It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Politico's Bryan Bender Admits DeLonge "Has Said Some Pretty Kooky Things"

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Bryan Bender was the commentator on the History Channel’s, "Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation." He's currently the defense editor for POLITICO and according to Wikipedia, he was "previously a D.C. based reporter for the Boston Globe and Jane’s Defence Weekly, he covered U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and the Balkans. He also writes about terrorism, the international arms trade, and government secrecy." LINK

He has also wrote some important stories concerning UFOs:


He published an article revealing the Pentagon’s secretive UFO program, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), the same day as the New York Times. For that story, the Department of Defense (DoD) confirmed to him AATIP did exist and that a career intelligence officer, Luis Elizondo, ran it. Bender also broke the news regrind the Navy creating new UFO reporting guidelines and another story revealing that US Senators were briefed on UFOs.

LINK

Last Tuesday, Open Minds did an interview with Bender and posted it on YouTube on Wednesday, July 10. He was asked many questions by Alejandro Rojas and gave some interesting answers in the hour and a half interview. I posted the YouTube clip at the end of this thread. I know there are better things to do, than listen to a hour and a half interview on a Sunday afternoon, so below are a few highlights:

Q: "...you are interviewing a couple of Congressmen and someone who’s on the like, space committee that advises Trump, that he invoked when he started his presidency. And you ask them about UFOs. Why were you, I guess, prompted to do that?"

A: "Well, this was back in 2018...And this was an event where we had a couple of members of Congress who have oversight of NASA, oversight of the space program and I thought it was a relevant question...And here I had sort of a captive audience. Two members of Congress who have oversight of the military oversight of space programs...And, you know, I think the fact that they did not dodge the question…the fact that this was Congressman Bera, a Democrat from California, Congressman Hultgen, a Republican. They both seem to think that this was a legitimate issue to look into. If you had reports of military personnel who were seeing things in the night sky that they couldn’t explain, that were exhibiting characteristics that they hadn’t seen before, maybe we should look into this more deeply."

Q: "But as far as covering AATIP, in particular, the Pentagon program, what can you share about how you first came across that it existed?"

A: "Well, this was probably middle of 2017, I guess, when I got a tip from a source in the Pentagon that there had been an effort, I don’t know if it was referred to as a program or an office, but that the Pentagon had been researching some of these unexplained sightings and that it had been funded by Congress...But what really convinced me quite frankly was not the To The Stars Academy’s folks. I mean, obviously, they were helpful. They had an interest in getting this story out. They had a relationship with Mr. Elizondo. But going to the Hill, and going to congressional sources. And, you know, figuring out that it was Harry Reid who was behind this earmark, as it was called. This $25 million or so that was set aside for this program. Reaching some of the congressional staff who had worked on that with him. Not everybody, in fact, most people were not, at the time, willing to go public about it, but they were willing to talk about it. At least convince me that there really was something to this.

"I also came to believe that it was one program, but probably just one of a number in the government. I mean, this was one where you had people involved with it willing to talk about it publicly. The “To The stars Academy” people. Particularly Lue Elizondo. Clearly, Harry Reid was willing to talk about it publicly. But you know, what I’m thinking in my mind is, there’s no way, if there’s all these reports and all these potential sightings over the course of many years, that AATIP was the only thing the Pentagon was doing. I mean, in some ways, it’s malpractice, if that’s the only thing they were doing, I just think it’s the only thing in recent years that we know about, because of the way it sort of came together. The way there, you know, there were parties involved that really did think that this should be part of a larger public conversation. And, you know, I think Mr. Elizondo, probably very shrewdly in some ways, plotted while he was still in the Pentagon, how he was going to get out of the government and talk about this. And talk about it in a way that he wouldn’t be violating his security clearance. So this was kind of a perfect storm, I think, where this program got out into the public domain, sparked a huge conversation that, you know, quite frankly, is healthy, in my view. But what I wonder is, what else is there in the military and intelligence agencies, that is still going on in terms of research that we just don’t know about?

Q: "So you have a lot of sources and you were able to verify through several sources, it seems, that the program existed. Did you get a sense, talking to any of those sources, then about these potential other programs?"

A: "Some of the work that AATIP did was was unclassified. Some of the studies were…at least some of the basic sort of details of what they were looking into, what they were researching...I think whatever the government is doing in other agencies, it’s very decentralized. And it’s very siloed, if you will. In other words, if the CIA has a program that’s looking into this stuff, or the Air Force does, or the Defense Intelligence Agency, or you name it…I’ve come to believe over all these years of covering the Pentagon, that unless you need to know this stuff, unless you are actively brought into a program, you don’t know anything about it. And so, I think even people that have done some work on this issue in the government, either research or collecting data on some of these unexplained sightings, I don’t think a lot of them are necessarily aware of everything else the rest of the organization is doing.

Q: "If there was a branch of the service, or an agency that didn’t want to give up their secrets, and they didn’t want the others to know, would it be difficult for them, then to hide it and not share it to…let’s say, the Congress, if they were asking?

A: "I’m under no illusion that there are parts of the government that might have some relevant information that doesn’t wanna cough it up and doesn’t wanna share it. And there’s a lot of reasons why they wouldn’t necessarily want to share it. I mean, one could just simply be protecting their turf, which is, you know, is a constant game battle that goes on in the government…where agencies and components within agencies are always jockeying for position and authority and control and power.

Q: "...did you ever question any of the statements made by To The Stars or Luis Elizondo? Were you like, “Hey, that doesn’t sound, you know, to jive up to what I had discovered.”



edit on 7/14/2019 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

A: "I mean, everything they told me, turned out to be true...I think, the To The Stars Academy’s folks kind of lit a fire. And I think they deserve credit for that. But you know, let’s face it, Tom, has said some pretty kooky things. And I say, kooky, you know, not, I mean that sounds negative. But like, and he’s obviously got a vision, he’s got ideas that as a reporter, I can’t verify. There’s no paper trail for some of that stuff.”

Q: “We’ve heard very little from the Air Force or anybody else. But, you broke story about something you mentioned earlier about the Navy coming up with new, UFO reporting guidelines. They’ve also seemingly have at least given permission for the active pilots to go on the show that you’re on – “Unidentified” for the History Channel, and speak. So it seems like there’s a level of cooperation with the Navy. What’s the difference? What’s going on there?”

A: “the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, under which Elizondo worked and where some of this research went on? Very different animal than the Department of the Navy. And is just going to deal with issues differently and be more forthcoming or less forthcoming, depending on what the issue is. The Navy, in my experience, has always been much more forward leaning when it comes to public affairs and interacting with the media and the public... I think the Navy’s perspective is, you know, this is happening. These pilots are seeing this stuff. These are obviously credible people, otherwise we wouldn’t let them fly $25 million fighter jets. We’d find something else for them to do. Congress is interested and Congress holds the purse strings. So if there’s powerful members of the Senate or the House who want us to do more, we’re going to do more. And then when it comes to talking to the media, I mean, I think they’re just…their view is let’s be out in front of it. Because if we’re not and we don’t talk or we’re mum, or we’re, “No comment,” it just feeds more suspicion...So, I don’t think the Navy, you know, on the list of things that they are like, anxious to talk about, UFOs is at the top of the list. But I think it’s a different culture where you know, this is happening, the bureaucracy is responding with these new guidelines for pilots to report these things, and so they’re willing to talk about it. And I just think they’re probably a little more forward leaning than maybe the Army would be. Or the Air Force, which is also something I’ve been digging into. The Air Force said very little about this.

Q: “Have you made any progress with the Air Force?

A: “I’ve filed some FOIAs...FOIA’s is very frustrating. I mean, number one, I think, you know, the these agencies, by definition, are created to hide things, not to reveal things. I mean, it’s the national security state...You have to combine FOIA with source report. You have to do the source supporting upfront to know what to ask for. Because the more specific you can be on a set of documents, a set of memos…who wrote them, when they were written. I mean, the more specific you can be, the easier it’s going to be for that bureaucrat to go find it, wherever it is in the agency, if it is in the agency.

Q: I’m going to mention his name because he’s John Greenewald, who’s done a lot of great work. But he’s been critical of you and I recently. But he’s done that where he’s had the actual document, FOIAs it, and they’re like, “We don’t have it,” Even though he’s like, “I’ve got it right here. I’m showing it to you, a copy.” And so it’s funny how that happens sometimes. But it may be kind of what you’re going back to, they just don’t have permission to release it.

A: “it also doesn’t mean that the government agency that John’s dealing with, isn’t trying to hide it, either. I’ve come across that many times where there are agencies, particularly national security agencies that don’t want to be transparent. They just don’t. It’s not in their DNA. Especially when either 1) It might reveal sources and methods. I think that is a legitimate concern. If they’re a spy agency, or they’re a national security outfit, they don’t want the enemy, quote, unquote, to know how they operate. I think they overuse that excuse to sit on stuff and hide stuff...But I have no illusions that they’ve they’ve given other excuses just so they can cover up something that looks bad. And then I think there’s this huge problem of just finding this stuff. I mean, if it still exists, if it wasn’t destroyed. And not necessarily destroyed because somebody is hiding something. It’s just like, it’s like you do every spring…you go through your garage and you throw stuff out. I mean, these agencies do that, too.



edit on 7/14/2019 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I'm 62.5% sure that Elizondo is still on the Pentagon's payroll and a disinformation expert for them. Seems that every time someone gets near the truth he rolls his eyes and switches the narrative or just turns around and walks away acting as if he didn't hear anything...

I saw that the History Channel didn't carry their program on Friday (12 June 2019). I think the History Channel should flush them.

A very good UFO show is the Travel Channel's Alien Highway on Wednesdays at 10 pm. One of the better UFO shows I've seen in a while.
edit on 7/14/2019 by NightFlight because: My memory is carp. did I say that my memory is carp?



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NightFlight

I agree, but I bet it's a higher percentage.


There is no discernible evidence that he (Elizondo) ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one.


Yes, AATIP existed, and it “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017.”


It bears noting that, although Elizondo has made a point of providing various documents to reporters (including me) to establish his bona fides, he does not appear to have supplied any materials that validate his connection to the government UFO program he insists he led. No memorandums, no emails discussing deliverables or findings, and no paperwork addressed to or from him that connects him to AATIP.

theintercept.com...

Thanks for the recommending "Alien Highway." I'll have to check it out.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Catchy title, but let's remember the full quote:

But you know, let’s face it, Tom, has said some pretty kooky things. And I say, kooky, you know, not, I mean that sounds negative. But like, and he’s obviously got a vision, he’s got ideas that as a reporter, I can’t verify. There’s no paper trail for some of that stuff.

"Cannot verify". This is the catch to all of this for me. The backdoor they leave open where the entire thing can disappear should the effects on society become too negative.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightFlight
I'm 62.5% sure that Elizondo is still on the Pentagon's payroll and a disinformation expert for them. Seems that every time someone gets near the truth he rolls his eyes and switches the narrative or just turns around and walks away acting as if he didn't hear anything...

I saw that the History Channel didn't carry their program on Friday (12 June 2019). I think the History Channel should flush them.

A very good UFO show is the Travel Channel's Alien Highway on Wednesdays at 10 pm. One of the better UFO shows I've seen in a while.


The series is over, hence why it wasn't on Friday.




top topics
 
5

log in

join