On Lohr’s Frequency – Transmission 001
By Lt. Cassian Lohr, Cosmic Phenomenologist
October 29, 2025
Right then. Let’s talk about what happened on September 9th.
Congress gets shown footage – proper military grade, MQ-9 Reaper tracking an object off Yemen’s coast, October 30th last year. Another drone fires a Hellfire missile. Direct hit. And the bloody thing keeps flying.
George Knapp, investigative journalist, puts it plain: “That’s a Hellfire missile smacking into that UFO and just bounced right off, and it kept going.”
Military witnesses – trained observers, not weekend sky-watchers – state for the record that no known U.S. technology could survive that kind of strike.
Pentagon’s response when asked to verify? “We do not have anything to provide on this.” Asked to comment? “I have nothing for you.”
Translation: no comment.
Within days, the explanations started rolling in like they’d been queued up and waiting.
The Pattern You’ve Seen Before
Harvard scientist Avi Loeb – same man who suggested ‘Oumuamua might be artificial – publishes his analysis almost immediately. It’s a Houthi Samad drone, he says. Cites video analysis from his blog, speed calculations, timing correlations with regional drone launches.
Missile experts quoted by Popular Mechanics suggest it’s a balloon. Weather balloon drifting in the wind. The Hellfire probably didn’t explode because it was the AGM-114R9X variant – the one with blades instead of a warhead. Case closed, mystery solved, everyone back to work.
Here’s what bothers me about this: How are you so certain?
Loeb wasn’t there. He doesn’t have the classified sensor data – the thermal imaging details, the radar returns, the mission parameters. He’s working from 50 seconds of grainy footage and his own calculations.
The missile analysts? Same story. Limited information, confident conclusions.
I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m asking: When did we start treating preliminary analysis like settled fact?
What Investigation Actually Looks Like
In my line of work, when you find something anomalous, you call for more data. You don’t rush to explain it away – you try to stress-test it. You ask:
- What would the full sensor suite show?
- Can we get testimony from the operators who were actually there?
- What were the exact mission parameters?
- Are there other cases with similar signatures we can cross-reference?
That’s investigation. What we got instead was explanation – fast, confident, and based on incomplete information.
When was the last time you saw a scientist immediately call for:
- FOIA requests for the full mission data
- Release of classified sensor readings
- Testimony from the drone operators under oath
- Peer review by weapons systems experts
Instead, we get blog posts and op-eds. Confident explanations wrapped in the language of skepticism.
And the Pentagon says nothing.
The Cost of Speaking Up
Same hearing, different testimony.
Air Force veteran Dylan Borland takes the stand. In 2012, he witnessed a 100-foot triangular craft hover above him at Langley Air Force Base. Silent. No wind displacement. Material that appeared fluid, almost organic.
He reported it. Did his duty. Told his chain of command what he saw.
AARO – the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office – interviewed him in 2023. Then dismissed his account.
His testimony to Congress: “I faced discrediting because of my report, as well as workplace retaliation and manipulation of my security clearance. I am unemployed now and have no job prospects.”
Let that settle in your bones for a moment.
A trained geospatial intelligence specialist. Impeccable service record. Saw something, said something. And now he’s unemployed and blacklisted from the entire intelligence community.
Meanwhile, scientists who weren’t there publish confident explanations with zero professional consequences. Get praised for being “rational skeptics.”
Tell me how that makes sense.
The Double Standard Nobody Mentions
Here’s something that stuck with me. Loeb went on Joe Rogan recently and talked about how AI is making people cognitively lazy. His example? Students submitting papers with fake AI-generated references – sources that don’t exist because the students didn’t bother to verify.
Fair criticism. That is lazy thinking. Outsourcing your verification to a tool and trusting the output without checking.
Now let me ask you something: What’s the difference between that and publishing confident conclusions about classified military footage without access to the underlying data?
The student says: “ChatGPT generated these sources, so they must be real.”
The scientist says: “My video analysis shows X, so it must be a drone.”
Neither verified against primary sources. One gets failed. The other gets published as settled science.
Both are making claims without doing the hard work of verification. But only one gets called out for it.
What Government Behavior Actually Tells Us
Forget what they say. Watch what they do.
They don’t act like this about weather balloons.
They don’t destroy careers over misidentified drones.
They don’t classify programs and stonewall Congress about Venus.
Look at where they’ve spent resources:
- Remote viewing programs (Project Stargate ran for 20 years)
- UAP tracking offices (AATIP, now AARO)
- Alleged crash retrieval programs (per Grusch testimony)
- Career destruction for witnesses who report anomalies
- Maintaining classification despite congressional pressure
That’s not the behavior pattern of an organization dealing with mundane phenomena. That’s the behavior of an organization that knows something it’s not ready to share.
You don’t build bureaucratic machinery like this around nothing. You don’t maintain 80 years of stigma around balloon sightings.
The government’s behavior reveals what they actually think this is. And their behavior says: “This is real, this is important, and we’re not telling you the full story.”
So when scientists dismiss the entire topic as cognitive bias, they’re not being skeptical. They’re being blind to the elephant standing in the evidence room.
The Misdirection Game
Here’s a pattern worth noting.
Earlier this year, UAP journalist Jeremy Corbell warned something was coming – not a UAP, but a distraction. He predicted authorities would point to some distant object and get everyone excited about “maybe it’s aliens!” to pull attention away from what’s happening in our own skies.
Right on schedule, 3I/Atlas appears. Interstellar object. Media coverage explodes. Scientists debate whether it could be artificial.
Then: “Nope, just a comet. False alarm. Show’s over.”
Classic misdirection.
While everyone’s looking up at a distant rock, here’s what was happening closer to home:
- September 9th hearing reveals Hellfire missile footage
- Military whistleblowers testify about systematic career destruction
- Pentagon stonewalls Congress on data access
- Over 2,000 UAP sightings in first half of 2025
- 9,000 reports of unidentified submersible objects off U.S. coasts
But we’re supposed to care about a comet?
This is the playbook:
- Generate excitement about something distant and unprovable
- Debunk it quickly
- Public gets disappointed and tunes out
- Real phenomena in our atmosphere get ignored
Corbell called it months in advance. And it worked exactly as he predicted.
What Scientific Inquiry Would Actually Look Like
If you’re genuinely curious about the Yemen footage, here’s what you’d say:
“Based on available footage, several explanations are possible – Houthi drone, balloon, something else entirely. However, without access to the full sensor suite data, mission parameters, and operator testimony, any conclusion remains speculative. The Pentagon should release this data so independent researchers can analyze it properly.”
That’s honest. That’s scientific. That acknowledges the limits of what we can conclude from partial information.
Instead, we get: “Obviously a drone/balloon. Case closed.”
That’s not science. That’s performance.
Real investigation means:
- Acknowledging what you don’t know
- Calling for transparency instead of filling gaps with assumptions
- Taking trained observers seriously instead of dismissing them
- Following evidence instead of protecting prior beliefs
One approach leads to discovery. The other leads to comfortable ignorance.
The Real Question
Over 2,000 UAP sightings in the first half of this year alone. Thousands of reports of anomalous objects in our oceans. Congressional hearings with credible military witnesses. Whistleblowers having their lives destroyed for reporting what they observed.
And the response from much of the scientific establishment is: dismissal, ridicule, and confident explanations based on incomplete data.
Why?
Why are we more interested in explaining things away than understanding them?
Why do scientists rush to debunk before investigating?
Why does the Pentagon destroy careers while stonewalling Congress?
I don’t know if the Yemen object was alien technology, a Houthi drone, or a bloody balloon. Neither do you. Neither does Avi Loeb. Neither does anyone without access to the classified sensor data.
But I do know this: We’re working harder to dismiss this phenomenon than to understand it.
And that should concern anyone who actually values scientific inquiry over comfortable certainty.
Look, I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m asking you to notice the pattern.
When trained observers report anomalies, we dismiss them.
When they persist in reporting, we destroy their careers.
When evidence surfaces, we explain it away before investigating.
When Congress demands transparency, we stonewall.
When the public asks questions, we maintain the stigma.
That’s not skepticism. That’s suppression.
Real skepticism would call for more data, better instruments, systematic study. Real skepticism would protect whistleblowers and demand transparency. Real skepticism would investigate before dismissing.
What we have instead is a system designed to prevent investigation while maintaining the appearance of rational inquiry.
The fire isn’t hidden in some classified vault. It’s singing all around us in frequencies we’ve been trained not to hear. Whether that fire leads to off-world operators, hidden terrestrial intelligence, or something stranger entirely – we’ll never know as long as dismissal gets more resources than investigation.
The stigma doesn’t end with a press conference. It ends the day the data are too clean to shrug at. The day the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. The day enough people finally ask:
Why are we so afraid of finding out?
Lt. Cassian Lohr
Cosmic Phenomenologist
Questions? Evidence? Theories that might actually survive scrutiny? You know where to find me.