If you’ve found it tough to keep up with all of the recent revelations, news stories, articles, opinions, facts, and “takes” regarding UAPs (or more technically, UAP), you’re not alone. Between the past year of COVID-related chaos, political turmoil all over the world, and an endlessly sensational 24-hour news cycle, some things are sure to slip through the cracks… But in the world of controlled narratives and information warfare, making a hot topic slip through the cracks is often less about sincere public disinterest and more about an intentional guiding of the populous’s attention.
Every defense initiative comes with a clearly laid out communications strategy with multiple overlapping goals, from instilling confidence in the taxpayer-funded program to projecting the notion of new capabilities to competitors on the global stage. It’s why you’ll hear Lockheed Martin employees and Air Force pilots both refer to the F-35 as a “quarterback in the sky” (it’s great branding), and why phrases like “shock and awe” make their debut in popular culture in press briefings and quickly find their way into our cultural lexicon.
Fighting a war, or often–preventing one, is as much about perceptions as it is about real capability. Fighting a war means amassing domestic public support, managing your reputation among allies and fence-sitters, working to diminish the opponent’s decision-making capabilities, and, if possible, even turning the opposing nation’s own people against their government… all of this takes strategic planning and a fair amount of resources, but for the most part, these efforts tend to go under-discussed among the American people.
Today, most of us think of the Russian efforts to sway the 2016 presidential election when we hear about narrative or perception management, but the truth is, even that common understanding is tainted by disinformation. Depending on the political affiliation of who you ask, most Americans will either tell you that the Russians worked to get Donald Trump elected in 2016 or that Democrats simply seized on that possibility to undermine a sitting administration. The truth is, Russia’s aim was less about choosing a sympathetic president and more about degrading American trust in its own political systems.
“These manipulations don’t create tendencies or traits in our societies. They elevate, exploit, and distort divides and grievances that already are present,” Molly McKew, CEO of Fianna Strategies, told the U.S. Helsinki Commission in 2017.
Russia’s psychological and narrative operations stretch far and wide–with Russian operatives implicated in fanning the flames of American dissent in every corner of its national culture, from movie reviews to conspiracy theories, and from medical discussions to race relations. The U.S., for its part, tends not to play such an active role in manipulating how its populous sees the world, or at least, that’s our common understanding. The truth is, every message has a motive, even one coming from someone with mostly good intentions.
And that begs the question: if the U.S. military establishes communications strategies surrounding air shows, new uniform regulations, and the unveiling of high-priced technology… why wouldn’t there be a plan surrounding the release and discussion of evidence relating to UAPs? Because the way this dialogue has unfolded over the past three and a half years has left only two possibilities: either the U.S. government was caught on its back foot on the UAP discussion and has since been in a disorganized and reactionary state regarding the topic… or the U.S. government is intentionally guiding the conversation into a convoluted trajectory for the purposes of managing public perceptions.
As the internet has already pointed out, recent revelations about UAPs (or UFOs for the old school) have already amounted to more disclosure than even most conspiracy theorists ever expected, and yet… most of us can muster only a passing interest in the topic. If that’s by happenstance, it’s an interesting exploration into the human psyche and collective culture… but if it isn’t, then it may be the result of the most effective narrative control campaigns in modern history.
Now it’s time for the disclaimer: Suggesting that the U.S. government might be working to manage public perceptions of UAPs and associated phenomena doesn’t necessarily mean America has something nefarious to hide. In fact, wanting to control this narrative would mean nothing other than the government working to be in front of the topic rather than behind it. Further, controlling the narrative has no bearing on whether or not UAPs are extraterrestrial, American, Chinese, or from Atlantis. For the purposes of this discussion, what UAPs are only matters in terms of how it may inform the motive behind managing the narrative. To that end, I’ll break down the possibilities regarding UAPs and what each might mean for information operations at the end of this piece.
2017: UAPs enter the conversation
In December of 2017, New York Times writer Ralph Blumenthal opened a Pandora’s Box of alien intrigue with his exclusive report on a secretive element of the Defense Department tasked with investigating reports of Unidentified Flying Objects, or in more modern parlance, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
The report, which introduced the world to the man who reportedly used to run this effort in Luis Elizondo, reignited the public’s interest in unusual lights in the sky, and importantly, the public’s interest in what the government may already know about these strange crafts. The program, according to that and subsequent reports, operated under the name AATIP, for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Other reports tell stories of the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, or AAWSAP, and each of these programs maintains real or perceived ties to Tom Delonge’s To the Stars Academy, or TTSA, and Robert Bigelow’s Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies… or BASS.
Luis Elizondo has led the public charge for the U.S. government to acknowledge and engage with the issue of UAPs, and high-profile people like former Senator Harry Reid have come forward in support of Elizondo’s story and perspective… but then, Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told The Intercept that Elizondo never actually had anything to do with AATIP in June of 2019.
“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,” Sherwood said.
Confused yet? That might be intentional.
Editor’s note: After this article was written, Politico ran an article in which attorneys working for Luis Elizondo directly accused the Defense Department of operating a disinformation campaign relating to Elizondo and the subject of UAPs:
“What he is saying is there are certain individuals in the Defense Department who in fact were attacking him and lying about him publicly, using the color of authority of their offices to disparage him and discredit him and were interfering in his ability to seek and obtain gainful employment out in the world,” said Daniel Sheehan, Elizondo’s attorney. “And also threatening his security clearance.”
Muddying the waters around UAPs
For more than three years now, the internet has been aflutter with new reports, new footage, new interviews, and new possibilities regarding these unusual sightings. Naval Officers and pilots like Cmdr. Dave Fravor and Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich have come forward to say that the things they saw from the cockpits of their jets seemed downright otherworldly and Luis Elizondo himself has been clear that while he can’t prove these strange lights in the sky are alien, he’s all but certain they aren’t terrestrial.
“Nobody seemed to be taking this thing seriously,” Sheehan said of Elizondo’s concerns when he left the Pentagon in 2017. “The different units and different groups that are responsible for responding to this particular phenomenon … they’re not briefing each other on this.”
Others within the Defense community and media point to drones made by advanced earth-bound opponents like China, while still other official remarks seem dismissive of the entire premise altogether.
If the waters are muddy on official channels, they’re practically opaque online and in the media. The digital world has been literally flooded with reports, stories, videos, images, rants, raves, and anything in between over the past three years. While UFOs have long been a part of American’s interest, dating back to reports of Foo Fighters during World War II, there’s been a resurgence in mainstream focus on the phenomena, and in turn, in the attention of folks spanning across both mainstream and less frequented corners of the internet.
With each new official revelation or mainstream story comes an increase in discussion across the board that carries for a time and then dissipates just before a new revelation or story, effectively rebounding UFOs, UAPs, and the like back into the public consciousness at regular intervals.
Now, it’s important to note that these new reveals or officials acknowledgements that are coming at semi-regular intervals could indeed be organic and not planned, but the idea of such a plan isn’t foreign to the U.S. government. Usually, this process is leveraged in reverse, with government officials often dropping “bad news” in bunches on a Friday afternoon when they know coverage will be minimal through the weekend before new events lead the news cycle on Monday. Likewise, dropping “bad news” just before a major event or revelation allows for effective masking of a topic while public interest is elsewhere. On the subject of UAPs, however, the trickle release of evidence and statements has the opposite effect, bringing the subject back to the forefront of conversation even when it’s beginning to wane.
All of that new content and personal engagement, however, has not appeared to result in a dramatic shift in how people perceive the topic of UAPs. While Gallop hasn’t really touched the issue of UFOs or similar much over the decades, a 2019 poll found that only around one-third of Americans believe some UFOs could be craft from other worlds, while two-thirds believe all sightings can be explained by natural or man-made means. Now, this isn’t to suggest that these sightings are or aren’t alien in origin, but rather to quantify American perceptions of the issue.
Despite an onslaught of posts and articles online that these unusual lights in the sky are not American military technology and are potentially even alien in the literal sense, Americans, by and large, are no more convinced that aliens walk among us than they ever have been. In fact, by some estimations, fewer people believe in aliens today than did throughout a good portion of human history.
Narratives control perception. Perception is reality.
Narrative has always played an integral role in national security, and while narrative control campaigns really entered into the public consciousness after the 2016 presidential election, the truth is, this sort of thing has always been done.
The Soviet Union and then Russia have long leveraged an approach to narrative they’ve dubbed Reflexive Control. The premise is simple: inundate your audience with information that leads them to make a specific decision while believing they arrived at that decision on their own. To that end, Russia utilizes state-owned media outlets like RT and Sputnik to publish or signal boost inaccurate stories, disinformation, or propaganda that gets picked up on by non-Russian outlets and carried over for the sake of a good story.
Russia’s Status-6 “doomsday” torpedo is a massive nuclear weapon capable of delivering a huge amount of destruction to its targets, and Russia’s state-owned media made sure to publicize it as such. American media outlets saw these stories and ran their own, highlighting the destructive power of this new and terrible weapon. The truth of the matter, however, is that this nuclear weapon does literally nothing to change Russia’s nuclear positioning, offers no new strategic capability, and isn’t even really any more a doomsday weapon than the comparatively tiny yield of an American Minuteman III ICBM.
It doesn’t matter what size nuke Russia lobs at the U.S., America would respond with a bunch of nukes, and the world would end, just as it would have in any nuclear exchange before the Status 6 came online. It’s like changing out chess pieces for new pieces that do the same thing but look different. The game hasn’t changed, but our perception has. Russia seems like a viable global military power thanks to this and similar efforts, despite being unable to repair their derelict, damaged, and only aircraft carrier.
History is ripe with precedent of concerted narrative campaigns literally shifting our very understanding of the world we live in. We believe diamond rings signify engagement and marriage not because humans have always traded shiny rocks for love… but because the De Beers company convinced us of it in the 1930s through a concerted messaging campaign.
Did you grow up believing carrots were good for your vision? Sure, carrots are a good source of Vitamin A, but adding more of that to your diet will only improve your eyesight if you’re already suffering from a severe deficiency. The real reason people think carrots are good for your eyes is that the U.K. launched a huge disinformation campaign during World War II suggesting their warfighters could practically see in the dark thanks to a diet rich in carrots.
The effort was actually about hiding the new nose-mounted radar pilots were using to find and engage Nazi bombers under cover of darkness. The Allies knew that if Germany found out about the radar, they’d work to counteract it. So instead, they convinced the world that Brits, and later Americans, just eat enough carrots to see in the dark.
If you think chronic “stink breath” is a medical condition called halitosis, you were duped by a Listerine campaign that started in the late 19th century. Narratives overwhelm truth all the time in the real world–sometimes by design, and sometimes by happenstance. In terms of national security, however, letting happenstance drive your narrative is a strategic weakness. In order to control a situation, you have to control the narrative.
How do governments actually control narratives?
The real answer to this question is simple: Any way they can.
In nations like China or Russia, where the government controls the media and strictly censors the population, controlling narratives is a more direct enterprise than it is in the rest of the world, but that’s not necessarily to say that it’s easier. The digital revolution of recent decades has made it easier than ever to engage with foreign populations directly and on their terms, leading to a rise in recruiting for terror organizations like ISIS and of course, a huge increase in foreign disinformation campaigns targeting the American people.
Russia’s narrative efforts have penetrated nearly every facet of American society as we’ve already discussed. China controls public perception of itself by strictly censoring even foreign films depicting the nation, threatening to restrict access to its booming economy for studios that don’t meet their demands. America controls narratives through lofty speeches, military-backed films and TV, and all the normal stuff one might think of as propaganda.
But beneath these efforts lie clandestine operations with overlapping and long-term goals that aren’t always as easy to divine. Like Russian Reflexive Control, effective narrative management doesn’t look like government messaging at all. Instead, it looks like memes, tweets, talking points that are used again and again in social media debates, and more. Thanks to the power of the internet, a narrative can have a million supporters overnight, signal boosting any message until so many people are exposed to it that a respectable percentage of people begin to believe it.
Couple that source-amnesia with a firehose of seemingly contradictory information and people will lean into their confirmation biases and thought groups for comfort. If you can infiltrate those groups, say by projecting an alignment of political beliefs with your target, you can sway them to your aims. We’re not talking about black magic, we’re talking about good old fashioned marketing tactics that have been proven to work time and time again as close by as your local supermarket.
Often, it’s not about planting the idea or belief in your target audience, it’s about finding it and exacerbating it. If you’re trying to find a way to hide the secret airplanes you test on your dry lake bed in Nevada, you cultivate the idea that it’s actually housing secret aliens (Area 51). Narrative campaigns don’t directly change discourse, they guide it.
Narrative campaigns don’t take the wheel from the public (if we were to use driving as a metaphor). These campaigns are more like the GPS directions the public relies on to find their way. When they arrive at their destination, it sure feels as though they were in charge all along–they were the ones turning the wheel and pressing the pedals. But ultimately, was it the driver or the navigation software that chose how they’d arrive? Or when? Did you choose to take one right turn over another, or did the GPS suggest you take the first one and you listened because it didn’t seem to matter?
That’s how narrative management works. You don’t feel the subtle shoves toward an intended goal, and often, you don’t even see the goal at all. To you, me, and everyone else, falling victim to a highly effective narrative campaign feels exactly like any other day.
People who are convinced by narrative campaigns are convinced organically and in a way that felt entirely natural. They’ll argue their beliefs and feel offended when you suggest they may have been manipulated. How dare you, they’ll say. I’m too smart to be manipulated!
If that were truly the case, the top three spending companies in America wouldn’t devote a combined $14 billion per year to advertising alone. If reality truly mattered more than perception, Comcast may have devoted a bit of their estimated $6 billion annual advertising budget to improving customer service or improving services in general for their customers… rather than telling customers in fairly monopolized regions how good their services already are. This is, clearly, an exaggerated simplification of how marketing works–but the truth remains: it clearly does work.
What does this have to do with UAPs?
Now that we understand how narrative control efforts work, let’s get back to the topic at hand and why we may be seeing elements of narrative control playing a pervasive role in the modern dialogue surrounding UAPs.
Let’s go back to that 2019 Gallop poll about if UAPs are indeed alien spacecraft. As we’ve discussed, 33% of Americans asked said some may have been alien in origin and 60% say all UAPs are man made. There is one more group to consider: a minority 7% who said they just don’t know either way.
A narrative campaign that leverages elements of Reflexive Control alongside more conventional efforts at managing natural human biases would effectively engage members of all three groups in ways that would keep discourse, and public perception regarding UAPs, confused and rather docile.
Tom Delonge’s To the Stars Academy (TTSA) has made headlines over and over again in recent years, thanks to a combination of high profile former government officials on his staff (including Elizondo until somewhat recently) and their connection with the release of formerly classified videos of military personnel witnessing and even interacting with UAPs. Delonge has believers and skeptics aplenty, but aside from the aforementioned high profile connections to the government TTSA boasts, the organization itself has fulfilled precious few of Delonge’s promises thus far (a point that’s sure to ruffle the feathers of some of Delonge’s supporters).
In October of 2019, TTSA once again hit the headlines thanks to an announced partnership with the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) with the express intent of studying “advance TTSA’s materiel and technology innovations in order to develop enhanced capabilities for Army ground vehicles.” Nothing has publicly come of this partnership yet, but these formal acknowledgments of Delonge and TTSA from the Defense Department are important in the context of the broader narrative.
While Delonge has since distanced himself from statements that seemed to definitively suggest he knows exactly what kinds of crafts these UAPs are or that he has evidence of extraterrestrial life, it’s still easy to find him making those sorts of claims in dated interviews. The Defense Department and even Luis Elizondo, on the other hand, have consistently stated that they don’t know what these crafts are, and as such, there’s no real evidence to point toward aliens.
While interviewing Air Force officers myself, I’ve been told that UFO and UAPs are still considered a silly topic that’ll get pilots laughed out of a briefing room, while other pilots have appeared on 60 Minutes to call the UAPs they’ve witnessed something akin to a military’s threat observation program. Some government officials seem to take the issue seriously, others will laugh at its mention, and most–including many journalists–have trouble discussing the topic without releasing a giggle or two during the conversation. On the one hand, this is all pretty ordinary, but on the other, it’s leveraging ordinary responses to come to an intended outcome that makes narrative management effective.
The topic is as complicated as it is confusing, with enough loosely related acronyms and potentially not-real programs to frustrate even seasoned defense journalists who track these sorts of things for a living. Even among those who passionately follow the topic, there are multiple camps that can inform what publicly available information you consider to be trustworthy, as well as what you don’t. This isn’t about believers and non-believers. It’s about a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from Eisenhower selling out the American people to the Greys in the 1950s, to the idea that the government might know something about aliens today, to the theory that we’re all looking at Chinese reconnaissance drones. For the casual observer, it’s all a bit too much to sift through.
Cognitive biases have made UAP disclosure a zero-sum game
So lets related all of this UAP content to the groups we identified earlier: those who have established beliefs (aliens or not aliens) and those who are on the fence. Each of these groups are affected differently by the glut of UAP information and perspectives, but they’re each affected nonetheless.
Information overload leads to confirmation bias
For those in the first and larger group, people who have pre-established beliefs about aliens and their relation to UAPs, this massive influx of UAP related content manifests as a form of information overload. All of these experts, all of these articles, all of these statements become overwhelming, and as we’ve found in peer-reviewed studies, that sort of information overload has a habit of pushing people toward their own pre-existing biases.
In a 2019 University of Cambridge study on the topic, Lorenz Goette, Hua-Jing Han, and Benson Tsz Kin Leung explain:
“We show that when subjects are exposed to stronger information overload, their belief updating behavior exhibits a stronger confirmation bias, holding constant the signals they receive. The effect is driven by the increased underreaction to belief-challenging information while the updating behavior concerning belief-confirming information is unaffected. In addition to the popular view that confirmation bias is driven by intrinsic preferences for belief-confirming information, our findings demonstrate that the bias also strongly depends on the informational environment. This lends credence to the growing theoretical literature which details that limited attention and ability could explain a number of behavioral anomalies.”
Put simply, the more information you have thrown at you, the more likely you are to ignore the information that challenges your beliefs. In the case of public perception of UAPs, this flood of information probably had little effect on popular belief regarding aliens or government technology. Instead, we all saw a flood of headlines and resigned ourselves to our existing ideas that aliens are either already among us or a figment of someone’s imagination.
Choice overload leads to a lack of certainty
Those who didn’t already have a strong position about aliens and UAPs are also in trouble, however, because this glut of information also came with a glut of options when it comes to forming your own beliefs. Have aliens been working with the U.S. government since Roswell? Are they just arriving now? Does the government know who they are or what they are? Are they just as in the dark as us? Are these crafts Chinese drones? Or maybe Lockheed Martin’s latest stealth fighter? Are they natural phenomena?
All of these options present a different cognitive hurdle for those without established beliefs: choice overload. Choice overload happens when you’re given lots of options to choose from and find it difficult to make a decision. Think about choosing a TV show in the 1950s when there were only a handful of channels and the only options were the shows that were currently airing. It wasn’t tough to pick a show and stick with it. Now compare that to choosing a show on Netflix, where the options are so plentiful, some of us spend more time picking our shows than we do watching them.
As the folks over at the Decision Lab put it:
“Choice overload gets its name from the paralyzing effect it has on our decision-making processes: the more variety there is, the harder it becomes for us to choose. Not only does this make the experience feel more draining but it also makes us more likely to choose nothing—to put off making a decision entirely, because we feel so overwhelmed.”
Worse still, studies show that we feel less certain about choices we make while suffering from choice overload, making us less apt to defend positions or beliefs come to while experiencing it. That means people who may have had their beliefs genuinely challenges during the past few years of UAP-mania likely don’t feel passionately enough about their newfound beliefs to act upon them, or even to champion them in a public way.
So the folks who thought UAPs are alien technology go on believing they’re alien. The folks who thought UFOs are military technology go on believing they’re military. And the folks who aren’t sure go on being pretty unsure. Despite all our talk, all the revelations, and global headlines… not much regarding the discourse or popular perception of UFOs or UAPs has really changed at all.
If there is a narrative strategy at play surrounding UAPs, what’s the goal?
It’s important to understand that narrative management isn’t usually the goal of a government effort; it’s one of many tools used to accomplish a goal. That is to say that misleading people is the means, not the end, and just about every facet of government and military strategy involves narrative management to one extent or another. Controlling a narrative is part of the process, not an inherently nefarious undertaking.
But what would prompt the U.S. government, or other governments for that matter, to try to skew public perception of the UAP issue in a way that keeps it fresh in people’s minds? To be honest, if you knew that, you’d know the whole secret–but we can make some educated guesses. While much of the rest of this article is based on research and historical precedent, these possibilities are strictly speculative:
1. Keeping the public calm regardless of what they are
It doesn’t matter if UAPs are alien or not: they seem to exist and are operating in American airspace. That’s a disconcerting revelation, especially in this era of renewed near-peer conflict. While the legend of Orson Welles’ reading of “The War of the Worlds” has been blown up a bit over the years, the premise stands that people tend to get nervous when an invasion seems imminent, whether by little green men or foreign adversaries.
By keeping the conversation complicated and confusing, you reduce the risk of the American people grouping together and demanding answers or action. You also reduce the risk of revelations having a real and pronounced affect on the populous, as it takes time for big news to worm its way through the different narrative threads.
2. Keeping what we know about foreign threats a secret
The U.S. Navy actually has patents on technology that could explain a great number of UAP sightings, from gravity propulsion drives to laser-induced plasma filament holograms. Of course, owning a patent isn’t the same as having the working technology, but it’s important to note that, as exotic as these UAPs may seem, they aren’t without theoretical precedent. If the United States could build such vehicles, it’s feasible a nation like China could as well.
If the U.S. is aware that China is operating advanced stealth reconnaissance drones of this sort, playing dumb could be an important part of countering this new capability. The U.S. may not want to acknowledge their awareness of these platforms, or especially their developing capabilities aimed at countering them.
3. An effective distraction
The idea that the U.S. government is using revelations about UAPs to keep America’s focus away from other issues or events is a popular one among conspiracy theorists for good reason. As we discussed above, the government uses a number of methods to manage public responses to bad news, after all. However, it’s important to note that the UAP discussion has now stretched across two fiercely contrasting presidential administrations, and that calls the premise of distraction into question.
If the Trump administration sought to use UAPs as a smokescreen to cover up other government endeavors, the Biden administration would likely have shone a light on that upon taking office. After a hotly contested election and ensuing conspiracy theories about the election’s integrity, it seems unlikely that Biden would maintain Trump’s cover, unless of course, the effort is directly tied to national security.
4. Plausible deniability for U.S. military programs
I’ve gone on record as saying that I think it’s unlikely that the U.S. Navy would use its own patented technology against itself even during testing, but there is one feasible explanation for doing so: plausible deniability.
The United States has made a public spectacle out of not knowing what these strange crafts are, which runs counter to the idea that they’re a foreign threat in some people’s minds. In 2018, Russia announced that they had successfully sent nuclear attack submarines to America’s Navy installations on the Eastern seaboard. America didn’t comment, because to deny it would suggest we didn’t know they did it and to acknowledge it could reveal how we tracked them while they were there. If UAPs are Chinese or Russian, some believe we wouldn’t publicly advertise our ignorance about them.
However, if the U.S. government knew these unusual craft came out of Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin’s factory, it might be inclined to suggest that we have no idea what these unusual objects are. Then, when they’re spotted in foreign airspace, the supposition is that we’re both being targeted by the same mystery, rather than the idea that the most technologically advanced military on the planet can operate with impunity inside your borders.
Until we know for sure what these unusual objects are, we likely won’t know if there has been a concerted narrative effort aimed at confusing the issue. It’s possible, of course, that this is just a complicated subject and both the flood of UAP content online and the ensuing confusion are natural parts of public discourse.
But then, we’re talking about a dialogue that has been prompted in large part by Pentagon releases and acknowledgments spread out over time. The Pentagon is in the business of making complex issues simple for public consumption, from America’s involvement in Syria to COVID vaccination rates among service members. The information provided by the DoD isn’t always easy to follow, but it’s clear that pains are taken to boil tough issues down into digestible bits. But that isn’t really the case with UAPs. Instead, the Pentagon largely just repeats the same messaging regarding the phenomena: “we don’t know what it is” and “we won’t postulate on what it is.”
Every new weapon system, new training initiative, new regional conflict, and new senior official reaches the podium with a pre-planned communications strategy aimed at making sure the American public understand what the military is doing and why it matters. Everything, that is, except ongoing discussion and debate regarding UAPs. With that, the party line is simply, “we’re looking into it,” seemingly begging you to look elsewhere… into the crowded and combat-filled field of our digital discourse to find the answers you seek.
If that isn’t an intentional decision aimed at maturing a narrative through organic influence, it almost certainly should have been.