That UAP/UFO Report Is Out. No Aliens. Yawn.
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, DNI
“The UAP documented in this limited dataset demonstrate an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.”
Keith’s note: They waited until late on a Friday afternoon to dump this report. Nothing to see here. Move along.
The UAP Story: The SETI Institute Weighs In
“The observations to be discussed in the report – photographic, witness testimony, and radar – are sometimes conflated with a research discipline known as SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). The latter involves looking for non-natural radio or light signals coming from deep space, as well as observations that might uncover non-natural phenomena (so-called “technosignatures”) in the course of conventional astronomical research. Since the UAP analysis and SETI research have a region of overlap – the possibility of alien beings – there is frequent confusion by the public and media regarding the degree to which they are similar. We hope to mitigate this lack of understanding by pointing out differences in the assumptions, data, and verification methodologies for both UAPs and SETI.”
Yawn is right. If seeking a report of action and adventure as if something significant like govt disclosing they have freeze-dried space aliens in Hanger 18, you are better off consulting with writers in Hollywood.
It is disappointing that there is a cynical nature of people reviewing this document.
While, obviously, no aliens are mentioned, isn’t it a surprising finding that given the huge amount of DOD funding in sensors, they say the sensor data is not enough to identify UAP within the range of fleet exercises? They even say “those sensors are not generally suited for identifying
UAP”. What? Does this make sense? Isn’t this the main reason to have sensors, to discriminate friend and foe?
Isn’t it an interesting finding that UAP “appear to demonstrate advanced technology” (such as remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion) and “demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary”?
I’d like to know why NORAD (or whatever it is called these days) wasn’t included. They are supposed to track things in orbit as well as aircraft.