Lacatski Claims the N.Y. Times Tic Tac Story Was “Totally Inaccurate!”**
Palm Desert, CA — November 22, 2025
By Rich Scheck (with analytical contributions from Michael A. Kayser)
James Lacatski, former head of AAWSAP and one of the few people who actually knows what was going on behind the curtain, has just detonated a small but consequential bomb in the Disclosure world.
In a recent episode of Weaponized, Lacatski flatly states that the famous 2017 New York Times Tic Tac story was “totally inaccurate.”
Not partially inaccurate.
Not misframed.
Totally inaccurate.
(He says it around minute 9:40 for those who want to hear the delivery.)
For years, critics have argued that the Times got major elements of the ATTIP/AAWSAP saga wrong. Now one of the only men with first-hand access to the classified program has — in his own careful, NDA-filtered way — confirmed it.
⸻
AARO, Counterintelligence, and the Fog Machine
Lacatski also appears to be saying out loud what many insiders have whispered for years:
AARO functions as a disinformation buffer, not a transparency office.
He describes deliberate document manipulation, congressional indifference, and counterintelligence interference so thick you could cut it with a steak knife. The man is careful — almost painfully so — but the message is unmistakable:
The public narrative about ATTIP, AAWSAP, and the Tic Tac case has been shaped more by intelligence operations than by truth.
If that feels familiar, that’s because it is.
⸻
The Problem: A Movement That Won’t Update Its Priors
Despite this, much of the UFO community’s leadership still clings to the original Times narrative as if it were a sacred text.
This includes:
• the Age of Disclosure documentary team
• the Mellon/Elizondo contingent
• mainstream journalists protecting the 2017 storyline
• a few prominent influencers who treat the Times piece as canon
Lacatski’s comments now put them in an awkward position:
either update the story or defend something he says was fabricated.
⸻
3i/Atlas: The New Character in the Threat Narrative
As if the landscape weren’t muddy enough, the newer “3i/Atlas” enterprise has become the latest node in the official threat ecosystem — an ecosystem that depends heavily on maintaining the credibility of the original Times report.
If the foundation is flawed, the entire threat architecture becomes…
let’s say “structurally creative.”
⸻
The Congressional Angle: Transparency in Name Only
Congress has not helped.
Oversight has been performative at best.
David Grusch reappears periodically to reassure supporters that progress is happening, but the political chaos surrounding his chosen faction casts doubt on how much traction Disclosure legislation will realistically gain in the near term.
It’s not Grusch’s fault — it’s the system he’s operating inside.
⸻
Where Do Independent Researchers Go From Here?
Given Lacatski’s statements, the continued reliance on the Times narrative is no longer intellectually defensible.
It’s time for:
• independent researchers
• journalists not tied to Mellon/Elizondo
• academics willing to challenge orthodoxy
• analysts outside the threat-industrial complex
…to coordinate.
Not to “debunk.”
Not to attack.
Simply to align the story with the actual evidence and free the field from ten years of narrative inertia.
A Zoom call among independent voices would be an ideal first step — a chance to compare notes, realign timelines, and finally separate field research from political theater.
⸻
Bottom Line
Whether or not one agrees with Lacatski, his statement cannot be ignored:
If the 2017 Times article is inaccurate in its fundamentals, then the modern Disclosure movement is built on a mistaken frame — and it must be rewritten.
That doesn’t weaken the case.
It strengthens it.
Because truth in this field has always emerged first from the margins, not from the official story.