An excellent UAP investigation and article by Adam Kehoe and Marc Cecotti for The Drive/The War Zone. Their article is from March 23, 2021, and you can read it at this link:
In the article´s first paragraph, the authors write what the article is about:[I]n July of 2019, a truly bizarre series of events unfolded around California’s Channel Islands. Over a number of days, groups of unidentified aircraft, which the U.S. Navy simply refers to as ‘drones’ or 'UAVs,' pursued that service's vessels, prompting a high-level investigation.
Then what follows, is Kehoe´s and Cecotti´s own investigation into the details of the bizarre series of "UAV" incidents in July of 2019. The details come largely from the authors' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
My purpose with this post is mainly to share the excellent article in question, and also to make a few and short comments about the "UAV" incidents as described in the article.
My first comment is on the US Navy´s designation of the unknown flying objects as "UAV" (Unmanned Aerial Systems) or "drones." Why not "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" (UAP)? The US Navy´s "new" (rather "modified") guidelines for reporting UAP (that is, UFOs) is at the moment classified information, so I can only speculate, but is the designation "UAV" rather than "UAP" the general policy in these "new" guidelines regarding incidents like the ones described in the article above? And how do you differentiate between when one designation is more appropriate than the other? I am asking because in my mind the incidents in July of 2019 as they are described in Kehoe´s and Cecotti´s article, seems to fit the designation "UAP" more than at least "drones". Why bother at all with guidelines for reporting UAP, if incidents like the ones in July of 2019 are called "UAV" or drones (because as I read the article it seems far from clear that the unknown flying and hoovering objects should be designated as "UAV" or "drones" rather than "UAP").
So it would be interesting to read the US Navy´s "new" guidelines for reporting UAP sightings/encounters/incidents to get a clearer picture of when and how the different designations should be used. There may be logical explanations to my aforementioned questions. For example, it may be the case that the designation "UAV" is to be used first and at the event, and only after an investigation of a sighting/an incident the designation "UAV" is replaced by "UAP", if the investigation cannot identify and/or explain what was seen and registered of a particular sighting/incident/encounter.
My second and last comment is based on a "hunch" or a gut-feeling. I agree with the authors of the article when they in the last section of the article point out that the UAP, or UAV, incidents in July of 2019 raises "increasingly pressing questions". I cannot make up my mind whether the unknown flying and hoovering objects are man-made or something else. For some reason, in this case of July of 2019, my gut-feeling says the UAV, or UAP, are man-made. At the moment, I do not have any logical or empirical reasons to back up my "hunch". But there is something "off" with these incidents, and I do not mean "off" in the sense of "aliens". Maybe some aspects of Salvatore Pais´patents and inventions are operational after all? (Pais´patents could also be disinformation to put the Chinese and the Russians on the wrong track regarding the science behind some advanced military applications).
I have no idea if the science behind Pais´patents is feasible, but we have to ask the question of which explanation is more likely or extraordinary about the objects detected in July of 2019: man-made technology and science or something not of this earth? In the same moment, as I ask that question, I realize it is becoming less clear how to differentiate between what is likely and what is extraordinary in cases like the USS Nimitz "Tic Tac" encounter(s) in 2004 and the USS Kidd "UAV" incidents in July of 2019.
Take care!
Janne
No comments:
Post a Comment