FRINGE QUEST

Thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate your reasoned approach, though I disagree with some of your interpretations and conclusions. I will point out two areas of disagreement: - Terminology I do not find the terms "extraterrestrial" and "off-world" as used by AARO to be especially problematic or indicative of an attempt to limit liability or scope of findings. Any single term is equally problematic in excluding or including too much. "NHI" for example, includes dolphins and orangutans without some further qualification on the term, and "exotic" can include any number of things. I think "ET/alien" has effectively become a catch-all metonym for everything radically different from modern humans and human technology, including spacefaring beings from other worlds, cryptoterrestrials and chrononauts, even though some are technically "terrestrial". "Urgent and credible" are procedural terms required by statute, not the conclusion of in depth ICIG investigation into the claims. ICIG had only 14 days to evaluate whether the claims "appear credible", and ICIG Thomas Monheim stated they conducted no investigation into alleged UAP programs in a letter to Rep. Tim Burchett. See this post for discussion of the statutory language, ICIG actions and link to ICIG letter: nitter.cf/MonkeeSage/status/1961… - Administrative suppression and reprisals I have not seen documented evidence of attempts to kill the UAPDA amendments in any of their various forms in Senate or the House. Much of the meat of the original Schumer-Rounds amendment was stripped but I have seen no documentation that this was anything beyond the standard negotiation of the NDAA package. An amendment that creates a new office (the review board), a new NARA records collection, and requirements across all departments to produced and review records, is a hard sell in a congress averse to increased spending and bureaucracy, not to mention the "eminent domain" concerns that have even been shared by some disclosure advocates. There hasn't been a vote on any of the amendments individually, though we may see one in the House Rules Committee with Rep. Burlison's version of the amendment this year. In FY23 NDAA, then Sen. Rubio established broad whistleblower protections from NDAs, DoE policies, Espionage Act, "or other provision of law", and protections from reprisals, for authorized reporting to AARO in a secure setting. These are codified in 50 USC 3373b(b). Memos where issued by CAPCO and SAPCO affirming reporting is allowed under the statutes. I agree that many potential whistleblowers fear reprisals, but I think much of that is motivated by incorrect (but widely circulated) statements from disclosure advocates that no protections currently exist or are inadequate, and claims of threats and reprisals from whistleblowers (addressed below). See this post for links to the statutes and memos: nitter.cf/MonkeeSage/status/2100… (note uscode.house.gov appears to be under maintenance, you can find a working link to the statutes here govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCO…). Thanks to the investigative work of @theblackvault @ddeanjohnson and @SignalsIntelUFO (all of them are worth a follow) we can evaluate some of the claims of reprisals against whistleblowers. The pattern in these cases is that there were no inappropriate reprisals or retaliations. FOIA documents reveal that Luis ELizondo's reprisal complaint was found to be without merit. See John Greenwald's reporting here: theblackvault.com/documentar… David Grusch's claims of an Espionage Act complaint against him were denied in a letter from Mark Dupont to Rep. Burchett. See Dean Johnson's reporting here: nitter.cf/ddeanjohnson/status/20… Grusch's claims that his law enforcement incident records were unlawfully leaked without redaction according to VA FOIA statutes were dismissed with prejudice in a lawsuit against the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. See: nitter.cf/SignalsIntelUFO/status… DoD IG found that the revocation of Grusch's clearances were based on legitimate concern and unrelated to his UAP disclosures. See: theblackvault.com/documentar… Reports of personal retaliation from Brown, Borland, etc. are uncorroborated. I don't find the reports of MiB breaking into Matthew Brown's house to move his grandfather's ashes to be compelling for example. Regarding claims about personal threat and even murder for disclosure I find that even more implausible. I just read a report from Dean Johnson this evening where Sen. Mike Rounds denies such claims. douglasjohnson.ghost.io/sen-…