Thread by @ddeanjohnson

1/19) UPDATE and INQUIRY: In the much-discussed UAP-related language found in the June 17 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA), one of the subjects that the Director of National Intelligence would be instructed

2/19) to cover in a 2021 UAP report is "3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data [sic] over restricted United States airspace."

3/19) When the SSCI report was published on June 17, some people speculated about the purpose of the FBI reference.

4/19) For example,on June 23, @nickpopemod suggested it "looks to be aimed at ensuring the requested report will cover the results of the FBI's investigation into those mysterious drone swarms that were witnessed in Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska late last year and in early 2020."

5/19) I promptly disputed Mr. Pope on this, but he was somewhat dismissive. At that time I was under some constraint due to a pre-publication embargo, but that was removed on July 15, when The War Zone published a lengthy report based on my FOIA-driven research

6/19) into the federal investigation of the "mystery drone" flap in CO-NE-KS. Based on many hundreds of internal FAA emails and other documents that I obtained, before and after publication of the July 15 The War Zone article, it seems that the FBI played
thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3…

7/19) a supportive but rather limited role in investigating the drone flap (at least when it was occurring), despite efforts by FAA to draw FBI further in. As the then-second ranking FAA security branch (ASH) official wrote in a Jan. 7 email to the lead FAA field investigator,

8/19) “I sent an email earlier today to the SES [Senior Executive Service] at FBI CIRG [Critical Incident Response Group] to stoke the fires on what the FBI is doing, both in the field and at FBI HQ…

9/19) "FBI is struggling, at least at HQ, with the conundrum that technically without a criminal nexus, there is not much they can do.” Likewise, on Jan. 16, the ASH chief, Claudio Manno, sent a summary to many top FAA officials, stating, "Neither the Omaha nor

10/19) the Denver FBI Field Offices have opened investigations" into the mystery drones, due to the lack of legal authority (i.e., no clear evidence that any federal criminal laws were being broken), and "the FBI was not contemplating deploying any technical resources."

11/19) Even more pertinent: the documents I obtained from FAA and the USAF have so far provided no evidence that the CO-NE-KS "mystery drones" operated "over restricted United States airspace" (the SSCI language), and this undercuts the premise of Mr. Pope's speculation.

12/19) Indeed,documents from FAA, US Air Force, and the key NE agency indicated that the formation-flying drones avoided both military-controlled areas and FAA-controlled airspace. For example,law-enforcement briefing slides prepared by the Nebraska Information Analysis Center

13/19) (the state's fusion center, housed in the NE State Patrol) on Jan. 10 said in its "UAS Cluster Profile" that of the drones: "Operators seem to have a knowledge of FAA guidelines. Operators seem to be avoiding sensitive airspaces."

14/19) Mr. Pope also suggested that the SSCI report's language about the FBI might reflect confusion on the part of SSCI staff members about the FBI's actual role in the mystery drone investigation. This I regard as implausible speculation --

15/19) the SSCI can obtain more complete and reliable answers to questions such as that with mere phone calls, much easier than I can accomplish with time-consuming FOIAs. The agencies would misinform the SSCI at their peril.

16/19) So, then, why IS the FBI language in the SSCI report? Well-sourced investigator-journalist Tim McMillan, in a June 26 tweet, offered his view on the real reason: "If I was a betting man, I'd say the FBI was included in UAP directive...

(17/19) because the FBI and AATIP/UAP Task Force have conducted joint investigations into UAP sighting over USG installations inside CONUS within say...the last five years..." [ellipses in original]

18/19) Personally, I would welcome tangible leads, from @nickpopemod or anyone else, regarding to the identity of the actors who were behind the Dec.-Jan. Colorado-Nebraska-Kansas "mystery drone" flap. My DMs are open for such suggestions.

19/19) But please-- first read the July 15 The War Zone article linked above, so you will know which entities the FAA has already plausibly excluded, such as the U.S. military. (FAA ASH Manno, Jan. 16: "...there is high confidence these are not covert military activities.")