USG and DoD. If they wanted to, they could easily debunk the whole UFO-disclosure movement, but they don't.
It's very difficult to prove a negative. Many in the disclosure movement believe that evidence is being deliberately hidden, so when evidence isn't found or forthcoming they interpret it as evidence of a conspiracy to hide the evidence; therefore that evidence exists.
It's archetypal conspiracy theory logic. Stating that there is no evidence, or demonstrating that claims made are the results of misidentifications, misunderstandings or hoaxes has little impact: The explanation is part of the cover-up, or made by gullible/ narrow-minded people who are easily fooled and incapable of seeing the big picture.
It's not the role of government in a democracy to argue against all minority viewpoints or unusual, fringe or mistaken ideas, or to tell us what to think (though they might like to try). It isn't illegal to say there are secret programs studying crashed UFOs.
There are other beliefs and fringe theories in the public domain, some arguably more harmful, that the government doesn't systematically debunk.
Some honesty and transparency would easily have ended this current Disclosure-movement...
No, again it's hard to prove a negative. The USG is not going to arrange for access to all defense/ intelligence records, and simultaneous access to all armed forces bases, defense-related research facilities and the sites of leading defense contractors (to prevent the evidence being shuttled from place to place), and allow cross-examination of all personnel who UFO fans think might know something.
The disclosure movement's claims of hidden evidence are unfalsifiable. I
suspect some leading participants are aware of that.
...To me, this looks intentional, like a psyop.
Perhaps it's more likely some people make extraordinary and objectively unlikely claims, a larger group, including some influential people, are persuaded by them (including some who should probably be more rigorous in assessing those claims) and a much larger group want to believe them, but most people in government are not really that interested. It isn't a priority that needs addressing.*
Not actively combatting specific fringe beliefs is not evidence of a secret program to promote those beliefs.**
The claims/ beliefs of the disclosure movement, and a hypothesis that their activity is influenced by a covert deception program, might be seen as two sides of the same coin: There must be something significant going on, deep secrets maintained by a shadowy cabal.
But there's no convincing, testable evidence for either viewpoint.
Maybe there isn't anything significant going on. No crashed UFOs. No convincing evidence of ETI. No secret manipulation of believers by the CIA or whatever.
Yeah, I know that Puthoff has lots odd ideas, but I was thinking specifically about the claim that TTSA was building some space-time-craft.
[Quoting Jacques Vallee] "Even Hal chided me for calling TTSA an "entertainment company," while they are designing spacecrafts to cross space-time in seconds!"
"Cross space-time in seconds" sounds impressive until you think about it. You are crossing space-time if you move from your lounge to the kitchen, probably within a few seconds. We live within space-time. I guess "crossing space-time" sounds sciency and impressive, though.
If Puthoff meant rapidly crossing vast distances, perhaps at the interplanetary or even interstellar scale, that's not what he (reportedly) said- he didn't specify what distances the designs might travel in seconds.
Puthoff has something of a record of believing improbable claims, some arguably from unreliable sources (Geller, Ingo Swann, L. Ron Hubbard).
He appears to have produced questionable results, not replicated by others, and accepted them as evidence for extraordinary claims.
He refused to share relevant materials with independent researchers attempting replication (they received those materials from elsewhere).
Vallee has seriously (and perplexingly) misinterpreted other people's research as being evidence of work on exotic aerospace vehicles;
External Quote:
Similarly, liquid metal designs have been proposed for magneto- hydrodynamic (MHD) generators... ....and for superconducting airborne platforms [46].
Vallee's italics, "Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics" pg. 12 para. 2, , G.P. Nolan, J.F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang, L.G. Lemke,
Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 128, 1 January 2022. PDF available
at the end of this post.
We know this part of the paper was written by Vallee as it was essentially cut-and-pasted from his 1998 paper "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples", PDF available (" Vallee orig. 1998"),
end of this post.
The paper cited by by Vallee as evidence that "...liquid metal designs have been proposed for... ...
superconducting airborne platforms [46]" is
Southall, H.L. and C.E. Oberly, "System Considerations for Airborne, High-power Superconducting Generators".
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1979. 15(1): p. 711, also available as a PDF ("system considerations for airborne...") at the
end of this post.
(1) The Southall and Oberly paper is not in any way about "superconducting airborne platforms". It is not about aircraft design or propulsion.
It is about superconducting airborne generators, i.e. generators for electricity production on board airborne platforms. A generator is not an "airborne platform", an aircraft is. Throughout the Southall/ Oberly paper it is assumed that the power source for the generator is a conventional (aero engine) turbine...
(2) There is nothing in Southall and Oberly's 1979 paper about liquid metal. Absolutely nothing at all. Throughout the paper it is assumed that windings of superconducting wire are to be used.
Puthoff founded To The Stars alongside Jim Semivan and Tom DeLonge, Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_The_Stars_Inc.
If you visit its current websites, TTS seems to be mainly involved in flogging branded clothes, hot sauce and books/ vids about UFOs, e.g.
https://tothestars.media/.
There is no evidence anywhere, that I'm aware of, that To The Stars has, or has ever had, any significant manufacturing capability or research facilities. It is not an aerospace manufacturer, and it does not produce high-tech products of any sort.
There is no evidence of any scientific or technical breakthroughs- or published evidence of productive scientific study, AFAIK- from TTS.
There is no evidence that To The Stars is building spacecraft, or has ever built spacecraft. Or aircraft. I don't know if they've ever marketed skateboards.
If TTS are
designing spacecraft, we have to understand what "designing" means in the context. Most of us could knock up a plan of an imaginary craft with a compartment marked "Alcubierre Drive".
Spaceflight is difficult. Faster-than-light spaceflight might be more than difficult. TTS has made no meaningful contribution to the former, and its modest resources and available expertise must make any suggestions of any progress toward the latter
extremely questionable.
Private space technology companies are of course now big business. There is no real evidence To The Stars is part of that sector.
It must be unlikely that TTS has the resources or expertise available to e.g. SpaceX or Blue Origin.
The work of amateurs, small enterprises and interest groups was important in the early history of rocketry (Tsiolkovsky, Robert Goddard etc.)
I wish Breakthrough Starshot (Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot) had progressed.
Founded Yuri Milner, Stephen Hawking, and Mark Zuckerberg, it was intended to develop a proof-of-concept for a craft capable of reaching Alpha Centauri in 20 to 30 years at approx. 15-20%
c.
The (rather optimistically named) British Interplanetary Society, a not-for-profit space advocacy group, "designed" what was intended to be a plausible interstellar probe 1973-78, Project Daedalus (Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus). The study was fairly well-known and surprisingly well-received, there's a nice summary at the New Space Economy website
https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/11/05/project-daedalus-a-blueprint-for-interstellar-travel/
The design relied heavily on technologies that
might plausibly have been developed within the following century (IIRC); some of those technologies might still be many decades- or more- away. Daedalus would have weighed 54,000 tons, its final stage reaching 0.12
c.
Puthoff tells Vallee that TTS is "designing spacecrafts to cross space-time in seconds".
In evaluating that claim, it is not unreasonable to consider what is known about Puthoff, what is known about Vallee and what is known about To The Stars, and engaging a bit of common sense.
Until and unless someone provides convincing evidence*** that TTS is designing spacecraft (and clarifies what "designing" means in this context) I think Vallee's account should
not be taken as reliably indicating that TTS is developing practical spacecraft designs.
*
We're interested, UFO enthusiasts are interested. Most people are not particularly interested. Pollsters sometimes publish survey results of the top issues concerning the public, I'm not aware of any ever mentioning UFOs, disclosure etc.
**NASA and AARO have made it reasonably clear they haven't encountered convincing evidence of ETI, let alone that Earth is being visited by ETI. They don't have the resources to respond to every social media post or blog that says otherwise, nor is it their remit to do so.
Earlier official studies of UFO sightings have been declassified, e.g. Blue Book; they did not conclude that UFOs were related to ETI.
***Even appropriate circumstantial evidence, e.g. TTS employing or contracting competent physicists, aerospace engineers with access to significant resources.
A
