Not Drones? There Are Now Signs That The U.S. Government Is Considering The Unthinkable In Its UFO Investigation
By Christopher Sharp - 15/11/2021
For years, some sceptics have speculated that Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) may represent current drone technology (or even balloons) originating from foreign adversarial nations, and in some cases may represent U.S. technology.
In April 2021, before the publication of June's UAP Task Force (UAPTF) preliminary assessment, Tyler Rogoway in his excellent article for The Drive suggested that low-end drones, from adversary nations, including China and Russia, could be responsible for recently reported UAP events, which triggered the creation of the Task Force.
This led Rogoway questioning the quality of analysis regarding UAP incidents provided to politicians. Rogoway went on to suggest that the U.S. military is, “aloof to the fact that it's being toyed with by a terrestrial adversary and key capabilities may be compromised as a result.”
However, this assessment of the situation is based on conjecture and may now be outdated following the release of the UAPTF report.
Why conjecture? Because the politicians and those providing analysis have access to highly classified data, which is unknown to the wider public, including journalists.
To Rogoway's credit, he does not conclude that his theory can explain all cases of UAP, by stating:
"Our conclusions do not come even close to answering the question of UAPs or UFOs as a whole, especially in terms of the many unexplained incidents in decades past."
Since June 2021, actions taken by the executive branch and senators seem focused solely on the seemingly unexplained incidents that Rogaway concedes his conclusions do not come close to answering.
When analysing the UAPTF report, the Gillibrand Amendment (to the NDAA 2022) and recent remarks made by Avril Haines (U.S. Director of National Intelligence), a different picture appears to be emerging. And it seems to rule out the conventional drone hypothesis in some cases.
Instead, what we are seeing in some cases points to UAP representing something far more extraordinary than conventional drones. And the current trajectory in Washington D.C. appears to be gradually turning in this direction.
Unusual Flight Characteristics Reported In UAPTF Report - The First Signs Of Something Less Ordinary
In June’s unclassified version of the UAPTF Preliminary Assessment, the following observation appeared in the Executive Summary:
“In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.”
In order to remain impartial, the authors did concede that unusual characteristics perhaps did have some explanations.
And the evidence appears to rule out conventional drone technology and balloons in some instances. For instance, the assessment states:
“Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, manoeuvre abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernible means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.”
If correct, the evidence appears to suggest exotic technology, not low-end technology.
If these are in fact Chinese drones, they appear to be utilising propulsion technology that cannot be explained by the most advanced military on Earth. And as reported, such craft can manoeuvre abruptly and move at considerable speed.
Can balloons or drones stay stationary against the wind at probable high altitudes for long periods of time? Probably not. Again, if the world’s most advanced military can’t explain it, then the nature of such craft may be more exotic than some believe.
Unexplainable propulsion and other unusual flight characteristics also appeared to be present in 2004’s tic tac incident off the coast of California, when the USS Princeton’s radar operators observed UAP dropping from 28,000 feet to the surface of the water in 0.78 of a second, and then travelling approximately 60 miles to the pilots’ CAP point in five seconds.
Assuming all four flight crew (who had eyes on the craft) from the USS Nimitz did not mis-assess the tic tac’s apparent exotic performance features, and that the radar equipment was not faulty, these types of craft have been observed for at least 17 years, at least from the modern-era official accounts we are aware of.
If UAP does reflect Chinese or even Russian technology, and if observations and data readings going back at least 17 years are correct, then one wonders why this technology has not been used over Crimea or Taiwan.
Also, note this doesn’t account for reported encounters with UAP that spread back to the 1940s and 1960s, when China was gripped by war and famine. Even other advanced nations at the time, such as Russia, did not possess such technology - and if it did, the world would be a very different place today.
The Great Chinese Famine Took Place Between 1959-1961 And Cost Millions Of Lives
Normal or low-end drone technology doesn’t appear to be an apparent explanation for unusual cases at this point. It is also unlikely that Russia and China possess such exotic technology, which may explain associated unusual flight characteristics.
But one would concede (as the UAPTF report does) that more data is needed to completely discount such theories, including adversarial drones and balloons, exotic or not.
Was The UAPTF A Rag-Tag Group With Questionable Analytical Skills? An Insider Source With Insight Disputes This
The question of bias and misinterpretation from those providing the analysis and briefings to politicians still remains though - this was something suggested by Rogoway’s article.
But it is nearly impossible to make such assumptions when the information being analysed does not exist in the public sphere.
One source, with insight into the UAPTF, spoke to Liberation Times.
The source told us that the videos made public in 2017 only show a small portion of data that exists.
Our source went on to state that those questioning analysis from the UAPTF may very well be coming to conclusions without sufficient information regarding the credentials of those analysing the data. This is in addition to how many subject matter experts are involved and consulted with.
This suggestion that the current UAPTF is a rag-tag team of analysts is strongly disputed by our source.
The simple fact is that the public does not have the authority or proper security clearances to make definitive judgements.
And one might suggest that the classified data is pointing in a different direction from what drone theory proponents may have expected; and it relates to adverse physiological effects.
‘Adverse Physiological Effects’ Mentioned Within The Gillibrand Amendment
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Recently, a noteworthy amendment to the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2022) was proposed by Senator Gillibrand, who sits on both the Armed Services and Select Committee on Intelligence.
Gillibrand’s amendment proposes the creation of a permanent UAPTF, known as the Anomaly Surveillance and Resolution Office (ASRO). The text within the amendment sets out ASRO’s duties and what it should be provided access to.
One can assume that Gillibrand has been briefed regarding UAP, which has informed the language proposed. So, it is interesting that her amendment contains the following potential glimpse into the nature of UAP incidents:
“Military and civilian personnel employed by or under contract to the Department or an element of the intelligence community shall have access to procedures by which they shall report incidents or information, including adverse physiological effects, involving or associated with unidentified aerial phenomena directly to the Office.”
The text suggests that Senators may have been briefed about adverse physiological effects from encounters with UAP. Otherwise, why would such a topic be plucked from thin air?
Former Director for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), Lue Elizondo, in a recent interview with GQ Magazine, seemed to imply that pilots have suffered from radiation burns, loss of time and microwave damage.
It could be suggested by some that drones may be responsible for adverse physiological effects - although these would not be low-end drones. The Chinese certainly possess microwave weaponry, which has previously been used in a border dispute with India.
Microwave weaponry can be used by drones, and Russia plans to facilitate such technology on a new generation of drones.
It is possible that such technology has been used against U.S pilots. However, if that did occur, it would be considered an act of war and cause a major diplomatic crisis. The same would be true of radiation weaponry.
But again, the signs point to something more exotic and mysterious.
If Elizondo’s words reflect real-world incidents, then the instances of pilots experiencing missing time suggests a technology and physics which is not understood or possessed by any nation on Earth.
Elizondo describes how 30 minutes may have elapsed on the clock despite the pilot’s aircraft only expending five minutes’ of fuel.
If true, then such instances warrant the involvement of scientists and other professionals. And that is exactly what Gillibrand’s amendment proposes.
Gillibrand Requests The Creation Of An Aerial And Transmedium Phenomena Advisory Committee
Avi Loeb of Harvard University’s Galileo Project
Gillibrand’s amendment also proposes the Aerial And Transmedium Phenomena Advisory Committee (ATPAC), consisting of experts, including scientists (such as Galileo Project members) and engineers, to advise ASRO.
The amendment is the first time the word ‘transmedium’ has appeared within official U.S. governmental documentation regarding the modern phenomena encountered by military personnel.
According to the amendment definitions, transmedium means:
“Objects or devices that are observed to transition between space and the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and bodies of water, that are not immediately identifiable.”
Further aspects of UAP and its apparent extraordinary characteristics can be glimpsed in the amendment, when it describes how UAP appear to:
“Exceed the known state of the art in science or technology, including in the areas of propulsion, aerodynamic control, signatures, structures, materials, sensors, countermeasures, weapons, electronics, and power generation.”
From our understanding, such technology is not possessed by the U.S. or any adversary. If it does exist, then the physics and engineering may be unknown.
Therefore, it is no surprise that Gillibrand has called for the creation of such a Committee made up of scientists and engineers.
One thing is for certain - if these are in fact normal drones, then this process has gone too far.
If these are Chinese or Russian drones, they may have injured military personnel and caused incidents with military nuclear assets.
Gillibrand’s amendment in fact refers to strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships and submarines. Potential incidents may have taken place for decades, as supported by historic witness testimony provided by air force veterans, including Robert Salas.
If Russia or China are responsible, such events would have sparked an international crisis and have been taking place for decades.
The amendment has not ruled out the potential adversarial origin of UAP, as it states that it will, “evaluate links between unidentified aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or non state actors.”
But the fact remains that those guarding the USA’s most protected and monitored airspace cannot explain or identify such craft at this time.
Once again, the signs instead point towards something more extraordinary. Politicians, especially former Presidential hopefuls, such as Gillibrand, tend to be cautious. For Gillibrand to use such language may imply that she is content that sufficient evidence exists to suggest transmedium craft do exist and warrant scientific investigation.
Escalating Rhetoric Suggesting Something Stranger - Avril Haines Questions Whether UAP Reflects Extraterrestrial Technology
Video From the “Our Future In Space” Forum
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines appeared at the recent “Our Future In Space” forum to discuss extraterrestrial life, space travel and UAP.
She was joined by another UAP advocate, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, and was later followed by Avi Loeb of the Galileo Project.
Whilst speaking, Haines conceded that the intelligence community does not understand everything about UAP. She also pointed out that better collection and analysis is needed, as reflected in the Gillibrand amendment and UAPTF report.
This opinion regarding better data collection and analysis is also shared by Congressman Ruben Gallego, who has recently played down talk of aliens amid speculation from NASA Administrator (and former Senator) Bill Nelson. Gallego stated:
"It's unfair for NASA to speculate other worldly objects or aliens because data doesn’t prove anything like that"
Gallego also doesn’t rule out the possibility of conventional drone technology being used. He is technically correct to do so. Until more analysis can be done, it will be difficult to come to a definitive assessment. However, the likelihood of this being conventional drone technology is highly unlikely.
It should also not be assumed that Gallego (as a congressman) received the same level of briefings as senate and executive officials, including Haines.
It is then important to assess the importance of what Haines went on to say at the forum. Unexpectedly, Haines added:
“Of course always there’s also the question of 'is there something else that we do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially.”
This suggests that officials in Washington are currently considering whether UAP reflects non-human intelligence - a term which did not appear in the UAPTF report, although it most likely falls within its ‘other’ bin.
Her words go further than the current Department of Defense (DoD) briefing cards, which most recently states:
“The examinations into incursions by UAPs are still ongoing; the Department does not comment on intelligence matters.”
For the most senior intelligence official within the Biden administration to use the term ‘extraterrestrially’ in such a context is almost unheard of in the modern day.
It would be much easier to concede that UAP may represent Earthly drone technology. perhaps even better to avoid putting the ET hypothesis on the table in the first place.
This may shed light on the intelligence community’s current thinking on the topic. Officials of Haines’ stature choose words carefully. The use of ‘extraterrestrially’ could point towards an escalation of rhetoric that suggests UAP does have a more exotic nature than sceptics may want to believe.
It’s Probably Not About Normal Drones
If UAP does reflect normal drone technology from an adversary (which has everyone fooled), then it will be an intelligence disaster.
If there were any concrete suggestion that UAP incidents could reflect such normal drones, the U.S. would likely quietly disband public investigation efforts. The investigation would instead go underground to avoid a PR disaster that would also have major defence repercussions.
Former naval pilot Ryan Graves has explained how unidentified craft were encountered every day off the east coast for at least two years. It appears from other sources, such as Lue Elizondo, that UAP activity is constant.
Even if these were conventional drones from adversarial nations, it would be very difficult for them to constantly harass U.S. naval assets. One aviation industry source told us:
“Balloons and even small drones can be launched from disguised fishing and cargo vessels, so some spying does happen. Constant daily harassment is much harder to pull off because we would look for and find the ships.
If those within the DoD know UAP reflects normal drone technology, there would also be a high price to pay for misguiding politicians and the executive branch.”
The source we spoke to, who has unique insight into the UAPTF, had this to say about the drone hypothesis:
“There is a clear case for further research into foreign drone capabilities and tactics, and a clear case for determining what UAP are – especially once analysts have ruled out foreign surveillance systems. To suggest that the U.S. is simply pretending that adversary drones are UFOs is a dated suggestion in the face of today’s reality.
Acta non-verba, if we only look at the actions of the government we have congress people across both parties putting their money where their mouths are, by actively working towards establishing an official permanent and enduring UAP office to study the phenomenon. When actions speak louder than words it is clear the government is not pretending UAP are foreign drones. The unclassified report is 9 pages, there are 64 additional pages in the classified UAPTF report and within these critical pages is the data causing the government to take UAP seriously and to move forward with strategic steps to study them.”
If there is any possibility of the low-end drone theory being correct, then it is almost inconceivable that we are on the brink of establishing a UAP Office within the DoD.
It May Indeed Be Something Extraordinary
“Truth Passes Through Three Stages: First, It Is Ridiculed. Second, It Is Violently Opposed. Third, It Is Accepted As Self-Evident”
From the official signs we can interpret (from the UAPTF report, Haines’ recent comments and Gillibrand’s amendment), it appears UAP reflects something far more extraordinary than is considered by sceptics.
For explainable drone technology to have fooled the U.S. for so long is highly unlikely. The U.S. has increasingly more advanced ways to counter drones and trained observers are unlikely (and on multiple occasions throughout many years) to have misidentified such craft.
The U.S. is hardly in denial that a drone problem exists, and it is addressing the issue separately, for instance it was recently reported that microwave technology could soon be deployed to counter drone swarms.
China’s UAP Task Force
Furthermore, China has created its own UAP Task Force. The Communist superpower also possesses the world's largest UFO organisation (which may be state funded) and potentially was seeking to raise the topic before the United Nations, after supporting two large events (held in Russia and China) attended by both Chinese and Russian representatives in 2018. The events were also attended by former Russian cosmonauts.
China has even officially confirmed a UFO sighting in 1998, when two military jets intercepted a low-flying object that looked like a “short-legged mushroom” with two beams of lights from its centre. When it was approached, the object increased speed until it reached over 20,000 metres, before disappearing in a “ghostlike” manner. This does not sound like technology the U.S. would even possess today.
Conspiracies About U.S. Tech
Alas, there remain conspiracy theorists who believe the tic tac incident and other events may represent U.S. tech. But that's a minority of individuals with no real evidence to back up their claims.
The aviation industry expert we spoke to had the following response when asked about claims that the 2004 tic tac and other accounts of transmedium craft could be attributed to U.S. tech:
“The term transmedium is used to refer to cross-domain vehicles that can operate in the air, underwater, and even outer space.
It is a concept DARPA and the Navy have been interested in for years. Lockheed Martin has been very involved since the beginning.
In 2002 they patented a design called ‘Vehicle’ that could travel on the water (not under), fly vertically, and even hover. Stephen Justice, formerly of TTSA and Lockheed Martin, is one of the inventors listed. There is no evidence ‘Vehicle’ was ever built as there were several issues with the design.
In 2003 DARPA started working on a cross-domain vehicle competition that Lockheed won, leading to the Cormorant. The Cormorant was to be launched from a converted ballistic missile submarine and boosted into the air with a rocket, land in the water via a parachute, and recovered by an ROV and stored back in the submarine.
It was not a cross-domain vehicle in the true definition since it could not manoeuvre in the water. The project was cancelled in 2008 due to budget cuts.
The Navy’s fascination with this technology continued. The Navy Surface Warfare Center published a study in 2010 of a vehicle that can function as a light submarine and an airplane used to insert and extract Special Forces units. And in 2013 the Naval Research Laboratory designed and tested a prototype called Flimmer (Flying Swimmer). Flimmer is a bio-inspired design that uses flapping pectoral fins for underwater propulsion, and the study focused on using same fins for aerodynamic control surfaces.
The research concluded in 2015 with mixed results. There are likely other classified programs today looking at this technology, but all these designs have very limited performance and a high levels of complexity.
Flimmer, for example, had a top speed of 60 knots in the air and an altitude ceiling of less than 1000 feet. Based on my knowledge of the industry and our current technical capabilities, I can say with a high degree of certainty that we do not have cross-domain vehicles in any operational scenarios today. And we certainly did not have them in 2004. One last point, cross-domain vehicles will be slow and have foldable wings to be able to fly in the atmosphere. They will certainly not look like spheres, cylinders, or triangles.”
The UAPTF report has also assessed that this may not be technology the U.S. is familiar with, which was echoed by the wording of the Gillibrand amendment and its proposed ATPAC to study UAP. Why even contemplate bringing scientists in, if it was U.S. technology?
What's more, such theorists lack the security clearances and data to have any real clear picture of U.S. capabilities and the ongoing UAP issue.
In fact, those who do have such clearances are driving the UAP agenda in Washington, which includes U.S navy officials, who have led the initiative up until now. The data they are privy to originates from trained observers, radar data, satellite imagery and multiple sensors, as suggested by former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe.
Signs Of The Extraordinary - But More Investigation Needed
High profile intelligence officials (both former and serving) and many politicians (including former Presidential hopefuls) from both parties unanimously, bi-laterally, and without debate agree that this topic warrants further investigation.
Could the DoD be pretending unextraordinary foreign drones are UAP? Well, the signs are that neither Republican nor Democrat decision makers think so. The multiple 2024 potential presidential candidates who are willingly taking serious career altering risks to fund further investigation do not appear to think so either.
In Washington, there now appears to be two leading theories: either UAP reflects adversarial technology, which we don’t even understand the physics of, or its origin is unknown and potentially non-human, whatever that means.
Both are considered unlikely or unimaginable, but that seems to be the current thinking among those who have access to the classified data.
NOTE: For the purposes of accuracy and insight, we have chosen to use two anonymous sources - one that has insight into the UAPTF and another who is an aviation expert.
Both sources are actively working within sensitive industries and do not wish to disclose their identify. Liberation Times chooses to respect their privacy and will under no circumstance reveal any information which could reveal their identity.