This week is seeing the first Congressional hearings on UFO’s/UAP’s in decades. If you have missed what is going on the following story gives a good overview:

My personal concern is that there was not sufficient focus on the UAP’s as a national security issue, rather than as simply unidentified objects. As an example, the hearings did produce an acknowledgement that large drone swarms (unidentified) operated around and essentially engaged U.S. Navy units – I would have expected that to produce a lot of interest but it appears to have passed by without much notice or concern (actually I would expect that to bring people on a national security/intelligence committee off their seats).

While much attention was given to more or less contemporary Navy pilot reports, other incidents very much related to national security didn’t even get a mention – as an example, the Air Force and NORAD’s performance in the following incident should really have been something of a concern for this committee:

What also seems clear is that the broader historical context of UFO’s/UAP’s is missing from the conversation – even the portions that deal with national security, such as the well known “northern tier” Strategic Air Command base incidents including incidents at Loring AFB. You can read about below but which the officers interviewed by the committee stated that reports at atomic weapons bases were totally new to them?!

In any event, for those readers who would like an introduction to the subject, the following link will take you to a recent interview of mine which is a general exploration of the subject; it would serve as a good backgrounder if you’ve never paid that much attention to either UFOs (unidentified objects) or UAP’s (unidentified phenomena).

12 responses »

  1. Michael Briggs says:

    Would love to know what was discussed in the classified session that followed after the rather dry-as-dust discussion in open session.

    • larryjoe2 says:

      I suspect that session will surface some of the obvious security concerns that sort of slid past in open session – I also can’t help but wonder if someone will bring up why the Air Force seems missing in action – NORAD, NORCOM – as well as Homeland Security.

      Beyond that I’m guessing there will be questions about why we can’t track these things or perhaps we can and are not saying so, there is acute military concern about exposing our sensing and tracking capabilities.

  2. John F Davies says:

    Interesting that the Pentagon is getting more serious about UFOs. It might be the increasing sophistication in drone technology that’s behind this change of policy. The possibility exists that these objects could be long range reconnaissance platforms from foreign agencies. A not too outrageous possibility.

    I also have here a link to an article from 12 years ago concerning a UFO incident that occurred in 1982 over a Soviet missile site.

    I’d like to ask if you yourself know of any UFO incidents that occurred over Russian or Chinese military facilities. From the documentation I’ve found, it appears that they too had exactly the same response as we had, and shared the same concerns.

    Personal Note: Years ago, during a function at the Marine’s Memorial in San Francisco I had the opportunity to meet with a retired Air Force Colonel who had been assigned to Project Bluebook. We had an interesting conversation, and he pointed out the many ways people mistook commonplace events for UFOS, much of it influenced by the media.
    However, he did confess that there was a small percentage of sightings that could not be explained, and even he after these many years still harbored questions about them.

  3. larryjoe2 says:

    Unfortunately I’m just not comfortable with the Russian atomic missile site stories (the same way I’m not comfortable with some of some of the more sensational US ICBM stories). The Russian stories are just to anecdotal and frankly too sensational for me to accept without a lot more corroboration.

    In contrast there are a number of military aircraft encounters from around the globe that seem to me to be quite solid, and I think they give us a much better story in regard to UFO activity and engagements.

    Having said that I would recommend Clear Intent by Fawcett and Greenwood or Faded Giant by Salas and Klotz for a much more reliable account of what has been going on with UFO’s and ICBMs.

    In regard to the Air Force the best thing to keep in mind is that over its project tenure the Air Force took in some 12,000 UFO reports and ended up with some 2,000 that they could not identify or offer some possible explanation.

    Of course my favorite is the one case that the Condon committee studied and stated that the only explanation was some phenomena that had never happened before and could not be predicted to occur again…

    report that I’m comfortable with

  4. AnthonyM says:

    Good luck with your ongoing work both on this and JFK.
    There’s a thesis in it for some historian, in due course, in understanding how this particular can of worms has been opened up again. The tricky thing is that most reports have insufficient information to rule out all potential sources of misidentification (or can be shown to be misidentifications or occasionally hoaxes). Even most of the BB unknowns, in my view, should really have been ‘insufficient information’.
    There are a few dozen or so cases from that dataset that I would argue do meet that standard, but then what…
    To go from an ‘unknown’ to a positive identification requires a hypothesis that can be tested as to exactly how an alien vehicle / time traveller/ paranormal phenomena/ new natural phenomena (delete as appropriate) might operate.
    That is hard to do and the best ideas (e.g. space time modification as per Paul Hill or Hal Puthoff etc) don’t seem to have much definitive evidence for them in the empirical data on this small subset of ultra-high reliability cases, from what I’ve seen. So it’s very hard to make progress in that direction, but we can be reasonably sure the new DoD group should be able to come up with some credible evidence that some of the sightings being reported are misidentifications of varying sorts. Many of the Navy reports sound very drone like and a few balloon like, but by no means all.
    Well, good luck with it all…you do have a track record of taking things further than anyone could have reasonably expected and I hope you can do it again.

  5. larryjoe2 says:

    We may have discussed this but I don’t recall if you have already read my book “Unidentified / The National Security Problem Of UFOs”?

    The problem as I see it – for the original Air Force studies and now for what appear to be largely a Navy study (the Hearing gave us no clue as to the actual report collections process, the personnel involved or the resources used for investigation and analysis) – no mention was made of participation by the other services, by Homeland Security or for that matter any service specific intelligence group – is that the investigation continues to be on a case by case basis. And as Hynek said decades ago, there will also be some explanation possible for even the most anomalous cases (one of my favorites is a case that the Condon committee assigned to an unknown natural phenomena, one never observed before or after the incident).

    The approach I take in the book and with the team project I’m working on now is something totally different, focused on the atomic warfare complex, a long historical baseline, pattern analysis and when possible statistical analysis. Its a technique derived from threat and warnings intelligence and simply produces an estimate of the situation, no absolute answers (given that its not science, its intelligence work) – but one that is most definitely not the incident by incident approach we continue to see.

    • AnthonyM says:

      Yes I enjoyed Unidentified and would recommend it. I had hesitated to get it as I was already reasonably familiar with the subject but you brought out a very interesting perspective.
      The challenge with a statistical approach is to be sure we are dealing with a signal and not the noise, but I would agree that the indications analysis approach offers potential insights if the dataset is secure enough. In the absence of testable hypotheses it may well be the best approach to moving it forward and generating insights that might lead to specific hypotheses.
      Best wishes to you and the team.

  6. larryjoe2 says:

    Thanks Anthony, just to give a bit of insight into our team’s approach, we began by taking the better part of two years to set up a database largely built around the Blue Book Unidentified list but with some additions (particularly in regard to atomic sites in the years beyond Blue Book). The database has something like 2.000 reports. Then we moved on to selecting study sites and a mix of military and civilian controls for each. All in all we are studying some 75 sites related to the atomic warfare complex and the study is primarily one of anomalous activity pattern identification. There are a few instances where the numbers are right to do statistics but our focus is primarily on pattern studies.

    At this point the pattern studies have demonstrated certain types of anomalous activities at the atomic warfare complex sites and bases and we are now combining that with select case studies to move into matching a list of activity indicators against multiple scenarios. The end result, as in all intentions studies, will be a probability ranking and estimate of the situation – no hard conclusion, simply an estimate based on what will have been some three years or more of slogging.

    We have published some preliminary articles in the SCU Review and will be presenting an overview of our work today at next week’s SCU conference but it will be some time before we can publish a peer reviewed pattern analysis paper and a good bit longer before we complete anything on the overall intentions study. Still, it is something we do not believe anyone has done in all the decades of attention to UFO’s – and we can certainly use everyone’s good wishes!

  7. Benjamin Cole says:

    Several years back, what sure looked like a missile was harmlessly launched out of the Pacific not far from California. In this age of smartphones, there were images of it.

    The US military said it was not one of theirs, but was only the jet trail of a commercial jet.

    My guess is that it was a Sino sub (due to the timing). Maybe the military knows it, but on the surface it appeared they did not want to believe it, or had a reason to dismiss the incident.

    This reminds me of the massed drones of which you spoke.

    Of course, quiet subs and massed drones are cheap and huge threats to national security should it come to a real war, as are cheap cruise missiles, and who knows what else.

    I get the sense the Pentagon is not only financially invested, but emotionally invested in certain beliefs and weapons systems.

    I am layman on this topic, and happily so—I would be afraid to learn much more.

    • larryjoe2 says:

      Ben, he missile launch incident of a few years back has been fully investigated and proven to have indeed been an incoming airliner coming across the Pacific; the actual aircraft was identified as part of the process and geo-located to the photo.

      The drone swarms are a completely different matter and more worrisome since they have actually been occurring across the US in recent years, with some in the area of our ICBM sites. Individual drones and even unidentified conventional aircraft are also an increasing problem since we shut down much of our domestic air defense network and have a limited number of interceptors – there are now incidents of advanced drones outrunning police helicopters.

      All this really confuses the subject of true and totally unconventional UFOs since they get mixed together in discussions – as in the recent Congressional hearings. Dialog on drones as potential security threats, conventional UFOs as dangers to aircraft and pilots and truly unconventional UAPs really needs to be kept separate.

      The military is seriously concerned about adversary drones and how to deal with them (just look at their impact in Ukraine and most of those are low tech and not swarms). Which explains why some discussions are going to remain classified. Just plain commercial drones and balloons are a navigation and flight threat so you will see that get some attention.

      But as for the historic, unconventional (500 G acceleration to speeds faster than the eye can follow) UFO’s, since they have never proven to be an actual threat and are much more rare, the military would prefer to hand that off to scientific study or just leave it to the private groups such as SCU, Which would be fine except what the military is not going to share is the technical data from the few real UAP incidents given that exposes their sensor technology – and to a large extent that is exactly what is needed to answer the fundamental questions about UAPs.

      Its definitely a Catch 22 situation for us all.

  8. Benjamin Cole says:

    Very good, I will stand corrected on the Sino sub-story (although the threat of a small quiet submarine able to launch a missile remains).

    Drones of all types remain a fascinating story, including possibly cheap drone boats and submarines.

  9. larryjoe2 says:

    The drones really complicate UFO/UAP research, especially given that the majority of reports (unlike in the earliest years) are at night. We are pretty much forced back to pulling just those reports that involve truly unconventional flight performance – which for all we know are only one part of their activity.

    Actually its far easier to filter and study reports from the first three decades when the Air Force was officially collecting and investigating things (at least so some extent). That history gives us something to work with, especially since a great number of the reports were from military and law enforcement who were unlikely to be doing hoaxes.

    Its also helpful that at least for the first five to ten years the majority of reports were daylight and very solid descriptions at relatively close range are available in many of them.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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