UAP Disclosure - How Media Shapes UFO Truth & Government Secrets | Nick Pope

Transcript

Heat up here. Welcome to After After contact, a show that explores the potential implications and possibilities that might arise for humanity after we have open contact with an alien intelligence. I'm your host, Nick Pope, and in today's episode, we'll explore what role the media will play in shaping public opinion and perhaps driving the narrative. Today's guest is Brian Bender, who worked at Politico for many years and before that worked for the Boston Globe and James Defense Weekly. He specializes in areas including defense, national security, and foreign policy.

He now works for a Washington DCbased government relations consulting firm and is an advisor to a new advocacy organization, Americans for Safe Aerospace. Brian, welcome to the show. Great to have this conversation with you. Glad to be here. Now in December 2017 uh the media broke the story of the Pentagon's ATIP program and uh some of the US videos of of uh UAP US Navy and the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico where you were working broke this story pretty much at the same time and you were involved in that.

How was that story pitched and factchecked and run? So I guess it started in the summer of 2017. I was contacted through an intermediary um by Christopher Melon who um as many people know was a former senior Pentagon intelligence official had worked um for the Senate Intelligence Committee and he was working very closely with Lou Alzander who at the time was still uh in the Pentagon, still in government service running uh the ATIP program. Um, and basically it was sort of a cold pitch. Hey Brian, you're one of the defense reporters at Politico. You've covered the military.

You covered intelligence. Man, do we have a good story for you and, you know, we we'd love to f fill you in. And so, of course, I was intrigued. I knew of Mr. Melon um from some of his previous government roles and always saw him as a fairly credible source who had real inside knowledge.

And basically the pitch was you know this man Louzando is a career government official. He's been working the issue of UFOs uh or UAPs and he is getting very frustrated. He feels like his superiors don't want to take this issue seriously. He's tried to get, you know, more senior officials in the Pentagon to pay attention. Uh, but he feels like he's in the wilderness and he's pretty soon going to retire from the government and he wants to go public.

And of course, that was intriguing. Um, I had been a Pentagon reporter for two decades or more by then and I don't think I ever wrote a story about UFOs. I mean, it just wasn't something that came up on the beat. And so it was intriguing and and where it was coming from, you know, made it seem like something we should definitely at least look into and pursue. And so that began a sort of monthsl long effort to try and verify number one that this office had existed.

Uh we were able to confirm that it had been established in 2007 with some funding from then Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Obviously, Senator Reid was around and he was someone who could confirm this. Um, I also met several times with Mr. Alzando uh while he was still in the government to sort of feel him out. Is he credible? Is he who he says he is? And um, you know, it took some time, but I you know, we became comfortable that uh, number one, this opposite existed.

Number two, Mr. Alzando had run it or certainly had a very uh important role in it. And I guess it wasn't until the end of the year till we were able to sort of nail it all down, sort of wrap it up and be able to publish something. And I should add that it was clear from the beginning that Mr. Melon and Mr.

Alzando were shopping this story to other media outlets. I was aware they were talking to the New York Times um and a couple of others and I think they felt like we're not sure the mainstream media is going to bite on this. So I think they sort of spread their eggs in a few baskets to see who might bite. And so I know there's a lot of conspiracies about, you know, how did the Times and the Politico all sort of publish at the same time. And it really was uh because we were both working on it for quite some time and both got to the point where it was ready to go.

I think their story posted first, but ours was literally ready to go, so we went, you know, right after. >> Right. >> We were planning to publish anyway. >> Sure. And and I think those conspiracies come from the fact that the stories pretty much hit all at once, which looked like a campaign almost to to push this.

>> It was a campaign. I mean, it was a campaign on the part of Mr. Melon and Mr. Alzando to get this story out there. um they really felt and I came to you know believe this myself they really felt that this was an issue that was important and it wasn't getting the attention that it deserved and the only sort of recourse they had left was to try and go public and try to get some media coverage of this.

So now when you were factchecking this with presumably the Department of Defense, did you get a sort of, oh yes, that's fine, or did you get the sense that they were very reluctant to engage on this, maybe even trying to dissuade people from running stories at all? >> I never felt any, you know, pressure or uh anyone at the Defense Department trying to convince me not to go with this story. I mean, they weren't very cooperative. They didn't want to talk about it. Um, I remember sending a whole list of questions to the public affairs office and it kind of went nowhere. This was during the course of those months that we were working on this story.

Um, but you know, when push came to shove, we felt we had everything nailed down. We were going to go. That's when I went back to the Pentagon and at least got a statement from the then chief spokesperson um acknowledging that yes, this office existed. Mr. Alzando had worked there.

But that was really about all they wanted to say. I mean, they really they they clearly were not out in front on this. Um, and you know, you have to remember 2017 was a decade after this office ATIP was set up and it only had been operating really officially for three or four years. It ran out of money. Senator Harry Reid was out of office.

There was no champion for it anymore. So, it kind of fizzled. And so we were also writing about something that was kind of defunct at the time, >> right? But now even though they admitted that ATIP existed, they tried to say and I believe are still holding the line that that ATIP was not primarily a UAP program, but I think they used a phrase like a a program to explore next generation aerospace and weapon threats to the US. Was was that just words smithing or where do you stand on that? >> Yeah, I think that's word smithing. I mean, if you go back to the provenence of that office and why Senator Harry Reid wanted to secure at the time $25 million to do this kind of research.

Uh it was clearly about UAPs, but it was also about some other phenomena as well. Uh, you know, it was very clear that Senator Reid was interested in some of the activities that were going on at Skinwalker Ranch in Utah. Um, that was one of the things that drove him to get the Pentagon. Uh, at that time the Defense Intelligence Agency to pay attention to some of these unexplained events. Um, but you know, to say it wasn't about UAPs, I think, um, is not really accurate.

I mean it is true that the original office that was set up was broader. It was looking at a sort of whole host of sort of paranormal activities. Um but when the office was created they were very aware they didn't want to make this the UFO office. So they called it the advanced aerial threat Identification program uh to make it sound innocuous, to make it sound like, oh, this is just another defense intelligence agency secret program to study, you know, advanced technologies, >> keep it off the radar with their own people who might chop the program. >> Didn't stick out like a sore thumb.

Um, and you know, that would make sense if you're a bureaucrat. I mean, and you know, there there is some truth to the intent being, let's try to figure out what some of these unexplained things are because maybe there are advanced technologies that we don't know about. Maybe it is an adversary that's made some breakthrough. So, I mean, the fact that it was in the DIA, I think, supports at least the perception uh and the explanation of the Pentagon. Well, this was about studying advanced aerial threats.

That's what DIA does. I mean, their job is to study what the Chinese military is doing and the Russian military. And so, that's where they parked it. And that's kind of what they called it because I think that was a way they could study some of this uh non-traditional stuff, but still sort of do it in a way that it didn't really stick out >> right now. you mentioned almost the shopping around of of this story and obviously there have been a lot of further developments and revelations since December 2017.

Looking back and knowing what you now know, do you feel that any of this was a scop of some kind or or an attempt to control the narrative in any particular way? And and if so, how and why? I mean I guess my question would be what do you mean by a scop by the government at large >> control the message >> or a faction within government or a faction that was in government and is now outside government but trying to pursue the same agenda because they couldn't do it from the inside. >> I guess my sense is if there was an effort to control the narrative, it was to shut down the story. In other words, not to create a version of the story, just to sort of hope and pray it goes away. Um, you know, I always got the impression the Department of Defense did not want to talk about this. Um, always got the impression that the original ATIP program was foisted on the Department of Defense.

This was not something they asked for. This was something that a senior senator from Nevada said, "Hey, I have the clout. I'm going to get you some money. I'm going to get some of my fellow senators to support it." And I remember talking to a very senior uh former intelligence official who you could argue was kind of really in charge of ATIP at the time and he gave me the impression they really wanted no part of it back then. It was just not something they were interested in pursuing.

So I think when the stories came out that was sort of the flavor of of the government response. Now Mr. Melon, Mr. Alzando. I mean, they clearly had a mission, a campaign that they were trying to get done.

And I think they were somewhat successful, you could argue. I mean, they got this issue on the radar, the political radar in Washington, in a way it hadn't been for decades, if ever. And so, um, but again, as far as a government effort to try and control the narrative, I think it was more like, man, we wish this story would go away because, you know, whatever we might have learned is classified. Uh, and my sense was whatever they learned, they weren't even really sure what they learned. They didn't have a lot of great answers, right? >> So, you know, you know, it's better off maybe we just try to hope these reporters eventually go away.

>> Well, the media of course followed those initial stories and kept on the case. I What do you think more generally of the way this subject has transitioned from fringe to mainstream if you accept that assessment? No, I think you know I think the real driver in this once the stories broke, once it was clear that this program had existed and there were some very credible voices in the military, mostly Navy pilots who were coming forward with their testimony, it got the attention of Congress. Um, and no longer was it just one senator with influence saying, "Hey, let's tuck a couple of million bucks in the budget to go look at this stuff." It was some, you know, senior level people who ran the intelligence committee, ran the armed services committees who sort of really took this on and said, "Hey, you know what's going on here? We we have this credible testimony that there's things up there. We don't know what they are. Um maybe they're the bad guys, maybe they're ours.

Who knows? But, you know, we Congress feel like we're in the dark." And I think that's where it moved from the fringe to the mainstream. I think you had some elected representatives, not a ton of them. This wasn't a ground swell, but enough of them in both parties, uh, with, you know, enough clout, you know, in various committees that oversee the national security bureaucracy. You said, "We're not going to just let this die." I think without that, it very likely would have died, >> right? >> Um, or it would have fizzled out. Um, but Congress has passed laws in the years since 2017.

They held a public hearing. Um, they're continuing to push for more information, more disclosure, more answers. And, um, I think without that, we probably would be in a much different place. >> Right. I I get that that when you've got like both in the Senate and the House um and Republicans and Democrats talking quite openly about this, mainstream media feels more comfortable reporting it and of course that is a story.

Now what role do you think that I'll use the phrase citizen journalists have played in this? And I'm talking about things literally like UFO Twitter. Well, I think in a very real way, the citizen journalists are kind of the kindling in this fire. I mean, they keep sort of feeding it when we in the mainstream media moved on to something else. You know, you have to keep in mind that as a Pentagon reporter, I wasn't a UFO reporter. I mean, I was coming at this as a national security reporter.

This is something the Pentagon is doing, uh, something they're funding, something that military personnel are talking about. you know that by definition made it a story. Um but we obviously cover lots of things. So you know we would move on from the story but citizen journalists often through the freedom of information act have brought forth more government documents you know on this subject um on the ATIP program in particular. So we've learned more uh that way.

I mean but you know citizen journalism is like any sort of citizen activism right? It's it's you know stuff that helps and stuff that maybe muddles the issue too. So it you know it's a double-edged sword. Um but then again so you know so is journalism. I mean some reporters come at this very skeptical almost it seems hellbent on undermining this story and making it fringe. Again I you know I've seen some of that kind of coverage in the mainstream media.

So I feel the more the marrier. I mean the more people that are going to ask questions force our government to try and reveal more information the better. I mean in the end the truth will bubble up to the top. >> Well you mentioned the fact that obviously you know you come from from defense and national security beat. It it's interesting to me.

I remember before this story broke, uh, going going back to previous UFO stories like the declassification and release of the British government's UFO files, they would not necessarily put a defense or national security correspondent on it. They they would just get, you know, whoever the editor thought might might suit the story because it didn't really fit. But now it does seem to be that when these UFO stories run, it is the defense and national security journalists who are who are writing up those stories. I mean, is that a good thing? Is it a sign of the times? >> Well, I just think it's the nature of sort of where the story came from. I mean, it came from within the Pentagon um in the form of the ATIP program which you know came to light in 2017.

So, it was by definition a sort of Pentagon story. Uh but then it very quickly morphed into a political story. I mean when you have members of both parties in this day and age agreeing on something I mean that's kind of news too. And you know there's been more and more sort of public discussion from elected leaders about this topic. And so it got to the point where I feel like Pentagon reporters and to some extent political reporters couldn't ignore it anymore.

I mean, it was front and center and you almost look bad if you were not covering it because it was just so obviously a newsworthy story. Well, now do you think there's an argument that that when ATIP and those US Navy videos came out that the media corporately were like, "Oh, look, wow, great." and and particularly the videos because it's such a a visual story and the ones with the soundtrack, they so lend themselves to to a little clip that you put in a news story. Do you think that the media was so focused on that that they didn't maybe do arguably their job and say, "Wait, rather than just lapping this up, we should go back and call out the government for having told us for decades, no, no, no one's looking at UFOs. We haven't had a program since Blue Book closed down at the end of ' 69. Was Was that a lack of due diligence? >> I don't see it so much like that.

I mean, as I said earlier, I mean, I had covered the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies for my entire career and I had never covered UFOs. So, I didn't have a body of knowledge necessarily when I was first going into it. I didn't have a lot of historical context. I think I would attribute a lot of it to just not knowing the history. I mean, if you if you're ufologist and you've, you know, sucked up everything you could read about this topic, then yes, maybe your takeaway would be, well, wait, wait a second, this doesn't rhyme.

They're saying, you know, they haven't done anything for all these years, but now we're learning that they did. So I think it was more of a disconnect in that sense than it was some you know meeting somewhere where the media said hey you know let's let's not ask the tough questions. Um, but in the government's defense here, I also think it's important to point out there's a difference between having a comprehensive governmentwide effort to try and investigate UAP versus a commander of a base here or an official here who might order up some investigation in reaction to some incident. because of course we've seen lots of files that have come out about sightings over military bases where there was some sort of investigation but that was a very narrow sort of focus in that place in time. So that's the government studying UAP right but that's different from a governmentwide project bluebook like effort to try and get to the bottom of this.

So I think it's a little bit of both. I mean, yes, they didn't have a governmentwide effort for a long time, but it's not like they weren't looking into this at all because we know from the record they were. >> Sure. And and it's certainly interesting now that that I think there's this mindset that's beginning to take hold, certainly in Congress, maybe in the media, too, that wait, if if these US Navy videos are the real deal, maybe there is a backstory to go back to. Maybe we should look at Malstrom and alleged shutting down of nuclear missiles.

maybe we should even look at Roswell. Um, it's not as if those things, particularly Roswell, aren't aren't in people's awareness. And with with that in mind, whether it's whether it's going back and reinvestigating some of this or looking at it with fresh eyes or whether it's something else, do you think what aspects of this story do you think the media are currently missing? And what what would you suggest that the media corporately focus on? >> Well, I mean, I mean, first of all, I think, you know, much of the media, uh, we're not historians, right? So, you know, in the day-to-day coverage of the news, unfortunately, in today's day and age, you have even less capacity to sort of, hey, let's take a step back. Where have we come from? How did we get here? I think there's just very little bandwidth in newsrooms across America to do that, unfortunately. Um, but I do think a an emerging story that we're going to have to cover, I you know, we should cover is one of the requirements of the recent defense bill passed by Congress at the end of 2022 uh forces the Pentagon to do its own look back at some of the incidents you uh cited.

Um because I think Congress understands there is a backstory here that we don't know about and we're not exactly sure what it is and even if there is a story but I think the fact that they now in law have required the Pentagon to sort of do a 75 year history of this shows that they believe there could have been knowledge programs other things in the past that they don't know about and they want to know about it. So I think that's a story that we have to cover. You know, are they going to do that? Are they going to really do an investigation of some of these past cases? You mentioned Mount Storm Air Force Base, a nuclear base in 1967 where there was a reported UFO sighting that apparently shut down some of the silos. You know, is that true? What do you know about that? You know, please tell us. So, they have a big project to do.

I think we're all going to watch how the uh official response to the requirements in the defense bill go and that's that's going to be fascinating. Now, one thing that comes up time and time again is is the accusation, I have to say usually from elements within the UFO community that at some level the media are part of a government cover up here or or complicit. I mean, how how do you respond to that? >> I mean, it's hard to respond to that. I mean complicit how I mean we all got together and were told this is going to be the story and this is what we're going to say and this is what we're not going to say. That's not how things work in the real world.

Um now complicit maybe in the sense that this was a subject that was considered kryptonite for so long among the mainstream media. In other words, we're not going to go there because we'll get laughed out of the news meeting, uh, or we're going to, you know, possibly damage our relationship with our sources if we start asking questions about this. I think you could, you know, any objective observer could agree that there was definitely a stigma to covering this, a stigma that was often fueled maybe by government officials like, "Aha, haha, you're gonna ask about UFOs." And so, you know, I think the media maybe was maybe cowed into not covering this issue in a more aggressive way because, you know, we feared that, you know, it's going to hurt our careers or it's going to hurt our, you know, ability to get other news stories. So, I think that's certainly true, but that's true in society at large, right? >> Sure. I I think we I remember at the a recent White House press conference where where the press secretary was was literally dealing with with a story and saying, "Well, I I saw ET when I was a a kid." And and yeah, so I guess the media goes along with that.

I mean, do do you think that's really the the only level at which that's true? there's a sort of um I don't mean complicit in a in in a sort of Machavelian way maybe so much as just it is a fun story if you just sort of go along with quotes about like the XFiles and play this in a a light-hearted way. >> Yeah. I mean it, you know, it uh on some level it also sells, right, if you kind of treat it as a sort of a cultural story more than a hard news story, right? I mean, you me you mentioned X Files and just this enormous sort of cultural um almost brainwashing, right? um that has always relegated this topic to sort of the fringe and you know everybody gets a laugh at it. You know when I left Politico I was in a meeting um uh where we were just chitchatting about a lot of different storylines and I threw out I said so who's going to cover the UFO beat now that I'm leaving? Who's going to raise their hand? And there was a bunch of chuckles and nobody raised their hand. And I, you know, I still and I think that showcased how there's still this reluctance to go there.

And it's not just because of the stigma. It's not just because of the laugh factor. It's also an extremely difficult target if you're a journalist. I mean, we're talking about a national security bureaucracy that lives and breathes to hide things, not to share things, not to reveal things, whether it's, you know, the UAP issue or any other. I mean it is a institution or set of institutions that are extremely secretive and so if there is some deep dark secret buried somewhere from years ago about UAP it's going to be really difficult to get that story >> right >> and there's a lot of other stories to cover there's China there's the war in Ukraine I mean if you're a national security reporter there's no der of things to cover and so I think part of the the the complicity is really just a reluctance to go there because you don't see a lot of payoff at the end.

You can't really assure your editors, I'm going to get the story, >> whereas there's so many other places you could go and get the story. >> And Chinese spy balloons, of course, which was another um story that managed to straddle a little bit of espionage and geopolitics, but also because of the subsequent shootowns uh being described as unknowns, also played into the UFO narrative. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think this Chinese spy balloon in some ways helps the UAP issue because it's just a, you know, a very real world example of how there can be things and there are things in our airspace and we don't necessarily know they're there or who they belong to. I mean, in the Chinese balloon case, pretty clearly it was Chinese and, you know, we were able to discern that quickly.

But I think the three other objects that we shot down was really kind of a reaction to the first one, which is, oh no, is there anything else up there that we're not tracking? And so I think it was almost like a hyper sensitive almost overreaction. You can imagine that weekend at NORAD, these young kids sitting in front of these screens saying, "What's that? What's that? What's that? What's that?" Because I think the political leadership also didn't want to be caught with their pants down again >> like they were with the Chinese balloon. So let's make sure there's nothing else up there. And I think maybe shooting them down was an overreaction, but in the big picture, I hope what it does is it keeps on the agenda, no matter what you believe is up there, this idea that yes, there's a lot of things in our airspace more than ever before. And we don't really know what it is.

I mean, somebody was telling me the other day that, you know, if you go on the flight tracker websites where you can see commercial air traffic flying across the United States, it looks like they're going to crash into each other, right? There's so many of them. We'll double that number >> to account for drones that never file a flight plan. Nobody necessarily knows where they are, what they're doing, why. And and so, you know, we have a problem where there are earthly things in our airspace and we don't really necessarily have a good handle on it. So, I think it's all for the better because I think it it builds this understanding that we need more eyes up there to separate what's good, what's bad, what do we know, what do we not know.

I mean, this is our sovereign airspace. No matter what you think it is, shouldn't we know what's up there? >> Sure. Well, now the media firestorm um about the Chinese spy balloon and and the related shootowns plays into another I guess almost conspiracy theory that you do hear from certainly some elements of the UFO community, which is that um a lot of these media stories and perhaps the government actions that are driving them are part of some a climatization campaign to sort of drip feed the truth to people so that if there is a kind of big, you know, ladies and gentlemen, we're not alone moment. People won't panic because they will have been prepared for it. Do you give that any credence? >> I mean, I guess I'm just sort of agnostic on that.

I mean, I I just find it very difficult to follow that trail of breadcrumbs. I mean, uh, >> I believe from my experience that Chris Melon and Lou Alzando came forward of their own valition because they felt they had no other recourse but to try and bring more public attention to this issue. I don't think they were put up to it. Um, I could be wrong and if I were wrong then obviously I was duped. But I, you know, I know what I know.

I know what I can objectively see and and and and so to accept what you're describing, you have to accept that Melon and Alzando were part of that broader effort to desensitize the public, you know, in anticipation of some big reveal. I I just I it doesn't add up to me. >> No, I I'm I'm not saying that I agree with it either, but those those theories are out there. So, I think it is it is >> there's a lot of theories out there. >> Absolutely.

But I think, >> which is another reason why, by the way, I think a lot of journalists turn the other way because it's like, oh my god, what a morass. I mean, I covered the JFK assassination in the sense that when I was a Boston Globe reporter, there was always interest in new government documents coming out. Was there any any new revelation that could be learned? And uh I mean, I thought that was a rabbit hole. I mean, it's nothing compared >> to the world of of UFO or, you know, this discipline. I mean, it's it's I mean, your head will explode.

And so, I think a lot of reporters are like, "God, like, there's no winning here. I'm never going to get to the truth. There's a million different competing theories about what's going on and, you know, how can I make a difference?" Well, I'd like to hypothesize now about let's suppose we do get to the truth, an undeniable truth, uh some some sort of scenario where we have an arrival that that really can't be um denied or or couldn't have been faked with special effects or anything and and talk to you about how the media would address that. And I wonder with that in mind, I remember back in 1996 when scientists presented findings about a meteorite that had been found in Antarctica, which they proved through, I think, isotopic ratio analysis or some other scientific process had come from Mars following a an impact. and they found what was believed to be at the time, though the subject's been slightly walked back a bit, the conclusions, they found what they thought was evidence of fossilized microbial life.

And it gives us, I think, a possible template, maybe the only template we have for for how things would be reported. And I remember the news headlines for a day or two were life on Mars. The aonomous David Bowie song got a lot of airplay and President Clinton came out and gave a speech where he said something like, you know, one of the biggest and most profound questions looks as if it may be asked. I mean, there are a lot of variables in first contact. But if we do get it, does does that give us a template or is is now totally not 1996? Have we moved on? You know, hypothetically, if there was some advanced civilization that made its presence known to us in an undeniable way, there's no template for that.

I mean, we can sit here all day and, you know, try and speculate what the reaction would be, but, you know, we'll probably all be wrong. Um, it would have to be undeniable. In other words, you know, it was so clear-cut that we couldn't deny it because if it was something even akin to the 1996 Martian media, right, where it's sort of still a little bit in the theoretical zone, some people would believe it, some people wouldn't. >> Sure. >> You know, it probably wouldn't be that big of a story because, you know, nobody would be sure.

But if it were irrefutable, I mean, it'd be the biggest story in human history, right? I mean, this is the question we've all been asking ever since we were cavemen. >> Are we alone? >> And that would be the headline, by the way. >> We're not alone, right? >> I mean, if it was that clear-cut, that's that's the headline. >> Right now, just circling back on a different scenario. Supposing it's not an arrival.

I want to come back to that. But let's suppose we've talked a lot about a disclosure, which which the UFO community spell with a a big D. Um if we get that um ladies and gentlemen um we are not alone, we have never been alone and supposing it comes out that you know Roswell was real. Do in that scenario does the the media run the same sort of headlines you know aliens or do they go back and and like wait a minute there's a backstory we were lied to for 80 years or or is it very much focusing on the now? I think it depends on how disclosure transpires. I mean, I think the reaction is going to very much be a function of what actually comes out, who delivers it in what form.

Um, I've come to believe that uh disclosure, disclosure for me means most likely that the government comes forward in some unified way and acknowledges that we know a heck of a lot more than we've been telling you. But I think it's just as possible that the proviso could be we know a lot but we don't really know everything. We haven't put the puzzle pieces together. I think disclosure could be some acknowledgement or discovery by the government. In other words, just because the government had something in its custody 30, 40, 50 years ago doesn't mean the people in charge now even know it.

I mean, and part of what Congress wants the government now to do, is to do this excavation, if you will, go back through the cobwebs, go back through the special access programs, these very secret programs, and see what might be in there. Because if you're the head of intelligence at the Pentagon, you don't necessarily know what everything that's ever happened, every program that's ever existed, you know, long before you were even born. So I think disclosure could be the government comes forward and says, "Hey, we've been hiding this or we discovered this." And when I say comes forward, probably to Congress first, >> right? >> Not to us. Um, and I think it's more likely to be we have all these puzzle pieces, >> right? >> And we haven't really put them together because I think if it was the real big reveal, we've been hiding alien bodies or we've been in contact with some alien civilization. I just don't know how you keep that secret for all this time.

I I I I mean, I could be wrong. Maybe the movies are right and reality is wrong, but I I just feel like it's going to be it's not going to be so satisfying for the people who are waiting for the big disclosure. It's going to be sort of it's going to be sort of a half disclosure, but still significant. If the government were to come forward and say, "We have UFO crash material and it looks like it's not from this world and it was hidden in some defense contractor's warehouse for 50 years." That's a huge story. >> It it is.

And and do you think in those circumstances the media will think darn we missed that uh we're to blame we got played or is if it's been done in those shadowy world uh of of intelligence and and things is it you know that's no blame. Um, one thing I learned all my years in the media is seldom does the institution of American journalism do a lot of naval gazing about what should we have done. It did happen after the Iraq war. I mean, I was one of those in 2004 2005 who said I should have asked more questions about the weapons of mass destruction. We collectively should have asked more questions and we didn't.

We failed there. So I think there'll be some of that recriminations like you know how did we let this one slip by? But I I think you know if it's irrefutable enough of a reveal or a discovery, I think most reporters, most media organizations would be just too busy covering it and the implications of it and and maybe then we'll start asking more questions about well why didn't you tell us about this before or you know what what else are you hiding? >> Right? and and you know um you mentioned earlier JFK. Let me ask you this. In in the sort of hierarchy of big stories in the last century or so, um where would disclosure or first contact sit compared to the assassination of JFK, landing on the moon, detonation of the atom bomb? >> I feel like this is sort of a maybe a lame answer, but It could be really big or it could be surprisingly small the reaction. I think again it depends on the form in which this first contact as you call it uh takes.

I think if it's very visual like you know you imagine in the movies like a bunch of tic tacs landing on the White House lawn and that's on the 6:00 news then it's going to be a huge story. But if it's sort of this amorphous we're the government and we're here to tell you that we've made contact and you know here's the story >> right >> there'll be sus you know there'll be some folks who were suspicious is that really true you know there'll be a lot of skepticism I mean it depends it could really it could be bigger than all of those events you just described or it could sort of fall somewhere in the middle depending on what we see what we get what we learn and how confident most of us are that what we're seeing is really the truth. >> And you could have almost like a situation now where where the government saying no, there's no evidence of extraterrestrials and a lot of people say we don't believe it. You could reverse that situation and have have a case where the government says, "Yeah, we we have first contact." And there would probably be a bunch of people who don't believe it. And and I mean with that in mind, I mean again the government presumably whatever the scenario would be striving for narrative control particularly if there was any degree of panic.

>> Well and that's a good point which is uh what the government says how much it reveals would depend heavily on whatever their calculation is at the time whatever the president's calculation is and presumably with other global leaders. What is going to be the reaction here? are we going to have bedlam and panic all over the place because obviously nobody wants that. Um but you know whether it's first contact or it's some level of disclosure I always ask people who ask me this question you know when is disclosure coming when are we going to learn the truth? I always say to them I I have a question for them. I was like what does that press release say? >> Write the first paragraph for me of the disclosure press release. what does it say? And and so I think everybody has a different definition of what you know the disclosure or you know revealing the existence of some alien civilization is going to look like and you could have a thousand people in this room and have a thousand different predictions and I'm almost 100% sure they will all be wrong.

There will be some version of of those predictions but it won't be something that we've conceived of because again we don't know what it's going to look like. And again with that in mind let's suppose that there is some sort of white house press conference where they say yeah this is all real and and sure you know there are number of permutations but what if you were in that room and they just make a very neutral announcement but they say we have unequivocable evidence uh that we are being visited by extraterrestrials and the president makes a a statement and ensure narrative control and whatever, then it goes to questions and you get one. What do you ask? >> Well, I mean, I think an obvious question in such a scenario would be what is the best estimate of America's intelligence agencies about whether they're friendly or not? Do they pose a threat? I mean, I think that's an obvious question. I think um obviously if the answer is that we don't know or we think they potentially could be threatening, the sort of very Washington type follow-up question would be, well, how did you miss this one? You know, is this an intelligence failure? Or what did you know and when did you know it? Um and that gets back to the question of the government maintaining they have no evidence of of extraterrestrials. I think the officials who say that I don't have any reason to believe that they're lying.

I think from what they know and from what they've seen at their level, they've not seen evidence of extraterrestrials. That doesn't necessarily mean that evidence doesn't exist somewhere else in the government. I think there is this sort of uh I think there's this sort of um practice that that we have where we sort of see our government as this monolithic thing with you know people at the top who pull all the the strings. The national security bureaucracy doesn't work that way. There are very secret levels within levels within levels within levels and you know people who know about those things are very small.

Often times it's very you know sensitive intelligence about human spies or new technologies or something like that. And so it's very possible that the people at the top are saying there's no evidence of ETSs are being honest. They don't know of any evidence but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And if we find out someday that there was a crashed UFO or some sort of material that was recovered, um, you know, I could imagine the government trying to explain that away as saying, well, you know, we we had it, >> but we didn't really know what it was, right? >> We never made a conclusion about it. So, we didn't have quote evidence of ETSs.

Because in their bureaucratic way, they could probably argue that, well, we didn't do the full scientific inquiry. We never got a conclusion. we didn't award a contract and get back a report and so you it was sort of like let's just hang on to it and see if we can learn about it someday in the future. the puzzle pieces which you mentioned the puzzle pieces earlier and I mean okay I absolutely the who knew what when is important and and of course the I guess almost the first question is do we have evidence of a threat if we get beyond that and uh let's suppose this is going to be the most historic press conference of all time I guess uh and you get a followup where you can go a little bit deeper or more philosophical where what would your follow-up question be Um, I'm not sure. I mean, I I guess it would depend on what the announcement was, but uh I think it would be valid question like to continue to press them on whether this was something they already had evidence of or strong suggestions of that there was some alien civilization visiting us.

Um because I think that's a legitimate question since so many Americans already believe some version of there being you know an ET having visited here either in modern times or in ancient times and so um I think the follow-ups would have to be what did you know when did you know it um but again the I think the first question would be what are we going to do about this are these good guys are they bad guys what do we know about you know, why are they here? What's the purpose? >> And, you know, if the qu if the answers are we don't know yet, >> I think, you know, that's going to be something we'll have to press on. Well, are you going to go find out? >> And how are you going to find out? >> Sure. And then, barring some sort of alien invasion scenario, in which case, I guess the headline would be War of the Worlds or or something like that or aliens invade. But if we if we are faced with a a more nuanced and nebulous and uncertain situation and we have that announcement and you get your questions and then everyone rushes out of the room and they're writing up their their copy, what's your headline? >> Well, I mean, I think the the headline is we're not alone. Um but you know I also think it's important that you know we're talking about what would be the response from government leaders.

I think in many ways the more important response will be from theologians and religious leaders the world over. I mean I think most people are not going to look to the president of the United States for answers on this. If it is an irrefutable uh case where we now know that we're not alone. I think people are going to go to their rabbis and their priests and the pope. I mean because you know >> not me the other one >> it is going to under you know sort of overturn a lot of the established order religious political economic I mean everybody's going to be like what does this mean for us? How does this change the established order? and and I so you know I think the the political leaders are just going to be one source of information and guidance and and that sort of thing.

>> Well, if so then if your headline is we are not alone or or some something like that. I was going to ask you about your angle and and your angle then may go beyond just the government confirming this and may go on to those kind of almost second order questions of what what now and and particularly you think um people's religion their spirituality um the theology of all this would would be an angle that you might run with >> yeah and I think what you know what is the global community going to do about this, right? I mean, obviously, if an alien civilization comes and visits us, they're not just, you know, we Americans like to think that we're the center of the universe, but we're not. Uh, we're not even the center of the world. So, you know, I think those questions will immediately come up. What is the global community doing about this? Is it the UN that's going to be some sort of intermediary or or what? I I would also have a question.

Does this mean Vladimir Putin will stop invading Ukraine? I mean because I mean there are also very sort of >> sort of geopolitical questions that will come up too like >> is this going to change our behavior? Is this going to change how we interact with each other >> with a threat? I I guess the answer would be a definite yes. And I'm I'm put to mind not just of of Hollywood movies where that happens, but President Reagan's speech to the UN where he said, "I occasionally think how quickly we would set aside our national differences if we faced some alien threat from beyond this earth." But with with that in mind, I mean, Hollywood says fear cells. Um the media sometimes say if it bleeds, it leads in a neutral situation. Do you think that and and here I'm interested in how people would react society as a whole but let's not kid ourselves that the media doesn't play a huge role in shaping that. Do you think the media would itself react with shock and fear or with awe and wonder? >> It's hard to say.

I mean I think if the more uncertainty there is about what the motives are of this civilization that is visiting us now uh the greater the fear will be the greater the oh my god what are we going to do reaction will be the more we know and obviously if the more we know leads us to believe that this is benign or maybe even beneficial they're here to help then I think the coverage would be very different. But I, you know, I think if it's a big, if there's lots of question marks, and there's going to be some by definition, but if there's many of them, including are they good or bad, if we don't really know, I think it's it's probably going to be a very fearful, distrustful kind of reaction. And I think that's what would, you know, obviously be of paramount concern to global leaders, which is, you know, we don't want the whole planet to go crazy because of this, >> right? And >> so it all really depends on what we know and how we know it. And final fun question, let's let's suppose in all of this that it's benign or at least neutral, but that we've got some sort of first contact event that is literally face to face. And at that White House press conference, there is an extraterrestrial, a sort of representative of an alien civilization.

Same question with a with a difference. Uh the statements are made, they come to you and you can ask >> the extraterrestrial. You can ask the alien one question. What do you ask? >> What took you so long? I guess I mean because you know we as a culture in lots of different variations have always either believed or wanted to believe there's something else out there. And obviously many people believe they've been here and they've been here a long time and maybe even long before we were.

So yeah, you know, why now? Why now? And you know, and obviously >> we'd also want to know from them what their, you know, intentions are. Why did you come and what do you hope to do? Right. And and of course, you know, at the back of your mind with all of that, just as any journalist would be saying when they're at a government press conference, is, you know, A, is this actually true? Or or B, if it is true, maybe, but are they putting a spin on it when the reality is something a little bit different? Maybe. >> I don't know. would probably want to know if they have any relationship with Elon Musk, any business relationship.

Um, uh, yeah, there'd be a lot of questions. It's fun to think about, but I, you know, I feel like the role of the media right now in the United States is to be a watchdog to see to what extent the government answers the Congress's direction on this topic. That to me, as a Washington National Security Reporter, is something that you can sink your teeth into. It's something real. Congress has required the US government to do some things it's never required them to do before on this topic of UAP.

Some of it has to be public, not all of it, but some of it is is truly groundbreaking potentially, but I think there's a chance if the media moves on that Congress could lose interest and then some of the pressure on the Department of Defense, on the CIA, on some of these other intelligence agencies will lessen. So for me, if I was telling young reporters who want to cover this, how should I go about this? That's what you should be covering. That's what you should be asking. Where are the reports to Congress? Where is the 75-year history? What did you learn? Um those kinds of questions. There's also this whistleblower protection provision.

In other words, anyone in the government now or someone who was formerly in the government should feel like they can come forward if they know something or knew something and not fear that they will be, you know, uh there will be reprisals or any sort of thing like that. How is that process working? Are we learning anything? And so there's a lot of questions that can be answered, a lot of sort of angles that can be covered that are here in the real world and, you know, maybe will get us a little closer to that, you know, potential big reveal or disclosure someday. But, um, you know, there's there's Congress has laid some breadcrumbs and, you know, we should follow those. Well, I hope the media does continue to follow those breadcrumbs and keep the pressure on the government. And I think if I had to make a prediction, I would predict there are some interesting and potentially impactful twists still to come in this story.

Brian, thank you so much for sharing your information and insight onto this. >> Thank you. I enjoyed it. It's intriguing to consider how the media will react to disclosure and first contact, which I think we can legitimately say would be the biggest news story of all time. It's also fascinating to speculate how with a 247 news cycle, the media may itself play a part in shaping policy.

Remember, you are the future of humanity after contact. Thanks for joining me, and until next time, I'm your host, Nick Pope. Heat. Heat.