Who released the FLIR1, Gimbal and Go Fast Navy videos?

The link below takes you to a clarifying article by journalist Alejandro Rojas. In my mind, the article do not only clarify the issues with, or doubts about, who released the Navy UFO videos, but also resolve the issue once and for all. I also write this blog post because I think Roja´s article contains valuable information that in the future can be used as a reference.

For more background what this issue with the release of the videos has been about, and in some researchers´ minds still is, please read Alejandro Rojas´s article in the link below. Under the link, I am going to give a couple of my personal thoughts on the content in Roja´s article, and raise some further questions that I think Roja´s article are eliciting.

http://alejandrotrojas.com/2019/08/18/newly-revealed-emails-shed-light-on-release-of-navy-ufo-videos/

My personal comments, and further questions.

Why do I think Alejando Roja´s article resolve the issue with who really released those UFO videos from the Navy, or, really, from the U.S. Government (the Pentagon, the Department of Defense)?

First, I have to say that the main cause of the issue in question is the U.S. Government itself, in this case, mainly the Department of Defense (DoD). The next question is obvious; is this issue / confusion created deliberately by the DoD or is there a more mundane explanation of the many contrary statements from different employees in the DoD?

While, we cannot with certainty rule out the ever present "plausible deniability" in the case of UFOs and the U.S. Government (USG), I will still go with the most likely explanation of the difficulty of keeping employees in a big organization informed and knowledgeable about what is going on, policies, definitions of this and that term, and so on and so forth. The DoD is a huge bureaucratic organization with thousands of employees in different departments, offices, etc. Also, people move from on department / office to another, people quit, retire, new people come in, etc. Those problems are present in civilian corporations and companies too. Especially the problem of the "flow of information" both vertically and horizontally within a corporation.

So, I believe the problem with all those contrary statements coming, or statements that later has been contradicted by official documentation, from different employees in the Dod is mainly caused by human error.

Another cause of the confusion surrounding the question of who released the UFO videos, and the strange statements by the DoD, is as obvious as it is important. Alejandro Rojas writes in the last paragraph of his article:

It is hard to say why the OSD Public Affairs department has been making statements that have later been contradicted by official documentation. In their defense, Reid told the New York Times the program was secretive, and its creators did not want its existence known. It is tough to find details about AATIP by design.

 I think skepticism, asking relevant questions and to critically look at all the pieces of information is fundamental and crucial, if one wants to know the truth. Therefore, besides to Alejandro Rojas, I would like to express a thank you and my respect to researchers such as Roger Glassel (@rogerglassel on Twitter) and John Greenewald (theblackvault.com), whose research have played an important role in clarifying and resolving the issue discussed above.

 That is my opinion; the issue with who released the UFO videos, and whether Luis Elizondo worked in AATIP or not (he did), is now resolved.

However, I think there are pieces of information in Roja´s article that raises further questions. For example:

1. Is AATIP an "industry partner" to the USG? If yes, what does it mean for the disclosure process? Who is in charge of and directs the disclosure process of the truth of the UFO phenomena? Who has responsibility for what part of the disclosure process?
2. If no, how is it possible for Luis Elizondo to release, to publicly talk about the UFO videos in question, and, at the same time, work in a private company? How is it possible for Luis Elizondo, who still is bound by non disclosure agreements, to state on national television that he believes the USG have material from UAPs? Regardless, if he formulates it as his personal belief or opinion? The same questions are relevant to Harold Puthoff.
3. Tom DeLonge has stated that Luis Elizondo gets "polygraphed every few months" because of a specific clearance Elizondo has. If someone in the USG has given Elizondo "green light" to facilitate disclosure, is the lie-detector test one of the conditions from the USG? That is, is the lie-detector test, and this specific clearance, an indication that Luis Elizondo is still employed by the USG? Or have I missed some information that explains the lie-detector test, and what the specific clearance is?
4. Elizondo, in his email correspondence with DOPRS official Michael Russo, writes "However, my intent is to maintain positive control but I know it’s a bit unique of a situation so whatever is easier for you and quicker." (For further context, please read Roja´s article above). What does Elizondo mean by "a bit unique of a situation"?

Now, all of those four questions are asked out of curiosity, and I do not put any values in them. My point with raising them, is that I think the answer to some of them are important to know in the name of transparency, honesty and openness regarding the disclosure process. The questions have direct implications on what kind of disclosure process is unfolding at the moment, and how it is going to unfold in the future.

If  a careful and selective disclosure process is a fact, and actually is going on, then I have no problem with the "careful" part. I am a bit more concerned about the "selective" part. Neither do I have a problem with that the disclosure process is going to be slow, and that I have to be patient. I think I understand that it is a delicate act of balance to get everything right at the right time, and to satisfy all the different players involved. It is a game of chess. Perhaps the most important game ever played in human history?

I guess, what I am really asking, and concerned about, is where the loyalty of the people involved lies? I do not ask that question directed to a group of people, it is directed to each of the individuals involved, because what is in the heart and mind of the individual will influence the group, and vice versa.

At the moment, I believe, and hope, that their loyalty is to the truth of the UFO phenomena, that the truth is made known to the general public, and that the technology and energy sources being developed are going to benefit not only a select few, but the whole of humanity and planet Earth.

Everyone interested in the truth of the UFO phenomena should swear their allegiance to the truth. Not with any specific individual, group, or organization. The truth do not care about my, or someone else`s, beliefs, opinions, assumptions, preferences, or group affiliation.

But a part of the journey and adventure of seeking the truth is obstacles, opposition, loneliness, frustration, doubt, anger and fear. You cannot avoid that, or hide from it. What you can do, and what you do control, is how you face those obstacles along the way, and if you choose to learn something about yourself or not.


Take care!

/Janne