0:18:09)

Like, we're being told that multiple generations of these professionals were fooled or manipulated or complicit in this sprawling hoax that somehow escaped correction until now. Until now. So, you really have to ask yourself, like, I'm supposed to believe that what looks like a consistent signal across history is really just institutional noise that they created. From a researcher standpoint, this is a very curious and, I would say, mystifying argument that you would make. (0:18:46)

It's so unbelievably weak that you wonder, who is this designed for? What is this, you know, what is this being written for? You know, who is this being written for? Because the tone, the timing, and the framing suggest to me that this article is not aimed at the general public at all. (0:19:06)

This was not a story meant to inform. This was a message. And it was a message meant to reassure, to reassure someone. And to understand that, we really need to look at who that someone is. That someone is Congress. This article did not land in a vacuum. This article arrived just as lawmakers are preparing for another potential vote on the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, that is, the UAPDA. This legislation was first attempted in 2023. It was shut down totally. (0:19:52)

It passed a little bit in 2024. Basically, it was stripped out of a lot of its provisions. So it got passed in a truncated form. It's not dead. And in fact, there is every reason to believe that it will be brought back for reconsideration. Possibly, probably, I'm going to say, as soon as this fall. And if it passes in full, this act will change the landscape permanently. (0:20:18)

And I am quite convinced this is why you're seeing a sudden push to discredit the entire premise of UFOs happening now. This is about shaping the narrative before that vote. So let me just talk a little bit about this act. I've discussed it a few times in the past. Let's go a little more into this. Because if you want to understand why it is so unwelcome to entrenched interests, just look at what it actually proposes. (0:20:51)

So first, it would establish an independent review board. And this would be outside the Pentagon and intelligence community's authority. This is very important. It doesn't mean that would it actually in practice have independence? No one knows. I can't predict that. No one can. But that is how it is being designed. And that's important enough. It would have the legal authority to review, to declassify, and to release historical records related to anything having to do with UFOs, non-human technologies, or any government UAP programs as well. That's very significant. Also, it includes eminent domain provisions. (0:21:30)

So that means basically that any private corporation or contractor currently in possession of non-human materials could, and let's say would, be legally compelled to turn them over to the U.S. government for public review. Also quite significant, as you could imagine. It also mandates a structured timeline for disclosure. No more indefinite delays. No more bureaucratic slow walking. And no more letting unelected officials decide what the public should be allowed to know. (0:22:05)

So, there's more in there, but those are very powerful provisions. If this legislation were to pass, and if it does pass, this would be the first time in modern history that the secrecy surrounding UAPs would be subjected to an external and forcible accountability. That's quite significant. And that's what makes it an existential threat, not to national security. It makes it an existential threat to the control structures that have protected this secret for many decades. (0:22:37)

So going back to the Wall Street Journal article, this wasn't just some curious editorial decision. I read this as a textbook example of the broader strategies that have been used for ages to suppress meaningful UFO disclosure. Ridicule, narrative switcheroos, and narrative inversion, and targeted disinformation. These tools have been used for decades. And always when you look back through the history at very key inflection points, that is when institutional control risks being challenged. (0:23:22)

You think of it during the late 1960s when UFO sightings came to such a peak that something that became known as the Condon Committee was initiated and came down very hard against UFOs. You saw it in the early 1990s when the Roswell story was building again with lots of witnesses coming out. And then the Air Force came out with its very, very strong disinfo on Project Mogul and the crash test dummies and all of that as a way to explain Roswell. This is what happens. (0:23:52)

So that's what I think we're seeing here. And the other thing you notice about the article is, I referred to this a bit a moment ago, but the tone. This is a tone that you could read it carefully and you could see it wasn't really seeking to inform or certainly not to invite curiosity about the subject. It really sought to humiliate. The narrative, it wasn't, we were mistaken. (0:24:16)

You were too dumb to ever believe. And that also, that's a very long established pattern. (0:24:24)

So when the evidence can no longer be ignored, what does the system do? It shifts to managing the perception and ridicule is a firewall. So that's what that's all about. But then you get a deeper layer and this is actually quite important. Someone recently pointed out to me, Wall Street Journal isn't just a newspaper, this is the mouthpiece of the global financial system. (0:24:56)

And to support that system, its job isn't just to report events, it is to stabilize narratives that protect markets and investor confidence and geopolitical dominance by the United States. So if disclosure were to truly take hold, like if the public and the media and members of Congress really begin asking the true questions, what happens next? Well, one thing that might happen is that defense stocks or other types of stocks and investments might lose some value. (0:25:30)

If you've got breakthrough technologies that have been suppressed for decades, let's just say that that's true. What happens to energy markets if non-human propulsion systems become a matter of public record? What happens to trust in scientific or financial institutions or military institutions if it turns out that there's been collusion with decades of silence? So in that sense, really this article makes perfect sense. Its job wasn't to explain the UFO mystery, its job was to contain this mystery. (0:26:01)

This is, think of this as a narrative antibiotic, and it's given when the immune system of the established order detects a viral threat, in this case transparency or disclosure. This is not about journalism, again, this is about system maintenance. The system must maintain itself. It's really no surprise. We might find ourselves startled by the bluntness of it all. (0:26:34)

I was startled by the bluntness of this article, I will not lie to you. But when you really think of the timing, the framing, and the sheer obviousness of the narrative being pushed, we really should not be surprised. This is what we must expect them to do. When institutions that have long operated in secrecy start to feel pressure, like real pressure, they will respond the way that any organism does, and that is self-protection. It's not going to do it through debate, it's going to do it through, again, narrative control. (0:27:03)

Not by engaging honestly. No, it's going to survive by redirecting your attention, or in this case, the attention of the members of Congress, to essentially embarrass them and shame them into voting the UAP Disclosure Act down. That's the whole point of this. So as to undermine the credibility of the subject in question, to secure their interests. That's what it is. (0:27:35)

This article is not an aberration. This is a feature of the system as it currently exists. This is a system built to absorb and to neutralize disruptive truths. And, from a certain vantage point, frankly, it's even understandable. It's not to defend it, but we really need to understand their position here. And when you do that, you can see, like, if the structures of finance, and defense, and fill in the blanks, science, and government, if they've all been built on layers of deception and lies and omission of the truth, then disclosure is not just some truth event that you may want or that I may want. (0:28:18)

Disclosure is a stress test. It's a destabilizer. So, yeah, they're going to push back. And, yes, they're going to deploy ridicule and deniability and sow the seed of doubt, as they constantly do. That is what entrenched systems do. But the fact that they're doing it now, with such force and visibility, might be an indication of something important, which is that maybe the wall is cracking. (0:28:44)

So, as researchers, or as historians, or citizens, our role is not to argue on their terms. Our role is to stay grounded, to stay observant, and to, for us to continue to reveal the deeper structures and architecture of what is unfolding. (0:28:59)

Because the truth doesn't arrive all at once. You know, this is something that I have learned over many years. Fifteen years ago, I co-authored a book on disclosure. And we envisioned a kind of major event in which some undeniable event is witnessed, and it causes this avalanche. Well, that's not what's happened, right? Maybe that could happen. Maybe it might still happen. But what we are seeing is that the truth is pushed forward in fits and starts against enormous resistance that has lasted for a long time now, and it's still there. (0:29:39)

So when that resistance becomes loud, and desperate, and coordinated, do not take that as a defeat. Take that as confirmation. Now, a week ago, I was at Contact in the Desert, a conference out in Palm Springs, California. My wife and I enjoyed seeing many people there, including, I'm sure, some of you watching right now. (0:30:05)

So it's great to see you. So during that week, my friend Danny Sheehan of the New Paradigm Institute... Danny's really one of the great constitutional lawyers of our time. He created and distributed a petition to gain public support for the 2025 UAP Disclosure Act. I will just say, it is very easy to feel discouraged about attempts to change legislation on this subject, and that often includes myself. (0:30:31)

I'm one of those people. I think, like, this is not going to go anywhere. You're going up against a huge wall of opposition. Yeah, all of that. But I do believe that this act is a good and worthy piece of legislation. Nothing's perfect. And it's hard to imagine that there is a single cure-all that's going to cut through all the generations of extreme secrecy on this subject. (0:31:01)

But I do think it's a very, very good start, and I do think it deserves our support. This is the webpage for it. If you would like to support the UAP Disclosure Act, and I am encouraging you to do so, this petition, this is organized by Danny's New Paradigm Institute, this will go directly to members of Congress. And it's... look, if we're ever going to show genuine grassroots support for UAP transparency or UFO disclosure, this is... basically, it's the perfect opportunity to do that. (0:31:33)

Now, when you go to the link here, and I've got that indicated for you, UFOs.pro slash UAPDA2025, you will notice that it asks for your name and your mailing address. This is... this makes a lot of people hesitant. It would make me hesitant. The point of that is to show that Congress knows you're a real person. Your address is not made public on this. (0:31:59)

I should emphasize that. So, if... you know, the whole address thing would give a lot of people pause because privacy does matter. But if you are comfortable to add your name to this, you're going to help provide groundswell of support for a piece of legislation that I think is a worthy and worthwhile piece of legislation to promote. (0:32:26)

By the way, there's a QR code so that if you... if you're watching this on your laptop, your phone could QR and take you directly to the petition. If you're seeing this on your... on your phone, it's probably just easier to type in UFOs.pro slash UAPDA 2025. It's probably simpler. So that's... I don't usually go out there and engage in advocacy, but I... I'm just going to tell you quite honestly, I believe in this piece of legislation to the extent that I can believe in any piece of legislation. (0:32:55)

I think this is a very good one, and I would personally like to see it passed. I don't know that it's a magic bullet. I don't... I can't imagine that it is. There's always going to be institutional pressure against any kind of UAP transparency. I think that's a given. But I mean, you think about it. (0:33:18)

If you're not going to... if we don't push something like this within our own legislative system, then what else do we got? What else is there, right? So I say let's go for it and see... see what kind of pressure we can see put forth, and maybe we'll get luckier than we think. (0:33:36)

You never know. Now one last thing I just want to mention here, I guess in closing, I... I want to continue to emphasize that there is a reality here that most people, I really believe, still don't see. Maybe they do, but it... then it slips away as soon as you try to hold it. It's the reality that we're not alone here on this world of ours, and probably haven't been for a long time. (0:34:04)

Something, someone else is here, something intelligent, something advanced, and not human. It's not a fantasy. (0:34:13)

It's not a Cold War story. It's real, and it is here now, and it's been here for a while. So that is the quiet thread running through decades of reports and decades of sightings and documents and testimony. And I think somehow it still has not fully registered with most of us. (0:34:38)

It's very easy. Even in research circles, like myself, people that I know, it's easy to forget what this means, because we all get pulled into the machinery, into the hamster wheel of our lives. And in this subject, it's like, who said what, and is that person doing disinformation, or what agency knew this at what time, and what committee did this or didn't do that? But the center of this is so much bigger than that. (0:35:04)

It's contact. It's craft. It's beings. Not theoretical, not someday, it's now. But the problem, as I see it, is that this is a very hard reality to hold on to. It's hard for us to grasp most of the time, like, what this really implies. We don't have any precedent for this. We don't have any mental category. Our institutions are built to ignore it. Our culture is not prepared. (0:35:32)

So it slips back into abstraction or into denial. I don't think people reject this because they're closed-minded. I might have thought that in the past. I actually think people reject it because they don't know what to do with it. And I think that's a big part of why there's resistance. Of course there is. The closer you get to the truth, the harder the pushback becomes. (0:36:01)

And some of it comes from the top, you know, intelligence networks or defense or media personalities or media filters. But a lot of it, I think, is deeper than that. It's structural. It's psychological. You know, I think real disclosure, it doesn't just upset power. It forces us to rethink who we are. And that is not easy. And I think we should just recognize that. (0:36:30)

You know, I mean, I've thought for years and many people have said to me for years, we just need truth. We just need disclosure. Yes, yes, but it's not a bad thing to recognize just how massive a transformation this would be. And then, you know, you look at this and you think some days it feels like we're just moving backwards. Like we're just watching the truth get repackaged over and over again and buried over and over again and reshaped constantly just to protect the status quo. (0:36:57)

And that is frustrating. And sometimes, frankly, that is exhausting. And some people just give up. I don't think we should give up. I do think that the truth in our society on all of these things matters. It's not just a slogan. It's like it's something that we want to build our lives around. And it's what keeps the floor beneath our feet. (0:37:20)

I mean, if we lose a commitment to understanding what is true in our world, if we decide it just doesn't matter anymore, then what is left? Just power? So no, I don't think, you know, we don't have all the answers. I don't know if we're ever really going to have all of the answers. (0:37:41)

And I sometimes wonder, are we even asking the right questions? A lot of the times I think we're not. However, we are here. We are still looking. We are still listening. We're still holding on to this thread and we're not letting go. And that does count for something. (0:38:00)

So for now, let's just hang on to that thread. Let us not despair. Let us realize this is never going to be an easy win. Let us remember there's always going to be resistance every step of the way. That is not a reason to give up. (0:38:09)

All right, well, that's it. Glad you were here with me. If you like this video, please do share it. Subscribe to my channel. Do check out my website at richardlundmembers.com. Great people over there. And let us keep fighting the good fight. Later. (0:38:25)

(2025-06-17)

前置き​

静止画像​

情報源 : 動画(38:28)​

WSJのUFO情報戦：真相と戦略 - 詳細ブリーフィング資料

WSJ記事の主要な論点：​

タイムライン​

登場人物​

前置き

静止画像

情報源 : 動画(38:28)

WSJ記事の主要な論点：

タイムライン

登場人物