UFOs - Leslie Kean [20]
The vast majority of military leaders almost automatically reject any responsibility for investigating UAP sightings, because this does not figure in their terms of reference. They devote all their time and energy to the ongoing operations and don’t feel concerned about issues on which they have no firm grip. In addition, if not experiencing any direct threat from unidentified aerial phenomena—to my knowledge, no recent security incidents have been reported—investigations of UAP sightings are not on the priority list of military commanders, and they will not initiate investigations. UAP reports are considered as a hindrance, a time-consuming interference with normal routines.
One easy way for the authorities to stop the flow of annoying questions is to give a false explanation for reported phenomena, as has been done many times. To a certain extent, such tactics work to hush up the hype, in particular if there is only one event. But this does not deal with the substance of the problem. On the contrary, it creates an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion between those who witnessed the event and the responsible authorities.
For the military, it becomes more problematic when the events occur not just once but multiple times. The defense authorities are under pressure to provide an acceptable answer. Unfortunately, during the Belgian UAP wave, no such answer could be found.
There is only one solution and this is to tell the truth. The truth is that the Air Force could not determine the origin of the objects witnessed by thousands of people. It is not easy to admit that authorities in charge of air defense and airspace management are not capable of finding an acceptable explanation, but, in my opinion, this is better than issuing false explanations. The Belgian government was honest and acknowledged publicly that it could not explain the many sightings.
Nevertheless, military authorities should not wait to take action until they are forced to do so by the public and the media. They should be concerned about the possible security implications of unusual air activities. If reliable witnesses report the presence of UAP that have not been picked up or identified by the civil aviation authorities and the air defense systems, it should be admitted that there may be a problem and an effort should be made to conduct more in-depth investigations with qualified experts.
What if these crafts had more aggressive intentions? Who would have been responsible if incidents had occurred? The question remains: Which military authority dares to tackle this problem, or rather, which military authority dares to recognize that there is a problem? Is this “ostrich” policy the right approach?
Formally investigating reliable UFO reports would create an atmosphere of openness and transparency, and motivate other witnesses to come forward with their experiences. Such investigations would provide the scientific basis for relevant authorities to express an official opinion vis-à-vis the UFO problem. However, it seems a wake-up call will be required for us to formally acknowledge that there is a problem. A major accident would serve as such a wake-up call, but this