Tag: secrecy

Satellite station takes shape on city rooftop for secret US broadband provider

The first of dozens of dome-shaped antennas for a controversial satellite earth station in Auckland have been installed on an inner-city rooftop. 

2degrees has been contracted by an undisclosed US satellite broadband company to build the ground station on the roof of a building at 43 College Hill, Freemans Bay, the telecommunications provider told the Herald. 

The facility will eventually house 30 of the mushroom-like structures, each about 2m tall, and be used to relay swathes of data to and from satellites. 

A 2degrees spokesperson said the telco’s unnamed US client would “operate and maintain the ground station” once construction was complete. 

2degrees announced a partnership with AST SpaceMobile, a US company building the first space-based cellular broadband network, in March 2025, with plans to launch a satellite-to-mobile service that they hoped to begin testing from the middle of this year. 

The Kiwi firm was granted non‑notified consent from Auckland Council to build the rooftop station on June 24 last year, but the project courted criticism from nearby residents and community groups after construction began in January. 

Opponents told the Herald in February they were concerned about the scale and appearance of the installation, potential side effects from the radiofrequency technology and, more broadly, the council’s decision to approve the project without public notification. 

The council’s head of resource consents James Hassall said its staff had since met with two of the concerned residents but were unable to address their concerns, given the project was approved in line with regulatory standards. 

“Once a consent is granted, the only avenue for challenge is through an application for judicial review in the High Court,” Hassall said. 

“The council will monitor the site to ensure that the consent holder meets the conditions of the consent.” 

Keep reading

Disclosure Extraterrestrial Presence How Much Will the Government Tell Us?

Before going on about the US government’s decision to give disclosure, first, let’s give the subject about extraterrestrial presence some due context. 

People have many worries in their lives, such as how they will survive economy crashes, energy shortages, how to pay off credit card loans with 30% interest charges, wondering what will happen if their jobs get taken over for instance by AI white-collar robots as this could be many. And what about those energy sapping AI data centers…?

-Maybe the last thing they really want to talk about right now is the subject of extraterrestrials… 

Then there’s the consideration that authorities giving you the disclosure are highly untrustworthy. 

These are the individuals that have told you that vaccines are “safe and effective,”the economy is “under control,” that “voting is going to make difference for we the people,” have overseen the building of bunkers strictly for themselves. Who have fomented illegal, immoral, unconstitutional genocidal wars, like the Iran war costing taxpayers a billion dollars a day…-Indeed,the list goes on.  

These very individuals who, without presidential or congressional oversight, have lied to us through their teeth for over 70 years, while preventing official enquiries to keep us in the dark regarding extraterrestrial presence. 

The very individuals who have suppressed technologies that would have changed the world had they been made available to us. 

For example, there have been claims that free energy technology has been hidden away from us. If this was just speculative nonsense, why do you think that so many scientists have been killed for revealing their knowledge of it? 

-How can they ever be trusted??

However, the release of the Steven Spielberg movie “Disclosure Day” may serve as an indicator of the US government’s real intentions to let us know about the extraterrestrial presence here on Earth. 

President Trump has publicly declared that “UFO files will be released.” 

Keep reading

U.S. Secretly Deployed Paratroopers to Israel

When the Pentagon announced that the 82nd Airborne was deploying to the Middle East in March, it concealed a key detail: some of the paratroopers were headed to Israel, as revealed in an Army deployment order I obtained.

A military source involved in war planning tells me the deployment is tied to new U.S.-Israeli joint contingency plans, completed since February, for seizing Kharg Island and carving out coastal territory inside Iran.

The 82nd Airborne Division is the Army’s premier quick reaction force, trained to parachute into hostile territory.

By keeping the deployment quiet, the Pentagon headed off public debate over a joint U.S.-Israeli operation inside Iran — a prospect many considered plausible at the time, amid a fever pitch of mainstream reporting on a potential ground invasion. The secrecy also sidestepped what’s euphemistically called “host nation sensitivities.” A joint U.S.-Israeli operation raises thorny questions for America’s Gulf Arab “partners,” especially over logistical support — hence the 82nd, which could launch directly from Israel without any Gulf state’s consent to use its territory.

The Army deployment order, issued April 7, 2026, directs elements of the 2nd Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment — the storied “Geronimo” battalion — to deploy to Israel on “temporary duty.” The Israel deployment has not been previously reported.

The Pentagon has never acknowledged it; in public it has said only that the 82nd was bound for “CENTCOM,” the military’s term for U.S. Central Command, the combatant command responsible for the entire Middle East. The press echoed the vague terminology, suggesting the unit was headed to existing U.S. bases in Kuwait or Qatar.

Asked about the number of troops deployed to Israel and their mission, the Pentagon referred my request to CENTCOM, which at the time of publication had not yet responded.

In late March, the New York Times reported that senior military officials were “weighing a possible deployment of a combat brigade from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division … to support U.S. military operations in Iran.” The forces would come from the division’s Immediate Response Force — a brigade of roughly 3,000 soldiers able to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours. Those forces, the Times noted, “could be used to seize Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub.”

The groundwork had been laid weeks earlier. The Army abruptly pulled the division’s 300-member headquarters from a planned exercise at the Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana, officials told the Times, so the command element wouldn’t be “caught out of place if the balloon went up.” The Aviationist reported that the division’s commander, Maj. Gen. Brandon Tegtmeier, and his command element had been ordered to deploy, and tracked a string of flights leaving Pope Army Airfield, which serves Fort Bragg, for the Middle East.

When the Pentagon finally did talk about the 82nd publicly, it took pains to keep Israel out of it.

Keep reading

Citizen Sues Virginia Military Institute And Its Board, Alleging Secret “Group Text” Meetings, Withheld And Altered Public Records

A new lawsuit accuses the governing board of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) — one of the nation’s last state military colleges and a primary commissioning source for the armed forces — of conducting the public’s business in the shadows.

The verified petition, filed June 1, 2026 in York County Circuit Court (Morris v. Virginia Military Institute, No. CL26005973-00), alleges that some members of VMI’s Board of Visitors held unnoticed “meetings” by reply-all email and other means about official board business — including the day after their own FOIA officer warned them in writing that doing so was illegal, and despite repeated formal training telling them not to “Reply All.”

It further alleges that VMI withheld, redacted, and even altered public records to obscure how a prominent donor and board member was pushed off the board and the board president was forced to step down.

The specifics are striking. According to the petition, board member Donald Hall publicly admitted he was “the principal negotiator” working with the Virginia General Assembly and said former Governor Ralph Northam “was more involved than anyone in this room knows other than me.”

Yet the suit alleges VMI produced no records at all from Hall, none from the former governor, withheld voicemails and call logs, and redacted the identities of email correspondents.

The petition also alleges that VMI’s FOIA officer altered an online records-portal entry to erase his own name —replacing it with the anonymous label “Staff” — and that a process server hired to deliver public comments on important issues intended for the Board to be informed on was turned away from public open committee meetings.

The filing seeks a ruling that the secret meetings and other actions were unlawful, an order forcing board business onto official accounts and devices, and personal civil penalties of $500–$5,000 per violation against the FOIA officer, a board administrator, and six sitting board members — penalties payable to Virginia’s State Literary Fund, not to the petitioner.

The case carries a question of national resonance: how much should politicians control the governance — and the independence — of public universities, and how much of that maneuvering happens off the public record?

What are the implications of these actions on commissioning sources and military readiness?

It also invites an uncomfortable comparison. In the same period, Gov. Abigail Spanberger removed John Rocovich as rector of Virginia Tech’s Board of Visitors — a move he has publicly contested — while the VMI BOV and FOIA staff accused of operating in secret remain in place and operating.

Were the standards applied consistently, and who is really steering Virginia’s military college?

Keep reading

The Alien Mummy Mystery, Why Won’t Peru Let Its Mummies be Tested?

For decades, stories of extraterrestrial life have lived on the fringe. But what if the strongest evidence yet has been sitting in Peru for nearly 1,700 years?

Today on Stinchfield, we dive into one of the most controversial mysteries on the planet: the so-called Peruvian mummies. These ancient remains, discovered by a grave robber rather than through an official archaeological excavation, possess characteristics unlike any known human population. They have only three fingers on each hand, three toes on each foot, and have undergone extensive CT scans and X-ray analysis that continue to fuel debate among scientists and researchers around the world.

Now the story is entering a critical new chapter. Author and investigative journalist Kent Heckenlively joins us to discuss revelations from his book Catastrophic Disclosure and the effort now underway to conduct a new round of DNA testing on the mysterious remains. According to Heckenlively, his co-author, Michael Mazzola, is working with Colossal Biosciences in hopes of obtaining definitive answers. The challenge? The Peruvian government has not yet approved the study.

Supporters of further testing claim that previous DNA analysis revealed genetic markers that could not be linked to any known species on Earth. Skeptics argue the evidence remains inconclusive and demand more rigorous scientific examination. That’s exactly what this new effort hopes to accomplish.

Are these mummies an elaborate hoax? An unknown branch of human evolution? Or could they represent what Heckenlively calls the best evidence we have that non-human intelligence may have visited Earth long before modern civilization?

The battle over disclosure is no longer limited to UFOs in the sky. It may now involve physical evidence that can be touched, scanned, tested, and perhaps one day proven. We examine the science, the controversy, and the extraordinary implications if these ancient remains turn out to be exactly what some researchers believe they are.

Keep reading

Calif.: Newsom signs bill limiting law enforcement access to ballots

Governor Gavin Newsom has signed legislation to tighten California’s election security, limiting authorities’ access to ballots, voter lists, rosters, or certified voting technology, ahead of the June 2nd state primary election.

The bill signed on Wednesday would prohibit anyone — particularly federal officers — from becoming involved in election administration, while allowing exceptions in cases of urgent public health or safety concerns.

Furthermore, the law states that if packages containing voted ballots are removed from the custody of election officials, civil penalties for ballot custody violations may still apply, with fines of up to $50,000.

“We have to clarify the rules of engagement. That’s why this legislation is important. There are fines associated with it, criminal fines, and jail time, three years,” Newsom (D-Calif.) said at Wednesday’s signing ceremony.

Senate Bill 73 — which will take effect immediately — follows Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of 650,000 ballots from last fall’s Proposition 50 Special Election. However, the probe was later stopped due to legal challenges from California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Sheriff Bianco (R-Calif.) — who is running for California governor this November — said he seized the ballots as part of an investigation into alleged voting discrepancies, though election officials later disputed those claims.

Bianco had referred to the freezing of the investigation as “politically motivated.”

Meanwhile the measure also directs the attorney general to provide guidance to local election workers on responding to requests from law enforcement.

“SB73 puts in protections to ensure that ballots will be secured and that voters have confidence in our election system that their voices will be heard at the ballot box,” said California State Senator Sabrina Cervantes (D-Calif.), one of the primary authors of the law.

The signing of the bill came the same day Assembly Democrats advanced 23 separate bills related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the Assembly floor.

Keep reading

Special Forces officer who oversaw secret SAS missions ‘doctored damning document on possible war crimes’

A senior Special Forces officer responsible for overseeing secret SAS missions doctored a document about possible war crimes.

The commander deleted the most damning sentence from a report into night raids that resulted in scores of suspicious deaths.

His disturbing intervention was included in files released last night by a High Court inquiry into suspected Extra Judicial Killings.

The judge-led probe is exploring claims Special Forces executed captives in Afghanistan and destroyed evidence of wrongdoing.

At the time, the officer was working in a supervisory role at Special Forces headquarters in London.

In April 2011 he was sent a statistical analysis of SAS detention operations including, numbers of Enemies Killed in Action (EKIA) and weapons recovered.

The glaring disparity between EKIA and rifles and pistols found in suspected Taliban compounds gave rise to allegations that unarmed Afghans were being shot dead.

The analysis was due to be studied by a Senior Legal Advisor at the London HQ and the overall commander, the Director Special Forces (DSF).

It was then the officer removed the concluding paragraph that read: ‘In my view there is enough here to convince me that we are getting some things wrong right now.’ 

In a witness statement N1788 admitted deleting the sentence before the document was passed on. He said he was not ‘just gonna pass that on in an email’.

At the time the document was of vital significance as the DSF was deciding whether to alert military police to the suspicious shootings thereby triggering a murder inquiry.

In testimony, N1788 said he was not concerned that Special Forces soldiers were abandoning their Rules of Engagement and eliminating detainees.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Given “Private Reprimand” After Holding Sexual Trysts In Chambers… And Then Lying About It

There is a bizarre controversy out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal judge has been reprimanded for engaging in repeated, loud sexual encounters during office hours in chambers with a police officer. While the judge lied to investigators and disrupted the work of court staff, the Eleventh Circuit decided to give only a “private reprimand” and to withhold the identity of the district court judge. However, legal sleuths have pieced together clues and identified one judge in Atlanta as the likely culprit.

In February, the Judicial Council issued an order with a “private reprimand.” The order contained an array of details that law professor John Blackman analyzed with impressive research. While he admits that he cannot conclusively prove that she is the referenced judge, he declared that “there is only one judge who checks all of those boxes: District Court Judge Eleanor Ross.”

Ironically, among the clues about the judge’s identity, the order mentions that the judge attended the “victory party for a District Attorney” in 2024, the night before “the judge’s summer interns’ first day.” The Georgia primary was on May 21, 2024, and the date coincides with the victory party for Fani Willis, who won the Democratic primary for Fulton County District Attorney. The irony would be crushing since Willis destroyed her own case against Trump and his associates after appointing an attorney with whom she had a sexual relationship.

Putting the judge’s identity aside, I am more concerned with the Circuit’s conclusion that the judge should be left with a private, anonymous reprimand, given the astonishing scope of the misconduct found by the Judicial Council.

The Court describes repeated sexual encounters during office hours that were so audible that clerks and staff were left in uncomfortable silence. The other individual is described as “a high-ranking PD officer.” The court states that

“It is also worth noting the fact that the Subject Judge created a vulnerability to extortion. For two years, the Subject Judge was a federal district judge who routinely heard criminal cases engaged in a secret extramarital relationship with a prominent officer of a large law enforcement agency in the judge’s district—with the affair consisting of sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s chambers during working hours.”

The Court describes the awkward moments as staff were subjected to moans and noises from the judge’s chambers as these trysts took place. The court recounts:

“The Subject Judge characterized the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically denied each one.11 Apparently aware that Law Clerk A was the source of the allegations, the Subject Judge noted that the judge had repeatedly chastised Law Clerk A for performance issues, including ‘being on [the clerk’s] cell phone in court and in the office,’ ‘arriving to the office late,’ and wearing attire that the judge considered ‘too casual.’ The Subject Judge implied that Law Clerk A might have made allegations as a means of retaliating against the Subject Judge.”

So this judge not only lied but attacked the clerk. The court order contained emails and communications in which the judge states that the clerk is disgruntled and unreliable. The result was an investigation as the judge continues to lie about the long-standing affair.

The other individual is described solely as a high-ranking police officer.

This is an extraordinary and serious series of ethical violations. It directly undermined the integrity of the court and created a dysfunctional work environment. The officer and the department are likely parties in cases before the court. The judge must be independent in dealing with officers and the department. The use of the chambers for sexual encounters must have created a hostile work environment for many clerks and staff.

Then there are the repeated lies to fellow judges and investigators. Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and such cases can come before this judge.

Keep reading

Newsom signs bill restricting law enforcement access to California ballots

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation Wednesday aimed at tightening California’s election security rules ahead of the June 2 statewide primary.

Senate Bill 73 takes effect immediately. It limits when law enforcement can access ballots, voter lists, rosters or certified voting technology.

The bill comes after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized more than 650,000 ballots from last fall’s Proposition 50 Special Election. The investigation was later halted amid legal challenges from California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“We have to clarify the rules of engagement. That’s why this legislation is important. There are fines associated with it, criminal fines, and jail time, three years,” Newsom said at Wednesday’s signing ceremony.

The bill prohibits peace officers from interfering with election administration, except in urgent public health or safety situations. It also requires a court order before law enforcement can take possession of key election materials. Removing packages containing voted ballots from the custody of elections officials would also be a crime. The law allows civil penalties of up to $50,000 for ballot custody violations.

The measure also directs the attorney general to issue guidance to local election workers on how to respond to law enforcement requests.

“SB73 puts in protections to ensure that ballots will be secured and that voters have confidence in our election system that their voices will be heard at the ballot box,” said California State Senator Sabrina Cervantes, one of the primary authors of the law.

Bianco, who is running as a Republican candidate for California governor, said he seized the ballots as part of an investigation into claims of voting discrepancies. Election officials disputed those claims.

Bianco later called the effort to halt his investigation “politically motivated.”

The bill signing came on the same day Assembly Democrats brought 23 separate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-related bills to a floor vote.

That legislation includes restricting federal law enforcement presence near polling places, stopping ICE officers from becoming California peace officers, requiring hotels to notify workers and guests when ICE has a reservation on site and withholding state tax breaks from companies that contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

“Don’t do that, man,” Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher said. “There’s several people on that side of the aisle I’m looking at. You know that’s wrong.”

Keep reading

Trump Declares War On UFO Secrecy & the Deep State… A New Executive Order May Be Only Days Away! 

The fight for transparency over UFO and UAP disclosures may be entering a whole new phase. Today on Stinchfield, author Kent Heckenlively joins us with explosive claims about what could be coming next from President Trump.

Heckenlively, co-author of the new book Catastrophic Disclosure, revealed sources close to President Trump are telling him a major executive order is now being prepared that will blow the lid off decades of secrecy surrounding UFO and UAP programs.

According to Heckenlively, the order would reportedly nullify government NDAs tied to UFO and UAP research, allowing scientists, military contractors, and insiders to finally come forward without fear of prosecution. It would also reportedly create a pathway to immunity for individuals who may have violated laws while participating in secret programs tied to recovered craft, advanced technology, or hidden government operations.

Heckenlively’s book is a deeply investigative look at what many believe is the Deep State’s role in hiding these programs for decades, while also examining whether the American people have been subjected to a long-running government psy-op surrounding UFOs and UAPs.

Keep reading