Official Stories Aside, What do the Drones Mean?

December 17, 2024

I have been waiting to react to the drone story until I had a clear idea of how the Administration and its captive media were going to spin it. That became clear when National Security Adviser John Kirby announced that, after “days and days of forensic work analysis,” it had been determined that all the drone sightings reported “represent lawful, legal commercial and hobbyist drones—even law enforcement drones.” He went on to say that the drones represent “no risk.” The New York Times then published a story supporting this claim. I would assume that this will now be taken up by the general media and, if the drones cease to appear, the crisis will end. If they continue, the government will stand by its story no matter what. Nobody offered any concrete evidence, such as flight tracks of drones that identified their origin and destination, or any retrieved materials or anything similar. Materials may be brought forth at some point. They will not contain anomalous materials or anything like that. Anything they do contain that suggests an unknown origin will be hidden.

The question becomes, “is any of what he said true?” The answer is, quite simply, “no.”

The reasons are obvious, but a captive media is not going to explore them. In fact, we will be able to assess which media outlets are captive by seeing how they react.

First, FAA regulations require drones that fly in established airways to have transponders. I personally used the FlightRadar24 app during drone flyovers and observed no transponder returns from them, not even from the one that was seen on LaGuardia Airport approach and recorded by a passing plane. On December 12, the New York Emergency Management Department announced that it had received reports of drones flying over the city, including LaGuardia airport. Local laws in New York City make it illegal to fly drones except from regulated heliports and airports, including hobbyist drones, and require local approvals in addition to the fulfillment of FAA requirements. The drones that flew over the city blatantly violated local laws, just as they did FAA requirements, and they violated FAA requirements over many of the other areas affected.

So why would the government resort to blatant, transparent lies? The first and simplest reason is that it has no control over the situation. It also knows that it has a captive media that is guaranteed to support it. But not all media is captive anymore. If the drone overflights continue, questions will continue to be asked. But if they don’t, then the story will evaporate in a day or so.

Government is about control, and when it can’t control something that affects the public, the first line of defense is to pretend that it can. That’s where they are now.

Let’s do a brief review of the situation. Drones appeared over northern Colorado and Nebraska in 2019. They were described as having a span of about six feet, and were seen in groups of as many as 19. They generally flew between 200 and 500 feet, and appeared between 6 and 10 PM.

Flying drones in formation and flying them at night both require waivers from the FAA, but that organization reported that no such waivers had been obtained.

In January of 2020, the flights ceased, and the investigation was concluded for lack of evidence.

Looking back, I believe that this was a test of how we would react to such incursions. The answer was clear: not effectively.

In December of 2023, incursions took place in Langley, Virginia, primarily over Langley Air Force Base. These incursions continued for 17 days. Despite the fact that the Pentagon confirmed that they were taking place over restricted airspace, and one involved a near miss with an F-22, there was no effort by the military to control them. Although I will say that, at that time, the lying wasn’t quite as blatant. But then again, the situation was also easier for the media to ignore.

Now we get to what I believe is the heart of the matter. First, I think that it is rather clear that the drones are not under the control of any state player or, in fact, any human player at all, at least, not entirely human. Let’s get into why I think this.

We began seeing unusual activity in world airspace shortly after World War II, when so-called “ghost rockets” appeared in Sweden. This was followed by a steady uptick, and reached a level of direct action at White Sands in 1946 when a V-2 that had been captured from the Nazis was being tested. As I recounted in Them, “on May 15, a German V-2 rocket that had been test-fired from White Sands went astray due to what Lieutenant Colonel Harold R. Turner, the White Sands Proving Ground commanding officer, described to the Las Cruces Sun-News as “peculiar circumstances.” According to United States Civilian Space Programs (p. 166), as the rocket ascended, radar operators reported that an unknown object had appeared near it when it reached an altitude of 40 miles. The rocket immediately changed course and was destroyed by ground control officers two minutes later.”

This was a warning. It was caused by the fact the the United States was then the only world power with nuclear weapons, and its acquisition of missile technology meant that an extremely dangerous situation was now inevitable. It was a warning, no more.

The warning went unheeded, and might not even have been understood for what it was.

The Kenneth Arnold sightings then followed, then the Roswell Incident and all that has come after. What was occurring, I think, was that somebody who, as Jacques Vallee showed in his groundbreaking book Passport to Magonia, has been here throughout the ages, was now reacting to a sudden increase in peril to the human species. In order to enable us to remain independent, they were avoiding direct intervention.

Our visitors’ next step was to make their concerns known by appearing at missile control facilities in both the United States and the Soviet Union and affecting the weapons’ functionality and targeting, and to do things like overfly nuclear weapons facilities.

The message was now more clear: nuclear weapons and nuclear confrontations are growing more dangerous.

Across the 1970s and into the 2000s, many people experienced close encounters of the third kind. Some, but not all, of them remembered these contacts, and some of the ones who did remember responded by attempting to reconnect with the entities who had come into their lives. There were also more benign contacts, some of which came with something close to proof.

One example of a successful connection is close encounter witness Chris Bledsoe, who can offer numerous videos of orbs of light to support his claims. I am another such person, and can offer witness testimony besides my own to direct encounters with non-human entities at the cabins I owned in upstate New York between 1983 and 1994. There is also videotape of an attempt to remove an anomalous object from my left ear that took place in 1996, that shows it moving away from the surgeon’s scalpel on its own. The object was placed there, not by aliens but by two people in May of 1989. I was awake at 11 PM when they approached me and overpowered me. A CT scan of the object also exists.

There are others with direct evidence as well, so I think that the idea can reasonably be entertained that some people are in contact with unknown entities. There are many more of us without substantive evidence, but with powerful memories, and a lot of us recall being warned, in a few cases about the danger of nuclear war, but more about the danger of climate change.

This warning is so ubiquitous among the close encounter community that it can be paired with the warning about nuclear dangers that was delivered to governing organizations: climate change is also an extreme danger, which, like nuclear war, is a fundamental threat to life on Earth.

In recent months, both of those warnings have been challenged at the same time. First, the U.S. moved nuclear weapons back into the United Kingdom after a 20 year absence. This would not have been so provocative in the past, but with new delivery systems, they can be projected to their targets either very quickly or using stealth platforms that can reach deep inside Russia from the UK. The weapons were withdrawn in the first place because it was thought that these technologies, then in development, would destabilize détente of they were deployed too close to Russia. Now, the nukes are back within the danger zone. Whether or not the delivery systems I am referring to are as well I don’t know, but the fact that they may be is profoundly destabilizing. If Russian strategists do not know the answer to this question, that is even more destabilizing, because they are forced to assume the worst. This means that they will game scenarios in which they must be the first to initiate conflict in order to win it. The brilliance of the balance that existed in the past was that it meant that, no matter which side fired first, both were certain to be destroyed. When that balance is interrupted, as it has been, it may be that nuclear conflict becomes inevitable, and our visitors may know this, which would explain why they so dramatically intensified their warning.

The next thing that happened is that Donald Trump was elected to the U.S. presidency in part on an agenda to completely ignore the environmental crisis and roll back what protections have been put in place. This is particularly important because the U.S. is the only large-scale economy with the resources to do something about this that is not already taking action. Russia can’t because it is too poor and disorganized. China can’t because its central government cannot project enough power internally at the level needed to make the drastic changes that will be necessary. The same is true of India. Europe is doing what it can and will do more if necessary, assuming the French and German governments don’t become chaotic, which might happen, it would seem. The UK will continue its efforts.

The Lakenheath appearance sent the message that the strategic move of  US nuclear weapons back into the UK was a dangerous mistake, the second that the contemplated climate policy change is the same.

Given that the official reaction has been so remarkably self-serving and entirely mendacious in every detail, I would assume that the U.S. government not only has no intention of heeding these warnings, but also that they are throwing them back right into our visitors’ faces.

In the end, this will prove to have been a mistaken policy. If it is met by further intervention, it is likely to be less benign. If it is not, and they allow things to play out until we are absolutely desperate, then we will lose dominion over our own lives to them. For reasons having to do with the deep physics of the situation and the nature of our brains and minds, this loss will probably be permanent.

 We have been on our own here on this little blue dot of ours for a long time. Although others have known this, they have only minimally intervened.

One positive thing about this new intervention is that it is proof positive that somebody values us greatly, apparently even more than we do ourselves. Perhaps that is the most powerful message to be found here. Certainly, it is the one we need most to heed.

 https://www.unknowncountry.com/whitleys-journal/official-lies-aside-what-do-the-drones-mean/