Black Budget Programs, Foreign Adversaries, And Misidentified Objects Can’t Explain All UAP

Please note that the following column appeared in the February 18th digital edition of the Roswell Daily Record and has been republished with permission.

A month ago this holiday weekend, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the former Director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), wrote an article in Scientific American detailing what he says he learned about unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) during his tenure. You may recall that in December 2022, Congress officially established AARO to investigate UAP, including reports of above top-secret crash retrieval (CR) and reverse engineering (RE) programs related to technologies of unknown origin (TUO) and nonhuman intelligence (NHI) and report its findings back to Congress.

Dr. Kirkpatrick reported that AARO investigated allegations of UAP CR/RE programs. However, their findings indicated nothing beyond inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures of legitimate US programs or related research and development (R&D) unrelated to extraterrestrial issues or technology. In simpler terms, Dr. Kirkpatrick suggested that some UAP accounts and reports of CR/RE might be linked to classified government programs. This argument neatly aligns with explanations for other UAP accounts that do not involve black budget programs, attributing them to misidentified objects such as balloons, airborne trash, birds, and swamp gas.

Let’s zoom in on the idea that UAP occurrences are explained by the theory that UAP might be linked to classified black budget programs, hiding advanced technologies developed by governmental entities, potentially including foreign adversaries. This explanation faces difficulties when closely examining the timeline of UAP observations, especially those from the 1940s to the 1960s.

During this period, notable geopolitical players such as China and the Soviet Union failed to achieve crucial technological milestones. China’s inaugural nuclear weapon test transpired in October 1964, postdating many of the earlier observed UAP occurrences. Similarly, the Soviet Union’s initial atomic bomb test took place in 1949, after the onset of UAP reports. This incongruence raises questions about the veracity of the black budget hypothesis in explaining the origins of UAP during this timeframe.

On the other hand, the assertion that these unidentified phenomena might be technologies of unknown origin from an NHI gains traction when considering the technological capabilities of contemporary foreign adversaries. China’s first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test happened in 1971, well after the observed UAP events. The Soviet Union, a significant player in the global geopolitical landscape, only launched its first true ICBM in 1957.

North Korea’s technological advancements, marked by its first satellite launch in 1998 and the testing of its initial nuclear weapon in 2006, occurred long after the period under scrutiny. Iran, a more recent player in the geopolitical arena, successfully launched its first domestically made satellite in February 2009, emphasizing the improbability of attributing UAP to foreign adversaries, particularly in the early decades of the modern era of UAP, beginning in the 1940s.

Skeptics often argue that the government could not feasibly keep extraterrestrial encounters or the existence of NHI a secret. However, this argument falls short when considering the equally extraordinary challenge of concealing the US Government’s development of advanced machines mistakenly identified as UAP.

The intricate web of secrecy surrounding these craft, with capabilities beyond conventional understanding, poses a problem. The government’s ability to keep such marvels hidden from public knowledge challenges the skepticism surrounding the plausibility of concealing otherworldly encounters. The paradox emerges: how can a government maintain secrecy both regarding the existence of NHIs and the development of machines mistaken for UAP?

An analytical approach is crucial in the quest to understand the genuine cases of UAP. Examining major global players’ historical timelines and technological milestones reveals a misalignment with the observed UAP occurrences, particularly in the early decades of the modern UAP era. This misalignment raises compelling questions about the origins of UAP and prompts a reconsideration of the hypothesis that some may represent TUO from NHI. The government does not want to talk about such a hypothesis publicly, for whatever reason.

As the investigation into UAP continues, an evidence-based understanding becomes paramount. A reasonable examination of facts and historical context allows for a more comprehensive exploration of the enigma surrounding UAP. This is why we, as a people, must apply all reasonable pressure on Congress to hold more public hearings.