The House Intelligence Committee will hold the first open hearing on UFOs in more than 50 years.
The hearing scheduled for next Tuesday is overdue.
For just one example as to why public awareness of this topic is important, the Washington Examiner has seen compelling evidence that the Space Force is undertaking quiet work in support of the government’s UFO research. That doesn’t mean UFOs are aliens. But something very significant is going on.
This hearing is a blow to the Pentagon bureaucracy, which had hoped to keep the UFO issue out of the public gaze. But as Bryan Bender reported last week, Congress has become increasingly agitated by the Pentagon’s failure to undertake a more comprehensive approach to the UFO issue. Described inside the government as “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs),” UFOs have seen greater public attention in recent years following the release of videos recorded by Navy aircraft showing these objects.
Last June, the former head of the Pentagon’s UFO research program, Luis Elizondo, told the Washington Examiner that the government is actively considering whether these UFOs have an extraterrestrial origin. Last November, the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines confirmed that this hypothesis is under consideration.
But what’s motivating Congress to take public action is its access to a larger portfolio of imagery, data, and military witness testimony that has yet to be released to the public.
Some facts are clear. For one, most UFOs are misidentified aircraft or balloons, weather events, classified foreign/U.S. military apparatuses, or the product of creative imaginations. A small but significant number of UFOs, however, appear (both visually and by sensor platforms such as radar and sonar) to be intelligently controlled vehicles of exceptionally advanced technical capability.
Members of the Congress on the Intelligence and Armed Services committees have seen some of the imagery and data involving these exceptional UFOs. These briefings show UFOs with performance characteristics to include instantaneous hypersonic acceleration, ease of travel between air, water, and space, and the ability for active concealment. These UFOs do not appear to have conventional flight surfaces or obvious propulsion systems. Newer information on these UFOs comports with military witnesses and some radar returns recorded since World War II.
Perhaps most important of all, these most exceptional UFOs are not secret U.S. military vehicles. While a Senate-mandated report last summer put these exceptional UFOs into an “other” bin of unidentified nature, the U.S. intelligence community has no evidence to suggest that they belong to China, Russia, or another foreign state or nonstate actor. They are simply too advanced and too unconventional in their behavior patterns.
Next week’s hearings will include Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie (whose department has had some recent UFO-related issues) and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray. This is an opportunity for Congress to begin asking hard questions under oath. Here are five suggestions that would cover key areas of concern.
1) Will you commit that the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group is granted access to all classified programs and contracts as its officers request?
The ludicrously named Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group was designed as the Pentagon’s effort to get ahead of congressional action that mandated its more comprehensive research of UFOs.
Yet, if Congress keeps up the pressure on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which has supervisory authority for the Pentagon’s research efforts, it can ensure that AOIMSG has the authority, direction, and resourcing to be effective. A critical element of this effectiveness will be determined by AOISMG’s ability to access highly classified Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs that bear relevance to the UFO subject. This must include efficient access to classified contractor programs outside of the day-to-day supervision of the U.S. government. If Moultrie and Bray cannot commit to this access, Congress will know it must take further legislative action in that pursuit.
2) Does the Department of the Air Force retain data indicative of UAPs operating in space or Earth orbit? Will you commit to better collating such data?
A 1971 treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, which continues to be referenced in Space Force guidance, includes an explicit requirement that both sides report the detection of UFOs entering orbit. The intent was to prevent the risk of a UFO, a deorbiting spy satellite or otherwise, being perceived as a surprise nuclear attack. That said, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the Space Force is undertaking efforts to monitor UFOs in space. As new sensor systems such as the Hypersonic Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (seen in the article’s header photo) and the six satellites of the Space Surveillance Network come online, the U.S. will have an unprecedented detection capability in space.
But complications remain.
Two sources have told me that one challenge with UFOs in space is that they tend to be detected in short windows of infrared spikes at exceptionally high speeds, then disappear. Congress should thus ensure that the Department of the Air Force is coordinating sensor data sharing and recording between both its Space Force and Air Force sensor assets across the range of space-Earth orbit-atmosphere. Evinced by the relative dearth of formal UFO reports by its aircrews, the Air Force has been far more reticent than the Navy to address the UFO subject. Whether the space-related information is receiving appropriate analysis is also unclear.
3) Is there a correlation between recordings of UFOs and U.S. nuclear assets?
The answer to this question is yes. That correlation is long documented, most notably by Robert Hastings. Nevertheless, numerous (more than five) active and former government and military sources tell me that UFOs pay close, overt attention to nuclear aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines (the Navy takes pilot and surface reports seriously but is reticent to address submarine-related events). Witness reporting from nuclear sites across the globe lends credence to this theory.
Highly trained Air Force and Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile officers have also reported UFOs appearing over their missile sites and the ensuing interference with their launch systems. I understand, and semi-independent Chinese media would suggest, that the Chinese military has seen a five-year uptick in “other” bin UFO sightings near its own strategic forces.
If we take these reports as credible, we should want to find out how UFOs can so easily detect nuclear forces. Regardless of any other concern, we need to know how these UFOs can effectively detect and intercept all U.S. nuclear deterrent forces with impunity. That capability, after all, could make impotent the U.S. nuclear deterrent. If China or Russia figure out how to replicate this technology, the U.S. has a problem.
Over the past two years, I have reached out to numerous nuclear physicists to ask how they might conceive of a highly advanced means of detecting nuclear signatures at range. Anti-neutrino detection at extremely long range (thousands of kilometers) is seen by one globally leading academic as possible, but it would require an extremely advanced and sensitive detection platform. The academic insists it does not yet exist. Interestingly, reflecting the broad stigma involved in this issue, all academics I spoke to asked not to be named.
4) Do your intelligence analysts have any leading theories as to how UFOs operate? Is gravity manipulation one theory under consideration?
The acceleration and maneuver characteristics that some UFOs display would be expected to produce G-force pressures on their vehicles ranging into the hundreds. This should rip the vehicles apart. But that doesn’t occur. In the context of UFO-related sensor data that show aberrant returns based on a UFO’s speed and distance from the sensor platform, and military eyewitness reports that suggest zig-zag distorted movement, some analysts believe UFOs operate by manipulating gravity fields around their vehicles. This may sound like a crazy question to ask, but the officials can’t, without lying, deny that this theory is under consideration.
5) Will you pledge to release reports on the study of exotic material related to UFOs?
I have been unable to corroborate sources who have told me that the U.S. government or its contractees have possession of verified UFO materials. But we do know that the U.S. government has access to purported UFO materials.
The Army, for example, has a cooperative research agreement involving metamaterials reportedly recovered from UFO debris. The agreement was signed with To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences, a research-turned-entertainment group formed by Tom DeLonge. The group previously included two former U.S. intelligence officials, Luis Elizondo and Chris Mellon. In January, the Army told me that “since the beginning of the CRADA, we’ve successfully executed some tests, and those details and results, if releasable upon conclusion of the CRADA, will be available then.” The CRADA study runs to October 2023. Perhaps Moultrie and Bray can shed more light on this issue.
Top line: We don’t know what the most extraordinary “other” bin UFOs are, who or what is operating them, what their intentions might be, or how they operate. Maybe they are many different things with many different origins and intentions. Regardless, science demands we find out. This is no longer the early Cold War. The public can handle this subject with the seriousness it deserves. So also does our national security demand as much. Again, if another nation figures out how to replicate the way these most extraordinary UFOs operate before the U.S. does, we’ll have a problem.
