As most of you know, my interests in recent years have broadened – from political assassination to a range of national security topics. Those topics include threat and warnings intelligence, national command and control systems (how they work; how they don’t) and the study of both American and Russian covert action as reflected in  both deniable political warfare and regime change.

It might have surprised some to see me do a book – Unidentified – on the subject of UFO’s, but if you have read it you will know that the book’s theme was national security and the application of threat and warnings intelligence methods to several decades of the UFO experience, beginning during World War II.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069289229X/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

I had worked on and anticipated an update to Unidentified, a second edition, which would have been out this year. But what has become increasingly clear is that the work I was doing and the new copy that was generated was literally becoming outdated, month by month.

First it was the discovery that there had been a contemporary program within the Defense Intelligence Agency to explore certain aspects of unconventional and anomalous aerial objects, including the technical exploration of some highly theoretical physics which might explain observed flight characteristics and propulsion.

Then there were ongoing revelations about incidents occurring in restricted Navy test areas on both the west and east coasts of the United States, and even more striking incidents involving ongoing intrusions of unknown objects during maneuvers and training routines involving our most advanced Navy nuclear carrier strike groups. As time went on (months only) it became clear that those were not just isolated incidents but in some instances repetitive intrusions occurring over hours, days and even weeks.

Now if you have read Unidentified you will recall that such waves of intrusions are really noting new; it’s just that in earlier decades they occurred over atomic materials production plants, then atomic weapons construction sites, then atomic weapons storage sites and finally over Air Force ICBM sites and SAC bases.  For that matter, the experiences being related by Navy pilots are not unlike a wave of interceptor encounters which observed all along the strategic northeast corridor from Boston down to Washington DC and the huge Navy base at Norfolk, Virginia in 1952.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Station_Norfolk

That wave of reports, including a series of incidents over Washington DC, was serious enough to get President Eisenhower to call a secret meeting on “Defense of the Capital” and hand off the problem (since the Air Force couldn’t give him the answers he wanted) to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Unfortunately that sort of historical context is totally missing from the current interviews with the Navy pilots and from all the media reporting. Yet the only thing that has really changed since 1952 is that today’s pilots have the benefit of both ship based and airborne phase array radar as well as infrared tracking systems which literally allow them to track and record data in a manner not at all possible during earlier years.

The tracking and data collection in these Navy incidents is so comprehensive that it’s literally impossible to ignore that actual objects of some sort are repeatedly appearing, and to some extent engaging, with Navy interceptors. Of course as the Navy pilots themselves observe, it’s not really an engagement given the dramatic difference in flight capabilities demonstrated by the UFO’s. The same flight characteristics that have been reported – but never captured and recorded on a variety of tracking devices  as in the current incidents.

In fact it’s so obvious, and of such concern, that the Navy is in the process of issuing its own new directives for the reporting of UFO incidents. What the Air Force or other elements of the national intelligence community is doing – if anything – is totally unknown. There is also no discussion of whether or not similar intrusions are occurring over any other segments of the national security/defense complex.

You can read more about what’s going on now below – and appreciate why a second edition of Unidentified a work in progress as I struggle to extend it into the 21st Century.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28231/multiple-f-a-18-pilots-disclose-recent-ufos-encounters-new-radar-tech-key-in-detection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGZWs738eu4&fbclid=IwAR336-b6r9zSAOqM-mu_JOZMVsN6NYOLRCLVzQB-S-yoOVzdfODQvi8X7w0

I’ll offer a few thoughts to bridge the gap – and to comment on certain questions I’ve received – in a follow-on post.

4 responses »

  1. AnthonyM says:

    Yes, it is quite noticeable how many very high quality cases (historically) have occurred around locations that are of strategic interest or around military assets involved in strategically significant activity. In some ways these remind me of the USS Gyatt case in 1964 which is one of the cases (in terms of the best evidence base) on record and also involved tests of new radar equipment.

    In terms of these recent (2004 onwards) navy cases it is a shame that we don’t have the full data from the various sensors. Apart from the FLIR videos they are not much more than multiple witness visual cases at the moment.

    If I understand it correctly (and I may very well not…) modern equipment can tell the analyst quite a lot about an object so it will be interesting to see if that sort of data fuller sensor data ever gets declassified even when the equipment are museum pieces – suspect it won’t (following Peter Dale Scott’s negative template here).

    On another matter – thanks for your tribute to Ian Griggs – I didn’t know him but it has prompted me to read some of his work. I don’t suppose you or another reader would know if his 1996 paper on Captain Westbooke is available online anywhere? If memory serves it was titled ‘Just Another Day at the Office’ or words to that effect?

    Thanks

    Anthony

  2. larryjoe2 says:

    While we don’t have the original data from any of the Navy incidents – other than two short segments of separate gun camera photos (which do give us both visual light and infrared light frequency signatures) we also have the observations from multiple radar operators – both ship based and airborne. Which tells us that whatever the objects are they reflect light, appear to emit light, emit a heat signature and reflect radio waves – which is far and above the type of data we have ever had historically. Bottom line, its hard not to accept them as physical objects and not atmospheric or astronomical phenomena.

    One of the reasons we will never get the original instrumented data is that it was collected on our most highly advanced integrated tracking systems, a system that can take multiple inputs and essentially plot maneuvers from sea level to well over 50,000 feet – releasing the data would compromise the capabilities of that system, and that is not going to happen.

    What is a bit shocking though is how far off base much of the scientific commentary I see in the media is in terms of suggesting that what was being tracked were our own advanced devices, some sort of drone most likely. It appears the scientists have not really evaluated the technical data on acceleration, deceleration nor the g loads of the maneuvers. All of which are orders of magnitude beyond the structural limits of an unmanned device, at least one in “flight” using anything but some sort of totally novel propulsion. I would have expected scientific commentators to have at least read the technical analysis. I think I have posted the extended SCU (Scientific Coalition of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) study on on incident but if not here is the link:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgURI1Fzrkij3utVvcPISGTyEUNX4Z0J/view

    I would also have expected they to at least inquire into another point, that being these contemporary events show flight profiles and capabilities quite similar to those reported in the incidents of the 1950’s….when the objects could clearly could not have been our technology or aircraft.

    Its also interesting to note that when some of our most capable interceptors tried to engage in the current incidents they were no more successful than the F-102 or F-106 aircraft of the 1950’s. Whatever these objects are they are as far beyond our own deployed aircraft in 2015 as they were in 1955.

    On Ian Griggs and your question, the good news is that his work is indeed still available and your can find his extended study of Captain Westbrook in the DPUK journal, posted on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website:

    https://www.mff3beta.org/showDoc.html?docId=48691#relPageId=14&tab=page

    • AnthonyM says:

      Thanks for the link – that really does show the limits of search engines!

      Totally agree that it would be completely innappropriate for the sensor data to be made public at the moment (probably even in the 2004 Nimitiz case). Twenty years from now, or perhaps sooner in terms of the Nimitiz case that logic may look different however. I was just thinking aloud that, if you can extract as much information about the target from this modern equipment as some people say you can then, when that equipment is out of date, it might be an interesting test as to if it gets released or not (as it looks like the data was collected and retained, with the FLIR videos being released). I’m not holding my breath.

      A parallel would be to the Joannides files, for example.

  3. larryjoe2 says:

    Good point Anthony, and I think your comment on the Joannides files may be relevant in another context. The instrumented data in the more contemporary Navy incidents may well be sufficient enough to establish the objects as “alien” as compared to simply “foreign”. That in itself would solve nothing but it would force the issue of public disclosure on the point and raise issues about how long such knowledge might have been withheld.

    The Joannides files may do nothing more than reveal that the CIA was very much aware of Oswald via the DRE, and that it withheld data on him from the Warren Commission, the HSCA etc. Which even at this late date would raise credibility issues with the Agency and its wiliness to deceive the public – or at least to withhold key information from Congress and other government bodies.

    Neither of those revelations would be totally shocking at this point, nor necessarily “evil”, but either would be embarrassing and tie up both people and resources with making explanations. There’s a fundamental tendency to want to avoid such disclosures, regardless – just to avoid dealing with the issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s