The U.K. has a UAP crash retrieval program according to a former intelligence officer
Franc Milburn, a UK veteran with over 22 years of experience producing threat & risk assessments, has spoken with Sentinel News
On March 19th, DailyMail Online published an article written by Christopher Sharp and Josh Boswell, revealing that the U.K. may have a very well organized Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena crash retrieval program and non-human fugitive pilots capture team. Their source is Franc Milburn, author of 2 UAP studies for the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies of the Bar-Ilan University, titled “The Pentagon’s UAP Task Force” and “American Development of UAP Technology: A Fait Accompli?”
In the DailyMail article, Franc Milburn explains how one of his friends and colleagues, referred to as “John” to protect his identity, described to him a mission that took place in the late 1980s. Milburn describes “John” as a military veteran with an impressive career, and was able to verify his tally by talking to other veterans.
According to Franc’s recollection, “John” was sent on a mission to recover a “downed aircraft” among an elite team of “20 to 30 Special Forces”, “flown in by helicopter”. “John” explained to Franc that the craft was neither Russian, American or British, and once on site, he described the craft as obviously non-human. He added that “occupants fled the scene on foot” and that a team was sent after them. Some time later, soldiers were evacuated to be replaced by “scientists and technicians”.
Sentinel reached out to Franc about his testimony. Here is the transcript of that talk:
Sentinel News: So, when did you meet John for the first time ?
Franc Milburn: I think it was after I left the military. So it was like late 1990s.
SN: For how long did you work with him or knew him?
FM: Well I still know him to this day. Just we used to hang out probably for about three, four years, we used to hang out a lot.
SN: Before he told you his story, he never referred to UFOs?
FM He told me a lot of other stuff that he did, which was really impressive. And like I said, in the article, I knew people that he'd worked with. And so I knew that he was telling the truth about all the other stuff. So when he he told me about, the crash retrieval, I had no reason to doubt him whatsoever. And by that time, we'd be doing stuff together. We were hanging out. I mean, we used to see each other, pretty much every weekend, drink beer, stuff like that. So we got to be pretty close. But he didn't go into detail about it, either. I mean, pretty much all the details that went into the article were what he told me. But after that time, he never talked about it. And I never asked him, I just had an interest in UFOs. But it's not like, today where, I'm totally into the research. And I would have asked him loads more questions. I just kind of took it, “Okay. That's something else”. Something kind of strange that you did off the books, right.
SN: When did he tell you about his story ?
FM: This is like in the late 1990s. We both left the military.
SN: Okay. You did warn John, that you will be talking about his story?
FM: No, I didn't.
SN: Aren't you afraid that he will take offense?
FM: Well if you look in the article, the British government says that there's never been UAP incursions or there's never been a crash retrieval. The British government said that there's never been a UAP incursion. Project Condign was in December 2000. And they [Defence Intelligence Service] said there's ever been a UAP incursion. We've never seen any threat by UAP. No RAF aircraft has ever intercepted a UAP. The British government has never received any artifacts from anybody. And then, more recently, in 2021, in the House of Lords, the Minister of State for Defense, said that in over 50 years of reporting there had never been an indication of threat to the UK.?
SN: In your experience of covert operation, do you think that with that many people involved in the operation, because we are a full team of soldiers plus scientists, there is no problem about keeping it secret?
FM: No. I think at that level, I put it in perspective. I mean, when you are in the military there are things that you never talk about that you are privy to, it's pretty well compartmentalized. You meet friends, whether they're in special forces or whether they're in other parts of intelligence, you meet people and you might know which unit they're assigned to, what their basic job is, but you don´t know specifically what they're doing day to day, it's all very well compartmentalized.
SN: People usually don't understand the level of secrecy in operations.
FM: It’s very well compartmentalized and things are very well protected. I mean, it's a graduating scale from restricted information to confidential, secret to top secret at every level, you have increasing levels of security that are applied. And every level, the person who has access to that information has to be more reliable.
SN: Did John seem affected by it?
FM: No, he seemed more affected by the stuff that he's seen in war.
SN: It was a curiosity for him, something out of the ordinary?
FM: I don't know. He's a pretty open-minded guy. But I'm assuming, before he went to do that, that particular mission, that they've been briefed that they would do those kinds of missions.
SN: You have a feeling that he knew in advance what he saw during the operation?
FM: You have an idea of what you're getting into, because I mean, at that level, you're not going to put people into a situation that they're unprepared for. Right? If you think logically, okay, so if you've got a down craft, you've been thinking about the hazardous materials, is it toxic for us, whatever, you have to cordon and control the area, just like, if there were a spill of toxic waste.
Or in the UK, and I'll give you an example and this is all open source. You can check this out online. When you move nuclear materials from, say, a plant that's building nuclear warheads for the British submarines, you've got heavily armed police and Royal Marines who protect them. So obviously they train those guys in case one of the containers in the truck gets ruptured. What they do if there's like a radiation leak… They know all the dangers involved with the job that they're doing.
SN: Absolutely. That's, that's a good observation. Did he say if he wore an NBC suit to protect him.
FM: No he didn’t, but I'll assume at the time that protective equipment would have been standard, they had something that they'd been told was not ours, not American, not Russian. So that doesn't leave you a lot of other possibilities. So I assume that, that they would have had procedures in place decontamination procedures… just as if you were dealing with terrorism in the middle of London and you believe the terrorists had a dirty bomb or a chemical or a biological weapon.
SN : Yeah, it would be.
FM : It's not their first rodeo, right? .
SN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised in the article when they say that it was obvious that there were pilots in the craft, and then they go into a manhunt afterward. And there was this week a leaked message from the U.S. saying that they wanted to recover UFOs using their foreign recovery material program?
FM : Yeah.
SN : Do you think it's pretty much the same thing with John, he was in a mission inside that program to recover foreign material that happened to be probably non-human?
FM : I mean, you can look at this again, online, right? In the US, you've got JSOC, you've also got the Air Force, Special Operations Forces. And their job is that if an aircraft goes down, and this happens in North Korea or whatever, you either don't fly the aircraft behind enemy lines, or if it goes down, then you have to go in and destroy it. You can destroy it from the air, you destroy it with artillery or missiles, or you send guys into blow it up. Right? And to recover the aircraft. Yeah, you with me?
SN : Yeah, absolutely.
FM : In the UK, you've got aircraft crash retrievals that normally be the purview of a unit like the RAF regiment, they've got a parachute squadron, they're jumping in. There was a famous case in the 1980s. The French captured a Libyan MI 24 attack helicopter in Chad. And the Americans went in… a special operations unit. They actually went in and they flew it out. Well, with Chinooks. I'll find the article for you. It was In the 1980s. The Americans wanted to see an MI 24. So the French gave it to them and it flew out.
SN : Interesting, interesting. That makes me think, I don’t remember a single case where a landed craft just self-destruct? Do you? I don't remember a single one.
FM : A UAP? I don’t think so
BF: Because it was basic procedure in World War Two to just destroy your aircraft if you crash-landed somewhere. To be sure it wasn't recovered
FM : Yeah. Well, I mean, the Americans had a lot of experience in that from the Korean War to Vietnam to Afghanistan, if a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft went down, and couldn't fly. They would use thermite grenades. They destroy it completely, and all the sensitive equipment. I remember, in 2001, there was a US Navy EP-3 was forced down by the Chinese on Hainan Island after a collision incident which killed a Chinese pilot. I would imagine that all the guys or the crew, they have a protocol for it, if they're going to be captured, they try to destroy all the top secret stuff. In this case there were not completely successful.
BF: Oh, that's a very good point. And I don't remember a single case of a UAP doing that after landing.
FM: No.
End of transcript
One could also wonder what could have downed a non-human aircraft, if the statement from the RAF is accurate. The fact that “occupants” could escape and that the craft was not described as a debris field hints toward non-destructive weaponry and directed energy weapons. It seems unlikely that such an event would be an isolated case, as “John” didn’t talk about any mishap or panic happening during the mission. One question remains: what happened to the occupants? And, more ontologically speaking, don’t they have rights?
Franc Milburn declared, at a conference organized by A News Security in 2022, that he became aware of a case where 2 British fighters engaged a UAP that was impervious to bullets and was able to disable missiles. One could wonder what the diplomatic implications of such actions would be if these advanced platforms, neither Russian American nor British, belonged to a far more advanced species. The February 2023 events show that even the White House approved the attack of unidentified objects in the North American sky. Are such decisions best left in the hands of the military and the executive branch ? Wouldn't it be better debated by the legislative branch in a democratic setting ?
Translated from French by Guillaume Fournier Airaud
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0