A Tradition of Ridicule: The Evolution and Credibility of Steven Greenstreet's UAP Reporting

Steven Greenstreet is an investigative journalist and video producer who works for the New York Post. He is currently one of the loudest voices of UFO skepticism and ridicule in his reporting and on social media. But this wasn't always the case.

Just a few years ago, Greenstreet sang a much different tune. He was well-respected in the UAP community for his reporting, particularly for his work on The Basement Office, a web series he created and co-hosted with Nick Pope, a former employee of the UK Ministry of Defence known for his involvement in UFO investigations. Early episodes of The Basement Office approached the subject with an investigative lens and open-minded perspective. More recent episodes are representative of the shift in Greenstreet’s stance on the UAP topic towards hard skepticism and negativity. Many members of the UAP community, like Patrick Armstrong of VETTED, have noted this shift.

These days, Greenstreet spends considerable time and effort ridiculing UAP whistleblowers, experiencers and government officials involved in UAP programs on the internet. His posts and replies on the 𝕏 platform are almost exclusively focused on the UAP topic, and carry a through-line of trolling and accusations of deceit towards a specific group of individuals. Much of this directed energy seems to stem from a personal mission, as Greenstreet has stated as recently as last year that, “UFOs are about 5%-10% of my assigned responsibilities," presumably referring to his work at the Post.

Despite his polarizing nature, one must set aside the trolling and ridicule that comes with the Greenstreet package and ask – what is the credibility behind his reporting? This is something Greenstreet himself has reiterated multiple times online. He believes his reporting to be highly above board and accurate, and invites others to attempt to poke holes in it. I decided to accept this invitation and dig into Greenstreet's recent reporting on UAP to analyze the credibility of his work. I feel this is warranted given the magnitude of his claims, the dramatic evolution of his stance on UAP and his standing as a key figure in the space.

Perhaps the most important piece of Greenstreet's reporting to assess is a March 21, 2023 New York Post article he co-wrote titled "‘Crazy’ UFO-believing Pentagon bosses missed spy craft for years." Greenstreet continually hangs his hat on this piece and refers to it as, "the most comprehensive breakdown of the current "UFO" scam." For these reasons, this article will be the primary focus of my analysis for this piece.

Before examining the major claims within the article, it is important to zoom out and consider the publication behind it. The New York Post was founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton and is currently owned by News Corp under Rupert Murdoch's leadership. The publication is largely considered a "tabloid" format and boasts a significant readership. Media bias evaluations from organizations like AllSides and Ad Fontes Media consistently categorize the Post with a right-leaning bias, rating its news section as "Lean Right" and its opinion section as "Right," while noting "Mixed Reliability" in its reporting quality.

Public perception of the New York Post is divided, with historical skepticism about its credibility. A 2004 Pace University survey rated it as the least credible major news outlet in New York City, with 44% finding it "not credible." The Post has faced persistent criticism for sensationalism, advocacy for conservative causes, and allegedly tailoring coverage to align with Murdoch's business interests, including avoiding critical reporting on China where he has significant investments.

When it comes to UAP, the Post has historically covered the topic in a mix of sensational, skeptical, and sometimes serious investigative reporting. Over the years, its approach has shifted in response to cultural changes, government disclosures, and the evolving public perception of the UFO/UAP phenomenon.

During the mid-to-late 20th century, the Post primarily covered UFOs in a tabloid-like manner, often emphasizing dramatic encounters, alien abduction stories, and government secrecy narratives. The paper, like many tabloids, catered to public curiosity, sometimes with a tone of ridicule or exaggeration. In the early 2000s, the Post continued its tradition of covering UFOs with a mix of sensationalism and skepticism, often framing sightings as quirky, amusing, or part of pop culture. The coverage leaned heavily on shock value rather than serious analysis.

After The New York Times’ 2017 report on the Pentagon’s secret UFO research program (AATIP) and the release of military UAP footage, the New York Post noticeably shifted its tone. It began reporting more seriously on government disclosures, whistleblower testimonies and the increasing mainstream acceptance of the UFO topic. This period coincides with the rise of Steven Greenstreet and his reporting on the topic in his role with the Post. Greenstreet and his Basement Office series explored major developments like the Pentagon’s UAP investigations, Luis Elizondo’s claims about AATIP, and the Navy’s release of UFO videos. The Post seemed to have begun reporting more seriously on these topics and treating them with more journalistic integrity, while still maintaining an element of sensationalism.

Greenstreet is a good representation of the Post’s current, present day coverage of UFOs. The publication has adapted to the new UAP landscape and now takes a blended approach to the topic, combining serious and investigative reporting with the same sensationalism and ridicule that has been present throughout the history of their UFO reporting.

Circling back to Greenstreet's 2023 article, the piece discusses how certain Pentagon officials' focus on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and paranormal research may have led to overlooking actual foreign surveillance devices, such as the Chinese spy balloon incident. The piece suggests that a small group of UFO enthusiasts influenced media and congressional attention, potentially diverting resources from addressing genuine national security threats. It also references the 2017 revelation of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), and pokes holes in the initial reporting and true nature of this program and its leaders.

Let's now conduct a close examination of the arguments and evidence provided in the article. I have chosen to pinpoint three specific, major claims from the piece.

The first claim in question relates to Luis Elizondo. The article states:

Elizondo has touted himself as the director of a Pentagon UFO program, AATIP, including on shows like “Unidentified,” but the Pentagon said he had “no responsibilities” with AATIP.

"As exclusively reported by the Post, the Pentagon didn’t actually have an official UFO program called AATIP and Elizondo was not its director."

"In 2019, the Pentagon released a statement saying Elizondo had “no responsibilities” with AATIP, a program which they also said wasn’t created to investigate UFOs.

The backing evidence provided in this claim links to a Basement Office episode called "The UFO Lie: Shocking truth of Pentagon AAWSAP program," which was published to YouTube on May 12, 2022. Greenstreet conducts solid reporting in this episode and identifies many valid contradictions in the initial and ongoing coverage of AATIP, AAWSAP, and Luis Elizondo's role in these programs. Nevertheless, the statement in the third paragraph of the above claim highlighting how the Pentagon stated Elizondo had "no responsibilities" with AATIP is misleading. This argument, that Lue Elizondo had no responsibilities in AATIP, reaches an early, invalid conclusion while ignoring additional evidence on this topic that Greenstreet himself previously reported on.

Per Greenstreet's reporting in a prior Basement Office episode posted to YouTube on June 23, 2021 titled "Shocking Pentagon UFO revelations, Lue Elizondo & AATIP," the Pentagon has actually made three separate statements regarding Lue Elizondo's involvement in AATIP. The first statement from Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood in May 2019 denied Elizondo's involvement in AATIP, stating that, "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program." In June 2019, another Pentagon spokesperson named Susan Gough issued a second statement, clarifying that, "Elizondo did not have any assigned responsibilities for AATIP." Greenstreet then asked the Pentagon to provide comment in reference to a conversation he had with a spokesperson for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who had confirmed to Greenstreet that Elizondo was in fact involved with AATIP, specifically in transferring the program out of DIA to another office. In response to this, Sherwood of the Pentagon provided the third response, stating, "I don't disagree with DIA's account."

This nuance in the government's mixed messaging on Elizondo's involvement in AATIP is not present in Greenstreet's 2023 article. It is also not present in the aforementioned "The UFO Lie" Basement Office episode, which serves as a primary source for the article but cites only two out of the three Pentagon statements Greenstreet had previously reported on in "Shocking Pentagon UFO revelations". Greenstreet's 2023 article also does not take into account the letter former senator Harry Reid wrote and signed in April 2021 verifying Elizondo's "involvement and leadership role" in AATIP, something Greenstreet had also reported on in his prior video. Instead, only a selective representative of the truth is used in the 2023 article to build towards a specific narrative.

The second claim I analyzed from Greenstreet's 2023 piece is the assertion that AAWSAP/AATIP was created solely to study “ghosts and goblins”, and was not involved in investigating UFOs. It was a “non-UFO” program, as the article states:

In February 2023, the Pentagon confirmed to the Post that AATIP was just a nickname for AAWSAP, a non-UFO program which shut down in 2012.

Quoting then-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper, the DOD states, “The AATIP that Senator Reid refers to is officially the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application Program (AAWSAP).”

Fearing AAWSAP was on the chopping block, Sen. Reid submitted a Hail Mary request that the program be made top secret.

As for any official UFO program,” the Pentagon has stated it didn’t even have one prior from 2007 to 2018.

I found strong evidence that contradicts this claim, which comes directly from a source included in the 2023 Post article. The source in question is a 2022 interview with Colm Kelleher, a biochemist and Bigelow contractor who held a leadership role in AAWSAP, and who also co-authored Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, another primary source cited in Greenstreet’s article. In this interview, Kelleher explicitly states that AAWSAP was investigating UFO cases, including the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac incident. Per Kelleher, AAWSAP wrote a full report on the Nimitz case following their investigation and submitted it to the DIA. This report is directly cited in Appendix I of Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, as highlighted below.

Beyond this evidence, Greenstreet’s 2023 article also does not consider the prior reporting Greenstreet himself produced on the Pentagon’s multiple, differing statements regarding the existence of a UFO program. This again comes from his "Shocking Pentagon UFO revelations" episode, in which he details how the Pentagon confirmed that AATIP investigated UAP, walked back that statement and denied researching UAP, then changed their stance a third time in 2021 and stated that AATIP “allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs.” Again, this nuance in the wavering statements of the Pentagon is not present in Greenstreet’s 2023 article. Instead, only the initial Pentagon statement denying involvement with UAP is cherry-picked in the article to fit the selective narrative.

The final claim I assessed from the 2023 article is that the 1967 Malmstrom Airforce Base UFO incident, in which an orange, disc-shaped UFO allegedly hovered over the Oscar Flight Launch Control Facility and temporarily disabled ten ICBMs, was a hoax. As the article states:

AARO is reportedly looking into an “avocado UFO” from 1945 and investigating whether flying saucers turned off American nuclear weapons in 1967.

Official government documents show the latter case is a hoax, but that isn’t stopping the AARO from asking for lots of taxpayer money for investigations.

The backing evidence provided to support this claim is a package of FOIA-obtained documents published by John Greenwald on The Black Vault. These documents detail an event that took place on March 16, 1967 at the Echo Flight Launch Control Center at Malmstrom, where ten ICBMs experienced a simultaneous shutdown, indicated by a "No-Go" status on specific channels of the Voice Reporting Signal Assemble (VRSA). The documents make no reference to a UFO sighting or any unusual aerial activity in connection with the event.

Importantly, the FOIA request that yielded these documents specifically requested information related to the March 16th incident at Echo Flight Launch Control Center, but the claims related to the observation of an orange, disc-shaped UFO that shut down ten ICBMs are attributed to a separate incident that allegedly occurred a week later at Oscar Flight Launch Control Center on March 24th. This explains the lack of information about the alleged March 24th incident at Oscar Flight in this package of FOIA documents, as this specific date and event was not cited in the FOIA request.

In fairness to Greenstreet and the Post, there are valid arguments that point to this case being a hoax, such as the fact that Robert Salas initially misremembered the specific flight center involved, identifying it as Echo Flight before later correcting it to Oscar Flight. Nonetheless, in my own analysis of this case, I found that there were too many conflicting arguments on both sides to make a verifiable claim that the case was a hoax.

In conclusion, I find that Greenstreet's 2023 Post article and his recent UAP reporting do pull from factual, evidence-based sources, but several of these facts are cherry-picked, and invalid conclusions are reached by omitting conflicting reporting and evidence to fit a specific narrative. Ironically, this is something Greenstreet accuses Leslie Kean of doing in her 2017 New York Times AATIP disclosure article.

I did learn quite a bit from digging deep into Greenstreet's reporting, and the 2023 Post article makes a number of valid arguments in dissecting the original reporting of AATIP/AAWSAP and addressing the government's shortcomings in protecting U.S. airspace against foreign surveillance. Nevertheless, I feel that a large portion of this reporting is slanted towards a narrative of ridicule, shock-value and accusations of deceit. I also get the sense that Greenstreet has developed a personal vendetta against certain figures in the UAP space, and that this personal bias sways his reporting. Of course, every journalist has some level of inherent bias, as human beings are innately prone to this, but I feel that Greenstreet's bias goes a level beyond and negatively impacts the credibility of his reporting. It should also be noted that these tendencies in his reporting may be influenced by the values and directives bestowed upon him by the New York Post. They could be interpreted as a continuation of the tradition of ridicule and sensationalism in the Post's handling of the UAP space.

As for the reason behind Greenstreet's dramatic pivot into hard UFO skepticism and his possible vendetta, this was not a primary focus for this piece, but I did come across some sources that give clues. Nick Pope, who formerly co-hosted The Basement Office with Greenstreet, conducted an interview that was published to YouTube in December 2024. In the interview, while discussing the reasons behind Greenstreet's shift towards UFO skepticism, he states, "I think, if you talk to him, he feels people were trying to play him. People either still in or formerly in the intelligence community were trying to almost recruit him and shape his narrative and he pushed back against that and went violently the other way."

I reached out to Greenstreet for comment on this and he replied over Direct Message on 𝕏, stating, "I've spoken many times on the record regarding my feeling duped and deceived by the usual suspects. Pope's statement above is basically accurate, yes. Though, the blame ultimately falls on me. For being too credulous and caught up in the circus. And, maybe, wanting to clown around a bit."