Senior Trender

The government's sole psychological warfare body proposed an agency in 1947 with the exact same structure as the NSA: same oversight, same CIA liaison, same foreign/domestic scope, same JCS channel. They called it a "cover" name. Three years later, the NSA was created and handed their UFO report on day one. open.substack.com/pub/seniortren…

This is crucial, as well as the Air Force’s Tactical and Technical Liaison Committee’s involvement alongside the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project out west at Kirtland/Sandia. Anywhere that had nuclear-level secrecy getting overlaid on top of aircraft related programs around the 1947-1949 time frame are rife for further research.

@lesternare @aboss Thanks Lester! Jeremy also says in that same interview that the hangar (if it really was this one) was the backup plan for if the AAWSAP Vegas transfer failed. So the craft actually ended up there.

As has been identified before, the best public fit would be Hangar 2905 / Aircraft Prototype Facility (APF), NAS Patuxent River. Potentially the same location as the AAWSAP/AATIP technology transfer attempt. Great work from @seniortrender and @aboss osa.news/p/the-us-navy-…

@MagentaUFOUAP @BobMcGwier_N4HY And NEPA was likely a white world cover for the deep black s-craft program. NEPA was working on fixing the same problems overtly that the s-craft was experiencing covertly.

@BobMcGwier_N4HY The AEA and AEC were created to protect NEPA @EscapeVelocity1/nepa-or-the-nuclear-energy-for-the-propulsion-of-aircraft-program-run-by-curtis-lemay-was-started-12791fa988ce" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">medium.com/@EscapeVelocit…

The Constitutional Crisis of Restricted Data Legislative Subterfuge, Corporate Enclosure, and the Erosion of Article I Oversight. The intersection of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the United States Constitution represents one of the most profound jurisdictional conflicts in American law, creating a structural anomaly that effectively permits the executive branch to bypass congressional oversight in matters of existential national significance. Since its inception in 1946, the doctrine of Restricted Data (RD) has functioned as a legal fortress, shielding a vast and increasingly autonomous complex of "legacy programs" from the standard mechanisms of legislative accountability. This analysis examines the historical genesis of the "Born Secret" doctrine, the specific statutory content of the 1946 and 1954 Acts, and the resulting constitutional tensions with the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Central to this inquiry is the systemic use of private corporate structures and Independent Research and Development (IR&D) funds—often described as a form of legalized financial subterfuge—to sequester information regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) within an opaque industrial-governmental silo. By utilizing the "Born Secret" framework as a jurisdictional shield, the executive branch and its private partners have successfully challenged the Article I "Power of the Purse," creating a "secret bureaucracy" that operates outside the reach of the "Statement and Account" requirement. Apologies to @LM62988781. I hate RD and Born-Secret. I believe the AEA is unconstitutional and will need to be revised by Congress and ruled on by SCOTUS. Full Article on my Google Drive: drive.google.com/file/d/1YU3PiP…

I've removed all of the speculation from @BarackObama’s Instagram post. Note that @rosscoulthart’s reporting is that Obama was briefed on the existence of (not contact with) non-human intelligence (not ET) after his presidency (not during).

This is a fantastic write-up. There's actually a few snips from newspapers of the time mentioning Eric H. Wang as having worked for 10 years with Air Force Research & Development as well as mentions his latest civilian position as Chief of Structural Division at Air Force Special Weapons Center at Kirtland. newspapers.com/article/albuqu… newspapers.com/article/albuqu… newspapers.com/article/albuqu…

Alright Disclosure crew, time to take the plunge… open.substack.com/pub/datbutters… @aboss @KermDawgENT @burningrob @UAPGERB @superliminality @blockedepistem

One would imagine that duplication is rampant in such stove-piped environments across many entities. Would not be surprised to find out there are 4 or 5 different program portfolios all doing the same reverse engineering efforts compartmentalized into their own silo’s. Would also explain why some people claim the reverse engineering “got nowhere”. Sure, maybe THEIR program’s reverse engineering hadn’t made much progress…

@devgru1980mi @ChrisUKSharp only a small portfolio of programs are managed by the NSC, the depiction provided by elizondo in AoD is only that of the programs he likely worked for and i would posit that it was a form of force protection/counterintelligence to frame it that way, there are many such portfolios

UAP disclosure has been dying by a thousand cuts. -Threats and intimidation aimed at politicians and staffers -The hollowing out of the UAP Disclosure Act -The de-escalating interest from Gillibrand, Rounds and Rubio -A UFO Office set up inside the OUSDI&S - the place which previously tried to shut down transparency efforts -The former director of that office is working with journalists to attack whistleblowers -The NYT and other friendly media are ignoring new allegations.

A 1996 DoD Inspector General report concluded that @NSA “does not effectively monitor the Special Access Programs it operates or supports.” The report describes a special NSA control system used to support other departments’ projects, that sat outside normal DoD SAP oversight. Could the be the same structure @dansherman described in Project Preserve Destiny—an NSA compartment nested in an Air Force black program? I followed the IG report and classification manuals to find out. osa.news/p/the-programs… #UFOTwitter #UFO #UFOs #UAP #SpecialAccess #SAPs #NSA #AirForce #DoD #NHI #ProjectPreserveDestiny #FOIA #disclosure

A really interesting cover page from Air Materiel Command (AMC) T-2 Division in 1947. The T-2 Division out of Wright Field was the Army Air Forces' premier intelligence arm regarding evaluating, exploiting, and documenting craft. This specific cover page belongs to a report by the M. W. Kellogg Special Projects Branch that was assisting with the development of a hypersonic pilotless aircraft starting back in 1945. documents3.theblackvault.com/viewer/index.h… Thanks @theblackvault for this document.

Well, the paper does not conclude that the light transients are literal Flying Objects. But it does consider that possibility. Almost as intriguing as the paper's findings is the question of why ArXiv -- which is meant to be a relatively unmoderated repository of research --apparently rejected a paper that later passed peer review at a reputable journal. My understanding is that this is essentially unheard of. I've reached our to ArXiv and Cornell for comment on @DrBeaVillarroel 's account of this episode.

@KermDawgENT @burningrob Richard Doty starter pack

think tank be like

NEW: We asked former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer about @LueElizondo’s claim he helped steer $10 million to Lockheed Martin for a UAP / NHI hangar at Maryland’s Pax River Naval Air Station. LISTEN to Unpaywalled interview at Ask a Pol UAP askapoluaps.com/p/hoyer-claims…

It’s not typical for a FOIA officer to use google to make determinations unless the source material was referenced in the request. It’s apparently still possible that it can happen in certain situations (which is something Im just now finding out). At this point we are awaiting to see the original request to see if there was any wiggle room afforded to the FOIA office based on the wording.

@seniortrender @walterkirn Dude, the flake "source" published a book about his weird ELINT claims in 1997. It's nothing knew. Do you think the USAF FOIA office doesn't have Google?

Hey @walterkirn -- since you RT'd this and you're talking up UFOs, understand that nothing in that thread indicates that NSA has any such UAP/Whatever program. That's not a credible claim. The FOIA response is meaningless. x.com/seniortrender/…

@theblackvault @warmblackvoid @NoahHradek Pleasure to meet you as well and always appreciate your balanced view in the topic!

Not necessarily. But again, that's what I mean that we are assuming a few variables here. It all depends on the wording of the original request. I believe we are in agreement to at least see the original request. Once we see that, I think we can go from there. Pleasure to meet you!

Just a reminder that Project Preserve Destiny appears to be a legitimate program under the National Security Agency. This is based on a response from a FOIA request submitted to the US Air Force by @NoahHradek where they routed his inquiry to the NSA. The agency was never mentioned in previous correspondence so the USAF determined it would go there on their own through internal channels. x.com/NoahHradek/sta…

So I’m understanding correctly, FOIA officers could make a determination based soley on books and material out on the internet, even if it wasnt referenced in the request? That is not something I’ve seen before but you would certainly have more insight into that than I. If thats true then all of this is moot, but it would also raise a lot of questions about the FOIA process in general. I did reach out to Noah to see if we can see the original request as I agree that is needed to figure out more on this.

Actually, that *is* how FOIA works, but we are assuming about the original request as we don’t know all the variables. Yet. Once we see the original request, we can drill a little deeper. I hope he posts it. There is a lot of hype about this specific point, but it MAY be easily explainable.

@20committee @walterkirn I understand that, but how would USAF know the FOIA request was about ELINT? All the requester aaked for what “Information On Project Preserve Destiny”.

@seniortrender @walterkirn You missed the point. USAF kicked the FOIA to NSA because it was about USAF ELINT...which is owned by NSA, which is the declass/release authority for any FOIA requests. USAF did what it was supposed to here....completely routine.

I don't quite understand how Dan Burisch came into the conversation but they have drastically different claims. Dan Sherman's background fully checks out based on research done independently as well as through his provided military records too. You may believe whatever you want, but I'll continue researching and let the facts take me where they will.

I'll choose to believe "military bureaucrat didn't follow the process correctly" over "guy who ran a get rich quick scam website and then wrote the ufo book they tell you to write if you want to get rich off of the overly credulous actually knew the name of a real classified NSA program much less participated in it" It's interesting that the stories of discredited 00s figures like Dan Sherman and Dan Burisch (who is just a straight up confidence man) lately. I'm sure those two would be willing to say near anything for money.

That is not typically how FOIA processing works. An agency would not kick a FOIA request over to another office just based on an un-sanctioned book out there in the ether. They would either have to come to some conclusion that the request falls under the mission of the NSA or that there is some internal record pointing to it being an NSA matter. Since the requestor allegedly did not mention the book or NSA in his inquiry, it would be extremely unlikely that the USAF would transfer the request without other knowledge.

@seniortrender @NoahHradek The reason they mention the NSA is that the only thing in existence referencing Project Preserve Destiny is his book, which says it's an NSA program.