Decoding the government’s UFO report

This bears note in light of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s provision to Congress and the public on Friday of a report on unidentified flying objects — UFOs. Or what the government refers to as “unidentified aerial phenomena” — UAPs. The report was requested in 2020 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, under then-Chairman Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican.

Here are my main takeaways from the public, unclassified version. It’s appropriately serious and sober but has one striking and inexcusable absence.

First, the report notes that some UAPs are likely to be “physical objects” due to the range of sensors by which they have been recorded. This has been established behind closed doors, but government affirmation of that analysis lends credibility to further scientific study of the topic.

Second, the report adds that further analysis will likely put these UAPs into one of “five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, U.S. government or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall ‘other’ bin.”

The report considers 140 U.S. government-sourced UAP incidents between 2004 and 2021, 18 of which involved observers reporting “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.”

These include the observation that “some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernible means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. … We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.”

This is the area that encompasses what I refer to as the most extraordinary of UAPs, or the report’s “other” bin. Those that numerous sensors and trained military observers have identified as most likely being intelligently controlled vehicles of unconventional technical capability, not known to be in the possession or development of any national government or corporation. It is this UAP category that also involves the most stigma. As the report observes, “Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and Intelligence Community describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues.”

Yet, while the report calls for more organization and funding in the research of UFOs, it does offer some notable absences. For whatever reason, the CIA was not a party to the report. Also glaring is the report’s finding that “UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. [military/government] training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.”

One word is missing here. Nuclear. Its absence in the context of that training area quote undermines the government’s assertion that this report provides a public accounting of what it knows about UFOs.

As I’ve previously reported, it is a commonly understood assessment by those at ODNI and the Office of Naval Intelligence that the saturation of credible sightings of the most extraordinary UAPs by the U.S. Navy bears a direct connection to the nuclear reactors that power U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines. Beyond the concentration of activity at these sites, I understand that this connection has been forensically tested, and validated, by the government. On Friday, the Debrief’s Tim McMillan reported on part of this effort. There is a particular concern on the part of the Pentagon that were China and Russia able to replicate these nuclear detection technologies, whatever they may entail, they would be able to permanently hold at risk U.S. nuclear deterrence forces. In essence, denying those forces their deterrent quality.

On that point alone, we can observe that this report does not evince the totality of the U.S. government’s information on unidentified aerial phenomena. Certain information will have been withheld from the public report under the excuse of protecting intelligence sources and methods. Noteworthy here is the apparent absence of undersea sonar and acoustic data, of which there is a significant quantity and quality related to this subject. Also absent is reference to metallurgy analysis of exotic materials that has been conducted, two exceptional sources tell me, under U.S. government supervision. This is not to say that the government remains engaged in a vast, coordinated cover-up. No reliable source has told me that they have seen evidence suggesting the U.S. government retains intact UFOs. That is not to say that no such evidence exists, just that the subject deserves prudent investigation.

Again, this is not to say that all UAPs are truly extraordinary. As first suggested by the Drive, Russia has likely used its submarine force and civilian aircraft and vessels to conduct signal and electronic intelligence operations against U.S. military exercises. Balloon-based devices would offer the most realistic deliverable capability here, offering intelligence collection in a semipersistent and less-detectable state. China may have conducted similar activities, though its submarine force would struggle to avoid U.S. sensor nets. Again, however, this does not explain the most extraordinary “other” UFOs that have been recorded by the U.S. military.

The need for more questions should not dilute the import of absent answers. The most capable intelligence apparatus of the most powerful nation on Earth says that some UFOs are likely to be truly unexplained vehicles. Hence why certain former U.S. government officials are saying that open-minded questions must be part of the solution in considering this topic. The report rightly indicates a need for further investigation.