MikeZack

ADVISORY REGARDING DEFAMATORY AND POTENTIALLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS BY MATT FORD AND OTHERS For the record, including any record introduced in future proceedings: A statement published by Matt Ford earlier today (May 10, 2026) on his @GoodTroubleShow X account, stating that I have engaged in “forging documents,” is false and defamatory. I have never forged any document, including but not limited to the fake Joint Chiefs of Staff document publicly released by the Department of Defense on May 8, 2026, which I publicly debunked hours after its release. Matt Ford's accusation today was fabricated, published and disseminated with reckless disregard for the truth. Moreover, with respect to Ford's separate allegation that I am "working for the deep state," I have never been employed by, or paid in any way by, any component of the federal government (including military), nor ever acted as an agent of any federal government component. Nor, to the best of my knowledge and belief, have I ever in my life been employed by or paid by any entity under contract with any component of the federal government (including military), with the possible exception of part-time work in cafeterias and shuttle-bus driving for public universities a half-century ago. For years now I have been retired. I am fully independent. I have no employer, client, funder, sponsor, platform monetization revenue, or other source of payment for my work. Nor do I receive direction from any source. On any given issue, the findings or opinions that I express--whether they are on the mark or in error--are the product of my own research and thinking, subject to no outside authority or direction. Be advised that any future public claims that I am paid by, or acting at the direction of, or as the agent of, any government entity or government contractor, will be regarded as defamatory, and will be regarded as having been published or uttered with reckless disregard for the truth. (On occasion I have given free advice and/or UFO-related research findings or research assistance to people of all sorts, including employees of different branches of government, sometimes in response to specific requests and sometimes unsolicited. Some recipients have expressed appreciation and some have disregarded. I will continue to offer free advice whenever I choose, and the recipients will continue to accord it whatever weight they think it deserves.) While I have worked professionally in the past on behalf of non-profit, non-governmental organizations, in different capacities including as a "lobbyist" as defined in federal law, none of that work had any direct or indirect relationship to subjects such as UFOs, UAP, mystery drones, the intelligence community, weapons systems, purported secret government technology programs, paranormal phenomena, or anything remotely similar. Some of those subjects I have intermittently studied privately, based on personal interests, going back many years, as I have related in some detail in articles and posts in the past. Another thing: In federal law, "lobbyist" is a legally defined term with serious legal implications. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1614), for a person to act as a "lobbyist" without the required registration and periodic filing of detailed reports (publicly available) is a felony if done knowingly and corruptly (and it could hardly be done unknowingly by a former registrant such as myself). Under 2 U.S.C. § 1606(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3), this offense is punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000 or both. Since professional retirement, I am not registered as a lobbyist. Therefore, any public statement that I am currently a "lobbyist" will be regarded as implying concealed and therefore illegal lobbying activity, which is obviously reputationally damaging and defamatory. Moreover, any such implication would be published or uttered in reckless disregard of the truth, considering the ease of ascertaining my lack of current registration. If any reader does not understand the legal meaning of some of the phrases used above, it is best to consult an attorney before, rather than after, publishing a defamatory or potentially defamatory statement. Keep in mind that one of the legally pertinent factors is whether you had a factual basis for the statement when you published it, or just popped off with "reckless disregard for the truth" because you disliked the person the statement was about. It should go without saying that my advisory statements above do not cover expressions of opinion about my work or me personally, however wrong-headed I might sometimes consider them--for example, calling me a very bad person for critiquing statements by some popular storyteller who promotes grandiose claims that collapse under critical scrutiny; or calling me a naive fool for accepting as factual some specific statement by a disliked current or former government official, when the statement checks out; or perhaps even assigning me a place in the ranks of credulous nitwits just because I stubbornly assess some UFO events to resist prosaic explanations and reports of some types of "paranormal" phenomena to be reality-based.

100% GARRY NOLAN 🛸 Garry Nolan explains his eye opening "100%" statement he made back in May, 2023 at the SALT conference. "I rarely put forward a hypothesis unless I know it's going to be right." - GN TMZ Presents: UFO Revolution Episode 3: tubitv.com/movies/2000449… #ufoX #ufo #uap #ufos #ufotwitter

@theblackvault I am curious what led you to that conclusion. A list or article on what else you think is out there that is really good, and what makes you convinced it exists, would be fascinating. You may already have done this, but I am not aware of it.