The Discrepancy in Numbers

The mention of less than 500 additional sightings seems trivial when juxtaposed against a database containing over 250,000 puzzling UFO reports. Furthermore, there exists a clear distinction between the observations made by ground troops and those witnessed by pilots at higher altitudes. It’s more plausible that balloons, drones, or other debris are encountered at lower altitudes rather than at cruising altitudes of 32,000 feet.

The extensive database of 250,000 UFO sightings, as referenced by Jacques Vallée, includes instances where aviators at altitude have reported encounters with craft that appear to be under intelligent control. These sightings are supported by multiple eyewitness accounts, recorded exchanges between pilots and ground control, FAA documentation, as well as photographic and radar evidence. This compilation is considered high-quality, having filtered out less credible reports.

Drenon’s analysis is straightforward and devoid of sensationalism, yet it adheres to the conventional narrative that states, “None of the reports have been linked to any extra-terrestrial activity.”

A pivotal point to consider:

Almost half of the new sightings were classified as “unremarkable” and attributed to human-made sources, according to the report. Out of 366 new reports, 26 were identified as drones, 163 as balloons, and six were categorized as clutter.

This raises confusion: I initially understood the increase to be 500. If half of that number is ruled out, how do we arrive at 366? Adding up 26 and 163 results in 189, which leads to a discrepancy. If many sightings are accounted for, why are they included in a UFO report when they can be identified?

If the reports of military personnel observing UFOs interacting with nuclear missile technology are accurate, the implications are undeniable. If these were foreign adversaries, it could escalate to an act of war. With no evidence pointing to foreign interference, the suggestion is that we are dealing with alien phenomena.

Examining the Data

If the media seeks to sensationalize UFO sightings as "skyrocketing," why not reference the staggering count of 250,000? A far more productive approach would be for the BBC to engage with Jacques Vallée in an interview, rather than relying solely on niche podcasts that cater to a specific audience.

As much as I appreciate platforms like Gaia TV and the insights of Mishlove, Cristina Gomez, and Jimmy Church, they often resonate with a limited audience. The broader public deserves to be included in this dialogue.

If the objective is to uncover the truth and inform society, why are we being presented with misleading figures? Drenon’s article is factual yet prompts reflection—could he be unaware of Vallée’s extensive database?

Jacques Vallée, at 83, is a monumental figure in UFO research, having dedicated over five decades to this field. His insights could vastly enrich public understanding. Where are the investigative journalists reaching out to him? His loss would signify a tremendous gap in UFO research.

The time for a comprehensive discussion on this subject is now.

It’s plausible that Drenon is unfamiliar with the UFO database, which could explain the discrepancies in his math. Accurate conclusions cannot be drawn when the foundational data is incorrect. The military is certainly aware of this database, as is NASA. According to Vallée, both statements hold true.

Thus, the pressing questions should be directed at the military: Why the obfuscation? Why present known entities as UFOs? Furthermore, what about the database of 250,000 unidentified sightings?

The media must also confront these institutions, demanding clarity and accountability.

Is it possible that journalists are simply unaware of the larger context, making it challenging for them to pose critical questions?

It would also be beneficial to filter out journalistic noise that often distracts from the core issues at hand.

Cognitive Dissonance in Reporting

In the midst of Drenon’s report, where he prepares to reiterate the conventional wisdom that “None of the reports have been linked to any extra-terrestrial activity,” another reputable source suggests, “These objects exhibit physics that defy our understanding.”

How can one dismiss the possibility of extra-terrestrial involvement if the phenomena observed contradict known physics? The cognitive dissonance here is alarming. Is this disconnect a result of ignorance, leading journalists to write only within their comfort zones?

If this is the case, how can one expect a journalist to delve into a topic that has been deliberately suppressed for decades by U.S. intelligence agencies? The established UFO narrative has been largely dismissed, but if the government has concealed their investigations, shouldn't journalists challenge their own assumptions and join those who are informed?

When searching for credible voices in this field, Jacques Vallée stands out as an obvious choice. His prominence in the domain makes it easy for journalists to locate him. After all, he played a significant role in shaping the narrative around UFOs, even appearing in the iconic film "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

Clearly, UFOs do not present insurmountable complexities.

The underlying mathematics are not as convoluted as they seem. An eastbound train approaching a westbound train at 55 mph, the moon aligned in the seventh house, and a hovering drone—all while the Earth’s core ceased its rotation in 2009, unnoticed due to the unaltered magnetosphere, as demonstrated by aurora borealis images since then. If the Van Allen belt poses risks for astronauts, isn't this the perfect opportunity to revisit lunar exploration?

What was that eastbound train doing again?