ANALYSIS / COMMENTS ON ODNI UAP PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

Updated: Jul 9

By Franc S Milburn - The report was a preliminary assessment. This should hopefully generate new information requirements and what are the consequent courses of action.




Scope


I have limited my analysis to: the ODNI`s Preliminary Assessment, the memo / letter issued with the report by DEPSECDEF Kathleen Hicks and the accompanying DoD press release by Admiral John Kirby.


I have not conducted a specific comparison of the ODNI UAP report against the requirements of the INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021, as this has been done by someone else and may be released in the future.


I have also not repeated general assessments of the ODNI UAP report as found in various blogs and news outlets, except where points are particularly good and stand out for some reason.



Recent Background Events And Context


The dissemination of the ODNI report comes against a recent series of events surrounding Lue Elizondo, the DoD FOIA process for UAP-related files and the DoD Inspector General´s evaluation into the handling of the UAP issues.


Elizondo claims he has had his clearances threatened and been pressured, it appears his emails have been deleted by DoD against procedure and there has been constant controversy over Elizondo´s tenure at AATIP since 2017, with the DoD Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) denying and he was ever there and changing its message slightly on the issue over time period.


Elizondo appears to have had an attempt at smearing him by the NYP – which would indicate some behind the scenes do not want the UAP issue any further out of the tube – but this does smack of old school journalistic ridicule of UAP. This is all the stranger, as the NYP´s basement office has covered the UAP topic in depth with the like of: Elizondo, Eric Davis and Nick Pope.


Elizondo and others have also claimed that the UAPTF has been set up to fail, with limited personnel, personnel changes, budget issues and difficulty accessing data held by members of the IC, both inside and outside the Pentagon.


The DoD has launched evaluations into the DoD´s handling of the UAP issue and also of its treatment of Elizondo following a complaint by him. This comes against a backdrop of seeming obfuscation and monitoring of FOIA requests by DoD PAOs.



Longer Term Background Events And Context


Reading between the lines of the ODNI report,, the Air Force continues to refuse to openly engage the UAP / UFO issue. UAP:


“No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020, but it remains limited to USG reporting.”


We know the Navy introduced new reporting guidelines in 2019 and that the Air Force had a reporting mechanism since at least the year 2000 due to FOIA research. One can surmise that the Air Force is reluctant to engage fully for a number of reasons:


  • Embarrassment over not being able to defend US airspace against UFO incursions, which is part of its mission set.

  • Embarrassment over the Air Force role in the Blue Book cover-up, which stated that:


“No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security; There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as “unidentified” represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and that there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as “unidentified” were extraterrestrial vehicles.”


  • The same could also be said for the Air Force´s roles in the Condon Committee (1968) report and the Robertson Panel (1953) report, which also involved the CIA which is notably absent from the ODNI UAP report.


So, do the preceding indicate on-going coverup by the Air Force and CIA? It looks likely. The question then, is will lack of cooperation with the UAPTF continue with its formalized successor?



Department of Energy


The DoE is also absent from the ODNI report. I indicated in my first BESA paper that DoE would be a key player. An August 2020 email from Dr. Eric Davis to Dr. Jack Sarfatti said:


“I have no UFO propulsion physics projects to be funded because my new employer doesn’t fund that type of research topic. I know that a few USG personnel already know who you are and what you’re about, but exotic or UFO propulsion physics research is not in their portfolio. Actual research falls under the purview of the military service labs and the DoE labs…Your UFO propulsion idea will have to stand up to scrutiny by the defense science, military service labs’, and DoE labs’ review boards/panels.”



Aerospace and Defence Companies


There has been no mention of aerospace companies which I listed as players in my first BESA paper. I also stated:


“If the Wilson Document proves authentic [and I now am inclined to believe this is so] and there is a USAP or USAPs [or WASAPS} studying non-human tech run by private enterprise and outside the purview of senior USG officials and lawmakers, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the UAPTF will have to identify them, and lawmakers may need to subpoena them. If there has been analysis of craft and occupants for decades and perhaps even interactions with NHEs and/ or the civilizations they come from, then any hitherto secret programs would be the place to start the investigation.”


Chris Mellon: “Extraterrestrial technology was not discussed in the report because the issue is too politically sensitive, not because it is irrelevant.”


“Advanced Technology is the one topic in the report that feels like Project Blue Book or the Condon Report, where the raw data directly contradicts the report’s findings. Do we take the testimony of the Navy personnel involved in the Nimitz case and others seriously or not? The glaring disconnect on this issue emerges during almost every press interview of those privy to the classified briefings or classified report. As Mitt Romney said on CNN: They have a technology which is in a whole different sphere than anything we understand and frankly, China and Russia just aren’t there and neither are we…”



Allies


There was no mention of allies or reports from them in the report. While the ODNI report was supposed to “submit an intelligence assessment of the threat posed by unidentified aerial phenomena” and uses the phrase “UAP problem set,” and while the report is limited in scope to “U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021,” it is curious that they did not for example, look at the Colares case from 1977 / 8 in Brazil, in which people lost their lives, others were injured and which was documented in detail by: Brazilian Air Force Intelligence, the 4th Naval District of the Brazilian Navy, the SNI (national intel service) and by medical / psychiatric practitioners.


Dr. Eric Davis was quoted as saying in an interview with Alejandro Rojas and used in my first paper:


“And then there´s Colares [Brazil], where the box-shaped UFOs were actually killing people and injuring large numbers of people. And they were using beams to do it. So, UFOs have not been benevolent. They have not shown any space brotherly love and peace type movements towards us.”



Nukes


This would seem to be a pretty key area where national security and threat are concerned. I talked a lot about this in my paper and Robert Hastings penned an piece in the Washington Examiner entitled: “I literally wrote the book on the UFO-nuclear connection. Why is the government hiding what it knows?”


Hastings: “The UFO-nukes connection is clearly an important, if not the most important, aspect of UFO interaction with the U.S. military.”


“The crucial importance of the nuclear-related cases has now been openly acknowledged by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid was responsible for the creation of the recently revealed Pentagon UFO study group, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Also on the record concerning the nuclear connection, is the former AATIP director, Luis Elizondo, as well as AATIP physicist Dr. Harold Puthoff. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon has also publicly confirmed the long-standing, widespread, and ongoing UFO incursions at our nuclear weapons facilities.”


Puthoff wrote to the Indian Supreme Court, saying:


“During the ‘Cold War’ confrontations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union led to the realization that misidentification of such technology as representing a hostile adversarial attack could inadvertently trigger a devastating nuclear exchange. In light of the often tense relationship between India and Pakistan, it would appear that it would be in both India’s and Pakistan’s interests to establish an in-depth Program to address the UAP topic with sufficient resources so as to minimize the possibility of misidentification of UFO activities that could result in a conflict between the two nuclear armed states.”


In my paper, Dr. Davis is quoted in the Rojas interview talking about the:


“Northern Tier silo encounters with the giant UFOs that shut down their warheads’ navigation systems. And that happened multiple times. It happened in the late 60’s and it happened in the mid 70’s. And so, we know they are quite capable of rendering our warheads and ICBMs useless…which is dangerous, because if the Soviet Union had decided to launch a war right then and there, the damn UFOs [would] have rendered it impossible for us to do a counter-strike, because our goddamn ICBMS up in the Northern Tier were shut down.”


I also interviewed Bob Salas about this earlier in the year and leaving out nukes seems to be a striking omission, considering that this is already in the public domain, both in the USA and Russia.



The Threat


The report states: “UAP threaten flight safety, and possibly national security.”


No mention of Project Condign, which I cover extensively in my first paper, where the UK's Defence Intelligence 55 (DI55) reported on Russian aircraft and aircrew losses from Russian source Marshall Sergey Sokolov, a highly respected Soviet general and Minister of Defence of the Soviet Union from December 1984 to 30 May 1987.



Ours Or Theirs or “Theirs?”


Chris Mellon: No evidence that UAPs are secret U.S. aircraft. Surely our government can account for its own aircraft programs when each is worth billions. We also have systemic processes to keep track of classified programs and even DoD “waived” special access programs. Any revolutionary new aircraft programs would cost a fortune and, by law, have to be briefed to a minimum of 8 members of Congress.


The report carefully states that “some” UAPs may be Russian or Chinese, although it plainly acknowledges there is no evidence of that. Notice the report says only “some.” Given that military sightings of these bizarre craft have been occurring since the 1940’s, it seems inconceivable the U.S., Russia, or China can account for the phenomenon in its entirety.


I have given a number of talks on Russian, Chinese and American tech, focussing on historical and contemporary military-industrial capabilities, platform inventories and public statements on intentions, as well as assessing likely intentions versus capabilities.







Links to the videos above


https://youtu.be/BJADX2xDmY0?t=781

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VZeCjPb10A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgvpx_tzyrk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtLWz1JjcCo



Key Point: Securing Military Ranges


A key point nobody has picked up on is found in both the press release and the DEPSECDEF´s letter. She says:


“I direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security to develop a plan to formalize the mission currently performed by the UAPTF. The plan should:


1. Establish procedures to synchronize collection, reporting and analysis on the UAP problem set, and to establish recommendations for securing military test and training ranges.”


So how are these vast areas of airspace, surface and subsurface [no mention of USOs either] meant to be secured?


What will the advice consist of? If we are talking adversary platforms like aircraft and drones, then these can be intercepted or downed. If we are considering 5-Observable UAP - i.e., not Chicom or Russian, then how are the ranges or territorial air and waters to be secured? The 5-Observable UAP seem impervious to interception, so how to down them?


Dr Jack Sarfatti theorizes the craft are using a warp drive and have a protective shield – this is referred to by him as T^3 or “TicTac Tech.” He stated in my first paper (pages 30 + 32):


"T^3, he says, is the manipulation of space and time itself with small amounts of energy... some applications that immediately come to mind are: Effective force shield defending planes, ships, tanks, soldiers from bullets, missiles, explosive debris..."


The paper continues:


"A recent Sarfatti proposal to the European Defence Agency (EDA) concerns "Innovative Solutions / Technologies for the Countering of Swarms of UAVs, specifically on the Protection of Static and Dynamic Land Facilities and Platforms":


The proposal outlines the design of a craft ["aero-spacecraft"] embodying a multi-level lattice-within-a-lattice metamaterial that both controls the ambient gravitational field with small amounts of energy and acts as a super-AI system for monitoring its environment and providing fully autonomous, conscious decision-making aimed at the creation of a Black Hole weapon or a Stealth Cloak system, or a Force Shield that can protect against Swarms of UAVs and other types of ballistic threats or against any type of impulse weapons. Sarfatti calls this a "Swarm-Hole."


Then how could the field be disrupted to enable use of directed energy weapons or kinetic weapons like railgun, cannon, missiles etc, to penetrate the hulls of the craft... assuming they are solid? Would an EMP disrupt the field? Is this one potential explanation for UAP activity around nuclear naval vessels, missile sites and other nuke facilities? Are "others" concerned about effects of EMP and nuclear blasts on either their tech and / or their habitat?


Contacted by me recently, Dr Sarfatti elaborated:


“Of course, I don't know the details of actual Tic Tacs. However, it is possible that they are completely impervious to attack because of the effect portrayed here. In any case, we can probably develop such technology..”


Colonel John Alexander said: “The main issue, IMHO, is consciousness, not physics. Downing them? Not a chance - has been tried by others unsuccessfully - bigger question is why? As for foreign tech, consider 0 to Mach 500 (not M-5) in 2 seconds, and that was 1957.”

The Colonel, Dr Sarfatti and I expand on the issue of downing UAP in my first paper (pages 43 - 45).


I asked SCU colleague Dr Robert McGwier about the same issue:


“What are your thoughts on how to down 5-observable UAP? I am no scientist, but theoretically, if they are physical craft then they should have vulnerabilities. The Americans need counter measures in case intelligences behind UAP display hostile intent.”


Dr McGwier:


“I agree with you. I am interested in the observed RF emissions. If they are non-random or super random they are communications signals. If barrage jamming causes them to zoom off to escape that would be telling. The L shape appendages on the outside of the Tic-Tac are almost certainly multipurpose situational awareness sensors and communications gear.


If they use quantum entanglement/teleportation for communication we cannot detect or jam. I think the likelihood is high. I would love to be asked to take a look at lots of data from "all sensors" and do multi-sensor fusion where the fusion is training ML [machine learning] to detect and classify. We don’t damn know enough except to "poke the bear" which is what I am sure these groups off Virginia and California keep doing.”



General Points


Chris Mellon: It has validated the UAP threat, forced myriad stove-piped agencies to share information, and has garnered the attention of policymakers and the public. Furthermore, it did all this without a penny of appropriation funding.


The report states in the exec sum:


“The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.”


The report was a preliminary assessment. This should hopefully generate new information requirements and what are the consequent courses of action.


Great interview you should also watch, the discussion is related to the article, with Franc Milburn & Bob McGwier on Jay's ProjectUnity. Follow on YouTube!





Franc S Milburn


Twitter @FrancMilburn

FB https://www.facebook.com/franc.milburnuap.1


Links to other relevant articles published by Franc


https://besacenter.org/author/franc-milburn/


Biography


Franc Milburn is a strategic advisor assisting clients with intelligence and security issues.


A former UK military intelligence officer, he is an alumnus of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the London School of Economics. He is a also member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.


He has written for a number of globally ranked think tanks, including: the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.


The Beigin-Sadat Center published two reports written by Franc on UFOs: "The Pentagon`s UAP Task Force" and "American Development of UAP Technology: A Fait Accompli"?



You can leave comments below.


547 views3 comments