UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 (Ammendment to S. 2226)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mendel

Senior Member.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/836/text

External Quote:
SA 836. Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Young, and Mr. Heinrich) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2226, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: TITLE _--UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA DISCLOSURE SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023'' or the ``UAP Disclosure Act of 2023''.
External Quote:
(19) Technologies of unknown origin.

--The term ``technologies of unknown origin'' means any materials or meta-materials, ejecta, crash debris, mechanisms, machinery, equipment, assemblies or sub-assemblies, engineering models or processes, damaged or intact aerospace vehicles, and damaged or intact ocean-surface and undersea craft associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena or incorporating science and technology that lacks prosaic attribution or known means of human manufacture.

(20) Temporarily non-attributed objects.

-- (A) In general.

--The term ``temporarily non-attributed objects'' means the class of objects that temporarily resist prosaic attribution by the initial observer as a result of environmental or system limitations associated with the observation process that nevertheless ultimately have an accepted human origin or known physical cause. Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, they are not temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive.

(B) Inclusion.

--The term ``temporarily non-attributed objects'' includes
(i) natural celestial, meteorological, and undersea weather phenomena;​
(ii) mundane human-made airborne objects, clutter, and marine debris;​
(iii) Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector aerospace platforms;​
(iv) Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector ocean-surface and undersea vehicles; and​
(v) known foreign systems.​

(22) Unidentified anomalous phenomena.

-- (A) In general.

--The term ``unidentified anomalous phenomena'' means any object operating or judged capable of operating in outer-space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces, or undersea lacking prosaic attribution due to performance characteristics and properties not previously known to be achievable based upon commonly accepted physical principles. Unidentified anomalous phenomena are differentiated from both attributed and temporarily non-attributed objects by one or more of the following observables:
(i) Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia.​
(ii) Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave.​
(iii) Transmedium (such as space-to-ground and air-to- undersea) travel.​
(iv) Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles.​
(v) Multispectral signature control.​
(vi) Physical or invasive biological effects to close observers and the environment.​

(B) Inclusions.

--The term ``unidentified anomalous phenomena'' includes what were previously described as
(i) flying discs;​
(ii) flying saucers;​
(iii) unidentified aerial phenomena;​
(iv) unidentified flying objects (UFOs); and​
(v) unidentified submerged objects (USOs).​
External Quote:
SEC. __10. DISCLOSURE OF RECOVERED TECHNOLOGIES OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN AND BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

(a) Exercise of 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 in the interests of the public good.
I had to smile at the possibilities of celestial weather, metereological weather, and undersea weather (isn't all weather metereological?).

Given what we, here at metabunk, know, has there ever been a UAP that satisfied one of the above criteria?

Does section 10 mean that the government intends to seize all "metamaterials", unless the owners declare that it's not really coming from a UFO?
 
Last edited:
Does section 10 mean that the government intends to seize all "metamaterials", unless the owners declare that it's not really coming from a UFO?
I doubt that was the intent, it would be an entertaining unintended consequence.
 
I had to smile at the possibilities of celestial weather, metereological weather, and undersea weather (isn't all weather metereological?).
Given what we, here at metabunk, know, has there ever been a UAP that satisfied one of the above criteria?
Celestial weather may include solar storms and aurorae (these phenomena occur too high to be classed as meteorological, I think). UAPs caused by solar storms are rare, but not non-existent; the 'flaming red peacock's tail' seen in antiquity in Japan may have been a so-called 'blood aurora' which is quite an impressive sight (I've seen one).
8ZV2nahTyi6DF9pSJPXNg3.jpg

from here
https://www.space.com/japan-sky-lights-mystery-red-aurora.html
The team tracked down more recent observations of auroras that were visible over Japan in a fan shape with a red background. That matches the "pheasant tail" description of the 620 event.
I have also heard of a 'red triangular UFO' report that could have been a blood aurora sighting, but that is only one possible explanation.

Some people class meteors as part of space weather, and they may be right. Plenty of UAPs have meteors as a probable cause.

Metereological weather refers to phenomena within our atmosphere, although it also applies to phenomena in the atmospheres of other planets. UAPs with meteorological causes are quite common, and include sundogs and other parhelia, and lenticular clouds.

I've never heard of undersea weather causing a UAP report, and it seems unlikely.
 
From Harry Reid's good friend Chuck Schumer we see this bipartisan legislation really confront the executive branch. I must admit I find the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 remarkable. Just a timeline with media and legislation up until UAPDA, I hope that's OK.

2023 June 1 NASA says no evidence
"To make the claim that we see something that is evidence of non-human intelligence would require extraordinary evidence, and we have not seen that," said David Spergel at NASA's first public meeting on Wednesday to discuss the upcoming UAP report.

2023 June 5 Grusch article and June 11 Grusch/Coulthart interview (Paywall)
[...] he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin.
Grusch said that the craft recovery operations are ongoing at various levels of activity and that he knows the specific individuals, current and former, who are involved.
He said he reported to Congress on the existence of a decades-long “publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material – a competition with near-peer adversaries over the years to identify UAP crashes/landings and retrieve the material for exploitation/reverse engineering to garner asymmetric national defense advantages.”
Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are “of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures

Dead aliens (BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE) is claimed in June 11 interview

2023 June 22 Senate's Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Rubio, Gillibrand and more) limits funding to anything UAP unless sanctioned
No amount authorized to be appropriated or appropriated by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended, directly or indirectly, in part or in whole, for, on, in relation to, or in support of activities involving unidentified anomalous phenomena protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations that have not been formally, officially, explicitly, and specifically described, explained, and justified to the appropriate committees of Congress, congressional leadership, and the Director [AARO's], including for any activities relating to the following

(A) Recruiting, employing, training, equipping, and operations of, and providing security for, government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft.
(B) Analyzing such craft or pieces or components thereof, including for the purpose of determining properties, material composition, method of manufacture, origin, characteristics, usage and application, performance, operational modalities, or reverse engineering of such craft or component technology.
(C) Managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise.
(D) Actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance based on analysis of materials or sensor and observational information associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena.
(E) The development of propulsion technology, or aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology, systems, or subsystems, that is based on or derived from or inspired by inspection, analysis, or reverse engineering of recovered unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or materials.
(F) Any aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology other than chemical propellants, solar power, or electric ion thrust.

2023 July 18 Senate's UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 (Schumer, Rubio, Gillibrand and more) contains for instance these definitions
(5) Controlling authority.--The term ``controlling authority'' means any Federal, State, or local government department, office, agency, committee, commission, commercial company, academic institution, or private sector entity in physical possession of technologies of unknown origin or biological evidence of non-human intelligence.
(11) Legacy program.--The term ``legacy program'' means all Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector endeavors to collect, exploit, or reverse engineer technologies of unknown origin or examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence that pre-dates the date of the enactment of this Act.
(13) Non-human intelligence.--The term ``non-human intelligence'' means any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena or of which the Federal Government has become aware.

So we have bipartisan legislation in Congress, whose tone and wording indicates a major clash between agencies and Congressional oversight, and which at least partially lends credence to many UFO lore staples, and conflicts with a statement from NASA made less than 2 months ago.

Going back to the NASA quote, either a) lawmakers have seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation using the terminology of David Grusch, b) lawmakers haven't seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation (using the terminology of David Grusch), or c) Congress has been duped into thinking they've seen extraordinary evidence, by David Grusch and co-conspirators (acting under penalty of perjury). None of these are not astonishing.
 
Given what we, here at metabunk, know, has there ever been a UAP that satisfied one of the above criteria?
For clarity, I'm referring to the criteria set out in the draft legislation, specifically one of these:
External Quote:
(i) Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia.
(ii) Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave.
(iii) Transmedium (such as space-to-ground and air-to- undersea) travel.
(iv) Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles.
(v) Multispectral signature control.
(vi) Physical or invasive biological effects to close observers and the environment.
Though honestly (vi) probably applies to most rocket launches, as emergency departments on 4th of July can confirm.
 
either a) lawmakers have seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation using the terminology of David Grusch, b) lawmakers haven't seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation (using the terminology of David Grusch), or c) Congress has been duped into thinking they've seen extraordinary evidence, by David Grusch and co-conspirators (acting under penalty of perjury).

Option b/ seems the most likely here. The lawmakers in Congress may have seen no particularly convincing evidence, but they've heard a lot of rumours, and they believe that suitable legislation will flush this evidence out. This belief may be a false hope, especially if the rumours are just rumours. We can't really blame Grusch for believing these rumours - lots of people do.
 
Going back to the NASA quote, either a) lawmakers have seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation using the terminology of David Grusch, b) lawmakers haven't seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation (using the terminology of David Grusch), or c) Congress has been duped into thinking they've seen extraordinary evidence, by David Grusch and co-conspirators (acting under penalty of perjury). None of these are not astonishing.

d) lawmakers are trying to appease constituents (including Grusch and his followers) and colleages who still believe there is a coverup.

If there is no coverup, this legislation does nothing except cost a little money. Congress wasting money is not astonishing.
 
It was be nice if the Washington Post, Politico or NYT (which broke the original story) could do some investigative reporting and figure out what is really going on here. The range of options from (a) to (b) is very wide, and it is hard for those outside of the Beltway to decide between the two when the process is so opaque and the lobbying and behind-the-scenes decision-making that went into the UAP Disclosure Act remains a mystery. My guess is that well-placed reporters inside of area code 202 could shed light on this issue with one day's worth of phone calls, just as they do on a wide range of other legislative proposals all of the time. This is, as tintintintin notes, strange. Don't get what's in it for Schumer at all to be backing something with the term "flying saucer." I wonder who really wrote the legislative language, since I am quite dubious that the young people who work for this bipartisan group know anything at all about the topic.
 
Without even broaching the theme of executive privilege invokable by the DoD to deny classified information from Congress subpoenas, the same proposed amendment reads:

SEC. 06. GROUNDS FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA RECORDS.

Disclosure of unidentified anomalous phenomena records or particular information in unidentified anomalous phenomena records to the public may be postponed subject to the limitations of this title if there is clear and convincing evidence that --

(1) the threat to the military defense, intelligence operations, or conduct of foreign relations of the United States posed by the public disclosure of the unidentified anomalous phenomena record is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure, and such public disclosure would reveal--

(A) an intelligence agent whose identity currently requires protection;
(B) an intelligence source or method which is currently utilized, or reasonably expected to be utilized, by the Federal Government and which has not been officially disclosed, the disclosure of which would interfere with the conduct of intelligence activities; or
(C) any other matter currently relating to the military defense, intelligence operations, or conduct of foreign relations of the United States, the disclosure of which would demonstrably and substantially impair the national security of the United States;

Even if passed, I don't see how this bill gets the Congress/public any closer to DoD secret alien craft recovery programs even if such programs existed.
 
Option b/ seems the most likely here. The lawmakers in Congress may have seen no particularly convincing evidence, but they've heard a lot of rumours, and they believe that suitable legislation will flush this evidence out. This belief may be a false hope, especially if the rumours are just rumours. We can't really blame Grusch for believing these rumours - lots of people do.
Yeah that'd be the grounded take. But I do wonder, when will someone inside Congress stand up and call BS?

d) lawmakers are trying to appease constituents (including Grusch and his followers) and colleages who still believe there is a coverup.

If there is no coverup, this legislation does nothing except cost a little money. Congress wasting money is not astonishing.
And related to this scenario, I would mention that before the JFKAR Act passed, Oliver Stone had testified in front of Congress. I don't have data on constituents then and now (perhaps also incomparable).

It was be nice if the Washington Post, Politico or NYT (which broke the original story) could do some investigative reporting and figure out what is really going on here.
Couldn't agree more. There's an echo chamber over the coverage (the Hill and NewsNation have same parent company).

Without even broaching the theme of executive privilege invokable by the DoD to deny classified information from Congress subpoenas
I didn't know the DoD could do this without POTUS. Could you provide me a source?

Even if passed, I don't see how this bill gets the Congress/public any closer to DoD secret alien craft recovery programs even if such programs existed.
You're right. The bill allows for indefinite postponement on those grounds, though it has to be formally upheld by POTUS with an unclassified reason put in the Federal Register (unlike EO 13526). Before reaching POTUS, the 9-member panel (civilians mainly) assesses the UAP records based on the conditions you posted.
 
Sorry, missed it - thanks.
I must admit I disagree with your presentation of the source. The invocation/agency of Executive Privilege is POTUS, not any other individual/agency.

You're right, executive privilege can only be invoked by the President, but it can cover any government department. You can be sure DoD will make a case for the President to invoke executive privilege to cover their programs if subpoenaed (how the heck to spell that) by Congress to provide information on very sensitive secret programs.

As per most modern militaries of democratic societies, the justification for all military classification is to preserve or gain a military advantage over the adversary in the interest of national security. This applies to:

(1) Classification of information revealing a secret program or capability

(2) Classification of information featuring non-US assets while revealing secret US intelligence-gathering technology or methodology (could also be regarded as a subset of 1)

2.1 Classification of information which reveals what type of sensitive information the military is able to gather and how (secret intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities)

2.2 Classification of information which reveals the current limitations of ISR

Point 2.2 is often forgotten in these discussions and is especially relevant to footage with LIZ.
 
So we have bipartisan legislation in Congress, whose tone and wording indicates a major clash between agencies and Congressional oversight, and which at least partially lends credence to many UFO lore staples, and conflicts with a statement from NASA made less than 2 months ago.
The press release from Schumer regarding the legislation adds some context around the reasoning for the legislation.

During his time in Congress, former Majority Leader Harry Reid sponsored a project to investigate incidents surrounding UAPs. After that project became public, Senators, Congressmen, committees, and staff began to pursue this issue and uncovered a vast web of individuals and groups with ideas and stories to share. While these stories have varying levels of credibility, the sheer number and variety has led some in Congress to believe that the Executive Branch was concealing important information regarding UAPs over broad periods of time. Congress recognizes that these records – if they exist – were likely concealed under the good faith goal of protecting national security. However, hiding that information from both Congress and the public at large is simply unacceptable. Our goal is to work cooperatively with the executive branch to responsibly disclose these documents and bring the topic into the public sphere in a process that the American people can trust.
 
The term ``temporarily non-attributed objects'' means the class of objects that temporarily resist prosaic attribution by the initial observer as a result of environmental or system limitations associated with the observation process that nevertheless ultimately have an accepted human origin or known physical cause

Darn it. Next time I lose my car keys and they become 'temporarily not attributed'....I'm going to have to file a UAP report.
 
So we have bipartisan legislation in Congress, whose tone and wording indicates a major clash between agencies and Congressional oversight, and which at least partially lends credence to many UFO lore staples, and conflicts with a statement from NASA made less than 2 months ago.

Going back to the NASA quote, either a) lawmakers have seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation using the terminology of David Grusch, b) lawmakers haven't seen extraordinary evidence, and are passing landmark legislation (using the terminology of David Grusch), or c) Congress has been duped into thinking they've seen extraordinary evidence, by David Grusch and co-conspirators (acting under penalty of perjury). None of these are not astonishing.

I don't find it remotely surprising that NASA would say in June that they find no evidence for non-human intelligence...given that that has been their position for 50 years or more and they are not going to change it based on a few Navy videos. And to be somewhat cynical, I really don't think NASA would change their position overnight anyway even if there were more substantive evidence. NASA is not reknowned for acting fast over anything.
 
The press release from Schumer regarding the legislation adds some context around the reasoning for the legislation.

Article: During his time in Congress, former Majority Leader Harry Reid sponsored a project to investigate incidents surrounding UAPs. After that project became public, Senators, Congressmen, committees, and staff began to pursue this issue and uncovered a vast web of individuals and groups with ideas and stories to share. While these stories have varying levels of credibility, the sheer number and variety has led some in Congress to believe that the Executive Branch was concealing important information regarding UAPs over broad periods of time. Congress recognizes that these records – if they exist – were likely concealed under the good faith goal of protecting national security. However, hiding that information from both Congress and the public at large is simply unacceptable. Our goal is to work cooperatively with the executive branch to responsibly disclose these documents and bring the topic into the public sphere in a process that the American people can trust.
Very relevant, thank you. The press release is certainly less dramatic than what I wrote.

I don't find it remotely surprising that NASA would say in June that they find no evidence for non-human intelligence...given that that has been their position for 50 years or more and they are not going to change it based on a few Navy videos. And to be somewhat cynical, I really don't think NASA would change their position overnight anyway even if there were more substantive evidence. NASA is not reknowned for acting fast over anything.
Fully agree. But just to clarify, that's not inconsistent with my point.

My point was Congress introduced this legislation that presupposed UAP records existed (somewhat contrary to the press release)
Sec 2 (a)(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
and then added non-human intelligence and biological evidence for non-human intelligence to the definitions of UAP record. Same for eminent domain clause more or less. This was less than 2 months after NASA said no evidence of NHI. Now it's fine NASA hasn't seen anything to change their mind on NHI etc, but Schumer and friends have (likely less rigorous than needed for science, but sufficient for legislation)..
 
Darn it. Next time I lose my car keys and they become 'temporarily not attributed'....I'm going to have to file a UAP report.
No, they're still your car keys.

If you find someone else's car keys thrown at you over a wall, they're temporarily non-attributed: they're "mundane human-made airborne objects" that "ultimately have an accepted human origin or known physical cause". If they're the keys to a VW, they're also "known foreign systems".

But they're not UAPs in the sense of this legislation, because while these VW keys are "capable of operating² in outer-space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces, or undersea" (this encompasses everywhere in the universe, except underground for some reason), they don't have "performance characteristics and properties not previously known to be achievable": they don't lack a prosaic attribution.

External Quote:
(15) Prosaic attribution. -- The term ``prosaic attribution'' means having a human (either foreign or domestic) origin and operating according to current, proven, and generally understood scientific and engineering principles and established laws-of-nature and not attributable to non-human intelligence.
² Are car keys "capable of operating", or merely capable of being operated?
 
Last edited:
Schumer discusses the amendment in an interview with Pod Save America


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJDVVVLPyz8&t=4096s

timestamp 1:08:18

Any transcription errors are mine:
External Quote:
"I have not read the report, I have not got the briefing, but sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. Lots of people are saying *sarcastically* they're disclosing something because they know something that we don't know, */s* well let them disclose it and we'll all know the truth and we'll be better off with the truth. And then I think of my dear friend Harry Reid, you know, *points to Heaven* and we would sit together *chuckles* and discuss this and he had a more view of UFOs and foreign inteli.., you know, outer space intelligence being more likely than I did. But I loved talking to him about it."
I have seen the UFO community using the amendment as evidence for the existence of the alien coverup, but at least in this interview Schumer seems to not support that idea.
 
Last edited:
I have seen the UFO community using the amendment as evidence for the existence of the alien coverup, but at least in this interview Schumer seems to not support that idea.
That aligns with my analysis that the law is designed to not do anything of consequence if UFOs aren't real. Schumer is saying that it's a "put your cards on the table" kind of law, he's calling the bluff.
 
That aligns with my analysis that the law is designed to not do anything of consequence if UFOs aren't real. Schumer is saying that it's a "put your cards on the table" kind of law, he's calling the bluff.
I would agree. Schumer has been in Congress for a very long time. He knows people, people who know other people, all of whom have also been around for a very long time. Schumer is quite confident that no such programs exist. If they did he would have heard about them long before now. So its an easy way for him to be bipartisan and take smiling pictures with the opposition, confident that in the end they will just look foolish.
 
I would agree. Schumer has been in Congress for a very long time. He knows people, people who know other people, all of whom have also been around for a very long time. Schumer is quite confident that no such programs exist. If they did he would have heard about them long before now. So its an easy way for him to be bipartisan and take smiling pictures with the opposition, confident that in the end they will just look foolish.
So am I getting you right here. You're saying the Schumer-Rounds bill either "works", or if nothing comes of it, then Schumer has made the opposition look foolish? Could you elaborate on your point about who will look foolish in this scenario and why?

I've been thinking that it's suspicious no one is calling BS on it, and especially given the amount of GOTCHA politics in the current political climate, would Rounds give Schumer a free pass? Seems to altruistic.
 
Could you elaborate on your point about who will look foolish in this scenario and why?
The people who promise the big disclosures are going to look foolish when this bill is enacted, but nothing big gets disclosed.

The skeptics are going to look foolish when this law leads to the claims about UFOs and their pilots being validated. (I bet you it won't.)
 
The people who promise the big disclosures are going to look foolish when this bill is enacted, but nothing big gets disclosed.

The skeptics are going to look foolish when this law leads to the claims about UFOs and their pilots being validated. (I bet you it won't.)
I think those two statements are trivial.
I was asking from a political point of view, related to MapperGuy's analysis
Schumer is quite confident that no such programs exist. If they did he would have heard about them long before now. So its an easy way for him to be bipartisan and take smiling pictures with the opposition, confident that in the end they will just look foolish.
So Schumer's got a plan to make the opposition look foolish, and I was asking for elaboration. Specifically because of bipartisanship and being "first"-sponsor of the UAP Disclosure Act, I think this is hard.

I suppose with how things stand Burchett and Luna could be made to look foolish, and I could see that as a minor political win, which then isn't sufficient to convince me there's any elaborate plan in motion by Schumer to make (House) Republicans look foolish.

Anyhow, now I biased the question with my own punditry...
 
I think those two statements are trivial.
I was asking from a political point of view, related to MapperGuy's analysis

So Schumer's got a plan to make the opposition look foolish, and I was asking for elaboration. Specifically because of bipartisanship and being "first"-sponsor of the UAP Disclosure Act, I think this is hard.

I suppose with how things stand Burchett and Luna could be made to look foolish, and I could see that as a minor political win, which then isn't sufficient to convince me there's any elaborate plan in motion by Schumer to make (House) Republicans look foolish.

Anyhow, now I biased the question with my own punditry...
This is not an elaborate plan by Schumer, it is the other side that is driving this bus. He is simply going along with them, smiling and saying "how very interesting" from time to time. For him to fight this flood of interest would just be to invite calls that he is part of the cover-up. Why should he expend effort fighting an avalanche in progress? He is letting it do its thing, and when the result is nothing he can smile and say "well, at least we took a good look at it".

Schumer is not pushing this, he is letting the other side do the pushing, while not making himself a person against whom accusations can be made.
 
Looks like the Schumer bill was mostly scrapped and replaced with a much more simple bill that is just about records.

New UAP Language In The Compromised National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/

Should somebody start a new thread about this new NDAA bill as it is no longer the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023
That bill references 50 USC 3373 for the definition of UAP:
External Quote:
(8)Unidentified anomalous phenomenaThe term “unidentified anomalous phenomena” means—

(A) airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable;

(B) transmedium objects or devices; and

(C) submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that the objects or devices may be related to the objects described in subparagraph (A).
 
That bill references 50 USC 3373 for the definition of UAP:
External Quote:
(8)Unidentified anomalous phenomenaThe term “unidentified anomalous phenomena” means—

(A) airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable;

(B) transmedium objects or devices; and

(C) submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that the objects or devices may be related to the objects described in subparagraph (A).
Well the 3 objects shot down in February are "airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable". So they qualify.
 
Should somebody start a new thread about this new NDAA bill as it is no longer the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023
The bill has not passed yet, and we have no idea if it will, nor do we know how many revisions it will undergo. Let's not discuss it until we know what we're discussing.
 
Well the 3 objects shot down in February are "airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable". So they qualify.

Just because a government agency has decided that a label containing the word "anomalous" can be applied to an object, that doesn't make the object anomalous. It tells you the government agency responsible for the definition lacks a dictionary, or someone capable of or willing to use that dictionary. Their definition of "unidentified anomalous phenomena" is basically little more than "unidentified phenomena".

C.f. I have dozens of names in my little black book. My little black book is red. There's no contradiction - in order to be a "little black book", you do not need to be black.
 
So as some of you know I joined here because I am primarily interested in anti vax conspiracies. However, I do think what a lot of debunkers do here is against the spirit of scientific inquiry. The reason I'm saying that is because of what I have observed in regards to this bill.

Cards on the table, I find it highly illogical to confidently state the government has alien bodies ect. That said I don't get why people on the debunking community side argued against this bill, didn't call for all to support it and worst of all, some people actually seemed to have bragged about calling the Congress people's offices to state their opposition to it. This is really ridiculous to be honest and it makes me embarrassed to be classed in this category. I don't believe in aliens but arguing against something that could add an extra 5% to our knowledge base is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Cards on the table, I find it highly illogical to confidently state the government has alien bodies ect. That said I don't get why people on the debunking community side argued against this bill, didn't call for all to support it and worst of all, some people actually seemed to have bragged about calling the Congress people's offices to state their opposition to it. This is really ridiculous to be honest and it makes me embarrassed to be classed in this category. I don't believe in aliens but arguing against something that could add an extra 5% to our knowledge base is ridiculous.
I can see how people who have never seen any evidence of "aliens" think this is a major waste of time and money, especially at a time when important business such as the budget is being ignored. There are also people who see it as a deliberate distraction from, say, investigations into Trump, or into congressmen who supported the capitol riots, a shiny object for the GOP to dangle before UFO believers. But those people aside, is your claim really true? Is there a significant body of debunkers who do not have one of those other objections to the bill?
 
That said I don't get why people on the debunking community side argued against this bill, didn't call for all to support it and worst of all, some people actually seemed to have bragged about calling the Congress people's offices to state their opposition to it.
Just speaking for myself, I mildly opposed it as a waste of money, which would likely wind up funneled into the pockets of some UFO huxsters that have managed to embed themselves in the government. Also, the eminent domain bit struck me as ill-advised.

I didn't oppose it strongly enough to go to war and start calling my Representatives and Senators, but I thought it was silly. Given everything else going on at the moment, it was frankly pretty low on my list of things to worry about. And knowing how the "sausage gets made" in legislation, if a UFO rider was necessary to get support from the "Saucer Caucus" for a more important bill, the topic would be novel but the technique an old established one.
 
I don't believe in aliens but arguing against something that could add an extra 5% to our knowledge base is ridiculous.
They already have whistleblower protection, the AARO and congressional/senate oversight. I don't think anybody has demonstrated how more policy/committees would result in additional knowledge.
 
If the Bill does pass and get finalised, it might be better if a moderator just adds the name of this new Bill to this threads title rather than make a new thread, considering it will be on more or less the same thing/topic, "disclosure act" topic I mean to say, but thats up to the mods.
That would also have the benefit of having the history and info already posted here which is still relevant to the discussion and shows the topics progression, could just add a / and write whatever the new one is in, like-
"UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 / *New NDAA Bill title* (proposed U.S. legislation)"
To me it wouldnt feel like a new topic, it would be a continuation of this discussion, continuing as this bill isnt coming out of nowhere, its being used to replace the act
But thats just my opinion, maybe the mods/staff will say for posterity it would be better to have a separate thread, I dont know how it works.
Ann K said it very well, until its finalised, any kind of changes to or threads made would be subject to constant change until finalised
The bill has not passed yet, and we have no idea if it will, nor do we know how many revisions it will undergo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top