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.
.jpg) |
| 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:
No comments:
Post a Comment