Origin Unknown: UFOs Or Drones - In July 2019, U.S Warships Were Harassed And The Pentagon Still Does Not Know Where The Objects Came From
Written by Christopher Sharp - 30 June 2022
Ronald Moultrie, the Department Of Defense’s (DoD) Undersecretary of Intelligence vowed to apply “rigorous scientific analysis” into the origin of UAPs through the Pentagon’s new UAP office, named AOIMSG.
But new testimony regarding a spate of UAP incidents in July 2019 off the coast of California suggests that the Pentagon is comfortable confidently declaring the identification of unknown crafts as drones without rigorously analysing their origin, something one would think is crucial to identification process.
The Pentagon has confirmed that subsequent evaluation by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force resulted in the objects being identified as UAS.”
But the Pentagon confirmed to Liberation Times that it is unable to comment regarding where the objects originated from.
According to sources known to Liberation Times, a cargo vessel named the Bass Strait, which was suspected as being the place of origin, was searched and ruled out as the source of the so-called drones.
One active servicemember, who witnessed the events said: “A determination of drone in hindsight was inaccurate in that the observed craft was not positively identified as such.”
Sources also tell Liberation Times that the objects could not be brought down, despite failed attempts.
Origin: The point or place where something begins, arises or is derived.
In May 2022, before the now-infamous Congressional hearing on UFOs or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), frustrations were boiling over among some leading U.S. politicians.
On 2 May 2022, POLITICO reported that some sponsors of recent UAP legislation were calling for the Pentagon to conduct work to ascertain the origin of the unknown crafts, not just briefings and reports observing their existence.
And at the Congressional hearing itself, Ronald Moultrie, the Department Of Defense’s (DoD) Undersecretary of Intelligence vowed to apply “rigorous scientific analysis” into the origin of UAPs through the Pentagon’s new UAP office, named AOIMSG.
But recent testimony regarding a spate of UAP incidents in July 2019 off the coast of California, reported by the Daily Mail, suggests that the Pentagon is comfortable confidently declaring the identification of unknown crafts as drones without rigorously analysing their origin, something one would think is crucial to identification process.
The Pentagon’s current line on the events, provided to Liberation Times, is as follows:
“The Pentagon has previously confirmed that U.S. Navy ships operating off the West Coast of the United States in July of 2019 encountered numerous unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operating in the vicinity of their operations area. The objects sighted were initially classified as ‘unidentified.’
“As noted in the May 17, 2022 testimony by Navy and DOD officials before the House of Representatives' Intelligence, Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation Subcommittee, subsequent evaluation by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force resulted in the objects being identified as UAS.”
Pentagon documents recently provided to The Drive inferred that the origin of the so-called UAS was a Hong Kong-flagged cargo vessel named the Bass Strait.
However, according to sources known to Liberation Times, the Bass Strait was searched and ruled out as the source of the so-called drones. That the Bass Strait was not responsible would be of no surprise, especially as the harassment of U.S. warships by the unknown objects continued when the vessel was docked at the Port of Long Beach.
New Information Provided About The Categorization Process In July 2019
Documents released to The Drive label the objects drones, UAS and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), which the Pentagon has now confirmed. They may very well be drones. But more questions as to how they were identified as UAS arise when speaking to witnesses of the events.
One active service member who witnessed the objects provided further insight to Liberation Times, regarding how they were labelled and how their unknown origin is a major hole in any narrative presented by DoD, stating:
“The drone categorization is due to a lack of data to categorize any other way. The drone categorization is 1/2 (the other half being origin) of the identification process. Drone was 1 choice on a short list of options based on historical and live observations on the likely characterization of any given contact.
“A determination of drone in hindsight was inaccurate in that the observed craft was not positively identified as such. BUT the light combination, flight characteristics, assessed size and lack of sound (unable to be heard over ship’s noises) provided sufficient data to categorize the craft as drone.
“What is missing? Missing is a determination of origin. This is key to an overall threat assessment in that it provides possible intent of the contact thereby driving the warfighter’s actions.
“The role of the front-line warfighter is to make a rapid assessment of threat/no threat based upon available data. The use of “drone” conveys to the intelligence community an initial assessment within the word. Meaning the warfighter assesses this observation to meet the characteristics of a drone. The further investigation is the responsibility of the intelligence and law enforcement apparatuses thereby adding to the historical assessments repository.”
The Pentagon Cannot Confirm Origin Of The Objects
When asked by Liberation Times to comment on the origin of the objects, a DoD spokesperson confirmed no response could be provided at this time. And it is unknown how the DoD could be certain the objects, which were documented as travelling into and possibly from the ocean, could be drones, such as quadcopters, something referenced within DoD documents.
And the unnerving truth is that not enough information is known. And if these were drones, they certainly did not come from the Bass Strait, according to sources we have spoken to.
Filmmaker and journalist, Jeremy Corbell, who first released slides and videos from the July 2019 events suspects there is a rush to label objects as drones by The Drive, which analysed the DoD documents, instead of objectively assessing the materials and seeking supportive corroboration from witnesses. Speaking to Liberation Times, Corbell commented:
“The report by The Drive is at odds with documents made available to them - as well as the information provided to me by direct witnesses. I have in fact communicated with dozens of sailors, including one on board the USS Russell, who reports having seen one of the objects accelerate instantaneously into the upper atmosphere and out of visual range.
“Reports I’ve obtained, interviews I’ve conducted and testimony I’ve documented on camera affirm that these were not positively identified as conventional drones. Some evidence suggests these units displayed unique flight properties and there were estimated to have been up to 100+ of them conducting a coordinated series of manoeuvres directed at our warships.
“And multiple witnesses have told me that they displayed two of the five observables consistent with unexplainable UFOs not possessed by any technological terrestrial nations that we currently know of: instantaneous acceleration and trans-medium travel.”
What Are The Five Observables Seen In UFOs?
1: Anti Gravity - The means to travel without the apparent means of propulsion or lift.
2: Instantaneous Acceleration - The ability to reach a high rate of speed in a short amount of time.
3: Hypersonic Velocity - A craft’s ability to reach speeds of 3,700 miles per hour.
4: Low Observability - A craft’s ability to conceal itself from any kind of radar.
5: Trans-Medium Travel - A craft’s ability to seamlessly move through space, air and water.
The National Security Ramifications Could Be Significant
If the objects are drones, known to be possessed by an adversary such as China, the DoD is not forthcoming with Congress or the people. But the likelihood (in our opinion) is that those within the Pentagon do not know and simply want the story to disappear, rather than looking for the answers Congress wants.
To Corbell, the ramifications of the July 2019 events are significant and pose issues in terms of democratic oversight and national security. Corbell commented:
“We should not start by asking if such objects are otherworldly - which is the starting basis covered in a conspiracy. These are real-world events occurring all the time. In 2019, unknown drones, which according to witnesses had amazing capabilities harassed our ships.
“Instead of trying to explain single videos in Congress, Pentagon officials just look at the range of incidents that took place in July 2019 and quickly ascertain what the craft was and their origin - this couldn’t be more important: if Chinese, then it’s game over and we are faced with trans-medium technology which could easily defeat the U.S. in a conflict over Taiwan.
“If it’s not Chinese or any other known nation, then we need to assess other options. But let me be clear - we must go where the evidence takes us.”
Last month at the Congressional hearing on the topic of UAP, Scott Bray, Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence commented that he was “reasonably confident” that objects labelled as triangles in slides provided to Jeremy Corbell did “ correlate to unmanned aerial systems in the area”.
Bray also attempted to debunk a video of UAPs filmed from USS Russell at the time of the events (which have now been declared as drones by the Pentagon) released by Corbell. DoD slides (also obtained by Corbell) describe the objects as “triangular in shape from the angle of observation”. Separate sources and documentation informed Corbell that the objects were described as pyramid in shape.
According to Corbell, the materials he released in 2021 undermine Bray’s and The Drive’s suggestions that the mysterious objects have been identified as traditional drones. Sources also tell Liberation Times that the objects could not be brought down, despite failed attempts. Corbell commented:
“We’re talking up to 100+ UAPs/UFOs collectively witnessed over many days harassing U.S. Navy warships, and not one of them was brought down.
Otherwise, I suspect Deputy Director Bray and other leaders would be able to provide Congress and the public with that information. The mystery of these 2019 swarms has only deepened with time.”
It is still officially unclear from any official documentation whether anti-drone technologies brought down any of the objects.
According to Corbell, the U.S. Navy’s standing rules of engagement (known as the triangle of kinetic action) were not completely met concerning the July 2019 incidents. The assessment made, according to Corbell was as follows:
Capability - Unknown
Opportunity - Met
Intent - Unknown
One senior source from a defense contractor spoke to the Liberation Times and Daily Mail to convey his bafflement regarding the events which occurred that month, stating:
“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.”
The source added:
“Chinese drones intent on spying would not announce themselves with flashing lights.”
Other documents released by the Navy describe some of the drones as “quadcopter style UAS”.
But there are multiple accounts of such drones being shot down by civilians using guns. Even at sea in nighttime conditions, such drones have been known to be shot down using guns, which occurred in 2017, when a drone controlled by a Nature Conservation Group encountered poachers on the high seas. Comically, a drone has also previously been caught on video being taken down by a gorilla in a zoo.
Questions linger regarding how the warships could not bring the drones down. Either the U.S. Navy’s counter drone technology does not work as effectively as desired, or these were not conventional quadcopter drones, even by military standards.
The U.S. Navy has previously taken action against drones which fly too close to warships, such as an Iranian drone which was brought down over international waters by the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer in 2019.
The Pentagon documents also describe how, in July 2019, the Guided Missile Cruiser, USS Bunker Hill, tracked one so-called ‘quadcopter style UAS’ at 21,000 ft. The object had hovered over the warships for a prolonged period, but according to the senior defence contractor source, it is doubtful that the object was a traditional commercial drone. The source said:
“Quadcopter-style drones can be modified to fly at altitudes as high as 30,000 feet by increasing the length of the propeller blades and modulating the cycles of the motors to compensate for the lower density.
“But there are limitations. The best quadcopter battery lasts an hour or so. Climbing 4 miles takes time, and once the vehicle reached that altitude it would struggle to maintain a fixed or slow-moving position over the ship as the wind speed increased. Maintaining position under such conditions would increase the energy burn and greatly limit the time on target to just a few minutes, especially considering the quadcopter has to return to its point of origin. In addition, the reports mentioned the vehicle was illuminated, further increasing its power drain.
“The range of the signal must also be taken into account. If the max range of the signal is 7 miles, which is on the high end, the launching vessel would have to be less than 6 miles from the ship being targeted to control a quadcopter 4 miles high. That’s an awful short distance and the vessel would have been easily detected as well as the launch of the quadcopter. The quadcopter could have been pre-programmed to fly from a further location, but that would further diminish its time on target.
“Considering these limitations, I don’t think the illuminated vehicle that hovered 4 miles above the ship for a prolonged period could have been a traditional quadcopter. They just don’t have the range or the staying power. It had to be a much more advanced aircraft.”
Some have pointed toward a hybrid quadcopter, the Skyfront Perimeter Drone as a possible explanation, which can stay airborne for much longer than regular commercial quadcopters. However, the Skyfront model had its first beyond-visual-line-of-sight test in August 2019 and only flew to 400 ft. Furthermore, the hybrids have their own issues and internal combustion engines are noisy, which would have been a clear giveaway to sailors. So the exact technology used remains an unknown so far.
There are many unknowns regarding the July 2019 harassment of U.S. warships. And they all stem from the unknown objects’ unknown origin.
Liberation Times has attempted to contact the Bass Strait’s operator, Pacific Basin Shipping Limited, but no response has been received.
However, Liberation Times did point out to Pacific Basin that its Wikipedia page attributed the ship’s direct involvement in the incidents as fact; shortly after (on 17 June 2022) the page was edited to remove the reference, which was done through an IP address from Hong Kong, where the company’s HQ is located. Since then, reference the Bass Strait’s potential involvement in the events has resurfaced on the page.
Despite the Pentagon’s apparent inability to address the origin of the unknown objects, Congress is more determined than ever to find answers, according to Liberation Times sources.
More hearings are expected to take place, perhaps following new immunity laws, which could feature in the upcoming legislation being drafted, such as the National Defense Authorization Act 2023 (NDAA) or Intelligence Authorization Act 2023 (IAA).
And U.S. defense sources are increasingly optimistic that progress is being made as U.S. military branches look to eradicate any stigma associated with the topic.
A senior intelligence officer, familiar with recent UAP briefings commented to Liberation Times:
"Recent UAP interactions have been put in our path with purpose, and should be looked upon as advantageous opportunities for future research. With every incursion, overflight and potential midair - it has never been more prudent to investigate this UAP phenomenon and deglamorize the UFO stigma through the ranks."
For Corbell, vital questions remain when looking into the case of 2019, which reflects so many other unanswered UAP events and if answers are not forthcoming, the consequences could be devastating. He concludes:
“I don’t care if these were “drones” or true UFOs - pyramids, triangles or even seagulls with lights strapped onto their wings - I want the fundamental question to be answered. Do we know the controllers of these units?
“Because if we don’t, America and many other nations who have experienced the same kind of encounters around the world consistently and recently, are susceptible to attack by an unknown technologically advanced entity that can operate their craft in our restricted airspace with absolute impunity.
“Additionally, if we can’t answer that fundamental question to this day, we are seeing a multi-nation failure of intelligence on the scope and scale that dwarfs our mistakes made surrounding the events of 9/11.”
Even if in this particular case, the objects were drones and not the most exotic form of UAP one can imagine, the case itself still points to fundamental problems which seem to plague many UAP investigations: identifying the origin of such objects.