Accusations of “False Flag” Plans, “Witness X” and the Need for Unity in the Disclosure Movement.

J. Burkes MD 2021, updated 2026.

An alleged false flag operation to simulate an “ET” attack has been discussed for decades. In April 1997, the Center for the Study of ET Intelligence (CSETI) held the “Behind Closed Doors Briefings” in Washington DC. This brought a few members of the US Congress and their staff to meet with former members of government and industry that had dealt with the flying saucer phenomenon in the course of their work.  I was present at the meeting as a volunteer CSETI staff member. It was a beautiful time of year in our nation’s capital. Thousands of cherry trees were in full bloom. 

The CSETI Director, Steven Greer MD, informed us that a very special witness was present. The man was described as an intelligence operative who had “accidentally” been allowed to be present at an intelligence meeting where “false flag” plans were being discussed. I shall call this individual “Witness X.”

Some background information is helpful to understand the historical context of events described here.  “Project Starlight” was the predecessor to the popular CSETI “Disclosure Project” campaign. It was publicly launched two decades ago with a May 2001 Washington DC press conference. That event was reportedly viewed online by hundreds of thousands. It was followed by the distribution of books and videos documenting the testimony of “Disclosure Project” witnesses. 

 The April 1997 CSETI “Behind Closed Doors Briefings” event held at a Washington DC Hotel immediately preceded a meeting at the Pentagon with Admiral Tom Wilson. He was then the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Moon walking astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Navy Commander Will Miller, Dr. Greer and CE-5 Working Group Coordinator Shari Adamiak were in attendance at the Pentagon meeting. The existence of back engineering “ET” technology in Special Access Projects was a topic reportedly discussed. 

According to the CSETI Director Dr. Greer, the individual that I call “Witness X” had inadvertently been given access to a meeting in which a plan for a false flag operation simulating an alien attack was discussed. This alleged whistleblower was going to give public testimony about this “false flag” plan at the Washington CSETI “Behind Closed Doors” meeting. The night before the event at a private cocktail party, I met “X”.  He was middle-aged, well dressed, highly intelligent with a commanding presence. I thought he was a smooth operator by the way he apparently charmed a few of the wealthy “society ladies” present at the pre-briefing reception. One was Sandy Wright, a major financial contributor to CSETI. Sandy also supported other organizations such as the Institute for Noetic Sciences. 

There was something disturbing about the alleged intelligence operative “Witness X”. It was kind of weird and creepy. I thought he had the cruelest eyes that I had ever seen. I recall how I somewhat awkwardly attempted to tell him about the contact work our volunteer CE-5 researchers were doing in California. I stopped short when I looked into his ice-cold, steel grey-blue eyes. The bizarre thought suddenly occurred to me that this powerful individual might have either committed torture or had seen others doing so. I didn’t speak to him again.  He mysteriously didn’t show up later at the scheduled testimony session for members of Congress and their staff. 

Subsequently, Dr. Greer informed his supporters that this witness was taken to a “safe house” by some of his intelligence service buddies. This supposedly was done to prevent him from speaking out in public concerning a plan to stage false flag actions also called “false indicator” events. Witness X was reportedly not harmed and was released after a day or two. 

Over the decades, many stories that UFO disclosure activists tell are difficult to interpret. I suppose the same could be said about this posting as well. Researcher Grant Cameron has described the existence of a gradual “acclimatization” program carried out primarily by the Executive Branch of the US Government. This project is designed to slowly prepare the population for the reality of the flying saucer phenomenon. In Grant Cameron’s book titled “Managing Magic” and in the many YouTube videos on the same topic, he describes the roles of individuals that he calls the disclosure “Messiahs.” These are people like Bill Moore in the 1980s, Dr. Greer starting in the 1990s and more recently Tom Delonge. 

Grant’s model of a gradual disclosure involves Executive Branch espionage operatives and defense contractors leaking a mixture of accurate information along with some disinformation concerning flying saucers. The program employs non-governmental intermediaries. These are people like Bill Moore in the past, and more recently Dr. Greer and Tom Delonge. Such intermediaries are needed, according to Grant, to “remove the government’s fingerprints” from the information being released. Thus, the Executive Branch, including the President, can maintain what is called “plausible deniability” concerning their considerable involvement with this topic. From a perspective of protecting the status quo, this explosive subject if disclosed precipitously could destabilize the existing order. 

Since 2017, the CSETI Director has consistently asserted that the current push by former government insiders like Luis Elizondo and Chris Mellon are part of some nefarious buildup to a false flag operation simulating an alien attack. In my opinion, this accusation would be very hard to prove given the enormous secrecy around such a wicked plan if it existed. 

In my judgment, it is unrealistic to expect military and intelligence officials would frame a probable ET presence from a peaceful perspective. After all they are in the threat business. Given the extravagant amounts of money spent on the military-intelligence-industrial complex by the US government, postulating UAP non-human intelligences as a “potential threat” is inevitable. There is, however, an enormous difference between hypothetically framing an “ET” presence as a “possible threat” and assuming that outspoken advocates for UAP transparency such Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo are part of a plan to launch a false flag operation. 

Furthermore, Dr. Greer’s inflammatory attacks on the faction within the government and industry currently pushing for openness is highly divisive. In my judgment, Dr. Greer is not facilitating a healthy balanced societal conversation on the significance of the flying saucer phenomenon. 

As far as the possibility that “Witness X” might have truly been present during a planning session for “false indicators”, and that he was prevented from giving public testimony about such alleged plans, it is impossible to verify such a scenario. It is conceivable that this could have part of disinformation efforts designed to convince the CSETI Director that false flag plans have not only existed for decades, but also are now in the process of being made operational. 

For me, it is particularly ironic that the CSETI Director is attacking former insiders coming from the same kind of government agencies that assisted him during the buildup to the successful May 2001 CSETI Disclosure Project Press Conference. These agencies included the Office of Naval Intelligence, the CIA and DIA. 

I suspect that given Dr. Greer’s heavy involvement in promoting UFO disclosure for over thirty years, he might feel that his considerable past efforts are now being eclipsed by the former government insiders that are now successfully pushing for more openness on this formerly taboo topic.

As a student and later physician social movement activist, I participate in the civil rights, peace and workers’ rights campaigns of the 1960, 70s and 80s. One of the lessons that I learned was that the stronger an organization/social movement is, the better it is able to unite with potential allies to achieve victories. The opposite is also true. The weaker a group is, it is more likely that it will promote narrow factionalism and fall apart. 
The social forces promoting UAP disclosure appear to be increasing and the achieving unity across a broad spectrum of groups will become increasingly important. This doesn’t mean that contact/disclosure activists and their supporters should not be wary of those that might try to link UAP contact with a threat narrative, but rather we should frame our criticisms of one another in a fair and balanced manner.