OPINION: Yes, Science Magazine Printed An Altered Pentagon Statement, But There’s More. And Here’s Why It Matters…

So here’s the deal.

I don’t do opinion pieces.

In fact, I can’t even remember the last time I took a conversational approach to an article posted on this site. But, with this story below, I have to break the wall between straight-forward news delivery and telling you all, in my humble opinion, why something like this matters.

So here goes…

This saga begins on June 29th, 2022, when Science Magazine published an article about Dr. Travis Taylor. He’s the astrophysicist that about a week and a half ago, George Knapp with KLAS-TV revealed was the “chief scientist” on the UAP Task Force.

Although that story by Knapp seemed straight forward enough, “journalist” Keith Kloor and Science Magazine had a different take with their piece.

“Pentagon UFO study led by researcher who believes in the supernatural” read the headline.

And let’s stop right there for a moment.

Right off the bat, the headline reading “Pentagon UFO study led by researcher…” was wrong. Never did Dr. Taylor, nor anyone else, ever claim that he led the UFO study that I am aware of. That’s entirely false. But, more on that later.

Continuing on, Science Magazine‘s article highlighted Dr. Taylor’s beliefs in the paranormal, and some of his own personal experiences with the same. He is labeled a “reality TV star” at the top while his educational background that includes a doctorate in aerospace systems engineering; a doctorate in optical science and engineering; a master’s degree in physics; a master’s degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering; a master’s degree in astronomy; and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering is not mentioned until half way through the article, and only in brief.

But this is where it gets telling about the message Kloor, along with Science Magazine, was trying to convey.

The article quoted the Pentagon with a statement that seemed to downplay Dr. Taylor’s role on the UAP Task Force, and seemingly disregarded the claim of his “chief scientist” title by stating that Dr. Taylor was “considered the informal chief scientist.”

However, something didn’t seem right.

The quote published by Science Magazine was different in context than what I had received and published the same day as this article.

So, I sent an e-mail to the Pentagon attempting to verify if the quote was true and if Kloor received different quotes about the exact same issue I asked about. After some e-mails were sent back and forth, Susan Gough, DoD Spokesperson, stated that, “the wording inside the quotation marks in the Science article is incorrect as it’s not a direct quote of what was provided.”

Wait, what?

In my view, the altered quote changes the meaning of the original, and I believe it was likely done so to fit into an article aimed to belittle Dr. Taylor and his work, not to highlight what he may or may not have done within the effort.

So, let me try and be fair. We are all human, and we all make mistakes. Including me (just ask my wife).

But this? To alter an official Pentagon statement to make it appear that the government “considered” Dr. Taylor to be an “informal” contributor to the task force? Well, that is certainly disingenuous in my book.

But there is more.

If you don’t know anything about the “journalist” who wrote this piece, Kloor often ridicules and writes negative pieces about the UFO topic. His social media interactions often get aggressive and nasty, and there is a clear indication that no matter what evidence is presented about UFOs, Kloor will ridicule it and belittle those that research it.

Now, as I am sure Kloor will read this, I will almost bet money he is right now rapidly sifting through his e-mails to find where I paid him a compliment in the past so he can fire back at me about what I just wrote above. I did compliment him. In fact, Kloor tweets about that compliment so I am sure he will again. Truth be told, years ago, I thought Kloor had good intentions with reporting, and I told him as such at the time.

I was wrong. (See? I can admit it.)

It isn’t just UFOs that Kloor seems to have a deep bias with which then gets conveyed in his “reporting.”

There’s also this, which talks about how Kloor, “… coached and edited his sources, obscured the industry ties of a source, and selectively reported on information in ways that bolstered industry narratives.” You’ll note that the issue I am exploring here, is exactly what Kloor was accused of doing back in 2018 while writing about GMOs. But, I’m sure that is only a coincidence and no indicator of a trend, so I’ll just leave that link right there for you click on later, and I’ll move on.

Let’s go back to that quote that was edited. Let me start with what I was told by the Pentagon, is exactly what Kloor received:

“Dr. Taylor was a government employee assigned to the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC). SMDC provided Dr. Taylor on a time-limited basis as part of a larger number of contributing organizations across the DOD, the Intelligence Community (IC), and other parts of the federal government to assist with the formal stand-up of the UAPTF and its reporting requirements.  At the time of Dr. Taylor’s initial work with the UAPTF, UAPTF leadership informally referred to Dr. Taylor as the chief scientist as efforts to assemble a larger team were underway. It was not a full time assignment; Dr. Taylor remained an employee of SMDC.”

“Dr. Taylor was already a federal employee, so he wasn’t “hired” for the UAPTF. Dr. Taylor participated in the Navy’s initial effort to understand the UAP issue prior to the formal standup of the UAPTF by DOD.  At the time of Dr. Taylor’s initial work with the UAPTF, former Office of Naval Intelligence senior civilian John Stratton was leading the effort and informally referred to Dr. Taylor as his chief scientist as efforts to assemble a larger team were underway.”

Look at all that context and detail, almost all of which was omitted from Kloor’s article. And Kloor’s originally printed quote? No where to be found.

This is what Kloor wrote:

But the real statement given by the Pentagon, was different in context:

“At the time of Dr. Taylor’s initial work with the UAPTF, UAPTF leadership informally referred to Dr. Taylor as the chief scientist as efforts to assemble a larger team were underway.”

Here’s what I feel is that context change that is concerning:

In order for Kloor and Science Magazine to solidify their narrative about Dr. Taylor, they needed an official belittlement of Dr. Taylor and his position. To do that, I believe the quote was altered to say Dr. Taylor was “considered the informal chief scientist” thus in my view, giving the false impression that military upper brass, the Navy, the DoD, whomever, all disregarded his position and “considered” him the “informal chief scientist.”

However, the real quote does two things that Kloor and Science Magazine editors likely did not want. 1) It references “UAPTF leadership” and how they referred to Dr. Taylor (ooops, there goes your headline, Science Magazine, as I thought Dr. Taylor led it?) and 2) references the “chief scientist” title as “informal,” but not necessarily Dr. Taylor’s work itself as the article seemed to infer.

But if you feel the misquote was an honest mistake, you need to also take note that the entire context of what was sent to Kloor by the Pentagon was omitted.

This included some key facts that actually give the UAP Task Force effort a bit more credence and credibility if you ask me, but my guess is, Kloor didn’t want to give any of that to this story.

So, what better way to do that then to just omit nearly everything he was sent. That way, he can control the narrative.

These key omitted points include:

• Dr. Taylor’s work was sanctioned by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and Dr. Taylor’s expertise was offered to the UAP Task Force on a “time-limited basis.” This explains the “not a full time assignment” reference by the Pentagon, but that context was omitted in the article.
• Dr. Taylor’s input was only part of a “…larger number of contributing organizations across the DOD, the Intelligence Community (IC), and other parts of the federal government to assist with the formal stand-up of the UAPTF and its reporting requirements.” This provides some rare insight into the UAP Task Force efforts, and how widespread the pooling of resources actually was. However, this was also omitted from the article in order to pave the way for taking shots at Dr. Taylor’s paranormal experiences and making it sound like he ran the whole effort armed with fringe beliefs.
• John “Jay” Stratton “…was leading the effort and informally referred to Dr. Taylor as his chief scientist.” This was entirely removed because this alone not only negates Science Magazine‘s headline, but also the message of the article. Whether “chief scientist” was an “informal” or unofficial title, is irrelevant. The undisputed true lead on the UFO research program called Dr. Taylor the “chief scientist” and the Pentagon confirmed that. Yet, that context was omitted from the article.

This should infuriate anyone who looks at the UFO topic, no matter which side of the fence you are on. Whether you think it is all a farce, or whether you want the scientific community to take this UFO topic seriously, accuracy should be the only thing any of us advocate for. Right?

I contacted Science Magazine to bring some of the above to their attention and first asked them to verify their quote. If they couldn’t, I asked them to explain why the statement was altered.

I spoke with David Malakoff, Deputy News Editor (policy, energy & environment) for the magazine through e-mail. During that process, they corrected their article, then sent me the following:

“As I believe you are already aware, we have corrected the misquote of the Pentagon spokesperson’s e-mail. We regret the error. The revised quote does not change the substance of what the story originally reported,” Malakoff told me. And yes, that is a real and accurate quote from Science Magazine. Copy and paste allows for accurate quoting, in case anyone reading this is not aware (looking at you, Kloor.)

But now that you have the full story, do you feel it changes the substance?

Here was their correction:

I also asked in my e-mail why the entire context of Dr. Taylor’s work within the DoD was omitted, and why it was first published that the work was not full time, but was pretty much explained why it was within the omitted statements.

“…the story makes it clear that Taylor worked at DOD at the time he worked on the task force, and has since retired and moved to private industry,” was Malakoff’s response.

You’ll note they also removed the “not a full-time position” portion of the article. Since that wasn’t quoted, they likely removed it because they know their original message was flawed and out of context. Did they not think we would notice it wasn’t only the quote corrected?

I couldn’t help but just shrug my shoulders at that point. Clearly, Science Magazine didn’t care about context or facts. Isn’t that what SCIENCE should be about?

After I received the above statements, I followed up with further proof the article was flawed. From the headline down, there were issues I could still point out after their “correction,” but I stuck highlighting how even just the headline was misinforming their readers from the start. I showed how it could be proven false by the statements Mr. Kloor received from the Pentagon that he had omitted from his article.

“Thanks. We stand by the story as corrected,” was Mr. Malakoff’s reply.

I cc’d Kloor on each e-mail I sent, but he did not respond. Though, he did take to Twitter to get ahead of my story, and tried to explain his error with this thread:

But if you look deeper into Kloor’s tweets, he continues his false message, and tweets his article to anyone he thinks will listen. He even wrongfully frames Dr. Taylor’s involvement in the UAP Task Force as being “in charge” thus trying to belittle the effort. No one ever said he was in charge of anything, but rather, a “chief scientist” and only a part of a much larger effort led by… someone else.

But we already went over that.

What Science Magazine and Kloor did is not journalism; it’s an agenda. And just like I have highlighted the other end of the spectrum with the NY Times and the publishing of unverifiable claims about “off world vehicles“, the same should be highlighted when those fabricate Pentagon statements and purposefully omit information to fit a desired angle.

The UFO conversation is an incredibly important one to have. From a national security standpoint to the unprovable personal experiences of others and everything in between, humanity just has not been able to unravel the mystery and truly understand whatever these phenomena are.

But while we have that conversation — truth matters and should rise above all else. We may not like the experiences of others, or their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they should become a poster-child for biased reporting to fit an agenda. Withholding information and fabricating statements is just downright wrong, no matter who it happens to, and no matter what the reasoning is.

What I’ve highlighted above is not an isolated incident with one media outlet because of one biased journalist. Rather, the mis-reporting and disinformation involved with this topic is out of control on ALL sides of the conversation.

In my opinion, we need to take a step back. We need to look at the above and realize the sheer power of mixing a misleading headline; an altered statement; and the intent to omit facts. We need to see the effect that really has on a conversation and to people who believe what they are reading is actually accurate. Inaccurate information can skew beliefs without any solid foundation for doing so. It can hurt the reputation of others while using fabricated information rather than verifiable facts.  It needs to stop.

But above all else, it takes away from the undeniable reality that this issue is here to stay, and the conversation should be had.

Whether you are a skeptic, believer, or somewhere in between; the conversation deserves to be had.

Respectfully… and truthfully.

###

Update: On July 2, 2022, The Black Vault added a 6th degree held by Dr. Taylor previously unknown when writing the above.

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media: