Adversary Drones (not UFOs) Are Spying On The U.S. Military

originally posted by: Majic
From the source article, for those who may have missed it...

Before I move forward, I must state that just because I believe the evidence is compelling that many of the bizarre encounters with mysterious objects in the sky as of late, and especially those that the U.S. military is experiencing, emanate from peer-state competitors, not another dimension or another solar system, there are certainly well-documented cases of seemingly unexplainable events that have nothing to do with this type of capability.

Thus arguments predicated on assumptions or implications that the author is somehow trying to explain all UFOs/UAP as drones are spectacularly pointless.

Whether a particular case involves drones or not is debatable, and obviously less likely the farther back in history we go, but I hope those of us interested in this possibility won't have to endure an endless series of deflections and distractions from what is actually being discussed on the part of those who are not.

My two cents, YMMV, just sayin'

I wish there was a "praise hands" emoji on this site. Great post.

...and I mean it.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

So Russia and China can come up with super duper UFO technology that the West can't

Not impossible.

But what makes you think the west doesn't have them?

I think the more important point is that super duper UFO technology is not necessary to accomplish what the article describes in explicit detail that absolutely nobody who has read it could possibly miss.

Which hearkens back to my earlier point.

Just as refusing to consider the possibility that UAP can have mundane explanations is self-defeating for "believers" by leading them away from exploring that which is truly mysterious, for military organizations, ignoring the same possibility can be self-defeating a very literal way.

The "conspiracy of silence" around UFOs/UAP has been harmful not only by discouraging the honest reporting of unexplained phenomena by countless witnesses fearful of the very negative consequences of doing so, it is literally setting the U.S. up for the next Pearl Harbor.

Likewise, quasi-religious evangelism regarding UFOs/UAP not only elevates fantasies, misconceptions, hucksterism and hoaxes to undeserved levels of attention and profit, it discredits legitimate research into truly unexplained phenomena and hides the truth behind a smokescreen of nonsense.

As is so often the case, nothing more than simple honesty is required to put an end to such a miserable state of affairs, which is why the mounting costs of its absence are all the more tragic.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: TheGreazel
a reply to: crayzeed

I read some parts of that report about the Tic Tacs From the scientific coalition for ufology , or SCU.

Seems Like the Tic Tacs pull more then 40 G , and noted that even a fighter jet like the JSF can only pull 13.5 G.

If that estimated analysis is true then it does seem like the capabilities are way beyond what mankind can produce.

But all this Hush Hush , leaking stuff without context through Corbell and co , TTSA , why ?

Why need a middle man to get this information out ?

Money is a powerfull motive to sell what ever people will swallow , and there is a market in Ufology , as we learn more about the universe , goldilock planets and stuff like panspermia more and more people will become open to the idea that life could live on other planets.

So the market for those products grows with it.

I haven't made up my mind yet what they could be , i try to keep as neutral to it as possible and consider other options.

Too many False prophets in Ufology have been around for me to fully trust their stories.

Corbell, Knapp, and TTSA havent been "chosen" to have the informaiton "disseminated through"

They are doing investigative journalism and exposing things, that people really dont want exposed. Because the journalism is being done so well, and because they have gotten so many prominent people involved. The government and military cannot deny it anymore. There is no more united front.

I know this is an open public forum but really (Greazel and Lucidparadox) you've obviously gone to the extent of reading some info about this subject and that is your conclusion !

The tic-tac pulled 40g !
Corbell, Knapp and TTSA are doing investigative journalism !
The Govt and military are not presenting a united front !

If people who have spent some time researching / reading and think this then no wonder it's so easy to spin the general population.

a reply to: stealthskater

Funny thing is, the original "drones spying on the military" were green fireballs seen hovering around places like White Sands, back in the 1940s-1950s.

There are many reliable report of "drones" long before we had the technology to make actual drones.

a reply to: chunder

I have no clear opinion or conclusion on the matter , it could still be anything to me.

Government Black projects , Time travellers , ET , Ancient Inhabitants of this planet , extra dimensional beings , or just a plain old psy ops.

Just because i drum up crazy theories , does not mean i believe them.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Really interesting chapter about that in this audiobook ( sorry i cant embedd the vids for some reason )

The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Edward J. RUPPELT

www.youtube.com...

2 hour 50 minutes in.

Really interesting.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: stealthskater

If these objects where either Chinese, Russian or anyone elses, the last thing The U.S. would be doing is admitting that they are flying around spying on American facilities, or putting America to the test.

This would make The U.S. look either stupid or incompetent.

this is an excellent post and may explain a few things....

originally posted by: tjocksteffe
If they are chinese drones then why have I seen (and filmed) red orbs here in Sweden?
And my mother and her brother saw a classic metallic saucer back in the 50ies.

You did not read the rather lengthy article. That us addressed with, "what makes you think everything has a single explanation?"

a reply to: AaarghZombies

There's a thread I wrote a few years ago you should go find. They developed unmanned aircraft before there were actual fixed wing aircraft flying. The first unmanned aircraft were balloons in the late 1800s that were used in a siege in Europe. They weren't anything like we have now, but unmanned aircraft have been around far longer than people think.

But if you actually bothered to read the article, they're only talking about recent reports, such as the destroyer that saw drones flying around it.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: stealthskater

If these objects where either Chinese, Russian or anyone elses, the last thing The U.S. would be doing is admitting that they are flying around spying on American facilities, or putting America to the test.

This would make The U.S. look either stupid or incompetent.

Due to FOIA denial isn't an option , no comment doesn't seem to meet whatever strategy is being played so why not imply they are extra-terrestrial, the general public will neither see that as stupid or incompetent.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AaarghZombies

There's a thread I wrote a few years ago you should go find. They developed unmanned aircraft before there were actual fixed wing aircraft flying. The first unmanned aircraft were balloons in the late 1800s that were used in a siege in Europe. They weren't anything like we have now, but unmanned aircraft have been around far longer than people think.

I think that it's fair to say that in 1950 no country on earth possessed a balloon that could do what the green fireballs over White Sand were doing. For example, outrunning a fighter jet. Turing at right angles at high speed. going from a high speed to hovering in a couple of seconds.

I archived Tyler's essay at www.stealthskater.com... with some additional personal comments. Tyler's and Brett's introductory essays on unidentified UAPs and drones are archived at www.stealthskater.com... .

a reply to: AaarghZombies

The first flight of the B-58 Hustler was 1956. It had a top speed of Mach 2, and would easily outrun a fighter of the time. The technology was out there to build something fast. But the point was that drones have a far more in depth history than people realize. And, contrary to many posts in this thread, that history has nothing to do with back then.

originally posted by: alldaylong
If these objects where either Chinese, Russian or anyone elses, the last thing The U.S. would be doing is admitting that they are flying around spying on American facilities, or putting America to the test.

This would make The U.S. look either stupid or incompetent.

There's no doubt that keeping knowledge of adversary capabilities and activities secret is a vital national security prerogative, and it's well-established that military and intelligence organizations do so as a matter of routine. Much of the military's public behavior regarding UAP could be explained by that alone, but much cannot.

The biggest problem is willful institutional blindness within military organizations regarding UAP, including a pervasive and longstanding culture that punishes reports of mysterious phenomena at all levels. While it seems to be loosening in recent years, for decades it has been well-known that reporting mysterious phenomena is almost guaranteed to damage or end a military career. And not just a military career, but careers in almost any profession.

How could actively discouraging a nation's military from monitoring and reporting potential enemy activity on a grand scale possibly be beneficial? How could that not be harmful to national security?

It just doesn't make sense, and that's the problem.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The first flight of the B-58 Hustler was 1956. It had a top speed of Mach 2, and would easily outrun a fighter of the time

It wouldn't have outrun The English Electric Lightning. First flight 1954, and had a final speed of above Mach 2

a reply to: Majic

its almost impossible to believe, to be honest. We have a track record going back to the 60's of taking in reports and processing them. There are documents, some "leaked" while others were leaked, that show various activity and reporting from behind the scenes.

I think one thing the author astutely points out is that all these reports are coming from naval officers. Naval officers are tasked with protecting the water. What we don't hear are air force reports. The folks who are tasked with protecting our skies are quite silent on the matter.

I have to believe that the following is true:

a). the taboo nature of UFO's in the US was cultivated and nursed by the Air Force as a cover device
b). the silence, overall, tells that any information the Air Force does release is really only propaganda and not any detail of anything that has any relevance. In this case, they seem to portray incompetence. I just cannot believe that to be the case, and believe that in line with point A above, its just using a cover device they put in place decades ago

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If we turn my puzzlement around, concealing sensitive information may be the only thing that makes sense in most or all cases of UAP contact with the U.S. military, including the "conspiracy of silence".

General discouragement of UAP reporting would still seem counterproductive, because if friendly forces are detecting something, whether friend or foe, it would in all cases be in the best interests of any military organization that such information be passed up the chain of command. When it comes to national defense, a lack of situational awareness benefits only enemies.

That said, counterintelligence is a subtle game, and the kind of information we're discussing could be some of the most sensitive information any military might possess. It's certain that no one without a direct need to know would be granted access to it, which in itself might actually explain everything.

Maybe Navy pilots don't need to know at this point if bogies are ours or someone else's, or consequences of electronic warfare activities or system errors. Maybe my concerns about suppression of UAP reports are overblown or unfounded.

Maybe the anomalies being reported are anticipated and their appearances during drills and operational tests are integral parts of those processes, and maybe all of them are elements of carefully orchestrated plans that deliberately draw out adversary intelligence-gathering capabilities while testing our own capabilities in terms of effectiveness and counter-detection.

Maybe these carefully-vetted disclosures and even the source article have been cultivated or calculated to deceive adversaries (and necessarily the general public as a consequence) into believing U.S. capabilities are less sophisticated than they are, or that their intelligence efforts are being mistaken for something they are not.

None of that is implausible, in my opinion, and my own musings may well be nothing more than the sort of recursive tail-chasing that comes from speculation in the absence of sufficient information.

Indeed, when has that ever not been the case?

a reply to: Majic

My first thought would be "what if they discourage reporting because they already know its there, and they don't want that broadcasted everywhere". But then that would be just utterly confounding....to be able to resolve flying objects that small surely is not impossible. But the computing power it would take would make its existence in the 70's and 80's almost laughably impossible.

Although, there is the fact that technology is suppressed. not all technology, and the suppression isn't consistent. But we all know that people who find out novel things with a strategic use tend to end up working in places where they aren't reporting home every night. Ning Li might be one such example, as she just seems to have disappeared after figuring out a form of gravitational control and was given a quarter million by the US Army Research Lab. The story given is that she "vanished", with the insinuation being that she took her findings back to China. But....we were working in China at the same time. Dr Baker, Hal Puthoff, and Buzz Aldrin were all in China while this was going on (maybe not physically at that moment, but you get my drift) working on anti gravity of their own.

All of the above is true, and is the only story of such that I know well enough to detail anything suspicious. But if it happened once, its happened many times before. And since.

In any event...if public tech is suppressed, then it could make sense to have that kind of computational ability in the 80's. But its hard to buy.

a reply to: crayzeed

Not all drones are model planes.

Many drones have original designs, and are not modeled after a conventional aircraft.