Thursday, 21 June 2012

UAP or USAP?

Well the (wet) Jubilee weekend is long gone and my more rural re-location for the event did not bear any fruit at all in terms of unusual aerial phenomena - when the clouds cleared away that is. Ho-hum.

Anyway - readers of my blog will have most likely heard of the increasingly used UAP as a replacement for the effectively stigmatised 'UFO'.

But how many will have heard of the initials USAP?

USAP stands for 'Unacknowledged Special Access Program [sic]' and a description of this and its precursor - the 'SAP' - can be found here.

Now it is pretty well documented that SAPs and USAPs exist and that these cover a variety of 'above top-secret' projects operated by US military-technological concerns. Of course, ongoing projects are shrouded in secrecy, which is understandable from the point of view of protecting the operating country's national security interests. One could argue that the US is perhaps being the most tolerant concerning public speculation (mostly on-line) about the content or aims of such SAPs or USAPs. Either that, or such public speculation serves its purpose in that it diverts attention away from other super-secret projects, or as they are also often called - 'black' projects.

I have yet to see many (if any) articles simply speculating about what my own Government does in terms of equivalent projects, or even what other countries such as Russia and China could be up to.

BUT there is no doubt that such projects do exist in and of themselves. The generic acronyms employed in the US are SAPs or USAPs but there could be other - as yet undiscovered - names for such projects elsewhere in the World.



Once one accepts that these projects do exist then speculation about what might be going on under these begins to abound.

I should point out that I have no privileged information on any such projects - and even if I were to possess such information - I certainly would not be divulging it online.

However, if you follow the threads of information on the net and in other media, you can glean certain key characteristics that these projects possess, namely:-
  • they generally have unlimited funding; 
  • individuals within or authorised by Government to oversee them are very few in number;
  • their emphasis is on maximum plausible deniability;
  • those working on projects are compartmentalised so that they don't have a holistic overview; and
  • disinformation is frequently employed (often unknowingly by participants) to protect the true nature of such projects.

In view of the above, it can be easy to see why even military and civil aviation professionals may be taken aback when confronted with an experimental or advanced USAP aerial vehicle as discussed in my earlier post 'Bogey or friendly'.

Not having any pre-existing knowledge of even one of the many - and I'm sure there are many - USAP or equivalent projects, these professionals may very well turn to less earthly explanations for UAP they have seen once the usual astronomical or meteorological explanations have been discounted.

It would of course be unreasonable (and unscientific) to rule out all the various unexplained sightings and incidents as just unwitting eyewitness accounts of yet-to-be-confirmed USAP vehicles.

And there is also the possibility of sophisticated fakery which - on rare occasions - can fool some 'experts' such as radio-controlled airships made to look like flying saucers*.

But then - once one discounts astronomical or meteorological phenomena, USAP or equivalent vehicles and fakery what does that leave you with?

*I dimly recall what I think was one specific (possibly BBC) television programme devoted to just such a project but - unfortunately - a net search hasn't turned it up yet as it was some years ago. If anyone happens to know the programme I mean and what it was called let me know.


2 comments:

  1. I had a nice little write-up all set to go, when I decided not to post it. Ah, well...somethings are better left unsaid.

    Good write-up on your end, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your kind comment again Roger. Intrigued by what you planned to write up but (I think) can understand why you might not want to, given the sensitive topic of this post. Leading on from this, I plan to flag up some recent civil/military aviation incidents which have multiple credible/professional witnesses and still defy conventional explanation.

    ReplyDelete