NEW: Biden Approves Omnibus Bill, Which Includes Funding For UFO Office, As Growing Evidence Suggests UAP Does Not Reflect Adversarial Technology
Written by Christopher Sharp - 15 March 2022
President Joe Biden has signed the omnibus bill that funds federal spending for the rest of the current fiscal year, which encompasses money set aside for the new UAP Office.
The move marks a big milestone for the UAP Office, amidst concern about the slow pace of its implementation to meet Congressional intent.
And following comments by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the new Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) (which was passed as part of the omnibus bill), the OUSD(I&S) is under increasing pressure.
Mark Warner (Dem) and Vice-Chairman, Marco Rubio (Rep) of the Intelligence Senate Select Committee on Intelligence highlighted on their websites that the IAA would support “the IC’s efforts to assess unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), further building upon the work of the UAP Task Force.”
One DOD source stated: “We are finally at the point where the future of AOIMSG is forced to be determined.”
Congressman Tim Burchett stated: “I would not be surprised if the Pentagon’s upcoming report shows its investigation is behind schedule.”
It is also becoming increasingly apparent that UAP may not originate from Russia or China, as suggested within the UAP Preliminary Assessment of June 2021.
In February 2022, the Washington Post reported that a Russian drone shot down by Ukrainian forces was composed of technology “manufactured by a half-dozen Western companies.”
President Biden signing the new Funding Bill
Today, U.S. President Joe Biden has signed the omnibus bill that funds federal spending for the rest of the current fiscal year, including $782.5 billion for defense, which encompasses money (although no amount has been confirmed) set aside for the new Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Office, legislated by Congress within the NDAA 2022, known as the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group or AOIMSG.
The move marks a big milestone for AOIMSG, amidst potential concern about the slow pace of its implementation to meet Congressional intent.
Last month, Pentagon spokesperson, Susan Gough, confirmed to Liberation Times that UAP incursions are still being investigated at 2021 levels, stating:
“We’re transitioning the mission of the former UAP Task Force to the AOIMSG. While under a continuing resolution, the examination and analysis of UAP incursions into Special Use Airspace continues at fiscal year 2021 levels.”
For now, Gough isn’t commenting any further until implementation guidance for AOIMSG, which has been drafted to meet Congressional intent, is approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks.
The blame for any perceived slow progress may fall on the doorstep of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (OUSD(I&S), where AOIMSG is currently located.
However, any lack of progress may not be due to any alleged historical resistance to transparency from OUSD(I&S), which resulted in the resignation of former AATIP Director Lue Elizondo.
In fact, Elizondo has recently stated that the more rational heads within the OUSD(I&S) are prevailing.
It could be speculated that the OUSDI(I&S), as an oversight office, is ill-equipped to meet the intent of Congress.
And following recent comments by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the unveiling of the new Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) (which was passed as part of the omnibus bill), the OUSD(I&S) may find itself under increasing pressure.
The OUSD(I&S) AOIMSG now has to prepare quarterly UAP reports (with the first due on 13 June 2022), on top of bi-annual briefings and an unclassified annual report required by the NDAA 2022. Meanwhile, Senator Gillibrand will be keen to maintain pressure, by insisting UAP is high on the agenda of the new Department of Defense Inspector General, as evident in her recent questioning of nominee, Robert Storch.
Of note, the Chairman, Mark Warner (Dem) and Vice-Chairman, Marco Rubio (Rep) of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence highlighted on their websites that the IAA would support “the IC’s (intelligence community’s) efforts to assess unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), further building upon the work of the UAP Task Force.”
And that committee, in addition to others, will be expecting the first classified UAP briefing from AOIMSG this month.
Speaking to Liberation Times, UAP transparency advocate, Congressman Tim Burchett (Rep) commented:
“I would not be surprised if the Pentagon’s upcoming report shows its investigation is behind schedule.”
Congressman Burchett’s sentiment may be shared by other elected representatives. Although one could also argue that OUSD(I&S) can only make meaningful progress following the signing of the omnibus bill.
Speaking to Liberation Times, a DOD source suggested that Biden’s approval of the omnibus bill signals a make or break moment for OUSD(I&S), commenting:
“We are finally at the point where the future of AOIMSG is forced to be determined. Once POTUS signs the new 1.5 trillion dollar omnibus bill the processes to begin allocating funds will begin.
This funding will provide the new office with the ability to begin executing hiring actions and acquisitions. The lingering question is, once funded, does OUSD(I&S) have a plan in place to meet the requirements and intent that Congress has defined?”
Patience appears to be thin amongst politicians, who will be keen to see progress before the release of an unclassified UAP report expected in October 2022, and prior to midterm elections, which could also change the composition of committees.
The amount of money earmarked for AOIMSG is not known, as specific dollar figures for specific intelligence-related programs do not appear in public bills - rather, Congress will make its wishes known under classified conditions.
Increasing Doubts That UAP May Originate From Russia or China
It is also becoming increasingly apparent that UAP may not originate from Russia or China, as suggested within the UAP Preliminary Assessment of June 2021.
In February 2022, the Washington Post reported that a Russian drone shot down by Ukrainian forces was composed of technology “manufactured by a half-dozen Western companies.”
Investigator Damien Spleeters, of the Conflict Armament Research (CAR) group, commented to the Washington Post that without these parts, Russia would have found it, “much more difficult to produce and operate the drones for sure.”
This comes as no surprise to the U.S., whose DOD and the intelligence community have accurately predicted developments regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Speaking to Liberation Times, the source from within the DOD commented:
“Mr. Elizondo has previously stated that nobody in the Pentagon truly believed this was Russian or Chinese technology. This statement is exemplified with the on-going crisis in Ukraine. Russian UAVs have been easily neutrilized by Ukraine forces. We simply are not seeing any massive leaps in Russian UAV technologies.
Alternatively, Ukraine has been utilizing Turkish TB2 UAVs to inflict serious damage on Russian forces. This on-going display provides additional evidence that the technologies displayed by some UAP are not capabilities within the Russian arsenal.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine highlighted just how accurate and aware the US Intelligence Community is, there have been no surprises. Russia and China simply do not have anything in their arsenals with the same, or similar, capabilities as some of the UAP we have seen.”
A crashed Russian ‘kamikaze’ drone - the type which has experienced detonation issues whilst deployed in Ukraine.
Congressman Tim Burchett agrees with the assessment that UAP may not reflect Russian technology, stating:
“If UAPs were Russian technology, Vladimir Putin would have used them against us already.”
Investigating the topic further, as to whether UAP could reflect adversarial technology, Liberation Times spoke with an aviation expert who works within the defence industry, who made the following comments to us:
“There have been many suggestions that UAP sightings are caused by foreign adversary systems from China, Russia, or others such as Iran.
The UAPTF report mentioned that as one of the possible explanations. But if we focus on the 18 incidents where the UAPTF stated that UAP demonstrated advanced technology such as high speed with no discernable means of propulsion, I have a very hard time assigning those encounters to foreign adversaries.
They just don’t have the technology. Consider Russia’s drones over Ukraine. It’s been reported that the electronics of the captured drones use parts mostly built by Western companies. I don’t know anyone that’s been impressed by Russia’s technology in this war.
So I rule out Russia. Could it be China?
China has leapfrogged Russia in technology and it’s becoming a major player in the hypersonic missile arena. But hypersonic missiles have very discernible means of propulsion, cannot remain stationary in high winds, and so on.
As for other technology, China still licenses and/or outright buys its jet engines from Russia. And I would bet those engines use Western parts like their drones. So I don’t think it’s China either.
The two public scenarios that are most pushed as drones are the west coast events where UAP followed our ships for several days and the east coast events where our pilots reported UAP while training offshore between north Florida and Virginia. Let’s ignore the technology and focus on the events. How were these ‘drones’ deployed so close to the US without being detected?
The west coast ‘drones’ were deployed near a group of ships with advanced radar and other sensors. The east coast ‘drones’ were in heavily monitored restricted airspace where exercises were being conducted by F-18 squadrons. If they had been launched from a disguised cargo ship, they would have been detected. Perhaps from a submarine-like a cruise missile inside a torpedo tube?
Or better, a submarine with special vertical launch tubes?
It would have been detected either way when it got in the air.
And what about recovery? If they landed back on the cargo ship or parachuted down to the water to be recovered by a submarine, they could have been traced back to the launch platform. If they just sank, some would have been found.
I can go on and on. The logic for foreign adversary systems just doesn’t make sense. Cynics will say our government is lying to protect them from the embarrassment of foreign systems penetrating our airspace.
To them, I say look at Ukraine. Russia is in a very tough fight right now.
Would they not use these high-tech systems to give themselves an edge? Would China not secretly lend Russia some of their systems to test them in battle?
I think we need to look somewhere else and I’m not going to entertain the notion that they belong to us. That would mean secretly testing technology against our own sailors and pilots, causing near misses, and participating in a conspiracy to lie to Congress.”
Liberation Times will be sure to keep on top of events as they transpire in the coming weeks and months, as the U.S. organizes its UAP effort amidst increasing signs that UAP does not have a possible prosaic explanation.
Love our content and wish to support the website?
You can now become a Patron: Liberation Times | Patreon