Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some more UFO stuff
Quote:Of all the year's political drama, the most surprising may be the U.S. government's actions on unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAPs ― better known as UFOs.

The opening act came in June, when the Pentagon and the director of national intelligence delivered an astonishing report to Congress addressing UAPs. Most of these phenomena turn out to have prosaic explanations ― such as weather balloons, space debris and atmospheric effects in the sky ― with a small percentage exhibiting unusual flight characteristics that suggest advanced technology.

The June report, however, found the opposite: It could account for only one of the 144 UAP sightings between 2004 and 2021 that it examined, including 80 observed with multiple sensors such as high-tech military radar and infrared cameras mounted on warplanes.

Take one of the most memorable sightings, caught on infrared camera in 2004. Navy pilots flying from the USS Nimitz spotted a 40-foot white object resembling a Tic Tac mint levitating erratically above the waters off the California coast. As the pilots approached, the Tic Tac ― despite lacking wings or any sign of propulsion ― rose to meet them midair before speeding instantly away, vanishing. The report did not conclude what the Tic Tac or any other UAPs are, and it could not attribute them to secret technology developed by the U.S. or any adversaries.

Now Congress wants answers. In November, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., authored legislation creating an office to study UAPs governmentwide and report to Congress. Then the Defense Department tried to stake its claim to the issue, shortly after announcing the formation of its own UAP unit. Its team would investigate only UAPs spotted in sensitive military airspace, and it would operate without congressional supervision. Some criticized the half-measure as a preemptive ploy to avert oversight, though the Pentagon denies those claims.

But Gillibrand and a bipartisan bloc of lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., were not deterred. They steered legislation through Congress ― attached as an amendment to the annual defense bill, sent to President Joe Biden's desk Wednesday to be signed into law ― that establishes a new office to study UAPs. The amendment also requires unclassified reports on UAPs delivered to Congress each year, as well as semiannual classified briefings to legislators.

The move represents the most significant public progress yet to understand UAPs. For all its dysfunction, only Congress has the institutional power and legitimacy to lead this conversation.

UAPs intersect with topics as wide-ranging as aerospace technology, national security and potential health effects on individuals exposed to these craft. No single agency has the multidisciplinary know-how or legal authority to tackle all these questions. For example, the Pentagon unit's intended focus on military airspace would ignore the Federal Aviation Administration and civilian flight safety.

A comprehensive strategy from Congress is needed. The office created by the Gillibrand amendment accordingly will take a broad approach by investigating UAPs across jurisdictional lines, prioritizing areas of scientific study and requiring various agencies to collaborate ― not only the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration but also the Energy Department, intelligence community, NASA and others.

It will develop a science plan to investigate striking physical characteristics of UAPs (like their speed) and potentially replicate any advanced UAP technologies. And the new office will seek to understand the global nature of these phenomena, directing outreach to foreign allies.

In particular, the office will analyze whether UAPs represent foreign adversarial technology or otherwise pose a threat. That should be its top priority. The June report stated that UAPs, in addition to representing a flight safety hazard, "may pose a challenge to U.S. national security." Given the regular sightings in military airspace ― and the apparent connection between UAPs and nuclear technology ― national security concerns are paramount.

In setting up this office, Congress has legitimized the long-ridiculed topic of UAPs. Yet its work does not end there. It must ensure that the office receives adequate funding and make clear that the office should be led by a civilian director with the expertise necessary to tackle these issues and cut through the Pentagon's red tape.

Of course, the perspectives of defense and intelligence officials will be crucial. But the Pentagon has a long history of obfuscating work relating to UAPs, whereas Congress can promote transparency. Once the office has delivered its first unclassified report, Congress should hold public hearings to discuss its findings.

Now that legislators have marshaled action on UAPs, they need to make sure the new office does not become shrouded in secrecy.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article...=operanews
Reply
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-sec...rm-mystery
Quote:The Navy has a perplexing mystery on its hands. For several weeks in 2019, unknown objects stalked U.S. warships off the coast of southern California. While the bizarre “drone” encounters remain unsolved, the incidents occurred in an area with a long history of UFO sightings, including two of the most credible encounters on record.
According to documents reviewed by The Drive, the first reports of unidentified objects hovering and flying near Navy vessels sparked a sweeping, high-level investigation. The Navy, working with the FBI and Coast Guard, now appears to have ruled out civilian activity or U.S. military operations as plausible explanations for the encounters. This leaves two possibilities, each with extraordinary implications.
Either a foreign adversary is spying on Navy ships around the Channel Islands (which lie just west of Los Angeles and San Diego), or devices of truly unknown origin are operating with impunity around U.S. (and allied) vessels.

The implications of a foreign power deploying drones to spy on American warships just off the California coast are immense. For starters, this scenario suggests a monumental U.S. counterintelligence failure. 
Moreover, such a brazen and technically complex intelligence operation amounts to an enormous gamble for a hostile nation. Any shoot-down – as the Navy reportedly attempted – of a foreign surveillance drone so close to U.S. shores would invite sweeping geopolitical repercussions.
Importantly, if the UFOs that stalked the Navy warships were part of an adversarial intelligence collection effort, the objects’ operators made little effort to conceal their presence. Videos taken aboard one U.S. vessel show the mysterious craft displaying bright and flashing lights. At the same time, Navy radar operators tracked the objects with apparent ease, even expressing surprise as the craft engaged in anomalous maneuvers. In another video, a spherical object (which has noteworthy parallels to UFOs observed by fighter pilots off the U.S. east coast) appears to descend slowly into the ocean.
To be sure, investigators and intelligence analysts must take seriously the possibility that a foreign power is spying on U.S. warships a stone’s throw from two major American cities. But based on what is known publicly about these bizarre incidents, investigators should also consider the long history of UFO sightings around the Channel Islands. Decades of anecdotal reports are bolstered by two of the most credible encounters on record.
In a notable 2004 incident, air controllers aboard a Navy guided missile cruiser watched as mysterious radar tracks suddenly appeared around San Clemente Island.

The radar operators grew increasingly uneasy as the UFOs moved south at bizarrely slow speeds. With U.S. planes slated to conduct an air defense exercise in the same area as the unknown objects, controllers directed two F/A-18 fighter jets to investigate the nearest radar contact. 
As the jets approached, all four aviators aboard the two-seat fighters observed a “Tic Tac”-shaped craft hovering and moving in extraordinary ways just above the surface of the ocean. The object, which had no discernible engines, rotors, wings or other control surfaces, then mirrored the maneuvers of the lead fighter jet before accelerating instantaneously out of sight.
After descending tens of thousands of feet in less than a second, the object reappeared on radar 60 miles away, implying unimaginably fast velocities and g-forces. Most perplexingly, the UFO appeared at a pre-determined rendezvous point known only to the aircrew and radar operators. 
U.S. intelligence analyses ruled out highly advanced Chinese or Russian aircraft as plausible explanations for the bizarre encounter. For their part, the four aviators who observed the object believe that it was “not from this world.” 
A half century earlier, one of the most talented and prolific aeronautical engineers in history observed a UFO over the Channel Islands. His account is corroborated by four of America’s most experienced test pilots and aerospace engineers.

Among many noteworthy contributions to American aviation, Clarence “Kelly” Johnson designed the legendary U-2 and SR-71 spy planes as the first head of Lockheed Martin’s famed “Skunk Works” division. On Dec. 16, 1953, Johnson and his wife watched as a UFO with no apparent control surfaces or engines hovered for several minutes in the vicinity of Santa Cruz Island. The object then accelerated rapidly out of sight.
Unknown to Johnson, a Lockheed flight test crew, which included the company’s chief aerodynamics engineer, chief flight test engineer and two highly experienced test pilots, observed the same object while flying northwest along the Los Angeles coastline.
Unsurprisingly, Johnson and the flight crew’s descriptions of the incident are meticulously detailed. Most importantly, Lockheed’s engineers and pilots explicitly ruled out a cloud formation as a plausible explanation for the incident. 
Nonetheless, the Air Force, freshly charged with discrediting and “debunking” all UFO sightings, concluded that five of America’s most credible observers were fooled by a small cloud.
Largely unknown in aviation history, Johnson was a firm believer in the existence of “flying saucers.” In a letter informing the Air Force of the Channel Islands encounter (and another UFO sighting two years earlier), Johnson writes that the incidents left him “more firmly convinced than ever that such devices exist.” According to Johnson, the 1953 encounter helped him win “some highly technical converts in this belief.”
Importantly, the Lockheed engineers’ and pilots’ descriptions of the December 1953 incident refer to another credible sighting over the Channel Islands. In 1951, one of the company’s top test pilots, Roy Wimmer, “sighted some lights over Catalina [Island]” that reportedly “stood still for a while and moved around” before disappearing. The parallels to the movement of the “drones” that recently followed U.S. warships are noteworthy.

A decade after the Lockheed encounters of the 1950s, a Navy photographer captured video of a UFO moving slowly over Catalina Island. Digitally enhanced footage shows that the object appears to lack control surfaces or obvious means of propulsion, bearing an intriguing resemblance to the strange craft observed by naval aviators in 2004.  
Now, with Congress forcing the government to take the UFO phenomenon seriously for the first time, investigators must consider whether the objects that followed Navy warships are linked to the long history of inexplicable – yet highly credible – encounters in the waters off southern California.
Reply


Reply


Reply


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)