Soft porn for Disclosurists: Eminent domain, SciFi definitions, Immediate disclosures, Witness protections, Patching of declassification loopholes, Prioritized transmission. How the UAP Disclosure Act (“Schumer’s bill”) differs from the JFKR Act after which it is modeled.

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

 Read More 

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023 compared to JFK Records Act of 1992

So unless you believe legislation cannot bring forth disclosure, you’re hype af about the UAP Disclosure (UAPD) Act (see Division G). Potentially you’re aware (and worried) that it’s been pitched as modeled after the JFK Records (JFKR) Act of 1992, given the controversy and slow disclosure of the JFK assassination records. So the fact there’s an 89% text-overlap between the two pieces of legislation may dissuade you. Worry not, there’s gold in those 11%.

The UAP Disclosure Act made its way into the Senate’s NDAA-24 sponsored by Charles E. Schumer [D-NY] and co-sponsored by Mike Rounds [R-SD], Marco Rubio [R-FL], Kirsten E. Gillibrand [D-NY], Todd Young [R-IN], Martin Heinrich [D-NM]. Being part of the NDAA-24 we should expect the UAPD Act to be enacted late December 2023, and transmission of UAP records to Review Board start happening the earliest in November 2024 (about right after the election). However, an upper bound on reviews starting is mid 2026, based on the fact it took 2.5 years for JFKR Review Board to begin review and processing of records (there’s mitigating legislation for UAP Review Board, as detailed below).

This bi-partisan legislation is mind blowing, and below I explore in-depth why that is. This also serves to highlight just how extremely modest the legacy media coverage of it has been. In this post I explore meticulously differences between the UAPD Act and the JFKR Act (by having gone through them line-by-line). While many aspects have previously been discussed in this sub, I found many additional nuances and blockbuster revelations in re-studying these acts.

My objective is to debunk lazy (media) narratives copied from press releases and the crowd of anti-transparency social media trolls, I invite those without a social life to replicate the method using either the official legislation, or re-using the cleaned scrapes I used (JFKR Act plain text and UAPD Act plain text). For comparison I used gotranscript.com, but the choice of tool is largely irrelevant to the analysis (except for confirming match percentage) as the bulk of the work comes down to cross-referencing and interpreting the differences.

Synopsis

The following are key aspects that differentiates the UAPD Act from the JFKR Act, as indicated by the post headline.

Eminent domain

The Federal Government shall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities.

This is softporn for disclosurists. Lockheed Martin rekt by eminent domain, but there are even better details in the section. It’s a massive part of the legislation, and while obviously not relevant to compare with JFKR Act, it punctures the idea the UAPD Act is solely about transparency: It is also cleaning up on aisle MIC legacy program. Sure the corroboration of Grusch’s claims that recovered material has ended up in the hands of private entities is nice, but did you realize Sec. 9010 (d) all but confirms the existence of legacy program personnel/whistleblower testimony that is useful to make determinations about recovered NHI tech?

SciFi definitions To read this legislation is like reading a piece of (amazing) science fiction and includes the terms Legacy program, Non-human intelligence, Technologies of unknown origin, Unidentified anomalous phenomena, Instantaneous acceleration, Hypersonic velocity, Transmedium, Positive lift, Physical or invasive biological effects, flying discs, and flying saucers. The scope of disclosure is massive and includes any department, office, agency, committee, or commission of Federal, State or local government as well as any private sector person or entity formerly or currently under contract or some other agreement with the Federal Government. Immediate disclosures

UAP Records shall be publicly disclosed in full not later than the date that is 25 years after the date of the first creation of the record by the originating body.

Was 25 years after enactment of the JFKR Act (so 2017, it didn’t hold up). What’s more, the much more recent Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection (CRCC) Act of 2018, also modeled after the JFKR Act, kept the same disclosure 25 years after enactment, so shows a lot of intention in crafting the UAPD Act. That only the President can postpone disclosure of any UAP record from the 20th century is massive. Every UAP record created in the previous millennium, that is selected for transmission to Review Board, will come out once UAP Review Board convenes or the President must certify, with reasons given in an unclassified statement, that postponement is necessary due to identifiable harm to American interests.

Witness protections Witnesses, close observers, and whistleblowers can go to the Review Board and receive the best available whistleblower protections. This makes the Review Board a great alternative for any whistleblower unwilling to contact the AARO, DoD, IC etc. Patching of declassification loopholes

This paragraph [(d)(2)] supersedes all prior declassification review standards that may previously have been deemed applicable to unidentified anomalous phenomena records.

Sec. 9009 Introduces a potential solution to the legal issue that unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review. Loopholes are the exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as highlighted to lawmakers by credible evidence and testimony (9002)(4), which is the apparent loophole in Obama’s Executive Order 13526 from 2009 that remains abused by the coverup “(6.2)(a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954”.

Prioritized transmission Agencies, offices, departments of the Federal Government must give precedence to transferring UAP records that are 1) not publicly disclosed, 2) most unambiguously and definitively pertain to UAP, and 3) are subject of litigation under FOIA. Those of earliest provenance first. This is a) meant to prevent delay tactics of transmitting irrelevant records with frivolous claim of postponement (The review of claimed postponements consumed more JFKR Review Board staff hours than any other task), b) Give us the most clear cases FOIA-unobtainable UAPs, and c) Records written in a time before FOIA/transparency so these are official and honest UAP records potentially going back to Fascist UFO Files and Roswell.

Additionally, I’d highlight that Sec. 9002 shows UAPD Act has much more dire statements about impossibility of disclosure without legislation, while Sec. 9013 and Sec. 9014 act on recommendations by JFK Review Board to improve disclosure after sunsetting of UAP Review Board as well as funding for NARA.

Related work

Entity interactions for the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023: This great graphic on recent events regarding disclosure of non-human intelligence and technologies (I prefer light mode) is made by /u/phr99. It it’s very informative, so spend the 20 seconds to orient yourself and then just follow the numbers to learn about intricacies of this saga. Timeline: Interactive UFO Timeline. I’m keen to find out how central Mellon and Elizondo have been to, but we’ll see when the disclosure story is told at the box office. Review Board Operations: How UAP records are publicly disclosed is covered in a Flow Chart of Key Processes in the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 and so I only cover those aspects when there’s divergence from the JFKR Act. Learnings from the JFKR Review Board’s Final Report: Delay tactics, Sunset clause abuses, Treachery, Compliance officers and Public involvement. Some remarks I re-iterate are 1) Six years in, agencies still had not transmitted all records, 2) We’re seeing JFK records that to this day contain redactions, which should not have been possible, 3) Sunsetting of Review Board while legislation still needs enforcement, 4) Staffing is hard for this top secret task. There are many improvements and mitigating pieces in in the UAPD Act to these issues, but agency complacency remains a big joker.

No government office completed its work within 300 days as the statute directed, and as the Review Board terminated its operations in September 1998, some government offices still had not reviewed, identified, and organized all assassination records within their custody. For example, the Review Board entered into memoranda of understanding with the FBI and the CIA to allow them to process selected groups of records such as duplicate documents and newly discovered CIA audiotapes from its Mexico City Station after the Review Board terminated its operations.

the Review Board sunsets but the JFK Act does not and, as a result, there is uncertainty about the status of openings that will occur after September 1998, and whether any further appeals by agencies might be permitted, and, if so, who would represent the interest of openness;

The Review Board did not have enough staff members to begin to review and process government records until the beginning of 1995—two and one-half years after President Bush signed the JFK Act.

Section by section comparison data

Below are specific passages from the UAPD Act that stand out in some way from the JFKR Act (so remarkable text present in both legislations is excluded). I’ve prefaced passages with an explanation for relevance, and this is prefaced with one to four ! based on how remarkable I found the passage (so you may search for !!! to filter for three and four level highlights). When quoting I abbreviate UAPD Act by UAP, and JFKR Act by JFK.

Due to post length limits, please see this comment and replies for all comparison data.

Sec. 9002 FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND PURPOSES // Sec. 2

!!! The findings are much more dire in UAPD Act, claiming at best willful neglect of responsibility, or at worst, malicious practices in the executive branch. In JFKR Act there were no allegations of immorality.

UAP: (4) Legislation is necessary because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review as set forth in Executive Order 13526 (50 U.S.C. 3161 note; relating to classified national security information) due in part to exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as well as an over-broad interpretation of “transclassified foreign nuclear information”, which is also exempt from mandatory declassification, thereby preventing public disclosure under existing provisions of law.

UAP: (7) Legislation is necessary to afford complete and timely access to all knowledge gained by the Federal Government concerning unidentified anomalous phenomena in furtherance of comprehensive open scientific and technological research and development essential to avoiding or mitigating potential technological surprise in furtherance of urgent national security concerns and the public interest.

JFK: (4) legislation is necessary because congressional records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy would not otherwise be subject to public disclosure until at least the year 2029;

JFK: (7) most of the records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records. For both acts in paragraph (5) that Freedom of Information Act is insufficient to achieve disclosure.

Sec. 9003 DEFINITIONS // Sec. 3

!!!! Remarkable definitions necessary to craft UAPD Act, much less extraordinary are the JFKR definitions. Observe scope includes entities such as e.g. Robertson Panel, Church Committee and Lockheed Martin.

UAP: (11) Legacy program, (13) Non-human intelligence, (15) Prosaic attribution, (16) Public interest, (18) Review board, (19) Technologies of unknown origin, (20) Temporarily non-attributed objects,

UAP: (22) Unidentified anomalous phenomena [definition of which requires at least the following terms:] Instantaneous acceleration, Hypersonic velocity, Transmedium, Positive lift, Physical or invasive biological effects to close observers, flying discs, flying saucers.

UAP: (23) Unidentified anomalous phenomena record […] a record that is related to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, or non-human intelligence […] that was created or made available for use by, obtained by, or otherwise came into the possession of (A) the Executive Office of the President; (B) the Department of Defense and its progenitors, the Department of War and the Department of the Navy; […] (H) the Central Intelligence Agency and its progenitor, the Office of Strategic Services; […] (V) any other department, office, agency, committee, or commission of the Federal Government; (W) any State or local government department, office, agency, committee, or commission that provided support or assistance or performed work, in connection with a Federal inquiry into unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, or non-human intelligence; and (X) any private sector person or entity formerly or currently under contract or some other agreement with the Federal Government.

JFK: (2) “Assassination record”, (5) “Government office”, (10) “Public interest”, (12) “Review Board”

Sec. 9005 REVIEW, IDENTIFICATION, TRANSMISSION TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA RECORDS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICES. // Sec. 5

!!! With JFKR Act we saw delay tactics employed by agencies in what records they opted to transmit to the Review Board. The UAPD is clearer in asking for the most important UAP records first, namely records of earliest provenance that are not publicly available, are most definitively UAP in nature, and under litigation in FOIA (JFKR had this aspect as well). We’ll be getting all the old records out first, written in a time when authors weren’t at all worried about the public getting access to them, not a bunch of clutter from post 2000+ that is asked to be postponed due to sensors used.

UAP: 9005 (c)(G) give precedence of work to– [the identification, review, and transmission of]

(i) records not already publicly available or disclosed as of the date of the enactment

(ii) all records that most unambiguously and definitively pertain to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies

(iii) records that on the date of the enactment of this Act are the subject of litigation under section 552 of title 5, United States Code [FOIA]; and

(iv) records with earliest provenance when not inconsistent with clauses (i) through (iii) and otherwise feasible

JFK: UAP Sec. 9005 (c)(G) give priority to—

(i) the identification, review, and transmission of all assassination records publicly available or disclosed as of the date of enactment of this Act in a redacted or edited form; and

(ii) the identification, review, and transmission, under the standards for postponement set forth in this Act, of assassination records that on the date of enactment of this Act are the subject of litigation under section 552 of title 5, United States Code [FOIA]

!!! The Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan (CDPC) has a super cool name, and is an apparent strengthening of JFKR’s “statement” also used in CRCC. It is defined later in Sec 9009(d)(1), but really the main strengthening is here. This is because a Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan is a more specific and less manipulatable version of the JFKR statements about time of planned disclosure. Only the President can overrule CDPC’s, unlike for statements made by JFKR Review Board that could be appealed by agencies, after the JFKR Review Board terminated its operations in 1998. What’s more, such continued postponement now has a stricter justification requirement. Again CRCC was like JFKR, having the latter’s weak wording.

UAP Sec. 9005 (g)(1) (g)(2)(B) (g)(2)(C)

UAP: the Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan defined in section 9(c)(3)(B).

UAP: unclassified written description of the reason for such continued postponement relevant to these specific records

UAP: (C) The time and release requirements specified in the Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan shall be revised or amended only if the Review Board is still in session and concurs with the rationale for postponement, subject to the limitations in section 9009(d)(1).

JFK: (B) a statement, based on a review of the proceedings and in conformity with the decisions reflected therein, designating a *recommended specified time at which or a specified occurrence following which the material may be appropriately disclosed to the public under this Act.

CRCC: [as JFK]

!!!! This means every record created up until 1999, selected for transmission to Review Board, will come out as early as November next year or the President must certify, with unclassified statement, that postponement is necessary due to identifiable harm to American interests. Newer records may also be disclosed, subject to Review Board determination. This is subject to agencies/departments willingness to follow the law, which we only have indirect proof of mattering to them by whistleblowers coming forward (if legislation didn’t matter, why’d they come forward?). Again CRCC was like JFKR Act, 25 years after enactment (weak).

UAP: (g)(2)(E) each record shall be publicly disclosed in full not later than the date that is 25 years after the date of the first creation of the record by the originating body,

JFK: 25 years after the date of enactment of this Act

CRCC: if not publicly disclosed by end of review board, shall be publicly disclosed in full and available in the Collection not later than 25 years after the date of enactment of this Act

SEC. 9007. ESTABLISHMENT AND POWERS OF THE UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA RECORDS REVIEW BOARD. // Sec. 7

!!! The gravitas of the offices and institutions who provide nominees is staggering, and far exceeds that of JFK/CRCC. !! Of note is also (vii) which was “UAP Disclosure Foundation” in first draft of UAPD Act. Clearly SOL Foundation fits here, but (ix) gives discretion to President for nominees (still have to be approved by Congress).

UAP: (b)(3)(A) The President shall make nominations to the Review Board after considering persons recommended by the following (i) The majority leader of the Senate. (ii) The minority leader of the Senate. (iii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives. (iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives. (v) The Secretary of Defense. (vi) The National Academy of Sciences. (vii) Established nonprofit research organizations relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena. (viii) The American Historical Association. (ix) Such other persons and organizations as the President considers appropriate.

JFK/CRCC: The President shall make nominations to the Review Board after considering persons recommended by the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, the Society of American Archivists, and the American Bar Association.

!!! JFKR Review Board ended up having 3 historians, 1 archivist and 1 attorney (judge), and a sixth historian in its Executive Director (non voting member). Clearly UAP Review Board will be more diverse (at least 6 different occupations represented), which clearly reflects the expectation their work will be more groundbreaking and require broader perspectives. I very much hope there will be a Transparency/FOIA attorney on the Review Board, to help cut through bs arguments for postponement.

UAP: (b)(4)(B) shall be distinguished persons of high national professional reputation in their respective fields who are capable of exercising the independent and objective judgment necessary to the fulfillment of their role in ensuring and facilitating the review, transmission to the public, and public disclosure of records related to the government’s understanding of, and activities associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, and non- human intelligence and who possess an appreciation of the value of such material to the public, scholars, and government

UAP: (b)(4)(C) shall include at least (i) 1 current or former national security official; (ii) 1 current or former foreign service official; (iii) 1 scientist or engineer; (iv) 1 economist; (v) 1 professional historian; and (vi) 1 sociologist.

JFK: shall be distinguished persons of high national professional reputation in their respective fields who are capable of exercising the independent and objective judgment necessary to the fulfillment of their role in ensuring and facilitating the review, transmission to the public, and public disclosure of records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and who possess an appreciation of the value of such material to the public, scholars, and government; and

JFK: shall include at least 1 professional historian and 1 attorney

!!! There’s a textual discrepancy here when later we see Oversight and Executive Director clearances, that includes compartmented access programs. I’m unsure of the implications. The law is much more explicit than JFKR, for reasons I can only speculate about. The JFK Review Board did not lack security clearances.

UAP: (c)(1) All Review Board nominees shall be granted the necessary security clearances and accesses, including any and all relevant Presidential, departmental, and agency special access programs, in an accelerated manner subject to the standard procedures for granting such clearances.

JFK: All Review Board nominees shall be granted the necessary security clearances in an accelerated manner subject to the standard procedures for granting such clearances.

!!!! Witnesses, close observers, and whistleblowers can go to the Review Board and receive the “best available” whistleblower protections (that have ramped up over a number of years). This means any whistleblower unwilling to contact the AARO, may instead contact the UAP Review Board and obtain same legal status.

UAP: (j) […] Witnesses, close observers, and whistleblowers providing information directly to the Review Board shall also be afforded the protections provided to such persons specified under section 1673(b) of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (50 U.S.C. 3373b(b)).

JFK: (k) WITNESS IMMUNITY.— The Review Board shall be considered to be an agency of the United States for purposes of section 6001 of title 18, United States Code.

Epilogue

(Due to post length limits, please see this comment and replies for all comparison data.)

Overall, I don’t buy that the UAPD Act will fail as JFKR Act did as many improvements are inserted to prevent this. But it may fail to achieve disclosure due to other factors unrelated to the shortcomings of the JFKR Act, including if disclosure simply is not solvable by legislation.

It’s terrifying no media outlet is running with this story though. Explanations include none of them can get an exclusive interview with the (co)sponsors, the risk of being cut off by DoD/IC/MIC (the primary sources of national security correspondents), and the link to the failed (by everyone’s opinion) JFKR Act.

The UAPD Act, with its irrefutable declaration whistleblowers have come forth who can help determine what is recovered NHI material, and Grusch’s public statements, whose truthfulness is very high given its overlap with this legislation, make it very difficult to explain what’s going without it being NHI on Earth detected by USG. A military and congressional PsyOps or simply a Congress infiltrated by a UFO cult cannot be ruled out, but clearly it is less plausible.

I hope to have shown it is not sound to deride UAPD Act based on it being modelled after the JFKR Act, and that narratives around this perspective are lazy. The UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 is wild as evidenced by any actual comparison with JFKR Act of 1992.

submitted by /u/josemanden
[link] [comments]