Speaker A
Since we have set the framework, and I feel that Alexey Borisovich's day is literally structured down to the minute, that is, one thing, another, and another, as you know, like well-oiled gears. The topic he discussed with me
Alexander Artamonov discusses UFO technology, secret reports, and geopolitical tensions involving NATO, Russia, and US declassification of alien tech.
Key Takeaways
- UFO and alien technology remain a highly classified and sensitive subject with geopolitical implications.
- Technological advances sometimes appear inexplicable by conventional scientific development alone.
- US political figures like Trump and Obama have publicly addressed the existence and secrecy of alien tech.
- Military and intelligence communities closely monitor and investigate these technologies.
- The conflict between NATO and Russia is framed as a broader clash of civilizations beyond mere military confrontation.
What the video covers
- Alexander Artamonov explores the sensitive topic of UFO technology and its unclear origins.
- Discussion on secret cooperation with security forces and the challenge of covering classified technologies.
- Historical reference to 1970s aviation technology innovations like glue bonding instead of bolts.
- The difficulty of explaining sudden technological breakthroughs not aligned with known scientific progress.
- The geopolitical context involving NATO, Russia, and the clash of civilizations.
- Trump's announcement on declassifying UFO and extraterrestrial-related documents and its significance.
- Obama's cautious remarks on alien technology and secret zones as a precursor to Trump's statements.
- Analysis of US missile defense technology and strategic military insights from former officers.
- Mention of recent drone warfare and artificial intelligence in military conflicts.
- The ongoing technological interference and espionage impacting global scientific development.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Framework of Discussion
- 02:001970s Aviation Technology Innovations
- 03:56Insight vs. Implemented Technology
- 05:38Geopolitical Clash: NATO vs Russia
- 07:17US Political Statements on UFOs and Alien Tech
- 09:13Missile Defense and Military Insights
- 11:19Recent Drone Warfare and AI in Conflicts
- 15:02Technological Interference and Espionage
- 16:53Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
and which he announced to you, of course, isn't exactly easy to cover, for some reason. And colleagues, when I was just preparing our reports, each one in his own right, they asked: "Do you cooperate with the security forces
Speaker A
on the topics you cover?" Well, as you can imagine, I avoided answering that sensitive question. But understand that if we're talking about technology, especially sensitive technologies, especially technologies that often involve obscure matters, with unclear genesis, often with unclear origins,
Speaker A
then, of course, it arouses the keen interest not only of you but also of all those whose job it is, so to speak, to be interested in this. And if someone, say, comes from these very structures that need to be interested
Speaker A
in something, then secrets are truly being revealed. You understand yourselves, and I think the serious people gathered here are even more so.
Speaker A
You also know what a subscription is. These are the strict limits that Alexey Borisovich essentially forced me into.
Speaker A
That's it. Because, well, the topic is given, the topic must be covered. And most importantly, I myself am to blame for this, because I once proposed this topic to him over twenty drops of coffee. I suddenly suggested it when I
Speaker A
remembered, shall we say, another moment in my father's biography, a graduate of the Moscow Aviation Technology Institute, who, during the UN—I think I'm clueless, so to speak, present next to him, with his colleagues—discussed where Boeing got its, shall we say, wing structure on
Speaker A
some Boeings, or why Americans, back in the 1970s, were using glue instead of bolts, excuse me, to glue certain parts together in the aviation and space industries. That is, they glue parts and products together with glue. The glue holds. Now, if I'd told you about
Speaker A
this, well, 10, 15, 20 years ago, you would have thought it was pure fantasy.
Speaker A
But today, we already have it. But I'll mention that at the end, too, what's available, where it's available. The only question is, where do such technologies come from? This isn't really a preamble; it's already the main point. Because, you see, when
Speaker A
you're working with OSINT, open source intelligence—that is, reconnaissance using open data sources, which accounts for over 80% of intelligence work—you always notice, well, some truly incomprehensible technology that just popped up out of nowhere. Why do I say that? Because, in the world, well, I
Speaker A
think that if people with a scientific background and a background in source-based research are snatched up in the room, I mean in tech, well, roughly all discoveries are made, well, if not in parallel, so to speak, in several countries simultaneously, then
Speaker A
at least if something isn't discovered in one country, it will definitely be discovered in another. Laboratories and research centers don't work in specific areas; they develop them and have a rough idea of what, where, and how might appear. But what if something
Speaker A
emerges that no one expected? Where did it come from? It's unclear. You could, of course, chalk it all up to inspiration, a brilliant insight, like Bohr's postulates or Mendeleev's table, but it's one thing when it's fundamental science, and quite another
Speaker A
when technology is implemented. You understand that, say, Leonardo da Vinci could have envisioned a tank or a helicopter, but I think you, as serious people, also understand that he couldn't have invented a tank for the simple reason that he simply didn't
Speaker A
have a power plant, an engine, or anything like that, and he didn't understand the principle of armor. He could draw a machine gun, but he clearly didn't understand how a machine gun worked. This is precision mechanics, yes. So, insight is one thing, but
Speaker A
ready-made technologies, already implemented in production, are quite another. This raises a question. In fact, the topic is related to something the authorities don't like to cover. So, periodically, when people have such thoughts, there's an immediate countercurrent, a countercurrent, with
Speaker A
the idea that, well, this is all complete nonsense, it's just our competitors trying to rig their chokes.
Speaker A
Well, for example, not long ago, a couple of very serious military experts—I won't name them, of course, but they're all well-known—were asked where the Americans got this technology from, perhaps it was extraterrestrial or perhaps it was from a previous
Speaker A
civilization. Naturally, these competent people, so to speak, straightened their shoulders, and said, "No, this is all complete nonsense. The Americans just like to pretend they have something, when they have nothing."
Speaker A
I don't know. But nevertheless, look, why does art have the ability to think about this topic? That's because in February of this year, Trump announced, perhaps you know, that he intends to declassify documents on extraterrestrial life and UFOs.
Speaker A
Alexander Artomonov, book "NATO and Russia. Irreconcilable Contradictions." Who really started this war? Why has an entire alliance been built against Russia again? And what's behind it?
Speaker A
It's worth it. This isn't a conflict between armies. It's a clash of civilizations. Rome versus Byzantium.
Speaker A
Power versus reason. Machine logic versus human history. Why won't NATO stop? What scenarios are already being launched? And who's next? And most importantly, does Russia have time?
Speaker A
Read on delip.ru and purchase via the links in the description. He declared, he declared. Well, Trump will lie for cheap, we know this well about Iran and elsewhere. But the statement is serious, and, as a rule, well, despite all my
Speaker A
dislike for the United States, if someone has lied, made a nonsensical statement, then, even if it's the president, there follows a refutation.
Speaker A
These aren't empty words. For example, not long ago, I read comments from one of Trump's closest friends, who said that he's completely lost his mind long ago and that the things he allows himself to do, so to speak, are
Speaker A
absolutely unthinkable. What was I getting at? Well, imagine any other country—I'm not even mentioning other countries—where someone has said, regarding the Supreme Court, "The Duma has completely lost its mind." Incidentally, regarding Trump, I brought up Alex Jones, his close friend.
Speaker A
I've got all the moves written down. That's why freedom of speech is largely respected in the States. And no one objected to Trump's assertion that there really is something and that there is something to declassify.
Speaker A
Moreover, due to Donald Fredovich's great dislike for his predecessors, particularly Obama, whom he literally hates, he even referenced Obama. So, I think this is something worth exploring, because his statements about what he declassified also included a reference
Speaker A
to Obama, and he really chided Obama for being the first to reveal something that shouldn't have been revealed. I dug around to see what Obama revealed.
Speaker A
Obama didn't reveal anything particularly significant. Simply when asked whether the US has alien technology and how to feel about it, Obama replied: "I haven't seen aliens myself, but I know they exist, and that the secret zone there, in my opinion,
Speaker A
0.57, is, uh, pure and simple, an open secret, because it's clear that the time has come to talk about it." I wouldn't say that was a very specific remark, but Trump built his thunderous statement on it. And I will declassify
Speaker A
what we have there. That's it. I haven't declassified it yet. We'll see. But there is some very interesting evidence in the US, uh, which is difficult to refute. Naturally, I'm talking about technology, so first of all, I'll say, uh, I try to analyze
Speaker A
such things and not provide precise information. And I'll talk about preventing the launch of American missiles from the point of view of one of the Strategic Missile Forces officers, uh, who served then in 1967.
Speaker A
His name was a
Speaker A
Post this year that obscure technologies, let's say—he doesn't say they were of low-level origin, he says, "I'll describe a case." This obscure technology was able to disable 20 Block 1 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles. They're now Block 3. Block 3, the third modification of
Speaker A
the Minuteman missile. The primary US strategic ICBM shield. And back then, it was Block 1, naturally, in 1967.
Speaker A
Here's how it happened and where, by the way, if you can't say where, when, on what basis, what the source was, and the person's name, that's not information, naturally. Yes, it's also one of those methods of filtering out
Speaker A
white noise, what I call white noise. This happened in Montana. At the Maelstrom air base. So, if we anglicize Malmstrom, because, probably, in Russian, this is what the article in the New York Post interview said. It happened in 1967, and the missiles
Speaker A
suddenly showed a technical malfunction during an exercise after an unidentified aircraft passed over the launchers. According to Robert Sallos, it hovered over each launcher for a second. Some kind of red light came on.
Speaker A
A searchlight, or maybe not, he doesn't specify. A red light, a short flash. Then it continued until the next launch site. After that, they reported a mass failure, meaning the missiles didn't launch during the exercise. 20 ICBMs.
Speaker A
That's it. So, naturally, not all 20 were supposed to be launched. There was supposed to be a launch operation of one or two missiles, but in the end, naturally, all 20 were checked later, and all 20 turned out to be faulty. So,
Speaker A
there are some capabilities and technologies. The question is, who? Well, here opinions differ, but I'm not going to speculate on who or how. I have my own, of course, but for now, let's just talk about the facts. Let's
Speaker A
settle on the idea that this is some kind of superintelligence. Superintelligence isn't necessarily little green men in flying saucers. It could also be a superintelligence designed on a completely different principle, but some kind of intervention, a targeted intervention
Speaker A
in our earthly life, well, somehow we manage to catch it by the tail. Yes. I can point out that the mere fact of interfering with a launch doesn't yet constitute technology transfer. Note that I'm not changing the subject. What
Speaker A
I gave you about the first case. A very curious intervention. And what about technology transfer? Well, I'll tell you that just recently, in June of this year, that very month we're in, the Americans discovered a very strange technology that had appeared very
Speaker A
strangely in a country that, one would think, shouldn't have it. What am I talking about, bish? I'm talking about Iran. This is testimony from an F-15 Eagle pilot who was forced to eject. It happened literally 10 days ago, now, I
Speaker A
think, 12 days ago, after encountering a very strange phenomenon. Yes, it's all been published and presented in a CNN report based on four informed sources; what's more, they even name them. And the technology is as follows.
Speaker A
You be the judge. The pilot saw a cloud of drones in the sky, which, before his very eyes, reorganized into a three-dimensional spatial structure, a giant jellyfish. Well, that's what I described during, well, the debriefing, because the loss of the aircraft, the
Speaker A
ejection, then the debriefing, and then the information reached CNN. Again, the Americans are quick to leak information . But to say it didn't happen is impossible, because the F-15 was indeed lost. Lilo said the drones formed this spatial jellyfish, where the smaller
Speaker A
drones formed, as he described, tentacles, creatures, and the larger drones, well, roughly speaking, a body.
Speaker A
And so, the limbs extended toward the F15. The pilot didn't wait for the banquet to continue and ejected. The drone was lost. What interested the commission, well, not this particular incident. So, I think it's easy to even imagine how it must have looked.
Speaker A
There's no technology currently known that could somehow transform an attacking swarm of drones into a structure capable of performing meaningful actions. Yes, I know, great, I wouldn't even have to hide from the American commission. I know for myself
Speaker A
that the Chinese, ah, use drones to draw all sorts of beautiful hieroglyphs in the sky during all sorts of holidays . It's all well and good, but it's one thing to draw something, and quite another to do so in a battle, instantly
Speaker A
, in a matter of seconds, without any human intervention. This, of course, doesn't require operator intervention, because there were several hundred drones, as the pilot described. That is , it was also artificial intelligence that reacted at a speed of a fraction
Speaker A
of a second and transformed the drones into a single attack structure. The swarm became a single organism, so to speak. The Americans were shocked, and remain shocked, because only 10 days and two weeks had passed for a number
Speaker A
of reasons. Well, firstly, because I don't know if they duplicated the black box. I doubt they took my word for it, but the F-15's onboard electronic equipment was indeed disabled, meaning an EMP occurred, an electromagnetic pulse of some sort, which, accordingly,
Speaker A
managed to turn the drone into nothing more than a pile of American metal. Secondly, such technologies, especially on the battlefield, can't appear, as you understand, in prototype form. So, this presupposes lengthy, detailed development by whom? The United States,
Speaker A
Russia, no, Iran. If China had it, if Russia had it, it would have been known anyway. Well, because intelligence, you know, works everywhere and always.
Speaker A
Technological intelligence, since the time of Beria, when we were rushing to build the atomic bomb, has worked magnificently in all countries of the world. Well, I'm simply translating Beria because I think he's the most brilliant example of how our
Speaker A
intelligence worked. The Americans, believe me, are also quite good. How is this possible? The Americans even called it a pack of technologies. An instant attack program for an entire swarm of drones. It's unclear what the West has. The conclusion is simple.
Speaker A
Where did Iran get it? Nothing like this has ever been demonstrated at any testing ground in any country in the world. Where from? It's unknown.
Speaker A
Big politics are never made in the stands. They are decided in a small circle behind closed doors, where words hang heavier than weapons. The Middle East. The International Department of the CPSU Central Committee. Secret negotiations. Arab world leaders and
Speaker A
diplomacy that wasn't written about in the newspapers. Read on delIP.ru and purchase via the links in the description. This is the perfect time to talk about Iran being an ancient civilization, Persian, dating back 5,000-6,000 years, and so on. But that
Speaker A
wouldn't explain anything. Well, the last thing I think is that in some ancient pyramid of Hyops, someone discovered, excuse me, design documentation, so to speak, everything there and then, you know, like television, on Whatman paper or, I don't know, on some kind of medium, in
Speaker A
crystals, all of this was depicted. No, I don't believe that. This isn't a scenario for science fiction writers. I would dismiss it as a coincidence, but I can't, because it just happened. Yeah , it's unclear. But there's some
Speaker A
interference in our technological development, I think, and it's definitely evident here, especially in a country that, of course, has a very high level of drone technology, but not enough to leap forward two notches.
Speaker A
There you go. Yes. And the situation will end with the conclusion, say, of Alex Karp from Palanseer and others, that the Americans will need 10-15 years. Well, as a rule, they're very fond of themselves, giving short deadlines, which are then revised to
Speaker A
reach a level of technology capable of building this kind of, so to speak, three-dimensional figures, not just for show, but with a purpose, tasks, without human intervention. Interesting . That's why the question of whether or not there is contact with
Speaker A
extraterrestrial intelligence—well, for me at least, and I'll continue, of course, with examples—is quite obvious; yes, there is. I repeat my question: with what kind of intelligence and what kind is it? Yes, well, I'll come back to that, I'll
Speaker A
check my watch at the end of my presentation. There. And regarding the various canards, in quotes, that are launched into the general public, naturally, I'm more than informed. Well , because I do prepare for the topics when I speak. And yes, indeed, the US
Speaker A
loves to talk about how, since the 1950s, at their CS River base in Maryland, there's some sort of, so to speak, object that crashed, which they've been studying for a long time and hard, yes. In response to this, as
Speaker A
a rule, comes a retort from our engineers. But what if you've studied it for so long, and yet nothing has come of it yet, right? You have studied it. And here I will provide you with evidence on this matter. Presented by
Speaker A
the Daily Mail. By whom presented? An engineer, an engine builder at NASA. NASA, yes. And Martin Lockhicht in the past. He's currently the CEO of the company, a man who rose to fame as Field Propulsion Technologies. Well, that's understandable. Propulsion, of
Speaker A
course, is Propulsion Technology. Richard Banduric, clearly of Serbian descent, is Chekalyukharovsky. Statement from December 2024. Very interesting, in my opinion, episodes of the Ecos Systems Futures podcast, which The Daily later used in its publication , naturally after conducting
Speaker A
counter-verification and verification. What did Banduric tell us? He said that for several years he worked as a materialist, that is, in the field of engine design, working on materials, combustion chambers. There. And he participated in the study of
Speaker A
extraterrestrial material. Well, that's his conclusion, I can't help it. Capable of attention to change its physical configuration and mimic the environment. Sounds good, right? Right.
Speaker A
And how does he talk about it? At least one phrase from him personally. The object camouflaged itself and tried to blend into its environment. So, a piece of material that you place on the table , and, consequently, you stop seeing it
Speaker A
. It seems like it. Well, barely noticeable. We're working on such technologies. We even have various capes, cloaks of invisibility. Now, the SVO is encouraging this in every possible way, of course. But this, as I understand it—at least that's what it
Speaker A
says—is a piece of some kind of composite material, which was used either for the power-stop housing or for the combustion chambers. So, it's not just plastic. So. And interestingly , Mandurich, naturally, didn't provide any material evidence. No one will hand
Speaker A
Vechkov over to him, no matter how long ago he left NASA with Loket. But the man risked his name. And it's not for nothing that I mentioned his position, because the CEO of a major power plant company is not a retired pensioner,
Speaker A
with due respect to retirees, who has been around for a very long time and who, perhaps, is telling the truth, or perhaps wants to spin a beautiful story about his past activities. Who knows, 60 or 70 years from now, what really
Speaker A
happened there? No, everything here seems to be right here and now. Svadurich's conclusion is about the sudden origin of the technologies, because I've never encountered anything like this in the field of materials science. Although I'm not a materials
Speaker A
scientist myself, having worked in aviation for 17 years in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing, excuse me, and then at Aeroflot—not just the RKU-2, Aeroflot, KNAAZ, and the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Naval Plant—I'll note that, in general, the Americans ' materials science is very
Speaker A
underdeveloped, to say the least. Well, because when they tried to cast aluminum alloys, which are used to build the airframe of our fighter jets of the 30th family, they cracked.
Speaker A
They're bad at making alloys, they don't know how, which is why they can't develop GMD technology—hypersonic missile weapons—because the airframe doesn't hold its shape when heated while moving at speeds above Mach 4.5.
Speaker A
This is the transition to hypersonic speed, not 5000 rpm, but 4.5. There you go. And at the same time, the combustion chamber starts to flow around, which they can't do. And then, out of nowhere, a piece of material
Speaker A
appears, not even a piece, and what's more, it's non-microscopic. It's unclear. Where did they get it from?
Speaker A
Well, hardly from a pyramid scheme. So, in fact, they've been talking about the transfer of alien technology for a very , very long time. And serious research has been conducted on it. And since the Anglo-Saxons are usually chatty, with
Speaker A
us, I started with this, such things start with a subscription, and no one is their own enemy. I'm one of them, so I use American sources, but I can assume—this is my own assumption, just like a bird on the tail—that
Speaker A
General Ivashov wasn't the only one who knew what was being done, how, and where. He just talked about it a little , and everyone else, naturally, will keep quiet about it. So, let's say there's a work by Oliver Wells from
Speaker A
2025. It's published by Riede Roh. It's a good work, by the way. It's about alien technologies that were passed on to humanity. What's he writing about?
Speaker A
Ancient cultures like the Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans, and many others demonstrated astonishing knowledge of astronomy, mathematics, and engineering , which seemed out of keeping with their level of technological development. How could people thousands of years ago accurately calculate the
Speaker A
movement of celestial bodies, build structures that still amaze scientists, and possess knowledge that, in theory, should only have become available in the 20th-21st centuries? So, in this case, it's a bit of a cryptohistory from the Voos side. He means that
Speaker A
interference with our technological development didn't begin today; it's ongoing. And since we typically operate with the very top edge of things (we don't dig deep), understanding the origins of something—well, not Firma's theorem, or at least Bohr's postulates, which I mentioned above—
Speaker A
well, it's just like that: it just happens, you never know—is very, very difficult. I have a clear example to illustrate Uls's words. I'll continue to torment him a bit, but I'll stop and share it with you. This is an area of
Speaker A
science and knowledge that is more than widely known these days and which, oddly enough, is connected specifically to Russia. Many people don't realize this. I'm actually talking about quantum technologies, because the field of quantum physics was developed by our
Speaker A
compatriot, Luntiv, who was greatly underestimated and continues to be underestimated to this day. Incidentally, he is still underestimated in every possible way.
Speaker A
And I wouldn't be so categorical if only Oxford hadn't already turned in his 500-page textbook. Yeah. If only he hadn't been awarded two Ganoriscus degrees, that is, honorary doctorates from one British university and one Chinese one. And the British, the
Speaker A
Americans, and the Chinese are all building prototypes of his power plants based on, so to speak, the quantum mechanics he described. And yet we continue to say it's pseudoscience. How is it genetics? You know, we also have chiasm. That's pure pseudoscience. It's
Speaker A
cold fusion. A cold fusion reaction. I'm not just going to say "heh" to you for the sake of it, even though I'm interested in atomic physics. I'll just say it again: since I work in precision analysis, I was very interested to once
Speaker A
cross paths with a member of the intelligence community—not ours—at a Moscow bar who, well, I'd say, showed a crazy interest in what was going on in Russia right now. I really don't think the people who sponsored her activities were Kremlin dreamers who
Speaker A
didn't know what to do with their agent , so to speak. And yet we keep saying it's all just. That's how interesting it is. Science, of course, is a fairly, well, formalized thing, and it's always easier to stick to the
Speaker A
main trend and, as they say, not stray into other paths. Well, Korolev, and, forgive me, Sokovsky, and others were only breaking already-adopted laws. You know, back in Zhukovsky's time, they used to say, "A heavier-than-air device will never fly." So, after all, from
Speaker A
general philosophy to practice, Leontiev actually wrote a textbook on quantum physics, which has already been translated into many languages, although there's little translation required. It's full of formulas. I love mathematics, but I asked for a summary.
Speaker A
A summary is 60-70 pages, a summary, and then more formulas. It's hard for a normal person to understand. And for us , for, let's say, people quite removed from this, quantum physics is, of course, yes. After all, when he claims
Speaker A
that it's possible to move celestial bodies, classes of meteorites, by moving them, uh, without fuel, that is, without a working fluid, well, in some other way—a type of graier setup using quantized space and the creation of an appropriate field. He's not just
Speaker A
making this claim; he's claiming that it can be done literally today—he's started building a pilot setup together with one of the people who work with him. Someone heard this, as far as I know, Leontiev has now become, well,
Speaker A
now he can only move around Russia. That's good, I'm happy. But it would have been nice if they had given him another institute, yes, and tested his ideas. Then you and I would have understood exactly how correct or
Speaker A
incorrect his academic calculations were. But that's not what I'm talking about now; what I'm talking about is, let's, with true respect for a great scientist, consider this man, whom I respect very much, saying, "I don't know how it works. I just picked up a
Speaker A
pen and started writing formulas." Yes, he was a PhD candidate. Yes, indeed, that's true. But to say that this is the work of a large team of people who stood behind him for many decades, who developed everything together somewhere
Speaker A
at the Russian Academy of Sciences, within the walls of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is impossible. And I'd tell you that all this is wrong, but I can't, because a ton of laboratories, at least three scientific centers in
Speaker A
Great Britain, Britain—no need to call it Great Britain—the USA, and China, are now moving forward based on these developments. Very interesting.
Speaker A
Incidentally, he built a prototype right in his garage when he was sent to the Bryansk region as a combine operator. Well, because he was kicked out of all the organizations, and a man has to live. So he sat behind the
Speaker A
controls of a combine, being such a scientist. Interesting. But in any case , I'm not interested in his fate, although his fate, I wrote about it, is also interesting, but rather, once again, where does our intelligence come from? Are these little green men or
Speaker A
something else? But here I have an open question, I haven't answered it yet. Returning to Wells. Wells believes that the advent of transistors—he lists them himself—is no longer a rtamon, transistors, fiber optics, laser technologies, super-strong composites, that is, composite materials—yes, it
Speaker A
can't be explained by the consistent evolution of scientific thought on his conscience. So, a breakthrough, right?
Speaker A
Well, why such a breakthrough, why now, and how did it happen? Well, the leaps in perspective are somewhat unclear, especially the speed with which it all happened simultaneously, practically overnight. And I don't attribute this to, let's say, I'll interrupt again.
Speaker A
The Internet. It's not little green men , excuse me, who are watching us through Tele
Topics:Alexander ArtamonovUFO technologyCNN secret reportNATO Russia conflictextraterrestrial technologyTrump declassificationObama alien remarksmilitary technologyopen source intelligencehypersonic weapons
