UFOs/UAP Part 1

Introduction and mystery drones

UAP photographs collected by Fernando Jimenez

Introduction

The modern UFO or UAP phenomenon conventionally dates back to the summer of 1947, specifically the sighting by pilot Kenneth Arnold of a number of anomalous, shoe-heel-shaped craft flying like “saucers” skipping over water near Mt. Rainier. This led to the term “flying saucers.” However, the modern UFO phenomenon precedes this. While it arguably goes back much further, from the ancient history to the “mystery airship” sightings of the late 19th century, we will focus here on the 20th century.

Sightings, Flaps and Waves

The primary phenomenon that led to awareness of UAP consisted of sightings such as Arnold’s: a solitary observer or small group witnessing an anomalous craft or aerial phenomenon in the atmosphere. Dr. J. Allen Hynek classified such sightings into six levels:

1. nocturnal lights

2. daylight discs

3. radar-visual sightings

4. close encounters of the first kind (e.g. from less than 500 feet)

5. close encounters of the second kind (physical and biological effects, e.g. landing traces, electronic interference, radiation)

6. close encounters of the third kind (occupant sightings)

When numerous individuals and/or groups witness the same phenomenon independently of each other, it is called a “mass sighting.” While these sightings may happen anywhere at any time, historically they tend to cluster in certain areas over extended periods of time (from days to months). Depending on the geographic extent and duration, these periods of multiple sightings came to be called “flaps” or “waves.” The U.S. wave of 1947, for example, lasted around two weeks and led to reports from all 48 continental states. Some significant UAP flaps/waves include:

• 1917 “mystery airplanes”

• “Foo fighters” of World War 2

• 1946 “ghost rockets” in Sweden and Finland

• 1947 “flying disc” wave

• 1952 flap

• 1954 Greek flap

• 1967 British flap

• 1975 “mystery helicopters” (and cattle mutilations)

• 1977 Colares flap in Brazil

• 1982–1986 Hudson Valley sightings

• Gulf Breeze UFO incident of 1987–1988

• Belgian “black triangle” wave of 1989–1991

• 1991–1992 Mexico wave

• 2001–2002 Argentina wave

• 2002-2004 British Columbia wave

• 2024–2025 North-eastern U.S. “mystery drones”

Features

While any unidentified object in the sky technically counts as a UFO until it is positively identified, including mundane objects such as planes, balloons, satellites and drones, “genuine” UFOs or UAP are classified as such because of their perceived anomalous characteristics. For instance, in September 1947, Lieutenant General Nathan F. Twining of the United States Air Material Command sent a memo describing some of these features:

• a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.

• b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.

• c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

• d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.

The 21st-century U.S. government programs AAWSAP and AATIP clarified these features, calling them the “five observables,” summarized as follows by Tom DeLonge’s To The Stars:

1. Sudden and instantaneous acceleration: Objects moving in such a manner that they are capable of maneuvering suddenly, deliberately and sometimes in the opposite direction. In some cases, these maneuvers involve a change in direction and acceleration that is well beyond the healthy limitations of any biological system, that we are aware of, to withstand. The anticipated effects of these g-forces on material may even defy our current technological ability to manufacture.

2. Hypersonic velocities without signatures: Objects that are traveling well above supersonic speeds and yet leave no obvious signature behind. Specific signatures normally include acoustic, heat, and electromagnetic and are traditionally recognized as a sonic boom, vapor contrails, and atmospheric ionization. Currently, even the world’s most advanced military and reconnaissance aircraft have detectible signatures.

3. Low observability: Regardless if the object is being viewed electro-optically, electromagnetically, or through the naked eye, the inability to gain a clear target picture remains elusive. Descriptions by witnesses are often difficult to describe, while radar returns often come back nonsensical or even jammed. Objects generally appear opaque and semi-metallic in nature, both on camera and live. In many cases it is nearly impossible to actually see the object and instead reports often include what is seen “around” the object.

4. Trans-medium travel: Objects that have the ability to travel easily in various environments and conditions seemingly without any change in performance capabilities. Our current understanding of physics requires vehicles to be designed specifically according to their application. For this reason, there are stark differences between those vehicles that orbit in space, fly in the atmosphere, and travel in the sea. Objects that can travel in all three mediums using the same design and without compromising performance or degrading lift remains an enigma.

5. Positive lift: Objects that are apparently resisting the natural effects of Earth's gravity, yet without the normally associated aerodynamic means for lift and thrust. These objects have no obvious signs of propulsion (engines, propellers, exhaust plumes, etc.) or flight surfaces (wings, rudders, ailerons, fins, etc.), but yet they are able to move in a very precise manner in our atmosphere despite not having any of those characteristics.

Luis Elizondo, who managed AATIP for a time along with Jay Stratton, also includes a sixth observable: “biological effects” (corresponding roughly to Hynek’s CE2). According to his book Imminent, these include such medical issues as radiation burns and internal organ damage, as well as time and perception distortions.

As “transmedium travel” suggests, UAP are not just seen in the atmosphere; they have also been reported traveling under water (unidentified submerged objects, or USOs) and in space (referred to by Space Force as “fastwalkers” and “slowwalkers”).

Shapes

UAP have been reported in a wide variety of shapes, which have persisted over the decades. According to the U.S. government’s UAP office, AARO, the most commonly reported shapes over the years 1996–2024 include:

• lights (46%)

• orb, round, sphere (31%)

• cylinder (5%)

• triangle (3%)

• square/polygon (3%)

• disk (1%)

In 2024 journalist Michael Shellenberger reported on an alleged classified White House program, previously named “Immaculate Constellation,” whose purpose is to siphon all the best-quality military and intelligence UAP reports, imagery and sensor data. Journalist Jeremy Corbell provided Congress with a document summarizing the data collected in the program, written by an insider with access. According to the report, “From 1991 to 2022, the most common UAP shapes reported in this USG dataset were spheres/orbs, discs/saucers, ovals/tic-tacs, triangles, boomerang/arrowhead, and irregular/organic. […] Variations of morphology within these categories are present.”

Note the discrepancies compared to AARO’s reporting. AARO is a modern Project Blue Book, seemingly designed to obfuscate and continue the UAP cover-up by reinforcing the status-quo position of official ignorance (“We don’t know what they are”) and skepticism (“There is no evidence they are extraterrestrial”). It does not have access to probably the vast majority of high-quality historical and contemporary imagery and reports, which remain classified at very high levels. This is evident in the fact that distant “lights” are the most common shape in their reports – the category most likely to be distant planes, satellites or some other mundane object. These are raw reports, not “confirmed” anomalies. Note also how discs are the second-most common shape in Immaculate Constellation, but the least common at AARO. This suggests the vast majority of such reports may bypass AARO completely.

Each of these shapes, as well as various other aspects of the UFO phenomenon, will be covered in this series.

Mystery Drones

Aside from a handful of mass sightings over the past 40 years – e.g. the Phoenix Lights of 1997, the 2006 O’Hare International Airport sighting in Chicago, and the 2008 Stephenville Lights in Texas – the U.S. did not experience any major waves. That changed in December 2019 and January 2020 when sightings of “mystery drones” were reported over Colorado’s nuclear silos, Nebraska, Wyoming and Kansas. The drones were often seen in isolated, rural areas, and their operators were never identified. They were described as mostly fixed-wing craft with blinking lights and wingspans of around six feet, flying in groups of six to ten (with one account of up to 50 and a possible “mother ship”) in the early evening. They flew in grid-like patterns and at low altitudes (200 to 500 feet). During this flap, former Chief of Police of Ord, NE, Chris Grooms reported seeing an intensely bright light or orb the size of his pickup truck which accelerated instantaneously and at a remarkable speed. He believes the source the “drones” may have been non-human in origin.

Four years later, in December 2023, Langley Air Force Base experienced 17 nights of mystery drone incursions: “The drones managed to evade detection and capture for weeks, to the extent they prompted the relocation of F-22 jets as a security precaution. The whole ordeal led to shutting nown nightly operations at the base and the relocation of F-22 fighter jets, which is an operation that costs millions.” The drones were again described as having flashing white, red and green lights, hovering and moving at high speeds, making abrupt changes of direction and traveling in groups of up to 20. Again, the source of the drones was never identified.

A year after that, starting on November 13, 2024, New Jersey police began receiving reports of mystery drone sightings in Morris and Somerset counties. The first report concerned a sighting over the Picatinny Arsenal in Morris (on the same day as a congressional UAP hearing). The sightings would subsequently expand to all other NJ counties and adjacent states (like Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut), continuing daily until the time of writing, in mid January 2025. Again, witnesses described low-flying, car-sized drones with blinking lights (seemingly FAA regulation, but with odd or non-standard configurations) following grid patterns, both noiseless and noisy (some witnesses described the noise as if it was a recording, and mayor of Pequannock Ryan Herd said they sound like a small plane, but the noise stops as soon as the drones have passed overhead).

The drones reportedly evaded state police helicopters, “going dark” when pursued. A private pilot in the state reported experiencing possible GPS jamming and instrument failures. Though there were a few reports of possible crashed or landed drones, there has been no information confirming that any were in fact recovered. According to all official statements, no one has been able to identify their operators, their point of origin or their final destination, though many witnesses on the coast describe them as coming from off the Atlantic.

A week after their arrival in New Jersey, UK military bases used by the U.S., primarily RAF Lakenheath, began experiencing incursions that lasted for over two weeks. Jets (and seemingly military drones) were scrambled several times in response, and radio chatter picked up by locals contained base personnel referring to “UAP” and orange “orbs” over the base. One Reddit user summarized the situation like this: “The Orcus counter drone system was used, 60 British troops were deployed to investigate. F-15 fighter jets were seen deployed during the incurions. The drones still evaded all attempts to intercept and identify them.” Drones also overflew military-industrial sites in Germany, including Ramstein Air Base. In early January, initial reports suggested a second series of incursions over six UK bases, according to journalist Christopher Sharp. Ross Coulthart claimed the same was true for bases in the U.S., “but I’m told the US [DoD] is discouraging publicity about these ongoing incursions on US bases and very sensitive airspace.”

Numerous U.S. military bases, nuclear sites, and key infrastructure were overflown by the drones, including the above-mentioned Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey, as well as Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. In mid-December, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, experienced multiple incursions, forcing it to close its airspace for four hours. The FAA issued multiple temporary flight restrictions over critical NJ infrastructure. Public reports suggest that over two dozen sensitive sites across the U.S. experienced unexplained incursions over this period.

The flap prompted responses and investigations at all levels of government – local, state and federal (FBI, FAA, DHS, DoD) – and classified congressional briefings, with congressmen and local politicians complaining about the lack of answers provided by the White House, military and executive agencies. The official explanation amounted to: “We don’t know what they are, but they are not a threat.” The lack of any useful information opened the space for numerous unofficial narratives, ranging from unlikely to absurd, to be seeded into the public discussion: from hobbyist drones and misidentifications, military tests, and a “dirty nuke” search, to hostile Iranian, Chinese or Russian drones.

A large portion of the following session was devoted to the topic:

December 21, 2024

Q: (L) So I guess the big question on everybody’s mind as Niall just put it a minute ago, “How about those drones?!” I think we’d better break it down […] Are the drones a strictly human-originated phenomenon?

A: No.

Q: (L) Are some of the drones, say, […] hyperdimensional, alien, or whatever?

A: Yes.

Another category of UAP not highlighted by AARO or the Immaculate Constellation document is what the team at NIDS (Robert Bigelow’s National Institute for Discovery Science), many of whom went on to work on AAWSAP, called “bidirectional mimicry.” As Dr. Colm Kelleher described it, the phenomenon seems to have the ability to mimic the U.S. government’s own special access programs. “We” attempt to reverse engineer their craft, and “they” mimic our state of the art aircraft:

For example, the eruption of the large black triangles that happened throughout the United States, through Europe, in many places in South America, all of these huge triangles seem to be very closely aligned with what a lot of people would have imagined were special access programs of the United States military. […] Now, why would a special access program that was sort of top-of-the-line technology […] be so foolhardy as to be flying over populated areas, fully lit with bright lights, and sometimes [at] altitudes [of] a couple of hundred feet. I mean, that is a gross violation of national security parameters of special access programs. […] we have these two layers of deception that we always have to look through in order to get to the data regarding UFOs.

Additionally, an aspect of “cultural tracking” seems inherent to the phenomenon, with NHI displaying technology at or ahead of the current state of the art, e.g. “mystery” airships, airplanes, rockets, helicopters, triangles and drones. In 1995, the Cassiopaeans suggested this was the case with the mystery/black helicopters sighted since at least the 1960s:

January 21, 1995

Q: (L) Are some of these helicopters disguised alien craft? Are some of these helicopters the property of the U.S. government?

A: Yes to both.

Q: (T) Are some of these helicopters private enterprise?

A: Yes. […] All are interconnected. […] Some too, are projections, this phenomenon is multifaceted.

Richard Dolan provides another example: reports of pilots flying small ultra-light aircraft in close formation during the Hudson Valley flap in early 1980s. These alleged (and illegal) flights were then used to debunk reports of boomerang and triangle-shaped UAP. (See also an account from 1952 of a plane-shaped UFO and another from 1965 flashing red and green lights over Edwards AFB.)

As support for the idea that at least some of the drone sightings represent “alien” craft, at least some of the sightings concern “orbs” (luminous balls of light), not drones. Additionally, several of the six observables have been reported in relation to at least some drone cases, including low observability, transmedium travel, and perhaps sudden acceleration and positive lift, as well as a few reports of physical effects. For example, authorities at various times claimed the drones evaded all drone detection capabilities, operated on an unknown frequency, weren’t able to be tracked and displayed no heat signature on police sensors. While several observers saw them coming “from the ocean,” Jeremy Corbell confirmed that they have been captured on military sensors coming out of the ocean. They have the next-generation ability to remain airborn for five to ten hours at a time and loiter for extended periods. There were also reports of conventional drones’ batteries draining in proximity to the mystery drones, similar to what happens on Skinwalker Ranch (see volume 1).

December 21, 2024 (continued)

Q: (Ivan) Are the battery malfunctions that people have reported real? […] I am asking because this type of thing has been reported by Simeon Hein in his book and related to crop circles or near crop circles. Again, if real, what is it that causes a battery’s charge to drop instantly? […]

A: The energy is drawn off into 4D.

Q: (Joe) Is that a natural function?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So when there’s a breach in the veil, either naturally or when it’s being blasted by, say, comet fragments or meteors, or when it’s happening because UFOs are breaching it, it causes a loss of energy to 4D?

A: Yes.

Q: (Joe) Is that a natural transference from 3D to 4D? Does that happen at any time there’s a veil breach in that sense?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) But then that energy comes back into 3D from 4D, doesn’t it?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So there are ways that it comes in and then ways that it goes out. What are some of the ways that it comes in?

A: Lightning, for example.

Two of the odder reported phenomena include drones showing up over the homes of FBI agents involved in the investigation, as well as witnesses feeling as if the drones were “looking” directly at them. And while not related geographically, between November 24 and December 4, 182 cows were reported missing without a trace by Colorado ranchers.

Q: (L) Is there a visible difference between the human-origin drones and the hyperdimensional drones?

A: Yes.

Aside from some reports of luminous orbs, observers haven’t highlighted any obvious distinctions between two types of drones, suggesting that the difference may only be detectable up close or using more sophisticated sensors. Jeremy Corbell shares what he has heard from contacts “defending our critical infrastructure […] that are on the ground […] filming in FLIR [forward-looking infrared]”:

There are very prosaic […] aerodynamic craft, drones, that are coming over some of our sensitive installations. However, it is reported to me that they are filming non-aerodynamic, like really non-aerodynamic-shaped objects coming in and out of the water, so in that area in New Jersey, particularly before going over nuclear sites, things coming up out of the water, [filmed] with stationary cameras that are protecting those sites – really high quality – lifting up, coming out, hovering over the base, loitering for hours at a time.

December 21, 2024 (continued)

Q: (L) Why are they appearing in such great numbers and over such a wide area and apparently for a long time period? […]

A: Many reasons depending on which time, place, and context. Closest description is [that] human-origin drones are meant to distract from “alien” drones and probes. [More on “probes” in the next section.]

This idea of “seeding” the airspace with diversionary craft has been floated by two prominent figures. Dr. Eric Weinstein suggested:

[…] if I ever have an unexplained aerial incursion that I don’t [want] to discuss and want to avoid calling UAP or UFO, I can always send up a haystack worth of actual commercial drones to hide a needle of UAP. I could then get everyone to use the word “drones” […] I could hope the public won’t notice that an unidentified SUV sized flying object *could* be manned…and so saying “drone” is a giveaway that either you know very well what is going on and don’t want to say…or you have no ideas what’s true and don’t want to say. […] Technically if an SUV sized object is airborne it is *not* a drone while unidentified. It is a UAP or UFO until identified.

Similarly, Luis Elizondo told Ross Coulthart: “If you really wanted to confuse Americans, what you could do is every time there was a major UAP incident, send up a whole bunch of drones in the area, and then people will start recording drones […] ‘Oh, that was a drone that you saw.’”

Q: (L) What are the alien drones or probes up to?

A: Psychic reading and influencing of selected populations.

For more on this aspect of NHI, see the section on alien abduction in volume 1. In 1996, the C’s gave another example in reference to a member living overseas. When asked if he needed to be warned about something, they responded: “UFOs [are] monitoring [him] and the situation” (1996-10-1).

Another possible alien motivation probably has to do with NHI/UAP’s documented interest in nuclear capabilities for the past 80 years, which will be discussed further in this series. In January 2024, plans were announced to bring U.S. nuclear weapons to Lakenheath. According to Christopher Sharp, the rumor is that they were already deployed by December.

Q: (L) Is there any significance to the fact that this has happened kind of repeatedly over a period of at least five years at approximately the same time of the year? […] (Joe) Yeah, I mean, you can go back quite a long time for sightings over military bases. You can go back to the sixties if you want [and the forties]. So the question is whether or not the sightings, for example one year ago over Langley Air Force Base, have anything to do with what’s happening today, or is that a separate...? (L) So are they all related in some way?

A: Similar.

Q: (L) So they’re there for reading and influencing of selected populations?

A: Yes.

Q: […] (L) Is it only military?

A: No.

Q: (Andromeda) They were also spotted over two U.S. military bases in the UK, and one in Germany, both this year in November [and December]. […] Were those the same kind of thing[…]?

A: Close.

Q: (Joe) […] Given that drones have been sighted over various military bases – and drones as in UFOs, they may be drones, may be UFOs – over military bases going back many years up until last year, what is the significance of such a widespread phenomenon over the past month?

A: Acclimatising the public.

Acclimatization (and disclosure) will be discussed further in a future series. This seems primarily a motivation on the part of the NHI themselves, as well as some human factions (but not others). Given that the human drones were intended to distract from the phenomenon, and by implication not bring too much attention to its anomalous nature, and are seemingly a reaction to it, any acclimitization would be a byproduct, not a primary purpose, of the decoys. As a result, the vast majority of mainstream conversation on the drones operates on the assumption that they are human-operated, not alien, so people are largely acclimatizing to the idea of repeated unknown incursions by manmade “unknowns.”

Joe Rogan shared a similar idea: “If I was an alien race and I wanted people to get accustomed to the idea that they’re being visited, I’d have things that behaved like drones, no heat signature, but they still move and behave like drones, and they’re not doing anything, so we assume they’re drones. So you get people comfortable with the idea of things in the sky all the time, then you make them a little more complex. You have a few of them that come by that don’t make any sense.”

Q: […] (L) Maybe the reason they’re so plentiful at this point in time is because gradually human beings have built up their stockpile of such drones so they can send them up to confuse things even better than they could before. Is that part of it?

A: Yes.

Q: (Joe) So this would be acclimatizing the public to an eventual disclosure of “aliens”?

A: Eventually. But spooking the population is also seen as desirable.

This is probably also a reference to NHI motivations (see the Gatwick airport case further below), in addition to the possible human motivations mentioned in the discussion that follows:

Q: […] (L) I think that the human-created drones are seen as being useful for spooking because they put ’em up there, they know what they are, they’re in control of ’em, but they deny it. […] (Andromeda) It’s gaslighting. […] (Joe) So is it true to say that this was like an “aliens” plan to have these drones or craft fly around and then the military, the government, deep state, whatever, decided to put theirs up when they realized it was happening to muddy the waters? […]

A: Close.

Q: (Joe) And with all the denials from the government saying there’s nothing going on here, do they actually know fully what is going on?

A: No.

Q: […] (L) They know what they’re doing and they know that the aliens are doing something, but they don’t really fully know what the aliens are doing. (Andromeda) What their plan is […]

A: Yes.

The relationship between NHI and the U.S. government, and the government’s knowledge of NHI and their intentions, will also be covered in more depth in a future series.

Q: (Andromeda) Have they tried to shoot one down?

A: Yes.

George Knapp shared the following: “We’ve heard from pretty reliable people […] that there have been all manner of mechanisms and systems that have been used and aimed at drones over different military bases, and none of them have worked […] we were told by our [UK] colleague Chris Sharp that they threw everything at them that they had and they couldn’t bring them down.”

Q: (L) So people like the Pentagon spokesman, at that level of […] overt government figures... Did they know of this alien presence?

A: Yes.

Q: (Gaby) So why are the aliens doing it now?

A: Part of ongoing plans falling into place.

Q: (L) And I guess we’ve already been told what those plans are. […] (seek10) Can we ask why New Jersey is the spot?

A: Heavily programmed population there.

Q: […] (L) Does Montauk have anything to do with any of this?

A: Yes. It is all interrelated.

Q: (L) So my guess is that they have people there that are programmed to do things and that they’re interested in determining if they’re ready to perform their programmed activities or if they need additional programming. [See volume 1.] OK, are they planning to turn people on or off in terms of programming?

A: Yes.

Q: (Joe) Surely reading and influencing of members of the population could be done without such a visible display of lights in the sky and stuff. So it seems that the main agenda here is obviously to spook the population and prepare them, like I said, acclimatize them to lights in the sky, UFOs...

A: Also, the invisibility granted by a firmly structured density-veil is not as secure as previously.

Q: (Joe) OK. So it’s likely that a lot more of these things are going to be seen around the world. (L) So does that mean that when people have in the past or in other times and places been read and influenced and so forth […] what’s actually happening is some kind of orbs or something are nearby, only they are concealed from view because the veil is more secure. Is that it?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So with the veil being less secure, or “thinning” as we call it, that means that a lot more of this type of activity is visually seen and probably will be seen elsewhere – as well as other things that ordinarily would be concealed by the veil. Is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: (Joe) So this is setting up an explanation in advance for that phenomenon being more visible, that people will say, “Oh, it’s just like in New Jersey: It was drones.” It’s a pretty poor effort on the part of government to convince people these are just drones. I mean, I suppose it’s the best they can do, but... […] (L) They’re also trying to really reinforce the idea that it is a totally physical phenomenon. Because I mean, really covering up the highly strange nature of these things is one of their main goals and tricks. (Joe) But surely the “aliens” have the ability to always make it appear as if it’s a physical phenomenon?

A: No.

Q: (Joe) They don’t always have the ability to appear as drones or lights in the sky? […] I’m talking about alien drones that are appearing as – generally speaking – as a drone, a drone-type object. People are saying that it doesn’t look like a plane. It’s too small, it’s weird, etc. So they’re not able to make it look exactly like a drone. But they do seem to be able to manifest as something that people see as a physical object, albeit a bit strange looking.

A: Some of those are human-made decoys.

Recall the paragraphs on bidirectional mimicry above. At least in some cases, UFOs appear in more or less “conventional” forms, but even these usually contain oddities, e.g. silent helicopters, triangular craft displaying the five observables, or structural incongruities.

Q: […] (Chu) And then there’s the weird orbs and stuff that don’t look very human. (Joe) Well, there are a few, but the vast majority are ambiguous. (Andromeda) There’s a mixed bag. […] (L) So somebody on the chat wants to know if the UFOs want to gauge how aware the population is getting? […]

A: Testing of the will, yes.

Q: (Andromeda) And also probably testing for the reaction to that kind of thing. […] (Niall) There are lots of videos people are posting. We don’t know, but they claim to be associated with drones or in the areas where these drones are seen, where either street lights or car lights or building lights are not just flashing, they’re blinking on and off. (Joe) And radio interference. […] (Andromeda) Could it be associated with the human decoy drones, the alien craft, or even part of this thinning of the veil? Weather phenomena? Is it associated with any of those?

A: Yes.

Q: (Andromeda) Which one?

A: All sometimes.

Q: (L) But we know from case histories that UFOs make cars stop, make things blink, etc. […] We also know that overflying comet or meteorite fragments can cause all the car alarms in a neighborhood to go off, as well as all of the garage doors to open and close and so forth, because there’s electromagnetic anomalies. And we also know it can happen from weather. So, you’d have to take a particular case in order to get an answer […] Because if it’s happening and the drones are there at the time, we may assume that it’s associated. […] (Joe) They said that it was part of an ongoing plan falling into place. Is that a long-term plan, or […] is it related in any way to Trump becoming president and something that’s planned for that? Or is it a longer-term acclimatization only?

A: As previously noted, there was a change in plans, thus some recalibration is needed. [A reference to the election of Trump.]

Q: (L) […] Is this activity beneficial to human beings?

A: Decidedly not.

Q: (Joe) Why not?

A: Review plans to amalgamate and rule humans after the changes. [See volume 1.]

Q: (Joe) But that was going to happen... OK, so it’s just part of that longer-term plan then.

A: Yes.

Q: […] (Andromeda) So what is the current thinning of the veil due to?

A: Wave. [I.e. “The Change.”]

Q: […] (whitecoast) Does the thinning veil make it harder for 4D ships to maintain a “fixed” appearance matching the likeness of 3D craft?

A: Can.

Q: (Joe) What percentage, if we can get a percentage, roughly, of the drones that have been cited were “alien” versus human? (L) What percentage of them were alien?

A: 37.

On its own, this number does not reveal much. If it refers to reported drones, a certain percentage will be planes and other misidentifications. If it refers exclusively to the ratio of alien to human drones in the sky, it does not take into account the frequencies with which each is sighted and reported. A human-made decoy may hypothetically be reported five times as often, or five times less often. In other words, we may have fewer human drones reported at a higher frequency than the alien ones, or more human drones reported at a lower frequency, or any other variation.

Documentarian James Fox told Breaking Points in mid-January that, “I think these recent drone sightings will ultimately – a core 15-20% that seem to defy a terrestrial or conventional explanation […] That’s my take on all the intel folks that I’ve been talking to recently.” Grok, by contrast, estimates 20-30% of the reports to be of conventional objects, and Mayor Ryan Herd believes that only 5% of the 5,000 reports made to the FBI are “real.”

Q: […] (Joe) So in that context then, do humans, the government, deep state, whatever, do they have drone technology that is pretty far beyond what most of us here and the average person is aware of?

A: Yes.

Leaving aside claims of “alien reproduction vehicles” (e.g. the rumored TR-3B) developed as a result of the reverse-engineering of crash retrievals (covered in a future series), one of the earliest similar claims comes from the Law of One material in a session conducted on January 26, 1981:

Your peoples have, at […] present, the technological achievement […] of being able to create and fly the shape and type of craft known to you as unidentified flying objects. Unfortunately […] these devices are not intended for the service of mankind, but for potential destructive use. […] These […] are part of the so-called military complex of various of your peoples’ societal divisions or structures. […] these people are those in your […] governments responsible for what you would term national security. […] The governments […] desire to refrain from publicity so that the surprise may be retained in case of hostile action from what your peoples call enemies. […] The United States has [573] at this time. They are in the process of adding to this number. […] The maximum speed of these craft […] is approximately one-half the light speed, as you would call it. […] They are controlled by computer from a remote source of data.

According to Green Beret UAP whistleblower Randy Anderson, he saw things while deployed that led him to conclude: “There’s technology out there that would blow people’s minds if they knew that we had that capability. […] The drone technology is pretty significantly better than people think.” When asked about the NJ drones, replied that he believes we are seeing “our technology and drones respond to something that’s not ours.”

PROJECT FEAR interviewed another military source who currently works with “sensitive sensors” in New Jersey. He told them, “In my opninion, with what I know, I believe the drones are definitely U.S. government, and I believe the reason that there’s so many of them now is, we can’t cover everything with our ground stations, our mobile crews and aircraft.” He thinks the drones are there to surveil other craft, like orbs. He says there is zero chance this is a foreign adversary, like China, and that many military units have been moved into the state over the past year to try to figure out what’s going on.

Q: […] (Joe) So […] maybe already or very quickly, we’re getting to the point where so-called alien tech and human tech is merging or indistinguishable to some extent, or […] (Andromeda) Difficult to distinguish from a distance. (L) Would you say it’s difficult to distinguish without careful analysis?

A: Yes.

Q: […] (Ant22) With Tucker Carlson talking about [the UFO phenomenon] being supernatural in interviews, I guess the material nature of the UFO phenomenon is something they’d want to reinforce. (L) Is that why they’re doing this?

A: Yes. […]

Q: (Saman) Can we know a bit more in general layman terms how this stage of the Wave cycle is causing the thinning of the veil that normally hides hyperdimensional activity from 3D-STS beings?

A: There are no specific layman terms. But in general just think of 3D merging into 4D.

The following section deals with a seemingly unrelated topic, but which becomes relevant as it proceeds:

Q: (Joe) […] We’re just wondering about [our dog] Leia, who had an accident. […] We assume she had a fall, but anyway, she broke two ribs a few days ago. Don’t know how. Outside somewhere. It was anomalous. […] (Chu) What happened to her?

A: Encounter with energy anomaly.

Q: (Andromeda) Did this thing cause her to jump or fall or something like that?

A: Pushed.

Q: (Joe) What was the nature of the energy anomaly?

A: Like an energy “wind”.

Q: (Joe) Is that related to thinning of the veil?

A: Yes.

Q: (Joe) And did something similar happen to Falcor [another dog] that same evening?

A: Yes.

Q: (Joe) Was it kind of like a wind that something he ran into […]?

A: Yes.

Q: […] (Joe) So he didn’t see anything. The thing is, he ran off […] as if he was aware of something.

A: Animals have a different perception of energy.

Q: (Joe) So it wasn’t something that was particularly malevolent or benevolent?

A: No.

Q: […] (Niall) Falcor started yelping like he was in pain. (Joe) Well, he ran into something. Something hit him. […] (Andromeda) Is there anything we can do to protect the puppies against this kind of thing?

A: Present times are very unstable for all beings. Awareness and vigilance protect.

Q: […] (L) In our reality, if a helicopter lands on your front lawn, there’s a whole lot of wind. Is there something similar to that with these energy winds? Is it evidence of some other kind of hyperdimensional activity? (Andromeda) Like an effect of something else... (L) Yeah.

A: Indeed and usually.

Q: (Andromeda) And can they affect humans? I mean, this was both of the doggies in one day.

A: Yes. […]

Q: (Joe) Do the accidents or the events with the two dogs imply that there was some activity interested in this house here, or at that time?

A: Yes. […] Trying to read and influence.

Q: (Niall) Was there one of those probes nearby?

A: Yes.

Q: […] (Gaby) I saw, well, I thought I saw a red light, but I figured it was the Christmas lights. […]

Around this time, two possible examples were posted on social media. The first, from July, shows a man being knocked off his porch by what appears to be a fast-moving orbt the size of a baseball. The second, filmed in South Carolina, shows large trees in a man’s backyard violently swaying and breaking with no wind or obvious source of the disturbance. Analysis of the videos shows some anomalous light emitting from the trees, and another small light orb that appears to break a branch.

Q: (seek10) Can 3D [man-made] drones disappear into thin air? […]

A: No.

Q: […] (Kinyash) Is there any chance that the current “invasion” can cause the deep state to prevent Trump from being inaugurated by instituting Continuity of Government?

A: Possible but not likely.

Interestingly, there are some indications that the drone incursions were considered a “national security event,” possibly triggering Continuity of Government protocols. Researcher Richard Geldreich noticed that several obscure CoG-related search terms spiked on Google during the flap. See his appearance on the Through A Glass Darkly podcast with Sean Patrick Hazlett for details.

Other Cases

Potentially anomalous drones were first brought up in a 2014 session about reports of drones observed over French nuclear plants. In this case, the answer suggested they were a nation state’s, not NHI (2014-12-6). In 2016, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket exploded prior to launch. In video of the explosion, two black dots can be seen zooming by the rocket just prior to launch. According to the C’s, this was sabotage using a “drone type,” presumably by a competitor, ULA, an alliance between Boeing and Lockheed Martin (2016-10-15). The first mention of a UFO drone was in 2018:

December 29, 2018

Q: (Joe) What were the drones that were reported around Gatwick airport about a week ago? They caused the airport to shut down [for two days]. Were they drones?

A: No.

Q: (Joe) Were they UFOs?

A: Yes.

See Adam Goldsack’s article, “Mystery of the Unidentified Aerial Drones (UAD) at Gatwick,” for details, including a photograph of the object. The case remains unsolved.

Q: (Niall) And then a few days later at the Birmingham airport?

A: Yes.

The official explanation for the Birmingham closure was “a fault with the electronic flight plan system.”

Q: (Joe) What were they doing, just freaking people out?

A: Yes. [See the reference to “spooking” in the NJ flap discussion.]

Q: (Joe) Just for fun, eh?

A: Yes.

The next example covers the U.S. Navy’s SoCal exercises in spring/summer 2019. Documentary filmmaker and UFO researcher Dave Beatty first uncovered details in 2020 of a possible Navy “encounter [with] a UAP in July 2019.” In April and May 2021, Jeremy Corbell released videos taken by crewmen (including radar) from the USS Omaha, adding, “This footage is unclassified. Still images of this footage were included in the May 1st, 2020 UAPTF intelligence briefing.” On May 23, 2021, The War Zone published a piece on the incursions, the details of which were gleaned from deck logs released via FOIA (they make no mention of the Omaha). It refers to five or six “drones” swarming Navy ships over a period of days. Crew described them as hovering, matching their ship’s speed in poor visibility and operating 100 miles to sea for hours in poor weather conditions.

May 29, 2021

Q: (Joe) What happened with the “drones” which swarmed the USS Kidd, USS Rafael Peralta, and the USS Russell on July 14 and 15, 2019? Who made them and why were they there? Why was this information leaked to the public?

A: False flag.

Q: […] (L) In other words, the U.S. was doing it to itself, then leaked it as though somebody else had done it. We know pretty well that the U.S. is not going to let somebody else do something like that, but they acted like they did so they could blame somebody. […] High-tech false flag. (Joe) Exotic weaponry, exotic drones. They’re using it on themselves and then releasing the information so that they can say Russia is attacking with their fancy weaponry. (Ark) Or China.

During a congressional UAP hearing in May 2022, officials claimed that the they were “reasonably confident” the objects seen in one of the leaked Omaha videos were drones, not UAP, but did not assign blame to any nation for the swarms. The War Zone published a follow-up in June, covering additional FOIA documents from the Navy revealing additional incidents going back to March 2019. They note the close proximity of the Hong Kong-flagged MV Bass Strait to the USS Paul Hamilton: “The briefing slide states that the Navy assessed that the commercial cargo ship was likely conducting surveillance on Navy vessels using drones, or [unmanned] aerial vehicles (UAV).” However, “It also indicates that the UAS incident continued after the Bass Strait departed the area.” Aside from suggesting that some Navy crewmen suspected the Bass Strait, no official statement has echoed this narrative or otherwise attributed blame, at least not on the unclassified level.

In response to the official dismissal of the footage, former UAPTF director Jay Stratton and lead scientist Travis Taylor revealed more details. While the deck logs refer to drones, Stratton says he “got an email from the carrier strike group commander saying, “Jay, we’ve got some UAP’.” UAPTF “had a guy on board his carrier within a day, in order to start educating, start collecting data, start getting the folks talking, going to each ship in a helicopter, and bringing everything back to D.C. immediately.” The events were much more extensive than suggested by the War Zone articles:

They claim that far from a simple case of a misidentified drone, it was a shocking event involving multiple US ships ‘swarmed’ by around 100 objects – some truly ‘triangle shaped’ – that flew for such long distances and times that they feared America’s adversaries had cracked breakthrough battery technology. […] Stratton […] said he had a high enough security clearance to determine that the objects were not US-operated. […]

Navy documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show the crafts’ capabilities included hovering at altitudes of up to 21,000ft, flying for more than four hours, traveling long distances in one flight, and being apparently impervious to anti-drone Navy technology.

According to Corbell, Knapp and Stratton, the objects remain unattributed and were classified as genuine UAP by the UAPTF. Marik von Rennenkampff highlights some of the public evidence supporting this:

Over the course of several weeks, mysterious objects hovered and maneuvered around the Navy vessels, prompting a sweeping, multi-jurisdictional investigation. Importantly, some of the more perplexing incidents took place nearly 200 miles off the coast of San Diego. The imagery released publicly shows indistinct, seemingly round objects.

In one intriguing video associated with the incursions, a spherical object descends slowly into the ocean approximately 120 miles off the California coast. In a similar incident the following day, sailors aboard a different Navy vessel observed an object “splashing” into the sea some 160 miles off the coast.

Like the Langley Air Force Base incursions, incident reports note that the unknown objects displayed flashing lights, predominantly white, red and green.

On X, Rennenkampff pointed out a possible connection between the events and the 2004 Nimitz encounter (discussed in a later section):

• In 2004, groups of UAP disappeared from radar “right above Guadalupe Island” (Kevin Day).

• In 2019, after hovering around USS Paul Hamilton, a group of UAP departed on a heading *to the exact same location.*

If the event was a “false flag,” it seems to have involved various types of deception, similar to the 2024 mystery drone flap: NHI mimicking drones in some cases but not others (e.g. the spheres and triangles caught on camera), the military deliberately misidentifying UAP as drones for the public, the possible presence of actual drones adding confusion and the possible blaming of foreign adversaries in classified settings.

For more information on the 2019 swarms, see the following two episodes of Corbell and Knapp’s Weaponized podcast:

• UFO Swarms + A Military Perspective : WEAPONIZED : EPISODE #2

• The Pentagon’s Top UFO Hunter : WEAPONIZED : EPISODE #3

January 14, 2023

Q: (Adobe) What, if anything, was shot down over the Rostov region in Russia [on January 3]? […] (Niall) They said it was a drone, but there were rumors on the ground that there was a strange light.

A: UFO was not shot down but was observing.

According to Vasily Golubev, the governor of Rostov oblast, the object was a “small-size object in the shape of a ball” flying at approximately 8,000 feet, and “the decision was taken to liquidate it.” Alleged video of the attempted shoot-down was posted on social media at the time.

Recommended General UFO Books/Histories

• John Keel: Operation Trojan Horse (1970)

• Richard Dolan: UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973 (2002)

• Leslie Kean: UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record (2011)

• Richard Dolan: UFOs and the National Security State: The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973-1991 (2013)

• Richard Dolan: UFOs for the 21st Century Mind: The Definitive Guide to the UFO Mystery (2022)

• Ross Coulthart: In Plain Sight: An Investigation into UFOs and Impossible Science (2023)

Graeme Rendall has also written a series of books covering the early sightings and waves from 1940 to 1956:

• UFOs Before Roswell: European Foo Fighters 1940-1945 (2021)

• Dawn of the Flying Saucers: Aerial UFO Encounters & Official Investigations 1946-1949 (2022)

• Flying Saucer Fever: Aerial UFO Encounters 1950-1952 (2022)

• Intercept & Identify: Aerial UFO Encounters 1953-1954 (2023)

• Chasing Shadows: Aerial UFO Encounters 1955-1956 (2024)

• The French UFO Wave of 1954 (2024)

Video Sources

• Eyes On Cinema presents: Eyes On UFOs: X (@RealEOC_2), YouTube (@EyesOnCinema) – a regularly updated archive of various UFO documentary footage from the past 70 years

• Jenined UFO Research: X (@JeninedUFO), YouTube (@Jenined) – thematic collections of UFO footage

• ProPixel Video Analysis and Research: X (@BillyKryzak) – professional analysis of current UFO videos

• think tank: X (@528vibes) – daily UFO videos collected from social media

Mystery Drone Articles

• Howard Altman, Tyler Rogoway, “Mysterious Drones Swarmed Langley AFB For Weeks” (March 15, 2024)

• Marik von Rennenkampff, “Drones or UFOs? Alarming incursions demand answers” (April 21, 2024)

• Kyle Warfel and Christopher Sharp, “Witness Statements Reveal Alarming ‘Drone’ Incursions Over Langley Air Force Base As Dronebusters Failed to Intercept Objects” (September 14, 2024)

• Nicholas Slayton, “Drones swarmed a military base for days. The Pentagon still doesn’t know why.” (October 14, 2024)

• Christopher Sharp, “USAF Confirms Drone Incursions Over UK Bases Spanning Five Consecutive Days Amid Further Reports of Activity” (November 25, 2024)

• Howard Altman, “Nuclear Power Plants Report Massive Uptick In Drone Sightings” (December 21, 2024)

• THE_ILL_SAGE, “Definitive Evidence Something Concerning is Going on (w/ compilation)” (December 23, 2024)

• Richard Gelreich, “Mystery Drone UAP Wave Chronology, Starting Nov. 18 2024” (January 3, 2025)

Next: Spheres, Saucers, Tic-Tacs and more