Senior Trender

NEW: I've unmasked "@whistlingmike,” the previously anonymous businessman who says he encountered a quiet, triangular craft hovering one night over public land in Kansas more than 20 years ago. Mike says he's spent years developing a method to detect the craft and trying to reverse-engineer its revolutionary technology. If true, Mike’s story could explain a large number of UFO sightings and rewrite the history of aviation. I’ve also obtained a photo of a piece of raw material that Mike says is integral to the workings of the craft. According to my sources, he left this material in the custody of the Senate intelligence committee for many months after presenting his claims to lawmakers and their staff. Mike, whose full name is Michael Spicer, tells me that he's planning to unveil some of his findings next month at a series of presentations in Colorado. Link in next tweet to read the full report and subscribe to PARADIGM's weekly briefing, Signs of Life

REALITY SHOCK: A beginner's guide to UFOs, Aliens and Disclosure Do you find the mass release of UFO files confusing? Have you noticed that the federal government seems to be on the fence about whether aliens are regularly flying around in the skies above the Earth? Are you curious why leaders in Congress keep expressing concerns that private military contractors may be hiding alien craft? After spending the last decade at POLITICO — reporting on the rise of Donald Trump, Hunter Biden's business dealings, and tech policy — I spent much of the past year digging into the UFO flap. The first result is Reality Shock, a deep-dive overview of a mystery that is enthralling growing cohorts across government, academia, business and culture. Below you can find a link to the full piece, where you can also subscribe to follow the investigation as it develops. But first, four initial takeaways: 1. The study of UFOs, and concern about them, have long been more serious than you’d think: Scientists, intelligence analysts and senior military figures in the U.S. and allied nations have repeatedly concluded that the highest-quality UFO reports stem from real objects whose behavior defies apparent explanation. Now, a new generation of UFO studies is starting to enter peer-reviewed academic journals. 2. While a case can be made for presuming that some UFOs really do represent one or more exotic phenomena, the available evidence that humans are retrieving and reverse-engineering alien craft is much weaker: These extraordinary claims, made before Congress, have not been matched with equally extraordinary evidence. At the same time, the serious concerns demonstrated by people with access to classified information about these claims signal a need for additional transparency and investigation. 3. The ongoing controversy presents a threat to the already-weakened legitimacy of many existing institutions: The risks are twofold: One is the excessive mobilization of government, scientific, and philanthropic resources to explore claims that turn out to be nonsense. The other is that alternative institutions discover, publicize and exploit the existence of non-human intelligence or other breakthroughs related to UFO anomalies while incumbents miss the boat. 4. The current UFO flap need not lead to proof of alien life to produce a major technological shock – or even a shock in our understanding of reality: All of this clamor about UFOs could end up being about something other than non-human intelligence. Persistent anomalies have often led to scientific paradigm shifts. And some longtime observers of UFO anomalies speculate that militaries have already exploited secret scientific breakthroughs to develop mind-bending technologies. Possible breakthroughs include new understandings of gravity or new aircraft propulsion systems far outside of known human capabilities. To understand why these possibilities are being discussed, read on...

Well, the paper does not conclude that the light transients are literal Flying Objects. But it does consider that possibility. Almost as intriguing as the paper's findings is the question of why ArXiv -- which is meant to be a relatively unmoderated repository of research --apparently rejected a paper that later passed peer review at a reputable journal. My understanding is that this is essentially unheard of. I've reached our to ArXiv and Cornell for comment on @DrBeaVillarroel 's account of this episode.