Disclosure and Current Sightings

Back in 2017, the New York Times printed a story about Navy fighters and their encounters with what was then called UFOs, which have now been relabeled as UAPs. This story, and the confirmation that the video was from the Navy, led to the conclusion that we were moving toward Disclosure of the UFO secrets. There hadn’t been the immediate ridicule of the witnesses and the tongue in cheek nature of the reporting. I was one of those who saw this in a positive light, though I was somewhat skeptical of this new wave of transparency.

Congress then mandated that the government, in this case the DoD and the DNI, had 180 days to prepare a report about UFOs which would have been due in June 2021. I believe that all parties tasked in some aspect of this report believed that the pressure for information would dissipate and that no one would be paying attention to the requirement by the time June rolled around. But in the weeks just prior to end of those180 days, the UFO community with what was probably unintentional support from the news media, began to anticipate that report. There was speculation about what it might say and there were those who were able to quote unidentified sources who allegedly had inside knowledge. When the report arrived on June 25, it was a poor-quality high school project that contained little real information. There was, however, a suggestion that there would be more information in a required update due in 90 days. That didn’t happen.

I believe that the government did not anticipate the interest in that mandated requirement and threw something together at the last minute because there were too many people asking too many questions for them to ignore the issue. Of course, had they been thinking at all, they could have requested assistance from the UFO community or the journalists such as Leslie Kean, to provide a framework. I can think of a couple of dozen UFO researchers who could have assisted, some of whom could have just pulled up information they had published in the past about UFOs, and there are even a couple of us who held, or had held, top secret clearances. We could have provided a more substantial framework than was presented in June 2021.

In 2021, I published a book, UFOs and the Deep State. I explained the process by which they, those required to produce the report, would be able to dodge the question. It’s simply a matter of appearing to respond to the request but doing nothing. Delay by explaining the difficulties in gathering the data, the requirements of national security, then offering an explanation that almost fits the facts. In one case, President-elect Jimmy Carter had asked the Director of Central Intelligence about UFOs, and was denied the information. That information is in the book and explains how this game is played.

You can read some of my earlier thoughts on all this here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2019/05/are-we-getting-closer-to-disclosure.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2019/06/president-trump-ufos-and-disclosure.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/05/x-zone-broadcast-network-retrospective.html

We’re now told that one of the original videos that launched this interest, was the result of technological glitches. There’s nothing to see here and before the outrage can spread, an election will take care of the problem.

There was another video released that showed a pyramid-shaped object that seemed to be inexplicable. However, one man, in an experiment published on YouTube, used his cell phone camera and night vision goggles, and produced an image that matched the Navy video. It seemed that another case was explained by that technological glitch.

Navy video that might be explained by a technological glitch.

In the latest report, we learn that more of the sightings have been identified with the suggestion of other technological glitches. We have been told of the mystery, we have been shown the evidence and heard the testimony of the witnesses and we are primed for the next step. That is the solution to the mystery. While it seemed that we were heading to Disclosure, we have now retreated from that point. Everything we have seen, heard and read seems to suggest nothing more than mundane misidentifications. Even the news media, in large part, have returned to their skeptical ways.

But that doesn’t stop the sightings that are being reported, some of them with data that is difficult to sweep under the rug. While we are told on one hand that there is nothing to see here, we find that simply is untrue.

On July 10, 2022, the witness in Alexandria, Indiana, was working in the garden when an object flew across the sky. It had no wings and was described as a cylinder-shaped object, which, given the environment today might also be called tic-tac shaped. There was a structure like thin pipes at both ends.

According to the witness, it was flying faster than an airplane but then came to a sudden stop for a second or two, changed direction and disappeared rapidly.

The MADAR Node at Swayzee, about nineteen miles from the sighting location, recorded several increases in readings, including a compass deviation, providing a second independent chain of evidence. Unfortunately, the witness did not provide contact information for additional investigation. Fran Ridge did report that an investigator is reaching out to the witness for additional information, but the case is currently closed.

Finally, the witness in Orlando, Florida, photographed two objects described as cylinder shaped on December 19 of this year. There were two sightings, about thirty minutes apart. The first sighting was of two objects and the second, was of three. There was an aura round the objects which changed color and made a sound. The objects in one sighting flew to the north and the objects in the other to the south.

Blow up of the UFO over Orlando.

The picture doesn’t look like those of the Starlink satellites. It does seem to some sort of anomalous object. If nothing else, it is an interesting picture. 

Roswell Crash Date and Mogul Problem

 

A few days ago, I was asked about the true date of the Roswell crash. It was pointed out that the dates that had been published in the past were July 2, July 4 and July 8. I had settled on July 4 based on what Frank Kaufmann had said and Kaufmann even produced a document with that date on it. When it turned out that Kaufmann had been making up stuff, I rejected the July 4 date because, well, Kaufmann was making up stuff.

In the world today, I believe that Don Schmitt and Tom Carey have landed on the July 2 date. This was the sighting by Dan Wilmot in Roswell of a craft heading, more or less to the northwest. I’m not sure that it’s related to the crash because the coincidence of being close in time and location to the crash doesn’t necessarily mean that what Wilmot saw was what fell.

So, the answer for the question, from my point of view is that I don’t know the exact date, other than the first week in July. But this set me to thinking about the timing of Mack Brazel’s trip into Roswell and what that tells us about the events of early July.

Let’s take a stroll down the timeline for all this and see what we can deduce.

We know that the Project Mogul flight scheduled for June 4, 1947, was cancelled based on Dr. Albert Crary’s diary. We know that they flew what he described as a cluster of balloons sometime later that day and Charles Moore told me that it was launched after the cancellation of the full array. We don’t need to argue about what that means because it is irrelevant for this discussion.

Moore, in his analysis, written after I had interviewed him, reported that the flight was launched “probably around 0300 MST,” and that the flight lasted a “calculated duration: 466 min,” or seven hours and forty-six minutes. Whether it was launched before dawn or sometime later, on June 4, it would have landed on the Brazel ranch (yes, for the purists, I know it was really the Foster ranch) on June 4 either around noon or in the late afternoon. The exact time is unimportant because whatever the time, it was still on June 4.

Charles Moore reviewing winds aloft data in Socorro. Photo by Kevin Randle.

We know, based on the documentation and the newspaper articles, that Major Jesse Marcel, Sr. arrived in Fort Worth on July 8, 1947, with some of the recovered debris. Some of the documentation suggests he left Roswell as early as ten in the morning, while other information suggests it was later in the day. For our purposes here, that doesn’t matter.

We know, and this is based on my experiences driving from Roswell to the ranch, that it takes about three hours to get there. That was on modern roads and routes, which did not exist in 1947. Marcel, in interviews mentioned that they had traveled overland but I’m not sure that would have cut much off the travel time. This means, of course, that Marcel was on the scene on July 7 and returned to Roswell very late on the seventh.

We know, based on what Marcel said, that he had been eating lunch at the Officers Club when Sheriff George Wilcox called him about the debris that Brazel had brought to town. Given the sequence of events then, we know that Marcel, along with Sheridan Cavitt, couldn’t have left Roswell much before four or five in the afternoon and that puts them at the ranch too late in the evening to do anything about the debris or examine the field in which it fell.

Since Marcel was clearly in Roswell on July 8 and since he left for the Brazel ranch late in the afternoon and remained there overnight, Brazel had to have arrived at the sheriff’s office on July 6. It was too late on the July 7 for them, Brazel, Marcel and Cavitt to have driven out to the ranch, examined the debris found by Brazel and returned to Roswell that night. The only scenario that makes sense was that Brazel had driven to Roswell on July 6.

The debris field identified by Bill Brazel for Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt.

Of course, there is the newspaper account that said Brazel had driven into Roswell on July 7 to sell some wool. That simply does not track with the timing of the drive back to the ranch, the examination of the field and the return to Roswell. Marcel and Cavitt would have been required to make their inspection in the dark. And, although Cavitt claimed that they didn’t remain there overnight, Marcel did make such a claim. In my discussions with Cavett, it was clear that he, along with Brazel and possibly Marcel, was there in the daylight.

But the point is irrelevant to the present discussion because, no matter what date Brazel drove to Roswell and what date Marcel and Cavitt followed him back the to ranch, it all happened in early July. The three days, the sixth, seventh or eighth, are the real markers here and, as I say, the exact date doesn’t matter for this discussion.

There is another point to be made here. Overlooking the fact that Brazel brought in samples of the debris, which would have negated the need to drive out to the ranch, if that debris was part of Project Mogul and if part of Mogul, it would have fallen on June 4. In other words, it would have laid out, in that field, for more than a month. We know, based on the testimony of Bill Brazel, and later that of Tommy Tyree, the sometimes ranch hand, that Mack Brazel was in that particular field every other day if not every day. The question becomes, why did it take him a month to call in the military?

Here's the rub. Had the debris been the remains of a Project Mogul balloon array, it wouldn't have taken Brazel long to clean it up. Had it been a Project Mogul balloon array, there would have been a reward card attached which would have directed him to Alamogordo rather than Roswell. Moore talked about these reward cards but said that not all the balloon arrays had them. This, of course, makes little sense. Why wouldn’t all the arrays have had the reward cards?

We were told by neighbors and by Bill Brazel, that Mack wondered who was going to clean up the mess he had found. That suggests something much more robust than the remains of a few weather balloons and some string. There is no evidence that rawin targets were involved. Flight No. 5, the “first successful” flight in New Mexico, had no rawin targets and Moore had suggested to me that the make-up of Flight No.5 was the same as Flight No. 4. Later, he claimed that it was closer to Flight No. 2 which did have rawin targets on it. But it was flown months earlier on the East Coast and the documentation in New Mexico mentions nothing about rawin radar targets until later in July.

We know when Mack Brazel reported the debris to the military based on the timing of the situation. That would have been on July 6, so the crash took place in the days prior to that based on the need to water the livestock.

Given what we know, whatever it was, fell in the days prior to July 6, most probably on July 4 or 5. If we accept the July 7 date for his trip to Roswell, then the craft, whatever it was, fell on July 6. I can’t narrow it down any more than that because we have nothing to tell us the exact date of the crash. However, we know that it wasn’t the Mogul array launched on June 4. Brazel would have found it in the days that followed and would have reported it to those in Roswell in early June. It was too far to make such a trip unless there was a compelling reason to do so. That would have been the amount of debris that suggests that he would not have been able to clean it all up quickly. Instead, he drove into Roswell for the assistance of the military. As I say, he could have picked up the remains of a Mogul balloon array in a matter of minutes and not needed to go to Roswell. In fact, he could have loaded it all into his pickup truck and taken to Roswell to show them. There would then be no reason for Marcel and Cavitt to travel out to that field.

This is just one more reason to reject the Mogul scenario. It doesn’t fit the timing, doesn’t fit with the facts, and fails to explain why Brazel felt the need to go to Roswell. He could have picked up the debris and that would have been the end of it. Instead, he reported the debris to the Army and began a mystery that continues after three-quarters of a century.

UAPs and AARO: The Latest Information

 

Just last Friday, December 16, AARO, that is the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, (which I, among others, have dubbed Arrow) held a round table on their activities in what might be called a press conference. Ronald Moultrie, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, who you might remember from the much earlier briefing in May, in which he didn’t answer many questions and who didn’t seem to know much about UFOs, was there. Also present was Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of AARO.

In keeping with the ever-changing anachronisms, we learn that UAP now means Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena rather than Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. This was done, apparently, to be more inclusive, expanding the investigation into USOs and objects on the ground. He said that they had submitted their first quarterly reports and that they are open to the principles of openness and accountability. They are committed to sharing as much detail with us as they can, which given the past, isn’t all that much. National security, don’t you know?

We did get some semblance of the numbers of reports. They suggested that of the 144 original reports that have yet to be resolved, the answer might be sensor calibration issues among other rather mundane solutions. They also said there were 400 additional reports, though I suspect the number is actually higher than that given the way questions were asked and then answered but the 400 number was bandied about.

There were three points that I found interesting. First, they were asked, specifically about alien visitation and said they had found no evidence of that. I suppose you could suggest that even though hundreds of UFO cases are unresolved, the go to answer should not be alien visitation without some other justification. They would need to eliminate many terrestrially based answers before they could move into that arena.

Second, they “admitted” that they are looking into older UFO reports, but the cut-off for that was 1996. That seemed to be a rather arbitrary date. However, it eliminates the need to look at the Air Force Roswell report. I think they looked at it, found the Project Mogul answer wholly inadequate and they didn’t want to deal with Roswell given the vast amount of data available now, the continued controversy around it and that there is no solid terrestrial answer even after the Air Force investigation.

I might add that I can think of a dozen or more people who would be valuable in explaining the history of UFOs to AARO that predates 1996. And, I can think of a dozen cases with enough evidence that if reviewed in today’s environment would be illustrative of UFO capabilities and suggestions of the advanced technology for which they search.

In 1952, for example, flying saucers were reported over Washington, D.C. in large numbers. Witnesses included airline pilots, Air Force pilots sent to intercept the UFOs, and the sightings that were confirmed by radar. There were hundreds of other sightings around the country at the time and Project Blue Book registered more than 300 cases that had no terrestrial solution. The sightings resulted in the formation of the Robertson Panel in early 1953. The panel’s conclusion, which were obviously drawn prior to a single witness testifying or the review of any evidence, was that there was nothing to UFOs. They recommended a “debunking” of the phenomenon with the hoped for result that the reports would end. Project Blue Book devolved from a legitimate investigation into a propaganda tool designed to explain all UFO sightings. The book, The Washington Nationals: Flying Saucers over the Capital provides an in-depth examination of those sightings.

Best newspaper banner headline ever.

There are the Levelland sightings from 1957 in which witnesses reported their cars stalled at the close approach of the UFO. They watched the object for as much as fifteen minutes, meaning the witnesses had the opportunity to observe the craft long enough to reject conventional explanations. The Air Force claimed only three people saw the craft, but their own files provide the names of five witnesses. Other documentation from the time runs the number higher and the local sheriff said that he had received hundreds of calls about the UFO. The sheriff, along with members of the Texas Department of Public Safety and the United States Air Force were in a position to see the UFO up close and their cars were stalled by the UFO according to documentation that I have found. I’ve laid out the evidence for this in the book Levelland.

Some of the Levelland craft witnesses.

In 1964, police officer Lonnie Zamora, in Socorro, New Mexico, reported a craft on the ground and the beings from inside now outside. There were landing traces left behind, and contrary to reports, there were other witnesses to the craft in the sky. The Air Force investigation failed to find an answer for the sightings. The official file remains as “Unidentified.” Encounter in the Desert lays out all the evidence in greater detail.

Physical traces left by the Socorro UFO.

And it might be they didn’t want to investigate the Rendlesham Forest encounter of December 1980. There is interesting documentation involved, not to mention John Burroughs receiving an award of 100 percent disability because injuries that were the result of approaching the unidentified anomalous phenomenon. That would open a whole new can of worms because people would ask what it was in the forest that injured him.

Finally, I’ll point out that we are seeing the same thing today that we saw 75 years ago. The government, specifically the Air Force, was caught by dozens, if not hundreds, of flying saucer reports in 1947. They created an office to investigate, telling the public it was named Project Saucer. The true name was Project Sign and the original order for it, written by Lt. General Nathan F. Twining, was for a priority project to investigate flying saucers. After months of intense investigation, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, let it be known that he did not accept the conclusion of alien visitation. At that point, those who had been involved in the research were transferred to other jobs and Project Sign became little more than a repository for flying saucer sightings but little investigation of them.

Although the Air Force reported that Project Sign had ended, they merely changed the name to Project Grudge and carried on. But it too was an investigation in name only. They didn’t do much other than label cases and file them. When an Air Force general asked about what was happening with the flying saucers, he got an answer he didn’t like. Grudge became Project Blue Book and was revitalized… for a short time. Ed Ruppelt initiated several changes, but in July 1952, the flying saucer scene changed with the Washington National sightings, which resulted in the investigation by the CIA. This was the Robertson Panel. As noted, the conclusion was that there was nothing to the flying saucers and the phenomenon should be debunked. Period.

In the late 1960s, the Air Force, wanting to abandon the UFO research completely, convinced Dr. Edward Condon at the University of Colorado to accept a grant to study the UFO situation. The conclusions, as evidence by the Hippler letter, provided those conclusions before the investigation even began. The Air Force then announced that there was nothing to the UFO sightings, there was no national security issue and nothing of scientific value could be learned by further study. Blue Book ended and that was it…

(You can read more about the Hippler letter here:

((http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/03/hippler-letter.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-latest-on-government-uap-report.html))  

Except that it wasn’t. Moon Dust still existed and Moon Dust had a UFO component. I outlined all this in the updated version of the book Project Moon Dust.

Then, in 2017, in a report in the New York Times, we read about UFO sightings made by members of the Navy including fighter pilots. It was as if the last 70 years of UFO research and controversy didn’t exist. Congress was in an uproar and the outgrowth was a serious discussion of what they decided to call UAPs. This was to be a new investigation with Congressional support, and DoD and the intelligence communities involved. But that is the situation we found ourselves in back in 1947. Nothing has changed except the names. We have moved from flying disks and flying saucers to UFOs to UAPs. And, we now see that the anachronym has recently changed from Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon because nothing suggests scientific investigation and seriousness like an ever-changing name of that to be studied.

And I really can’t conclude this without mentioning that those at the recent press conference were asked about crash retrievals. Moultrie said that he looked for that, and in the holding of documents he had seen, there was nothing that would suggest alien visitation, an alien crash, or anything like that. In other words, we are now at the point we were at in 1947. A new, serious investigation that has nothing to report.

 

The transcript of the December 16, 2022, Round Table:

Ronald Moultrie, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office were present.

STAFF:  Good afternoon, I'm Sue Gough. I will be -- from Defense Press Operations. I will be your moderator today. We are here to talk about the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which as most of you know, is the office that replaced the former Navy-led UAPTF. We have with us here today, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie, and Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of AARO. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Moultrie.

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (I&S) RONALD MOULTRIE:  Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ronald Moultrie, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. It's a pleasure to be here today to provide an update on the department's efforts to address unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP. In May of this year, I appeared before Congress for the first open hearing on UAP in 50 years. In my testimony, I underscored that the Department of Defense takes UAP reports seriously. You may have caught that I just said unidentified anomalous phenomena, whereas in the past the department has used the term unidentified aerial phenomena. This new terminology expands the scope of UAP to include submerged and trans-medium objects.  Unidentified phenomena in all domains, whether in the air, ground, sea or space, pose potential threats to personnel security and operations security, and they require our urgent attention.

At the hearing in May, I stressed to congressional leaders that the department is committed to improving data collection, bolstering reporting and personnel training, and fully leveraging the resources of our interagency partners to address the challenges posed by UAP. Since that time, we have been translating those commitments into action. In July, we established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office or AARO, and we named Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick as director. Dr. Kirkpatrick is a distinguished scientist and a career intelligence officer. He embodies the department's commitment to the highest standards of scientific rigor and objectivity. I'm fully confident he's the right person to lead this important work. Dr. Kirkpatrick is building a talented team that combines a wide array of expertise and experience in data collection, research and analysis, operations and technical expertise from across the department, the intelligence community, the interagency, and private industry.

We view Congress as an important partner in this endeavor. Since its establishment, AARO has been providing regular updates to Congress on its efforts to document, analyze and resolve reports of anomalous phenomena. The department has already submitted its first congressionally-mandated quarterly reports on UAP in August in November, and we will continue to provide quarterly updates. I also want to emphasize that the department takes public interest in UAP seriously.  As I said to congressional leaders in May, we are fully committed to the principles of openness and accountability to the American people. We are committed to sharing as much detail with the public as we can. With that, I'd like to turn this over to Dr. Kirkpatrick to share some of the progress that we've made since AARO's establishment.

AARO DIRECTOR SEAN KIRKPATRICK:  Thanks. Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick. I'm the director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office.  As you know, AARO is a new office called for in the FY2022 NDAA and established just this past summer.  We have an important and yet challenging mission to lead an interagency effort to document collect, analyze, and when possible, resolve reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena. Let me start by thanking Under Secretary Moultrie for his leadership and support in establishing AARO. As he said, we take UAP reports seriously. Unidentified objects in the skies, sea and space pose potential threats to safety and security, particularly for operational personnel. AARO is leading a focused effort to better characterize, understand and attribute these objects and is employing the highest scientific and analytic standards.

Though AARO is only a few months old, I want to highlight some of the early accomplishments. Since AARO's establishment, we've transferred the data and responsibilities from the previous Navy-led UAP Task Force and disestablished it. During that transition, we've taken the opportunity to expand and standardize and integrate UAP reporting and reevaluate the data we've collected. Given the large and disparate nature of the data, and the need to apply rigorous methodology. AARO has developed an analytic framework that structures, formalizes and applies analytic best practices to the evaluation of that data.

AARO is prioritizing reports of UAP in or near military installations, operating areas, critical infrastructure and areas of national security importance. Our team is partnering with the services, the intelligence community, the Department of Energy, NASA, the FAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – NOAA – and others to share information about UAP and tap into the vast resources of the interagency. NASA has been a particularly valuable partner. We are also engaging with a wide range of select partners from across academia, industry and the scientific community, as well as our allies and partners.

As you heard at the opening hearing in May, the stigma associated with UAP reporting has been significantly reduced. While that's good news, more work needs to be done. Building on that progress, AARO is working with the military departments and the Joint Staff to normalize, integrate and expand UAP reporting beyond the aviators to all service members, including mariners, submariners and our space guardians. AARO is working to take in more UAP reporting and analysis from the interagency, FAA, NOAA Coast Guard and the Department of Energy, to name a few. AARO is integrating and executing a focused collection campaign using both traditional and nontraditional sources and sensors. We are bringing in outside expertise to help design and deploy ‘detect and track’ capabilities. We are executing a rigorous science and technology plan to ensure controlled calibration of sensors, patterns of life, and signature characterization development. Combined, these improvements in reporting collection and analysis will result in more factual data. More data will help build a more complete picture and support the resolution of anomaly – anomalous phenomena.

Our team knows that the public interest in UAP is high. We are developing a plan to provide regular updates and progress reporting to the public on our work. While we're committed to declassifying and sharing information related to UAP to the greatest extent possible, we must, of course, balance the desire for transparency with the need to protect classified information, sources and methods in the interest of national security.

Remember, AARO is just getting started. It is crucial that we are rigorous and thorough in our collection, analysis and S&T; that we apply the highest analytic and scientific standards; that we execute our mission objectively and without sensationalism; and when we do not rush to conclusions. Finally, I'd like to thank Congress for its very valuable support and partnership. And with that, we will take your questions.

STAFF:  Tara.

Q:  Hi, I'm Tara Copp with the AP. I actually have a couple of questions. So, since the -- since you were on the Hill, and since the 2021 report and the 144 incidents, have you received additional incidents? And are -- is your office already going through those? Or are you just going through the 144?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Yes, thank you for that question. We -- we have established mechanisms to ensure that we could begin to receive current reports on -- on activities that may be occurring around our bases and installations and within the various domains. And we have had instances come in that we are cataloging, that we are beginning to analyze, and Dr. Kirkpatrick and his team have been -- have been working those. Sean, if there's any other comment that you'd like to make on that, please do.

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  So, I don't want to get ahead of the ODNI report that will have all the numbers in it. We have had lots more reporting, and that will be coming out here shortly.

Q:  And on the lots more, can you ballpark …

MR. MOULTRIE: … say significantly,

DR. KIRKPATRICK … say significantly more.

Q: Tens, hundreds -- can you give just kind of an idea of how many more? And it -- are they since 2021? Or some of these maybe --

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Some of these are older, absolutely. Alright, so several hundreds.

Q:  Several hundreds, OK. And one of the things I was really interested in is how, when you change the name, you're talking about things that are cross-domain. Have you had any reports of -- of objects that you've actually had reports of going, like, from water to air to space, or is that kind of anticipating what you might see in the future?

MR. MOULTRIE:  So, I'll take that and then pass it over to Dr Kirkpatrick for any comments that he might have. We have not, to the best of my knowledge, had any credible reporting, that we've been able to analyze of trans-medium activity or trans-medium objects.  We are still going through the data. And so, I would say that it's early on in the process. So, I don't want to be definitive to say that there's nothing that is there. But I would say that we have not seen since the -- the May hearing, we have not seen any – any indications that there have been trans-medium activities with UAPs.

Q:  And just one last one. You know, a lot of us, we were just at the B-21 rollout, we're seeing all sorts of new futuristic drones. How much of what you think might be getting reported into your office might be future actual military technology versus what really truly cannot be explained.

MR. MOULTRIE:  Dr. Kirkpatrick, can you take that one?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Of course.  We are setting up very clear mechanisms with our -- our blue programs, both our DoD and IC programs to deconflict any observations that come in with blue activity to ensure that we weed those out, and we can identify those fairly early on.

STAFF:  OK. I should have said at the beginning, let's try and keep it to one and one follow up. And then I'll go back around to the additional questions.

Julian.

Q:  You mentioned the effort to improve collection of incoming improved sensors so that they can provide more information.  With the several hundred of reports that have come into the newly reorganized group, did you have a better percentage of resolved cases as a result of improving those sensors? In other words, has that work paid dividends in resolving this compared to the earlier one out of 144?

MR. MOULTRIE:  I'll comment and then I'll turn it over to Dr. Kirkpatrick for comments that he might have on it. Just for the group, and for those who may not have the benefit of the May hearing, we talked about sensor calibration and the fact that you need to have sensors calibrated to actually detect things that are possibly different from adversarial systems that our sensors are calibrated to actually go after. And so, we have established work through Dr. Kirkpatrick's effort to begin to explore that we are still in the very -- very early stages of being able to do that, but Dr. Kirkpatrick, over to you commentary.

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Yes, exactly. I would -- I would echo that this is very early, OK. We have a collection plan that we are building off of, we have some sensors that we are investing in, but we're also looking at conventional, you know, what we have off the shelf theater assets and whatnot, as -- as well as recalibrating these sensors to ensure we know what knowns look like. And that way we can weed those out. So, it's still a little early, but it's moving forward.

Q:  As a follow-up. Is there any evidence that you have affirmative evidence that you have collected that shows any one of these anomalies is a space alien?

MR. MOULTRIE:  So, we can say it in unison, and we can do it separately?

DR. KIRKPATRICK: No.

MR. MOULTRIE:  At this time, the answer's no, we have nothing. We're committed -- and I have to say this because I -- I talked with the Secretary and I talked with the Deputy Secretary about this, about openness and objectivity, and transparency that we have committed to -- to the Congress, the American people, to you in the press corps. We have not seen anything that would -- but we -- we’re certainly very early on -- that would lead us to believe that any of the objects that we have seen are of alien origin, if you will.  If we are -- if we find something like that, we will look at it and analyze it and take the appropriate actions. Any other comments that you’d add to that?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  So, I would just say we are -- we are structuring our analysis to be very thorough and rigorous. We will go through it all. And as a physicist, I have to adhere to the scientific method, and I will follow that data and science wherever it goes.

STAFF:  Dan.

Q:  Thank you for your time this afternoon. Wanted to see if we could expand a bit on the subsurface aspects of – of your work and research, I mean, partly reflected in the -- the change to even what UAP means. What, I guess, are you searching for, what have you seen so far? And you mentioned sub-mariners and mariners -- what sort of things, you know, comes up, I guess, on a regular basis, or occasional basis?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Sure, let me take that one. And then I'll pass it over to Dr. Kirkpatrick. So, in my organization, which is the intelligence and security organization, we are responsible for the comprehensive security of all elements within the Department of Defense.  So that is our personnel, which is foremost in our minds, our platforms, our --our systems, our bases, our installations, and our -- our activities, whether they occur in any domain.  And we operate in all domains today. So, we operate under the surface of the water, we operate on land, we operate in the air, of course, we operate in space. Anything that appears within the proximity of our activities that is anomalous, something that we can’t identify, we have the responsibility to resolve what that is, and to report that back to our commanders, to our operators, to ensure that they are safe. If it's an adversarial system, we have responsibility to identify, categorize it, and then take whatever appropriate action to ensure that it's not a threat to our systems or platforms. That's why we added that that subsurface piece.  We do it already, but we just are formalizing that, under the effort that Dr. Kirkpatrick is now leading, to say we will do that in all domains. Because we operate in all domains, we have platforms that you would imagine in all those domains.

Q:  As a follow up, would you say the majority of the reports you're getting are still AARO? Or is it more -- more diverse?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  At this time, I would say, yes; most of it's going to be AARO.

Q:  Thank you.

STAFF:  I'm going to move to the phones for a minute. David Martin.

Q:  Just to clarify on that, several hundred. That's several hundred since you put out the 144 number in -- in May, or several hundred total now. And can you tell us what your batting averages is? Is it still 1 for 144? What is it now?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  So, it's -- it's since the last report that came out. And I don't want to get ahead of the next report when it comes out. So, when that comes out, you'll get a better idea of what our batting average is.

MR. MOULTRIE:  But Dr. Kirkpatrick ,just for clarifying -- clarification points, sir, would you say that some of those are a combination of older reports that are – that we are now discovering and bringing in and new? Or are they primarily new, sir? How would you characterize it?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  It is -- I would characterize it as on the total reporting since, I believe our cut off; going backwards was 1996 through now.

STAFF:  OK, sticking with the phones, Phil Stewart.

Q:  Hey, thanks. So, so it's -- it's one -- it was -- it's all based from the 144 number, then? So it's several hundred on top of the 144. Is that correct?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Correct.

Q:  OK, and, and what you’d said earlier, that you thought there was a big decrease in the stigma attached to reporting -- could you elaborate a little bit on that? Is it just the number of reports that you're getting leads you to believe that, is there anything else that's leading you to believe that?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  So, it's the quality and quantity reporting that we're getting across all the services; all the services have also instigated their own reporting mechanisms. And what we're doing right now is working with all the services and the Joint Staff to raise the threshold for reporting, the standards for reporting and the requirements for reporting so that we can unify that across the entire department.

STAFF:  Bryan.

Q:  Thank you for doing this, Bryan Bender with Politico. One is kind of a follow up to an earlier question, then I had a second one. You said there's no evidence of trans-medium vehicles that you've seen, but can you give us some sense of whether you've seen them under sea, in the air, and either in space or from space? In other words, like the different mediums, can you kind of walk us through?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Let me – let me take that question. Yes, Bryan let me take that and then I'll pass it to Dr. Kirkpatrick. So, just to go back and -- and level set, how we approach this. We are concerned about objects that appear -- and this has happened for decades, right? -- objects that appear on the sea, near our -- our bases and installations, if they’re ports, submersibles -- it might also -- when I say submersible, things that are underwater that may appear within restricted or close to unrestricted spaces, if you will.  We're concerned about things that may be in proximity to our bases, and things that may be in proximity to assets that we have in space. And so, we track those things all the time to ensure that we're aware of what they are. And we try to characterize those immediately. So, when we talk about what we see, and what we don't see, there are things that we see. But we can resolve those to adversarial activities, or we resolve those to, sometimes to amateur activities, if you will.  We're trying to ensure that we do a complete characterization of that with any of the things that may fall under the criteria that the -- has really hit the forefront over the last year and a half. And this is this anomalous activities and things that Congress has said that they -- we’re really concerned about. So, it’s -- it's a combination of things that we have done before, that characterize things in those domains and things that we are doing today. Does that clarify the question for you?

Q:  And then my follow up was on the history question. You said, going back to 1996 -- the current NDAA that the president is about to sign goes further in sort of giving you a history assignment, quite a bit further. And I'm, you know, going back 75 years, trying to detail maybe what we used to know, what we don't know anymore, or, you know, other cases that might have come across or reports, etc. How are you thinking about, I know, it's early, but sort of addressing that, because that seems to be a whole nother task of sort of going through the archives, so to speak.

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  So, we've -- we've started to give it some thought, I don't want to talk too much about it until they actually sign it. But that -- that is going to be quite a research project, if you will, into the archives and going backwards in time.

Q:  That will include this question that the Congress has arisen, which is that, could there be compartmentalized programs that even you don't know about? Because they were buried in the system, you know, decades ago, before we were born -- is that part of that?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  That is part of the intention, yes.

STAFF:  Luis?

Q:  Hi, Luis Martinez with ABC News. I'm just looking for – before I get to my real questions – I – I want to get a clarification. You're talking about several hundreds new reports, based on the notion that nothing has been reported since 144. But back in May, Scott Bray at the hearing said that you'd received about 400. Are you -- is it literally what you're talking about one in the same? Or is it significantly higher than the 400 that you received in May?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  No. So, it's including that 400.

Q:  So, it's not significantly higher than the 400 that we had?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  No.

Q:  OK. Let the record show that you're shaking your head, no, for those of us who are joining us on Zoom. OK. My next question, since, in your answer, Mr. Moultrie to -- Dr. Moultrie -- to Julian's question, you -- you said that “no” when it comes to space aliens, but what are some of the other things that you're seeing? Is it foreign surveillance, which I think the DNI reported had said, is it weather balloons, other types of weather anomalies? And if it is foreign surveillance, is it significantly more advanced than anything we've seen? Or is it literally stuff off the shelf? Or something that we could do on our own?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Yes, so thanks for the question. It's -- it's not our -- our policy or our practice to talk about operational issues or details or to talk about our capabilities to detect foreign capabilities or their activities, if you will. And we do that for a variety of reasons. I think that just in terms of what we are seeing and what has been reported, by many of you, and your -- your -- your organizations, there are a lot more civilian drones that are being flown today and other things that have been put up in the skies, and some of these things almost collide with planes. And we see that on a regular basis. So, I think it would be safe to say that there will be probably a number of these activities that can be characterized as non-adversarial systems, things like balloons, and things like UAVs that are operated for purposes other than surveillance or intelligence collection – would that be fair, sir?

STAFF:  Oren?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Oh, sorry.

STAFF:  Oh, sorry.

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Yes, that would -- that would be fair, I would just emphasize there's not a single answer for all of this, right, there's gonna be lots of different answers. And part of my job is to sort out all of those hundreds of cases on which ones go to which things.

Q:  Just a very quick related question, then I apologize, I have to step out. Oren Liebermann from CNN. Do you have any reason to believe that any of the cases or instances or data you have looked at are indicative of something that was a threat to U.S. national security, or a military facility or U.S. personnel? Any reason to believe that from what you've looked at so far?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Yes.

MR. MOULTRIE:  And by that, I mean, let me just clarify, because I think that's one that that can be taken and off to the races with. We're still trying to resolve some of these cases. Some of them probably could not be characterized as civilian balloons or UASs or UAVs or whatever. So, in the absence of being able to resolve what something is, we assume that it may be hostile. And so, we have to take that seriously. And we have to do exactly what Dr. Kirkpatrick and his team is doing, take every step and measure possible to understand what it is and to treat it as it may be hostile until we can understand exactly what it is.

Q:  And to clarify, if something was conducting surveillance that could be considered -- if it was a hostile power conducting surveillance, that would be in a threat category, that wouldn't be in a non-threat category, is that correct?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Any unauthorized system in our airspace we deem as a threat to safety. So, that can be one of our systems or one of our relatives -- it's any system that is not authorized or platform not authorized to be in a domain that is restricted, we consider that to be a potential threat to the safety of our personnel or to our platforms.

STAFF:  OK, let me go back -- let me go over the phones again. Chris Sharp. OK…

Q:  Hi there. Thank you very much. Yes, my question was, have you analyzed UAP reports in the space domain that you have not been able to resolve?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Let me take that one, because I think our ability right now to resolve things in the space domain, and what we have in the space domain, is something that would fall under sensitive sources and methods and means, so would be -- would prefer not to respond to that -- that comment or that question, excuse me, in this forum.

STAFF:  Jeff Schogol.

Q:  Have you detected UAP demonstrating technology which you are unable to explain?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Do you want to take that one, Sean?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  There -- there are things that appear to demonstrate interesting flight dynamics that we are fully investigating and researching right now.

MR. MOULTRIE:  But, Sean, is that partly -- is some of that the sensor phenomenology, sir?

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  Some of that could be sensor phenomenology. Some of that could be flight dynamics of the platform. Some of that could be just an illusion. There's lots of different ways that we have to investigate all of those in order to get to that truth.

STAFF:  OK, we've only got time for one more question. I want to give it to the phone because most of just about everybody…sorry, Moshe.  Jeff Schogol, you there?

Q:  Hi, thank you. And I ask in all seriousness, you've spoken about how you haven't seen any evidence that any of the phenomena could indicate visitation from another planet. But does the Defense Department have any evidence from previous incidents including crashed craft, or living or deceased beings from another planet or dimension that indicate that the U.S. that – excuse me -- that the Earth has been visited by another form of life? And could whoever speaks please identify himself? I can't see the speakers. Thank you.

MR. MOULTRIE:  Let me answer. This is Ron Moultrie, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. Then I'll pass it to Dr. Kirkpatrick to give his -- his words on this. So, let me just characterize your question when you're talking about, we've been visited, is there a possibility of alien life? So, I'm gonna to discount meteorites and things like that, that might have microbes on it and those types of things, and just talk about things that may be intelligent life that may have crashed landed on our planet or that may have the -- in somehow visited our planet. In terms of holdings that I have seen and holdings, that that we have gone through -- and we are being very thorough about this, and we are going back and trying to understand all the compartmented programs that this department has had, understand all the relationships that we may have had with any other organizations and all the predecessor organizations that were established before we were officially a Department of Defense. We've looked at all that; I have not seen anything in those holdings to date that would suggest that there has been an alien visitation, an alien crash, or anything like that.  Once again, with what Dr. Kirkpatrick is doing, we are still very early on in the work that we're doing. But that means we have to go back retrospectively and understand some of the holdings that we have. And Dr. Kirkpatrick and his team is still doing that. But I have not seen anything today that would suggest that we have anything of that nature.

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  I have -- in the research I've been doing, I've not heard, seen or heard of anything at this time that would support that.

Q:  Can you define your holdings, please?  Because some people may interpret that as physical evidence.

MR. MOULTRIE:  Sure.

Q:  What do you actually mean?

MR. MOULTRIE:  Holdings, I'm talking about documentation, things that people may have said, interviews that people may have had, or memos that somebody may have written. And remember, there's a lot of documents that are written by people, there's things that people scratch on pieces of paper or whatever. And there's posters that people put in the hallway, sometimes it's a, “this is the alien room.” So, you have to go through all of those. And you have to see, OK, what's behind the door? It's great work.

Q:  I have a very quick, but very related follow up. You mentioned the interagency process, you're obviously the focal point for this broader government effort. Can you give us a sense of whether you're getting the cooperation that you think you need, because you do hear stories that other agencies might not say, hey, here's what we got.

DR. KIRKPATRICK:  I -- I enjoy a very good relationship across the interagency for having worked there for many, many decades. And they’re -- they have all been absolutely super supportive. I have not run into any problems like that.

MR. MOULTRIE:  And Dr. Kirkpatrick and I have both visited with the director or administrator of NASA, the intelligence community, directors and others. Everybody wants to find out what's there for all the reasons that we talked about during this -- during this discussion.

STAFF:  OK. OK, … Luis -- Luis -- Luis got a --

(CROSSTALK)

STAFF:  OK, Luis – Luis – Luis, got to …

Q:  It’s Christmas Day.

STAFF:  I know, but I got to -- I got to cut it off. For those of you who didn't get a chance to ask your question today, please send them to me and I will get your responses from Dr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Moultrie. Thank you, guys, very much for being here.

You can review the transcript for yourself here:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3249303/usdis-ronald-moultrie-and-dr-sean-kirkpatrick-media-roundtable-on-the-all-domai/