UAP Disclosure Act of 2024

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Previous thread here on the 2023 original version -- is it normal for threads to lock? I thought I had seen some threads go for years on end? Should this be merged there and that re-opened?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disclosure-act-of-2023-ammendment-to-s-2226.13058/

It has been re-introduced to add the pieces that the House stripped from the Senate version that made it into the 2023 NDAA:

https://x.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1796216259471655362

Congressman Robert Garcia files UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA) as possible House floor amendment to NDAA

May 30, 2024 (12:30 PM EDT)-- Congressman Robert Garcia (D-CA) has filed a version of the UAP Disclosure Act as a possible amendment to be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives during action on the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, H.R. 8070), which is expected around mid-June.

Garcia filed the amendment at the House Rules Committee this morning (no. 75 on the submission list). His official description was as follows: "Enacts the remaining pieces of the Schumer-Rounds Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act that passed the Senate [in July 2023], but were eliminated from the final FY24 NDAA. Creates an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Records Review Board, with exercise of eminent domain over UAP-related material controlled by private persons or entities, modeled on the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992."

[It is evident to me, on cursory examination of the Garcia amendment, that the text filed is not the exact UAPDA language that was passed by the Senate on July 27, 2023, as part of last year's NDAA. At a minimum, the Garcia submission does not reflect minor revisions made shortly before Senate passage. However, detailed comparison will require more time. Garcia retains the right to modify his submission, which at this stage might be regarded as a placeholder. The full text of the Garcia amendment as submitted this morning in PDF is found at the link inserted below.]

The current text of H.R. 8070 (NDAA), as approved by the House Armed Services Committee on May 22, 2024, does not contain any language explicitly addressing UAP issues. The Rules Committee expects to meet during the week of June 10 to decide which amendments to H.R. 8070 will be made in order for consideration on the House floor around mid-June. Typically the Rules Committee receives hundreds of proposed amendments to the annual NDAA, of which only a fraction are made in order for floor consideration.

Link to PDF on house.gov:

https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/GARCRO_115_xml240529153551283.pdf


Is there any reason that this law shouldn't pass, and all these things turned out transparently to the public at long last, to whatever end?

Is there any downside to this level of extreme enforced-by-law transparency?

 

[Ann K]

Is there any reason that this law shouldn't pass, and all these things turned out transparently to the public at long last, to whatever end?

Will it matter? If it all gets dumped out in front of the public, will it lend unearned legitimacy to some things that have been thorougly debunked already? That's the downside of transparency. Conversely, if it is not released, will we get the True Believers saying with a nod and a wink, "See, THEY don't want us to know"?

I think that cat is well and truly out of the bag, and photos from everyone with a camera are likely to be exaggerated (and monetized) by everyone with a YouTube channel.

 

[Mendel]

Is there any reason that this law shouldn't pass, and all these things turned out transparently to the public at long last, to whatever end?

Is there any downside to this level of extreme enforced-by-law transparency?

People who don't believe in UFOs don't care.

UFO lobbyists don't want to hand their "metamaterials" and other mysteries to the USG/AARO (that's the "eminent domain" bit).

I think the AARO historical report, and their ongoing mission, has made the records review panel largely superfluous. Any such panel would run into the same allegations of lack of access that have been levelled at AARO.

Anyway, the thread title is false. It's a proposed amendment to a bill that has not passed (and then still needs to pass the Senate), so 3 steps removed from what the title implies.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Is there any reason that this law shouldn't pass, and all these things turned out transparently to the public at long last, to whatever end?

John Greenwald doesn't like that "technologies of unknown origin" is vague and potentially overbroad. Not sure where I come down on that.

Article:

Even if we aren't talking ultimately about alien technology, but rather, just "technologies of unknown origin" in the true sense of the phrase, has anyone thought of the true definition for something you can't define, as this is written? How will the government truly define the above phrase, and where will they draw the line when deciding to exercise their "eminent domain" over it? Spoiler alert: They likely won't draw the line if they don't won't want to, and this language would make that ok.

Source: https://x.com/blackvaultcom/status/1796528090614833487

Is there any downside to this level of extreme enforced-by-law transparency?

One downside is we might be wasting money and human resources on a panel and goose chases to dig through years of program archives to find alleged UAP-related materials which don't actually exist.

 

[Mendel]

John Greenwald doesn't like that "technologies of unknown origin" is vague and potentially overbroad.

It would work like civil forfeiture does right now. "Nice technology you got there, can you tell us where it's from? No? Well, that's an unknown origin then, and we're keeping it."

If Avi Loeb says his spherules are melted-down alien probes, the UDG can seize them; if he says they're geological or meteoric dust, he can keep them. It'd be great!

 

[JMartJr]

One downside is we might be wasting money and human resources on a panel and goose chases to dig through years of program archives to find alleged UAP-related materials which don't actually exist.

Particularly a waste as in a negative result of the search would not be believed by strong proponents of disclosure and such, it would be seen as just another cover up, as have been the previous disclosure moments.

 

[MapperGuy]

Particularly a waste as in a negative result of the search would not be believed by strong proponents of disclosure and such, it would be seen as just another cover up, as have been the previous disclosure moments.

This is the precisely the reason why the military and Intelligence Community have studiously ignored the whole UFO question forever. No honest answer will be accepted, ever.