The Trouble With Tic Tac Technology

Wherein I Speculate Wildly and Irresponsibly About the Haves, the Have Nots, and the Keepers of UAP Secrets.

During Project Unity’s recent interview with Franc Milburn and Bob McGwier, the trio went in depth to break down Milburn’s recent explainer on UAP-TF for the Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies. In my opinion, the paper functions as an extremely detailed (and relatively concise) breakdown of the relevant facts, current thinking and unknowns surrounding UAP. If you have not already read the paper, you should absolutely set aside some time to do so. Franc mentioned a heavy Keith Basterfield influence to his research and it shows. The paper is absolutely filled to the brim with details that may have gone unnoticed to all but the most hardcore enthusiasts and researchers. Franc also manages to obtain some really interesting email correspondence from the likes of Eric Davis and Jack Sarfatti. This paper shouldn’t be allowed to fall by the wayside. Serious estimates about UAP reality, characteristics, and origins are not published by internationally recognized strategic think-tanks every day. Likewise, this interview from Project Unity was absolutely phenomenal. I continue to be surprised by Jay’s ability to ask the right questions. His serious attention to detail and competence in these interviews is exactly what we need right now.

There were many fascinating aspects of this interview, but the one that drew most of my attention was a discussion about the logic behind current estimates regarding nation-state capabilities. Does China have Tic-Tac Tech (T³)? Does Russia? Does the US? I love this kind of analysis, and I intend here to expand on it and go deeper to lay out what I judge to be (some of) the most likely scenarios. I won’t be sharing any new ideas here. I’m sure some readers will have reached the same (or different) conclusions using similar logic. I just like saying the quiet part out loud, and I think it’s a useful exercise for evaluating the context we find ourselves in.

Disclaimer: Just like most of you, I am not qualified to speculate on the things I am about to speculate on.

T³ — Who Has It?

Image for post
Image for post
You Certainly Tried Mick

Indeed it appears that T³ represents paradigm shifting, disruptive technology (or a combination of technologies) that is completely separate and apart from improvements on current technologies. At this point it would seem to require materials which aren’t yet available to us (or at least not in meaningful quantities). Improvements on our current technology just don’t get us to T³.

But let’s set that aside for a moment. Let’s presume for the sake of thought-experiment that Russia, China, or some other nation state has achieved just such a paradigm-shifting breakthrough and is in possession of working T³.

Is there any reason to believe that said nation state would be able to resist using this technology to establish battlefield dominance on a global scale?

In the cases of Russia and China, Milburn and McGwier assert the answer is no. And I have to agree wholeheartedly with their conclusion. Russia has shown very little restraint when it comes to announcing weapons systems breakthroughs. The most recent example is their public announcement of the development of hypersonic missiles. Bob also notes that Russia’s MO has been provocative. They’ve been operating subs with nuclear capabilities so close to the east coast and with such regularity that a US admiral has admitted the Navy no longer considers the east coast a “safe haven” for its ships and submarines.

Image for post
Image for post

China likewise has shown little restraint in announcing technological breakthroughs. The most recent example is their new claim of “Quantum Superiority”. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. You will no doubt have heard by now of their pursuit to create biologically enhanced “Super Soldiers” (via CRISPR). Just as with Russia, while there may be truth to some of these claims, the intended effect of making public announcements is to feed into regional (and global) perceptions. To maintain regional (and global) influence they need to maintain near-peer status with the United States and its allies. In reality, China and Russia likely have a long way to go to catch up to US capabilities (particularly with regard to the Navy), but they have certainly made vast improvements and may very well have leap-frogged the US in the areas of cyberwarfare (Russia) and quantum computing (China).

But perceptions obviously aren’t the only reason near-peer adversaries would announce and/or use T³ if they were in possession of it. There is a very real desire on the part of both China and Russia to maintain actual regional dominance. As Bob, Franc, and Jay point out, China would almost certainly use T³ to establish dominance over Taiwan (and perhaps other surrounding nation-states as well). They certainly wouldn’t hesitate to run the US Navy out of the surrounding seas. Russia, for its part, is always doing everything it can to expand its borders in an attempt to rebuild the Soviet bloc. Both Russia and China have also been hard at work expanding their influence in the Middle East.

In short, there is absolutely no compelling reason to believe that Russia or China would resist using T³ and therefore no compelling reason to believe that Russia or China have T³.

The United States has a different MO. They are globally recognized as the dominant military force on the planet. They generally don’t flaunt new capabilities unless a near-peer adversary does so first. Bob points out that US announcements about directed energy weapons systems likely function as “a shot across the bow” for Russia or any other nation-states currently testing hypersonic weapons. It’s a reactive announcement. The US generally doesn’t need to flex its muscles to maintain global influence. The US is also not (publicly at least) interested in expanding its borders and avoids disputes with its regional neighbors.

So it seems that we can’t rule out the US for the same reasons we can (with some certainty) rule out Russia and China.

Breaking Down the Pros and Cons of Using T³

Announcing and using T³ (assuming sole possession) shuts down any credible threat to the United States and its allies. Assuming you have enough of them, craft and drones with T³ capabilities would presumably be able to neutralize all nuclear threats (If you don’t own UFOs and Nukes, stop what you’re doing right now and purchase it). Obviously, such technology has applications far beyond military dominance. Technology which could safely transport people across thousands of miles in minutes without turning them into pancakes is obviously earth-shattering and would impact nearly every aspect of our lives (presuming it was widely available). The search for exoplanets or at least resource rich planets and celestial bodies would create entire new industries and hope for our survival as a species. Not to mention the implications of brain melting propulsion without the apparent use of fossil fuels.

It would change everything.

So what is there to lose? Why would the US hide such capabilities when it has so much to gain by revealing and using them to change the world? We’ve already briefly described why the US doesn’t need to flex its muscles. It currently already enjoys global battlefield dominance (thanks in large part to its world class navy). It’s perhaps falling behind in cyber warfare and some other areas (and these should absolutely not be ignored). But while T³ may help to some extent in those areas, it’s real advantage is on conventional battlefields.

The main compelling reason not to reveal or use T³ is because it decreases the likelihood that near-peer adversaries are able to achieve the same capabilities.

I am not prone to sentiments of American exceptionalism. But the thought of an authoritarian regime with Vladimir Putin at the wheel getting their hands on T³ is a frightening prospect. As we covered before, Russia and China are absolutely interested in expanding their borders and undermining democratic nations everywhere. They would absolutely use T³ to establish global dominance (no restraint necessary).

Even the idea that T³ is attainable is a threat. There isn’t a nation on planet earth that wouldn’t want that technology and you can be certain that Russia and China would do anything to get their hands on it. This is why it is so incredible that some have actually taken DOD’s historical stance on UFOs at face value (a highly generalized paraphrase): “There’s nothing there. We don’t see a value in continued study. We don’t study that anymore”. In the spirit of the late great Robert Friend, I suggest the reason they concluded their “official” UFO studies was NOT because they didn’t know what it was… but rather because they knew what it was and realized for the reasons outlined above that it was NOT in their best interest to disclose the facts.

Image for post
Image for post
How Can You Not Love This Guy?

I am well aware there were many reasons why the AF wanted UFOs “off of their plate” so to speak. But capabilities like these are too earth shattering for the military industrial complex to resist. It was clearly possible to attain because it existed within our physical reality. Even if the government concluded that UAP represented various iterations of transmogrified energy under intelligent control by some ultra intelligent and advanced non-human consciousness (à la Keel or Vallee), that would still be a capability worth pursuing with absolutely everything you could spare. In my opinion, the notion the military industrial complex would abandon this subject because it was clogging up their phone lines or because they couldn’t adequately explain it is the least believable aspect of the arguments against US possession of T³.

I have often thought about these scenarios as being analogous to the issues surrounding nuclear weapons systems. Readers are no doubt familiar with the concept of mutually assured destruction. But (because I like to say the quiet part out loud) here it is: You don’t launch nukes because it would start a chain reaction that you couldn’t stop. Millions would die and in all likelihood the entire world would be laid to waste.

Image for post
Image for post

If you’re arguing that every major nation has access to working T³ but keeps it secret, this would be a point in your corner. However, it’s far from a perfect analogy. For one thing, T³ technology can be deployed with precision. Your nukes may be tactical, but they’ll never be as tactical as T³. In fact, T³ could likely be deployed in many cases without detection. And again, there are very compelling reasons to believe China and Russia don’t have working T³. If the US is in sole possession of working T³, then it stands to reason their hesitance to reveal those capabilities isn’t because they’re worried about a chain reaction. I submit the most likely scenario is that they wouldn’t reveal or deploy it (with any regularity) because they wouldn’t need to.

Mutually assured destruction doesn’t work if only one side has the nukes.

Let’s go back to the nuclear weapons analogy: If the US was the only nation with the bomb, in peacetime, with no credible threats to their global military superiority and no desire to expand its borders… there would be absolutely no reason to use it. You only reveal something like that if you absolutely have to, because revealing it increases the likelihood your adversaries will obtain it as well. T³ capabilities would ensure you wouldn’t need to worry about any other nation’s incremental progress with existing technologies. You always have T³ in your back pocket if you need it.

There is also something to be said for the monetary interests defense contractors would have in keeping earth shattering tech like that off of the market. They’re making plenty of money manufacturing conventional weapons systems for the US and other nations. While it is likely that one or more of these contractors may be working on T³ tech how does that help their bottom line? Does it? Would the US military industrial complex (who presumably would have provided contractors with proprietary materials, data and facilities to develop the tech) allow them to release the tech publicly? Likely not. Would they allow them to sell it to other countries or groups? Again, probably no. How many tic tacs would it take to replace the capabilities and reach of conventional fighter jets and AAV’s? Likely not as many as defense contractors would like. In essence, for the US Military industrial complex, the status quo is WORKING. They’re making money hand over fist, and most of the time they don’t even have to deliver on time to get it. When the time comes, and the US needs to reveal and use T³ tech, it will be ready and waiting for them (and so will those future profits). This doesn’t even scratch the surface of corporate interests in keeping T³ a secret, but that’s perhaps a topic for a different post.

It can’t be denied that the US has kept their cards close to the vest on this subject when compared to other nations, and in some instances has gone to extraordinary lengths to confuse and ruin those who pursue it. Even now, any information at all has to be discovered through careful investigative reporting. Official statements are filled with carefully parsed language seemingly designed to gaslight those who are searching for the truth.

To put it charitably, the US government has a terrible track record when it comes to UFO transparency.

This, in my opinion, is the basic logic for believing the US does have T³ capabilities or at the very least knows much more than it shares. This stance is met in some regions of the UFO community with derision. “How could humans have achieved this and then kept it a secret for so long?!”. It is important to point out the US government can absolutely keep a secret when it wants to. The status quo of secrecy isn’t actually that unpopular of a position within the IC or the MIC. Transparency seems to still mainly be a civilian concern (and perhaps even an elected official concern). There has been some speculation that perhaps a new generation is coming of age and things are changing. But the proof is in the pudding and right now there’s just not enough to go around. I am of course extremely grateful for those current and former officials who are working hard to make those changes a reality

The Ultimate Origins of T³

The other important clue here is the timeline. Perhaps you can imagine such a paradigm shifting breakthrough today, or even 20 years ago. Can you envision it in 1947? Can you envision it in the 1950s when the first triangle sightings occurred? How about the airships of the 1800s? How about the many cases of the UAP documented throughout history? Obviously, not every UFO sighting represents nuts and bolts technology or even transmogrified energy. But there is that 5% or so that can’t be explained. We have to suspect the number is much higher prior to the era of manned-flight. When we consider observations of T³ capabilities throughout history and the apparent absence of any meaningful intermediate steps towards T³, it seems fairly obvious to me if the US (or any human group) has working T³, they got it from someone (or something?) else. I won’t speculate here any further along those lines. There are plenty of people who claim to know the answer but I’m certainly not one of them.

Here are my speculative conclusions, based on the logic I’ve outlined above:

  1. T³ has origins separate and apart from any known nation-state or human group
  2. If there is a nation state with T³, it is very likely the US (and only the US)
  3. If true, the US MIC has many reasons to avoid revealing what it has and/or what it knows

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Franc Milburn’s paper for BESA also reminded us of something that Eric Davis said during his interview with Alejandro Rojas which seems to confirm the claims shared with him during his alleged meeting with Admiral Thomas Wilson:

“The crash retrieval program is a very small program. It is not a huge government infrastructure. It is a very poorly funded program. I do know that the program was terminated [in] 1989 for lack of progress in reverse-engineering anything that they had- any of the hardware they had. And they’ll resurrect it maybe every so often- so many years will go by and they’ll try it again…”

I’m not going to dive into a whole section on the Wilson/Davis docs. I do however believe they are absolutely worth the effort and not as insignificant as some commentators suggest. I point this out to highlight that perhaps what we are dealing with are layers of secrecy meant to protect the ultimate truth (Core Secrets). Once upon a time, the company line worked just fine with the majority of the public. Your average American was happy to believe the government had nothing to do with UFOs. 2017 ruined that. The reality of the phenomenon could no longer be credibly denied, nor could the government’s interest. This was the first layer of secrecy.

A proposed speculative framework for layers of UAP secrecy:

  1. The US MIC knows nothing about and has no interest in UAP
  2. The US MIC knows the phenomenon is real but doesn’t study it
  3. The US MIC knows the phenomenon is real and studies it on an occasional basis with little to no funding. The findings are inconclusive.
  4. The US MIC has always studied UAP and are confident it represents non-human tech, but other than that they’ve got nothing.
  5. The US MIC has materials (small bits and pieces) from UAP that are odd, but we don’t know what to do with them
  6. The US MIC has wreckage and a reverse engineering program, but it’s gone nowhere because we don’t understand what to do with it
  7. The US MIC has wreckage and a reverse engineering program. It’s been successful. They possess some of the capabilities of UAP, but not all.
  8. The US MIC has wreckage and a reverse engineering program. It’s been successful. They possess all of the capabilities of UAP.

There are obviously going to be variations to some of these layers, namely the origins of where the pieces or the craft may have come from. Perhaps they weren’t found but given. But either way, you can’t help but notice that we are moving along a path here. If anything beyond #1 is true (and we’re now beyond #1), it makes sense they would do everything in their power to keep it secret. Each consecutive layer is closer to the core secret and people at different levels are likely given different layers. You and I are at layer 3 (thanks to Chris Mellon and Luis Elizondo). Eric Davis (prior to his alleged meeting with Admiral Wilson), Luis Elizondo, and anyone else involved with AATIP got to layer 5, but only with some digging. Admiral Wilson was special. You don’t want him pissed off because he could blow the whole thing. But you also can’t tell him everything because he doesn’t have a real need-to-know and you need your circle as tight as possible. He gets a nice #6. I am already neck deep in wild and irresponsible speculation here, so I won’t go any further than 8 layers of secrecy. But there are many people who are convinced the secrets go even further than that, to the very nature of the phenomenon.

Disclosure advocates (no matter how they define the term) have been derided lately by many who consider themselves serious researchers. The critics claim there’s no reason to believe the government knows what’s really going on, let alone speculation they’re actually involved with the phenomenon itself. I don’t personally understand why disclosure advocacy is an issue. I find that disclosure advocates tend not to just sit around waiting for the government to tell them something (as they have been unfairly characterized). Most of the hardest working researchers I know aspire to some level of disclosure from the government. They know full well the world’s governments are likely in possession of the best datasets and evidence of UAP. Afterall, they’re the ones with the satellites, the unacknowledged underwater sensor capabilities, and the personnel qualified to sift through the data. While I do think there is something to be said for clarifying what we mean by disclosure (especially whether we view it as an event or a process), I don’t think it’s naive to presume the government knows more than they share and to advocate for more transparency.

Perhaps we’re afraid that by going too far down the rabbit hole, people will be disappointed when they find out the truth isn’t as spectacular as they imagined it might be. Perhaps the fear is that some will reject the truth because it doesn’t line up with their own personal preferred narrative (that’s going to happen with or without government transparency on this issue). But I still can’t see a downside to pushing for disclosure. If there’s disappointment, it wouldn’t be anything new. That’s just part of the experience for those who choose to embark on this weird journey. It’s a rite of passage. If you haven’t been burned before, then you’re probably new around here.

So what do you think? What do they know? Does anyone have anything? Do what you do best. Rip me a new one!

I write about finding meaning in the mundane, in joy and in pain, in sun and in rain and whatever else is in my brain. You matter to me.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store