The first thing to understand is that the New York Times broke the latest UFO story.

The story about: a secret Pentagon UFO research group; a US fighter jet that encountered a UFO off the coast of San Diego; and the recovery of “UFO metals.”

The Times broke the story, and then it quickly went global.

On the subject of UFOs, that never happens.

But it did.

Furthermore, the Times expressed no doubts about the information it was disclosing. There wasn’t the usual “he said, he said” treatment.

No detractors and harsh critics were quoted. This was a straight-from-the-Pentagon to the Times pipeline.

The Times story had all the earmarks of a government gift, not a leak.

This, too, never happens.

But it did.

The conclusion: the Pentagon wanted this story to come to light. Someone high up in the Pentagon, or someone outside the Pentagon, with major clout, gave the green light to the Times. He assured the Times the story was real. Perhaps he even gave an “order” to release the information.

As discussion and vetting of the UFO story occurred at the Times, before they went to print, the overriding and decisive factor was: “somebody big wants this to move forward.” Case closed.

But we shouldn’t assume the motive for disclosure was, at the top, generous and benign and innocent. Because we’re talking about the Pentagon and the CIA, the people who always have a concealed agenda.

If they give the public a few bread crumbs, or even a steak, there is a 15-course meal behind that, and the meal is never served.

Long-time UFO researcher, Grant Cameron, has pointed out that the American strategy for hiding secrets (for decades) has been: partial disclosure. Periodically, now and then—“Here’s a small piece. Chew on it.”

This is the US government approach.

Except—the recent Pentagon offerings haven’t been leaked via some small-press book published in a print shop—they’ve been shot out of information-guns directly to the most “prestigious” mainstream news outlet in the world: the New York Times.

That’s different. Very different.

And just now, the Times has published two more UFO articles. The first, by senior reporter Dan Barry, is headlined: “Dad Believed in UFOs. Turns Out He Wasn’t Alone.” Barry’s father was a veteran UFO watcher. He died before the Pentagon finally admitted UFOs are real. That’s the hook of the article. It’s a human interest piece. And it’s overwhelmingly positive re UFOs. Again, you don’t see this sort of thing from the Times—not ever—but there it is.

“UFOs: Is This All There Is?” is the second Times piece, by Dennis Overbye. It’s a soft back and forth: something is happening in the sky but we don’t know what it is. No harsh naysaying. No nastiness.

Both of these pieces lend support to the original Times blockbuster about the secret Pentagon UFO program.

All this could very well mean that what is being hidden, now, is much larger than what has been hidden in the past. For example, new technological discoveries and advances have been made in the areas of propulsion systems and energy production, beside which the old discoveries pale by comparison.

In that case, the latest partial disclosures needed to be stronger, in terms of their impact. Impact as diversion from the deeper truth.

And the NY Times would carry the ball.

Who was the paper’s main source for the breaking UFO disclosure? Luis Elizondo, the man who headed up the Pentagon UFO program, until he resigned. Elizondo is now part of rock musician Tom Delonge’s team at his newly formed To the Stars Academy. Elizondo’s new association hardly qualifies as a “good source” for an outlet like the Times.

Further, anyone who reads Elizondo’s bio at the Academy website would have reason to pause for thought:

“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East.”

Excuse me? The number one mainstream news operation on the planet accepts what Elizondo is saying at face value? On the verboten subject of UFOs? When everyone knows career intelligence officers are trained to lie at the drop of a hat?

The Times has suddenly become a “UFO site?”

Having received Elizondo’s assertions, the Times would have gone to its long-time sources at the Pentagon, and the Word would have come back: this is rock solid fact. Which, again, tells you the Pentagon wanted this story to be published. Strongly wanted.

If Donald Trump holds a water bottle in two hands and puckers his lips as he takes a sip, the Times would wonder aloud whether he was suffering from Alzheimer’s. But all of a sudden, on the topic of UFOs, the story the Times is being fed is honest and accurate, and there is no need to consult the usual experts who provide “balanced” criticism and “negative reactions.”

One conclusion: the Times is prepared to publish more UFO stories. Quotes from other military/intelligence sources. Unless the blowback from rival news outlets is too severe.

Another inference: the Times already has other videos of UFOs and other “irrefutable” interviews in the can.

Whatever they eventually publish, no matter how shocking, it will be a very, very small fragment of what the government (and those who control the government) is hiding.

If, five years ago, you polled the most competent and knowledgeable independent UFO researchers, and asked them whether they thought the New York Times would ever publish a major positive UFO story, who among them would have predicted what we are seeing now?

Finally, this could now happen: someone at the Times, a senior editor, or even the publisher, goes to the Pentagon and says, “Look, we’re begging off. We’ve done our job. We did what you told us to do. But now, other news operations are going to have to carry the freight. We can’t afford to incur a stain on our reputation. We broke the barrier. You’ll have to find other people to move your story forward…”

But the Times will forever be remembered as the first—they took their marching orders and delivered. They fronted for, and sold, a limited hangout, against all odds.

Sources: www.activistpost.com, https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/