What do you picture when you hear the word “drone”? Futuristic gadgets dropping off packages? High-tech surveillance hovering above? Or autonomous weapons reshaping the battlefield? Too often, drones are reduced to simplistic portrayals—either praised for their convenience or feared for their destructive potential. But these aerial tools are far more complex than the myths surrounding them.
In reality, drones represent strategic innovations deeply embedded in the evolution of military and aerospace technology. For defense experts, tech pioneers, and aerospace enthusiasts, grasping the true essence of drones requires a nuanced perspective. It’s not just about their functions but how their versatile applications redefine global security, technological agility, and interconnected defense networks.
For those who take the time to DIGEST the information provided to you, the ending will make a lot more sense, including my proposed solution.
The Creativity Equation in Aerospace and Military Use
Why Creativity Matters in Defense
At its core, drone technology thrives at the intersection of creativity, adaptability, and intelligence. Creativity doesn’t mean artists painting on drone fuselage—it refers to the innovative problem-solving that modern defense systems demand. Without this, military organizations become trapped in conventional thinking, limiting their ability to handle nuanced and evolving threats.
Restricting creativity equates to stagnation. A strategic system that resists experimentation weakens itself in the long term, losing its adaptability and resilience. Conversely, institutions that encourage unorthodox thinking cultivate environments capable of rapidly learning, testing, and iterating.
Adaptability and Creative Solutions in Modern Drone Systems
The principle of adaptability demonstrated in Desert Storm is now exponentially amplified by modern drone systems. Today’s UAVs, such as the MQ-9 Reaper and the RQ-4 Global Hawk, are more sophisticated and capable of simulating various combat scenarios for training purposes.
For example, in contemporary training exercises, drones can mimic enemy aircraft, electronic warfare (EW) tactics, and even non-traditional threats like swarming drone attacks. This level of adaptability was illustrated during Exercise Red Flag, where UAVs provided realistic threat simulations, enhancing the preparedness of fighter pilots and ground operators.
Balancing realism and transparency in military training programs is essential for adequate preparation and ethical integrity. Exercises like Operation Red Flag expose pilots to sophisticated enemy tactics and technologies, and their success relies on pilots believing they are confronting genuine threats. If pilots know these threats are simulated, the psychological pressure that underpins realistic combat preparation is undermined. However, secrecy must be tempered with ethical considerations. Strategies such as limited disclosure — where pilots are informed they will encounter advanced simulations without specifying their nature — can maintain realism while preserving trust.
Thorough debriefing protocols that provide full context after exercises, such as those outlined in the After Action Review (AAR) process in Joint Publication 3-33, mitigate feelings of manipulation and promote continuous learning. Informed consent also plays a critical role; making personnel aware that simulated threats may be part of their training, without revealing specifics, upholds ethical standards while ensuring training effectiveness. This balance ensures that pilots remain psychologically prepared without sacrificing transparency or morale.
Ethical and Legal Implications of Secrecy in Drone Training Programs
The integration of drones and autonomous systems into U.S. military and civilian operations raises significant ethical and legal concerns, especially given the proliferation of unexplained drone activity across the United States. Programs such as MilOrb training exercises are designed to simulate non-terrestrial threats and advanced combat scenarios. These exercises rely on high levels of secrecy to protect mission integrity, ensure operational security, and enhance the psychological and strategic effectiveness of training. However, this secrecy comes with ethical and regulatory costs, particularly regarding morale, transparency, and trust within personnel and the public.
The Evolution of Drone Technology: From Operation Desert Storm to Modern Warfare
Birth of Adaptability
Operation Desert Storm (1991) serves as a pivotal historical lesson in the importance of adaptability in modern warfare. The conflict, part of the Gulf War, showcased how innovative technologies, including early unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), could provide strategic advantages over conventional, rigid military tactics. At the time, U.S. forces utilized prototype UAVs such as the RQ-2 Pioneer, which played a crucial role in reconnaissance and surveillance, offering real-time intelligence without endangering pilots. The Balkan Wars were the parallel testing ground to which Albania allowed Bush to harbor the drones YOU SEE TODAY, not the ones available to the military today. Reread that.
These early drones allowed commanders to obtain accurate battlefield information and adapt their strategies swiftly—something traditional reconnaissance methods could not achieve as efficiently. For example, during the Battle of Khafji, UAVs provided live intelligence that helped coalition forces respond to unexpected Iraqi advances. This capability demonstrated how creative technological solutions could disrupt entrenched, conventional strategies and ensure mission success.
Legal Framework Governing Drone Use in Modern Warfare
In modern military operations, drones are governed by a complex web of international laws, domestic regulations, and rules of engagement (ROEs). The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and the Geneva Conventions (1949) establish principles of proportionality, distinction, and necessity for using drones in warfare. These principles mandate that armed forces distinguish between combatants and civilians, minimize collateral damage, and ensure that the force used is proportional to the military advantage gained.
The United Nations Charter (Article 51) also recognizes the inherent right of self-defense, which provides a legal basis for using drones in defensive operations. Within the United States, the use of UAVs by the military is regulated by the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3000.09 on autonomous systems and Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed forces. These regulations ensure drone operations adhere to legal, ethical, and strategic standards.
Obama and his CIA, FBI, and DIA Directors should be in jail.
During Barack Obama’s presidency (2009–2017), the use of drone strikes in Northern Africa, particularly in countries like Libya and Somalia, became a controversial element of his counterterrorism strategy. While drone strikes were promoted as a precision tool to eliminate high-value terrorist targets with minimal risk to U.S. personnel, many of these operations raised concerns over legality, civilian casualties, and transparency.
In 2011, following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, Libya descended into chaos, becoming a haven for extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The Obama administration authorized a series of drone strikes in Libya to target these groups under the broad framework of counterterrorism. However, these strikes were conducted without explicit congressional approval or a formal declaration of war, raising questions about their legality under both U.S. law and international law. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was often cited as legal justification. Still, critics argued this stretched the original intent of the authorization, which was focused on groups directly responsible for the September 11 attacks.
In Somalia, the Obama administration intensified drone operations against the militant group Al-Shabaab. Between 2009 and 2017, U.S. drones conducted dozens of strikes, aiming to degrade the group’s leadership and operational capacity. While some strikes successfully eliminated key militants, independent monitoring groups like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported significant civilian casualties. These operations were often carried out without the consent of the Somali government, fueling perceptions of U.S. overreach and undermining the legitimacy of local authorities. They were fine-tuning recognition and playing target practice with civilians.
The Obama administration faced criticism for failing to disclose detailed information about the legal rationale, decision-making processes, and casualty figures. In 2016, the administration did release some data, claiming that between 64 and 116 civilians had been killed in drone strikes in areas outside active war zones since 2009. However, the actual number of civilian casualties was significantly higher. They were used for training the weapons systems with Israel’s “terrorist facial recognition algorithms” and gait algorithms through NSO tech.
These unauthorized drone strikes violated the principles of sovereignty and due process, undermining international norms and human rights standards. Proponents, however, defended the strikes as necessary to combat evolving terrorist threats in regions where local governments could not respond effectively.
I repeat, Obama and his CIA, FBI, and DIA Directors should be in jail.
Case Study: Drone Simulations in Training
A notable example of drones enhancing adaptability in training is the U.S. Air Force’s use of the BQM-167A Air Force Subscale Aerial Target (AFSAT). These drones simulate enemy aircraft and missile threats, enabling pilots to practice interception and engagement in a controlled environment. The AFSAT’s ability to replicate various threat profiles helps pilots develop quick decision-making skills and adaptive strategies—crucial in actual combat scenarios.
Similarly, the U.S. Navy’s MQ-8 Fire Scout UAV assists with reconnaissance, targeting, and combat support operations. Integrating these drones into naval exercises allows the Navy to test and refine tactics for complex maritime operations, improving adaptability and mission readiness.
Ethical and Strategic Considerations
While drones offer unparalleled adaptability, their use raises ethical and strategic concerns. The DoD Law of War Manual emphasizes that UAV operations must comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), ensuring that drone strikes avoid unnecessary suffering and civilian casualties. Drones’ increasing autonomy presents challenges related to accountability and decision-making.
High-Altitude Operations and Their Hurdles
Tactical UAV Limitations
While drones can execute complex tasks like ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) effortlessly at low altitudes, higher-altitude operations expose vulnerabilities. Thin air and extreme weather conditions impact propulsion systems, while unpredictable UAV behavior can confuse even experienced pilots. These operational blind spots highlight the necessity of rigorous training programs.
The adaptations needed aren’t trivial. Military trainers now simulate these crises to improve decision-making. Case in point—adding minor operational bugs to training drones causes hyper-realistic chaos, forcing trainees to adapt as if dealing with adversary forces or unexpected weather-related failures.
Legal and Regulatory Frameworks
Automation integration in aviation requires robust legal and regulatory controls to ensure safety, ethical use, and operational effectiveness. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees unmanned aerial systems (UAS) regulations under 14 CFR Part 107, which outlines operational limits, pilot certification, and drone safety requirements. In military operations, drone use is governed by Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which sets the framework for the role of the armed forces, and Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, which addresses the use of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems.
International laws like the Hague Conventions (1899, 1907) and the Geneva Conventions (1949) set forth principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity, which apply to drone operations. For instance, drone strikes must ensure that civilian casualties are minimized and that operations are justified by legitimate military necessity. These legal constraints compound the tension between automation and human decision-making, requiring human oversight to ensure accountability and compliance with the laws of armed conflict.
MilOrbs, Secrecy, and Ethics
Managing Morale in the Age of Secrecy
Here’s where the situation grows ethically thorny. Programs like MilOrb training exercises often rely on high levels of secrecy to protect mission integrity and maintain the psychological efficacy of these systems. Telling every pilot, “This isn’t a real threat, just part of a training program,” undermines the realism necessary for adequate preparation. However, secrecy isn’t without a cost—morale can suffer when personnel feel manipulated or misled.
Could MilOrbs blur the line between training and psychological experimentation? The ethical quandaries run deep, requiring careful oversight to balance trust and operational necessity.
Advanced Operations and Future-Forward Training
Directed Energy and Drone Resilience
Unlike most conventional UAVs, MilOrbs can withstand threats like directed energy weapons. This resilience makes them invaluable for preparing pilots for extraterrestrial or high-tech adversaries, especially as technologies like laser weapons increasingly appear in modern arsenals. The durability of systems like MilOrbs isn’t just necessary—they set the standard for combat readiness.
Precision in Dynamic Mission Execution
Whether interception, reconnaissance, or logistics, drones are masters of modularity. Their ability to execute real-time adaptability makes them indispensable. Imagine a drone-based supply chain that reroutes fleets mid-air to avoid adversary surveillance or delivers medical supplies under fire. These split-second changes, driven by systems designed to evolve continuously, redefine expectations of what “precision” means on the battlefield.
The Militarization of Secrecy
Governance Beyond the Chain of Command
The classified nature of advanced MilOrb deployments is an exceptionally provocative issue. The fact that large-scale decisions regarding their use lie predominantly with military sectors raises questions about accountability. Should such pivotal programs have governmental and civilian oversight? Are we comfortable allowing the military sole discretion over tools capable of operating in gray zones of ethics and legality?
MilOrbs as Training Tools
Non-terrestrial vehicles like MilOrbs (Military Orbs) offer an example of how creative training mechanisms can prepare pilots and operators for unconventional threats. By simulating UFO-like behavior, MilOrbs condition personnel to process the unpredictable precisely, ensuring that reaction times remain sharp even in ambiguous situations. The creative use of these systems ensures that a pilot doesn’t misinterpret ambiguous data or fall victim to psychological biases. This error could have catastrophic consequences in high-stakes scenarios.
The Legal Framework Governing Secrecy in Drone Operations
Secrecy in military operations is legally justified under several statutes and regulations. For instance, Executive Order 13526 governs the classification of national security information, allowing for the protection of sensitive information related to defense and foreign relations. Additionally, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Patriot Act provide legal grounds for maintaining secrecy in operations deemed critical to national security.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates airspace under 14 CFR Part 107 and Part 91, covering drone operations and the legal requirements for flight authorizations. However, military operations are often exempt under Special Use Airspace (SUA) regulations and Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), which can limit civilian access to information about drone activities. These legal justifications allow military programs like MilOrb exercises to operate without public explanation or pilot disclosure, safeguarding the element of surprise and the integrity of training scenarios.
Preparing for Unconventional Security Threats
MilOrbs and UAVs that flirt with unconventional narratives—be it UFO identification or cyber-espionage probes—demand highly adaptable governance frameworks capable of responding to their fluid, multi-use nature.
UFO NARRATIVE
The government may allow the public to believe in extraterrestrial explanations for unexplained aerial phenomena rather than acknowledging advanced weapons programs for several strategic, psychological, and operational reasons. First and foremost, operational security (OPSEC) is critical to maintaining the effectiveness of modern military programs. Acknowledging the existence of cutting-edge technologies like stealth drones or autonomous aircraft could compromise national security by revealing capabilities to adversaries. For example, during the Cold War, experimental aircraft like the U-2 reconnaissance plane and the SR-71 Blackbird were shrouded in secrecy, with UFO narratives conveniently masking their development and operations. Allowing UFO theories provides a layer of plausible deniability for classified projects, diverting attention away from military activities and delaying enemy intelligence gathering.
Shaping public perception through psychological manipulation reduces mass panic and concern. I disagree with this notion because we are now in the information age, where deception — even when intended for the public good — erodes trust exponentially. In a time when information is widely accessible, and misinformation is rampant, any form of deceit, no matter the intention, deepens public skepticism and weakens confidence in institutions. When the public attributes sightings to UFOs, it is often more fascinating than threatening, preventing fear and distrust of government activities. At the same time, fostering UFO narratives can act as strategic deterrence or misinformation for adversaries. If other nations believe they are encountering unknown or extraterrestrial threats, they may hesitate to probe further, giving U.S. military technology a strategic edge. Similarly, the cover of alien explanations facilitates real-world testing of experimental weapons and surveillance systems, allowing the government to conduct field operations without revealing classified programs. For instance, sightings of strange lights or aircraft maneuvers could be tests of hypersonic vehicles, directed energy weapons, or autonomous drones cloaked under UFO myths.
Such secrecy helps avoid legal and ethical scrutiny. Public acknowledgment of widespread drone surveillance or autonomous weapon systems raises concerns about Fourth Amendment rights and potential privacy violations. UFO narratives sidestep these debates, allowing the government to deploy and refine technologies without immediate backlash. This approach also controls information dissemination, enabling the government to decide when and how to disclose sensitive data, as seen with recent UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) disclosures by the Department of Defense. The government covered the recent UAP hearings and Congressional pony shows to ease the disclosure of their technology.
Historically, military secrecy has often leveraged UFO stories to protect national security, with Project Blue Book and other Cold War-era programs masking the development of advanced aircraft. The legacy of these misinformation campaigns has fostered a societal acceptance of UFO explanations, making them a convenient cover for ongoing military operations. Ultimately, allowing UFO beliefs to persist serves to protect national security, deter adversaries, avoid public panic, and facilitate technological advancement. By maintaining these narratives, the government ensures the secrecy and efficacy of its most sophisticated defense programs.
Impact on Public Trust and Civil Liberties
The widespread use of drones in domestic airspace without clear explanations has led to public distrust. Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are relevant in this context. Courts have ruled in cases like Carpenter v. United States (2018) that advanced technologies must be used in ways that respect privacy rights. The lack of transparency regarding drone operations raises concerns about surveillance overreach and the erosion of civil liberties.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows citizens to request information about government activities. However, exemptions related to national security often limit the disclosure of details regarding drone programs. This creates a perception of secrecy that can undermine public trust in government operations.
NOW TO THE THORNY TRUTH
Let me start by saying, “We are already here,” and expand on that.
Primary strategic vehicles (PSVs) are platforms for deploying MilOrbs (Military Orbs), which today’s citizens observe in real-time. Your alternative media has created FALSE narratives of Nuclear War and Sniffers and a barrage of other things because I would have planted the same information if I was running point to conceal the information. I would parade Greer, Jones the Gateway Pundit, and other CIA points of contact to plant the misinformation when all you are watching is an exercise for training.
The PSVs currently operating (last I engaged) are Corona East, Akrij, and Sienna, representing cutting-edge advancements in autonomous aerial technology. These Primary Strategic Vehicles (PSVs) serve as platforms for deploying MilOrbs (Military Orbs), with Sienna (last I know of) as the only unit capable of deploying weaponized MilOrbs. These systems are designed to simulate advanced, non-terrestrial threats, pushing the boundaries of conventional training and defense strategies. The deployment of MilOrbs offers the unique ability to replicate unpredictable behaviors, such as erratic flight patterns, abrupt accelerations, and multi-directional movements that closely mimic the characteristics attributed to unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs). These capabilities are crucial for preparing military personnel for future encounters with unknown or highly advanced adversarial technology.
Extraterrestrial exist.In fact, in a series of rigorous tests over decades, military/pilot responses were evaluated by the reactions of well-trained aircrews to these MilOrb simulations. The results were alarming. Despite their extensive training, the crews demonstrated a marked inability to distinguish and respond to the simulated threats effectively. This underscores a significant deficiency in our preparedness for the challenges posed by the next generation of aerial and space-based threats. The simulations revealed that our current systems and training regimens are ill-equipped to handle the complexities of advanced, high-speed, or non-conventional threats. Within the next 70 years, a wave of [REDACTED] (highly classified adversarial systems) reaches near-Earth orbit; our defenses may be woefully inadequate, leaving us vulnerable to potential incursions or attacks. Why do you think Hillary Clinton was asking about Nimrod and his remains? (It’s been FOIAED) find it.
Distinctively, the biggest issue during testing I observe is the human inability to differentiate between the optical effects generated by our own NIR (Near-Infrared) bullets, their multi-photon ionization effects, and the visual signatures produced by genuine UAPs. The multi-photon ionization effect occurs when intense electromagnetic fields associated with advanced weaponry or propulsion systems interact with atmospheric particles, producing glowing orbs and visual distortions similar to those reported in UAP sightings. These visual anomalies can easily confuse even the most seasoned pilots and operators, leading to critical threat recognition and response delays.
This failure is due to our current defense infrastructure (and other nations, too), which understands and fails to resolve human perception’s limitations when faced with advanced optical and electromagnetic phenomena. Traditional visual identification methods, which rely heavily on pilot experience and intuition, are proving insufficient in the face of increasingly sophisticated and unconventional threats. As technology evolves, adversaries will likely exploit these perceptual gaps, deploying systems that mimic UAP characteristics to evade detection and countermeasures.
Addressing this deficiency requires a multifaceted approach. First, we must invest in enhanced sensor systems capable of detecting and analyzing optical and electromagnetic anomalies more accurately. These sensors should incorporate multi-spectral imaging, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), and advanced AI-based analysis to provide real-time identification of threats, minimizing reliance on human interpretation. Second, our training programs must evolve to include realistic simulations that challenge pilots and operators to distinguish between conventional and unconventional threats under high-pressure conditions. Incorporating machine learning algorithms into these exercises can help identify patterns and improve decision-making processes.
Integrating real-time data fusion systems will be critical to overcoming these challenges. By combining inputs from multiple sensors and platforms, including satellites, ground-based radar, and airborne surveillance systems, we can create a comprehensive threat picture that reduces ambiguity and enhances situational awareness. This approach aligns with the principles of Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2).
Ultimately, the tests with Corona East, Akrij, and Sienna are a wake-up call. The future battlefield will not be defined by conventional engagements alone; it will require us to confront technologically sophisticated, rapidly evolving, and often ambiguous threats. Without significant advancements in detection capabilities, training methodologies, and strategic frameworks, we risk falling dangerously behind. Our inability to distinguish between simulated optical effects and genuine UAP signatures today could lead to catastrophic failures tomorrow. The clock is ticking, and the next wave of challenges is already on the horizon.
President Trump today made these critical statements:
When the sighting first appeared, I was concerned about the location, but the strategy was to flank NYC, the “capital of the world,” as a target, which would be ideal for such exercises. I believe this has been proposed many times, including Washington, D.C.
The lack of explanation concerns me, as the exercises we observe may fall into UNETHICAL territory. I am very grateful that President Trump called for transparency; therefore, as someone who understands this realm of technology, I would propose the following as a Statement by the Department of Defense :
Official Statement on Recent Aerial Activity and National Defense Preparedness
In light of growing public interest and speculation surrounding recent unidentified aerial activity across the United States and beyond, the Department of Defense (DoD) provides the following clarification to maintain transparency, ensure public understanding, and uphold national security imperatives.
Over the past several years, the DoD has engaged in Advanced Aerial Readiness Exercises (AAREs) designed to enhance our nation’s defense posture and strategic adaptability in the face of non-conventional threats. These exercises have included the deployment of advanced Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and specialized Primary Strategic Vehicles (PSVs) — such as Corona East, Akrij, and Sienna — capable of deploying Military Orbs (MilOrbs). These assets simulate a broad range of potential threat scenarios, including those characterized by non-terrestrial flight dynamics and highly anomalous aerial behavior.
While the DoD traditionally maintains a confidentiality policy surrounding such exercises to preserve Operational Security (OPSEC), we recognize the unprecedented nature of these activities and the need for a measured degree of transparency. These readiness exercises are, in part, a direct response to credible intelligence indicating the potential existence of Extraterrestrial (ET) aerial capabilities that may interact with or influence terrestrial affairs. Our assessments suggest that certain foreign entities or governments may have engaged in unauthorized communication or interactions with these non-terrestrial actors. This uncertainty necessitates an elevated state of preparedness to safeguard U.S. national interests and the security of our global allies.
The nature of this potential ET threat remains highly classified due to the sensitive intelligence involved. However, the DoD acknowledges that maintaining the readiness of our forces to counter any possible Aerial Intrusion Events (AIEs) is essential to preserving national security. The exercises you may have observed are part of ongoing efforts to train and prepare our Air Force, Navy, and Joint Task Forces to effectively identify, track, and neutralize Unknown Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), should they pose a threat to the sovereignty or safety of our nation.
Why Secrecy Was Maintained
Historically, the secrecy surrounding these operations was necessary to:
- Preserve Strategic Superiority: Public disclosure of these activities could have compromised our ability to respond effectively to emerging aerial threats.
- Prevent Adversarial Exploitation: Revealing the extent of our capabilities could provide adversaries with actionable intelligence, diminishing the strategic advantage these programs confer.
- Mitigate Public Panic: The complex and uncertain nature of these phenomena and the lack of definitive answers could induce widespread concern or panic if not handled with care and responsibility.
Commitment to Transparency
The DoD is committed to balancing national security imperatives with the public’s right to know. As we continue these exercises, we will provide periodic, declassified updates when possible that are consistent with maintaining the integrity of our operations. We recognize that fostering public trust is vital, and we assure the American people that these measures are undertaken solely to ensure the safety, security, and sovereignty of the United States.
We remain vigilant in our mission to protect the nation from all potential threats, terrestrial or otherwise. The current readiness exercises are a proactive step to ensure we are prepared for any eventuality. We appreciate the public’s understanding and continued support as we navigate these complex challenges.
For further inquiries, please contact:
Department of Defense Public Affairs Office
P.S. We apologize for any confusion caused by misinformation regarding extraterrestrial narratives. While certain non-terrestrial entities collaborate with us, we cannot disclose specific details. Revealing which entities are assisting us could enable adversaries to develop countermeasures. Additionally, some nations engage with hostile entities, while others pose as allies to conceal their true intentions.
This complex reality is one of the primary reasons behind the establishment of the United States Space Force (USSF) (@SpaceForceDoD ). Initially, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) gathered intelligence and monitored extraterrestrial activities. Subsequently, the Space Force was created to execute rapid and decisive responses based on that intelligence. In this operational framework, the NRO focuses on surveillance, intelligence-gathering, and early detection, while the Space Force acts on this information, ensuring national security and defense beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
Initiatives led by Elon Musk (@elomusk ) to accelerate the human presence on Mars and align with this strategic need. Establishing an off-planet presence could provide humanity with enhanced resilience and a stronger defense against potential extraterrestrial threats.
To my readers and listeners, I urge you not to listen to assets mentioned in this article (among others) and fall victim to false narratives of panic that can drive our nation into the abyss. Listen to your President. Turn them all off and peruse the Library of Congress. You have everything you need. Ponder on the question I always pose: “Who are THEY everyone keeps referring to? “.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
