On a spring morning in 2020 the U.S. Department of Defense had officially released footage of unidentified flying objects captured by Navy pilots. The videos, commonly known as “Gimbal,” “Go Fast,” and “FLIR1,” had leaked years prior, but the Pentagon’s decision to acknowledge them added legitimacy to claims of mysterious aerial phenomena. However, along with this admission came questions—why had these videos taken years to be declassified? And what other information might remain hidden from the public eye? This incident is just one of many in the murky world of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and alleged Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) encounters, where government agencies hold significant control over information. Who are the gatekeepers deciding what the public gets to know, and what motives lie behind their decisions? The program officially closed in December 1969, just three months after the Berkshire incident, citing a lack of evidence to suggest that UFOs posed a threat to national security. Historical Context and Precedents The secrecy surrounding UAPs has a long, complex history. The earliest documented government investigation into UAPs was Project Blue Book, a series of studies conducted by the U.S. Air Force from 1952 to 1969. This program reviewed over 12,000 cases, of which more than 700 remained unexplained, but Project Blue Book concluded that UAPs posed no threat to national security, a conclusion critics believe was intended to quell public interest. This wasn’t the last attempt to investigate—and obscure—the UAP phenomenon. The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), launched in 2007 by the Pentagon, reportedly investigated UAP sightings for over a decade. However, details of its operations only emerged after its alleged closure in 2012, raising questions about the secrecy surrounding the program. If UAPs presented genuine national security concerns, why was AATIP shrouded in mystery? In 2017, former AATIP official Luis Elizondo came forward, claiming the government had purposely suppressed findings and that the program continued unofficially even after its supposed closure. Patterns in disclosure timing further deepen suspicions. In recent years, several declassified documents related to UAPs have come to light, yet they often emerge only after the public becomes aware of specific incidents or when whistleblowers go public. This delay has led to growing public skepticism and a sense that official narratives may only tell part of the story. “And so, if the Department of the Air Force, if the Pentagon thinks they’re above Congress, they have something else coming to them,” she said at the time. “We told them we were going to do this if they continue to hide information and ultimately, American people deserve the facts,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) Defining Gatekeepers In any governmental structure, information control is key to power. The concept of “gatekeepers” within UAP secrecy refers to the individuals, agencies, and sometimes private contractors that control access to classified information. These gatekeepers are often intelligence officials, high-ranking members within agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and Department of Defense, as well as influential defense contractors. Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing have become significant players in UAP information control, primarily because they hold contracts for advanced research and technological development. With access to classified technology and direct government partnerships, these contractors may be privy to UAP-related information unavailable to most public officials. In many cases, they are bound by non-disclosure agreements, protected by compartmentalized classification protocols that keep critical details hidden from even other parts of the government. These gatekeepers, particularly within intelligence communities, play a substantial role in deciding what information becomes public. According to former government officials, these individuals’ allegiance is less to the public and more to national security priorities, as defined by their agencies’ internal objectives. Current Mechanisms of Information Control The U.S. government has well-established mechanisms for controlling sensitive information, particularly in relation to UAPs. Formal methods, such as classification systems and compartmentalization, serve as barriers to transparency. Classified UAP data is frequently tagged as “Top Secret” or “Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI),” which restricts access to only a select few, even within government ranks. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) further reinforce secrecy. Former officials, such as those who participated in AATIP, are legally restricted from sharing information unless explicitly authorized. These mechanisms are often defended on the grounds of national security, with officials asserting that public disclosure of UAP-related technology could compromise intelligence efforts or military capabilities. Many former officials have publicly spoken out about these restrictions. Christopher Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, has criticized the Department of Defense for its handling of UAP information, arguing that these mechanisms prevent the public from accessing potentially vital information. Mellon and others argue that current methods, while protective, are overly restrictive, preventing researchers and even Congress from gaining full visibility into UAP data. David Grusch came forward with allegations the federal government knows about—and has in its possession—alien spacecraft. Over the past decade, whistleblowers have played a critical role in pulling back the curtain on government secrecy surrounding UAPs. Key individuals, such as Luis Elizondo and David Grusch, have come forward with claims of concealed information and direct government interference. In a high-profile interview, former intelligence officer David Grusch alleged that government entities have withheld information regarding “intact and partially intact” UAP materials. Grusch’s claims suggest that information on these phenomena is not just classified but actively suppressed, with a network of officials dedicated to preventing leaks. Grusch’s statements were not isolated; they align with similar testimonies from other former officials, hinting at a coordinated effort to keep UAP information under wraps. The reluctance to disclose information, according to these whistleblowers, often comes from both internal pressure and external influences. With evidence suggesting that government officials may intimidate whistleblowers, the climate for disclosure remains tense, with whistleblowers risking their careers and reputations. The Motivation Behind Secrecy There are various theories regarding why governments remain tight-lipped about UAPs and potential NHI interactions. One argument centers on national security. If UAPs represent advanced technology, whether foreign or non-human, governments may want to control information to avoid disclosing potential weaknesses. Another motivation could be technological advantage. If research into UAPs has led to breakthroughs in fields like propulsion or materials science, it would be strategically advantageous to keep these discoveries under wraps, preventing adversaries from accessing cutting-edge technology. Further, the defense industry’s ties to UAP secrecy cannot be ignored, as defense contractors have vested interests in maintaining exclusive control over emerging technologies. A third, less discussed motivation is social stability. The release of incontrovertible evidence of non-human intelligence could disrupt societal norms and provoke widespread panic. Such disclosure could destabilize religious, political, and economic systems, making gatekeepers hesitant to reveal findings that could upend society’s established order. In recent years, the U.S. government has taken modest steps toward UAP transparency. The UAP Disclosure Act and recent congressional hearings have signaled a potential shift in policy, with lawmakers pushing for greater openness on the issue. The act mandates that all UAP-related materials be centralized under a controlled system accessible to Congress, which could theoretically reduce the ability of gatekeepers to withhold information. However, political factors complicate this landscape. Lobbying from the defense industry, which profits from classified research and development, remains a barrier to transparency. As contractors hold powerful sway over both Congress and defense agencies, they can exert pressure to keep valuable information confidential. Additionally, the influence of national intelligence agencies, whose interests often align with continued secrecy, further hinders efforts for full disclosure. What Awaits Us Tomorrow? Amid this uncertainty, public interest in UAP disclosure has only grown. Notable researchers, including investigative journalist Leslie Kean and former military personnel with firsthand experiences, have called for greater transparency. Kean argues that the public has a right to know about any data regarding phenomena that could impact humanity’s understanding of itself and the universe. Public opinion polls reflect an evolving attitude, with a majority of Americans now favoring full disclosure of government-held UAP information. A Gallup poll from 2021 found that 64% of Americans believe the government is withholding important details about UAPs. The evidence is mounting that government gatekeepers play a crucial role in controlling information related to UAPs and potential non-human intelligence. It appears that a web of intelligence officials, defense contractors, and government agencies is dedicated to managing public knowledge of these phenomena. While the motivations behind this secrecy range from national security to technological competition, the result remains the same: a limited understanding of UAPs. As pressure for disclosure increase, it remains to be seen if these gatekeepers will maintain their grip on information or if the walls of secrecy will eventually break down. The post Role of Government Gatekeepers in UAP and Non-Human Intelligence Disclosure appeared first on Anomalien.com.