15 ms·

Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

200 points by tailspin2019 5y ago

tailspin2019 5y ago
Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... > "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." > "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings."
- kolinko 5y ago
  They didn’t release any details on specific incidents, right? This pdf is all there is?
  - tailspin2019 5y ago
    Yep, it doesn't look like there's anything else that has been published.
- xbar 5y ago
  80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    No, they said that in most cases crucial data was lacking. Yes, they probably have a lot more data, but they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons".
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons" This is pretty clearly non-scare quotey security reasons territory. We are unsure if what’s on the scope is an adversary’s. Publishing a detailed quantification of how little we know and in what form would be a self goal.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Yep. And other countries may very well be having the same issues trying to indentify US-originated UFOs.
  - Retric 5y ago
    This is the reminder after they explained millions of identified objects or sensor artifacts. In theory a non trivial fraction of these may be sensor errors for example, but so far they haven’t been identified as such. Ditto for clouds, balloons, drones, aircraft, missiles, falling space debris, etc etc.
  - freyr 5y ago
    Only 18 exhibited unusual behavior that exceeded the capabilities of known technology. For the rest, I imagine they can conceive of explanations, but they lack sufficient data to explain with certainty.
  - Animats 5y ago
    The "multiple sensors" part is important. Anything that has video or radar returns from multiple points is much more interesting than a single-point view. Most illusions break down when observed from multiple widely separated points, like several warships operating together. So little hard data is being released.
    - nomoreplease 5y ago
      Does multiple sensors mean multiple sensors on a single plane/ship or sensors on multiple planes/ships? After looking at the document, I took this to mean the former (multiple on same plane/ship)
  - greydius 5y ago
    > reliable encounters with one sensor There's no such thing. An anomaly that doesn't appear on multiple sensors is a defect with your sensor.
    - biofox 5y ago
      That doesn't make sense. If I can see something that I can't smell, that doesn't imply that my eyes are defective.
      - greydius 5y ago
        Of course. But if you see something that none of the people around you see, then you might want to question your own sensor or signal processor.
  - rasz 5y ago
    but then you look at one of the examples like the pyramid one and YT analysis that took couple of days to pinpoint the direct cause https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/supostos-ovnis-em-forma-de-piramide-seriam-apenas-um-efeito-optico/ https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/suposto... NVD with 3 blade iris
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      Wtf is NVD? An acronym database lists many explanations like Natural Vaginal Delivery.
      - truxten 5y ago
        IIRC its Night Vision Device. Essentially night vision cameras have triangle shaped iris which causes triangle shaped lens flare - hence the triangles in the footage.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Yeah, this "RF energy" statement is too vague. Ok, you detected what exactly? At which frequencies? Power? BW? Does it look like something (unmodulated signal? Modulated? How?)? Do you have a recording of it?
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.
    - jablongo 5y ago
      The RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing so much info.
      - nosmokewhereiam 5y ago
        Think SIGINT, MASINT, and EW platforms. That's what RF means to me.
pueblito 5y ago
> In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. Does this mean the objects emit RF energy of some sort?
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  That's one possibility, but I think the phrasing in the report is intentionally chosen so as not to rule out RF emission passing through or past the object, or RF emission from another direction being reflected towards the observer by the object.
- trasz 5y ago
  I'm guessing it's just their way of saying "we have RWR recordings of the radio waves, but since it's SIGINT we won't be giving you any details for another 40 years."
1337biz 5y ago
Are there any plausible theories why this stuff is getting released right now? It looks like there is no immediate reason for action. And no real reason why they wouldn't have gone on for another decade denying it.
- giarc 5y ago
  They had to release it. >The report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was required by the Intelligence Authorization Act passed by Congress late last year. The U.S. intelligence community was given 180 days to prepare an unclassified and classified report on what the U.S. government knew about UAPs. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/highly-anticipated-ufo-report-expected-presented-congress-friday/story?id=78486423 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/highly-anticipated-ufo-repor...
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    The classified report probably has the good stuff. It doesn't surprise me that this is extremely watered down for the public: Far more plausible than "aliens" is "foreign government figured out they can do something cool"[0], and if it's the latter, the US is not going to want to make it clear how much they do and don't understand about it. [0] Even this category can be divided out into plausible and implausible options. For instance, I'd likely believe another government figured out they could mess with our military sensors over having developed antigravity.
    - nescioquid 5y ago
      I can't get around thinking there are simply just a bunch of I-want-to-believers in government, some of whom started/supported AATIP and its successor. They need budget, so invoke National Security. I truly doubt there is any "good stuff".
- dt3ft 5y ago
  Our government expects visitors soon and this was a step towards preparing the public to what is about to come? xD
onychomys 5y ago
Lol, looks like DNI.gov wasn't ready for the traffic. I'd have thought that all the .gov sites were pretty robust, just as a matter of principle.
- vmception 5y ago
  Nope they are very far behind typically and that’s the assumption I start with You should look at a few technology related executive orders to show how difficult coordination of this is and how behind they are
- thanksforfish 5y ago
  Or atleast as a security measure. Denial of service is a security concern... embarrassing.
amerine 5y ago
> Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected. Seems like a convenient place to hide some cool planes.
- kgin 5y ago
  It is seems unlikely that U.S. super secret military programs would test their super secret aircraft in spaces where non-secret military programs perform scheduled and easily avoidable training and drills.
nynx 5y ago
Nothing too crazy here. Exactly as expected.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Except for the dozen or so incidents that had multiple sensor contacts from some of the most advanced technology we can produce while in close proximity to military training groups and no one knows what the F they were or how they were staying in the air. No big deal really. At least this report seems to open a path to normalizing basic reporting of such things so more information can be gathered. It’s worrying that they mention near mid air misses.
staunch 5y ago
> "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." Yeah, if we could just get a copy of that data real quick, that'd be greeeaat.
- trasz 5y ago
  This. Even the ones which are already public, like the FLIR recordings, would be much more useful if they also released tapes from other MFDs ("screens" inside the cockpit) that were also recorded in that moment, eg the radar display.
- egfx 5y ago
  Yes because projections have been developed to emit infrared and projections can also be detected on radar. [1] https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRedProjector/InfraRedProjector.html_bak https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRed... [2] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techniques/vS0fAQAAIAAJ?hl=en https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techn...
- iagovar 5y ago
  This. It's 2021. Release something or just shut up. A potato quality video from a fighter that clearly has way better video and capabilities is not gonna cut it for me, sorry.
- avs733 5y ago
  rationally, that would fall under 'sources and methods' which the DOD/DNI/TLA are not going to release. They care far less about the data than the system to get the data. Releasing it provides potential enemies information on systems capability. I'm loving the conversation here. I cannot imagine how little the DNI cares about this.
hirundo 5y ago
Next: A conspiracy theory that the government is covering up the fact that UFOs don't exist.
- beckingz 5y ago
  If UFOs don't exist why would we need to give money to the military industrial complex to track UFOs and Chinese air traffic?
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    https://fas.org/irp/nro/fy08/cbjb.pdf https://fas.org/irp/nro/fy08/cbjb.pdf That's a question for the National Reconnaissance Organisation.
  - nyokodo 5y ago
    That's what they want you to not believe!
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Contrary to popular opinion, UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, not Aliens From Another Galaxy Visiting Us For Some Damn Reason. Objects that fly and are not readily identifiable totally exist and are a concern for the military as they may be aircraft from another country violating our air space on a spy mission or some such.
  - hirundo 5y ago
    That's what the government wants you to believe.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      Shhhh.
- nr2x 5y ago
  I see no reason we couldn’t have multiple conflicting conspiracies, it would not be the first time.
arthurcolle 5y ago
I can't believe this is it. What a bunch of garbage. Obviously this isn't birds or balloons
owlbynight 5y ago
Just kill me or give me cooler technology. Until then, this is all a pointless exercise.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
238475235243 5y ago
The only thing they left out was swamp gas as a possible explanation (RIP Hynek). Seems like another whitewash, "it can't possibly be happening" report. If you spend some serious effort on this and stay away from the crazies you'll come to the opposite conclusion of this report. A good starting point is Vallee's books.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  I don't know about Vallee, but after being briefly in the defense industry, reading much, and having some experience with aerospace everything seems to fit very well into one of three categories 1) known US aircraft activity either simply misinterpreted or kept secret from the public or even most of the military apparatus, sometimes strongly denied either as a way to disseminate vague information to adversaries or misinformation 2) foreign or personal aircraft either known or unknown to the US. 3) rare weather phenomena, hallucinations, optical phenomena, or other miscellaneous things which might be rare but with mundane explanations The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't. The only things that aren't obviously something understandable are still fuzzy dots on screens despite screens and cameras getting enormously better. Just look at this https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540/F117-Nighthawk-750x400.jpg https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540... and tell me that if you saw that you wouldn't think it was a spaceship. It was kept super secret for a quite a long time and surely was the source of plenty of UFO reports. I'm not convinced or even particularly suspicious that anything that "isn't what it seems" is anything more than mundane.
  - 238475235243 5y ago
    Where to begin? 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is. You're repeating old points you don't understand because as you acknowledge, you don't know the subject. Please start with Vallee.
lukeplato 5y ago
Hosting page: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2021/item/2223 https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...
trasz 5y ago
"The datasetdescribed in this report is currently limited primarily to U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021." So what happened to observations from before 2004?
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  Interestingly the Nimitz incident was 14 November 2004 (14 days into this stated time window of analysis).
dandelany 5y ago
Nine pages? All this hoopla for the month leading up to the release and we get NINE measly pages with no supporting documentation? am I missing something? I expected to see something similar in quality/detail to an FAA accident investigation, this is a worthless executive summary.
- y04nn 5y ago
  I would not call it a report either, this is a request for more funding, the last sentence is: > The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. I would be more interested in a BEA style analysis of each incident. But at least it lays down some possible causes: - Airborne Clutter - Natural Atmospheric Phenomena - USG or Industry Developmental Programs - Foreign Adversary Systems - Other And I would say the the order reflect the decreasing probability of each cause.
  - krferriter 5y ago
    The fact they don't include "just other normal planes" in that list calls into question the quality of this whole document. It really seems like this document was just thrown together with no real intent to get into the weeds on the reports. It does also seem like they are trying so hard to be vague to avoid running afoul of information classification rules. The White House needs to tell them to stop going so overboard with classification. Overclassification is a real problem in government.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      If they knew it was just another normal plane then it would not be unidentified. They actually identify countless objects every day. This report was not about them.
      - mkl 5y ago
        All the things in that list are like that though, "Airborne Clutter", "Natural Atmospheric Phenomena", etc. If they knew it was one of those it wouldn't be unidentified. It is entirely possible for a plane to be detected but not identified as such, so planes should be possible causes too.
ALittleLight 5y ago
This seems awfully brief and doesn't have much detail. The tittle says it's a "preliminary" report. Is this the expected UAP report or just a preliminary document about it? I would want to see summary statistics for each reported incident and descriptions of the most compelling phenomenon. This document raises a lot of questions and answers few. The document says they have 21 reports of UAP that "appear to demonstrate advanced technology" including moving at "considerable speed" "without discernable means of propulsion." I need more detail! Are these reports among those confirmed by multiple trustworthy sensors and observers? What do we know about these UAP? What speed? Do we have video? I'm also not really impressed by their idea to use "advanced algorithms" and "machine learning". Are UFO encounters so frequent we need to resort to big data? I do think it's an excellent idea to process recorded radar data looking for UAP signs though.
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  > I'm also not really impressed by their idea to use "advanced algorithms" and "machine learning". Are UFO encounters so frequent we need to resort to big data? I had that same thought - on first read this report seems to contain summary analysis of 144 UAP incidents. Not the sort of numbers that immediately make me think "I need ML to process those!"
  - Sanzig 5y ago
    ML/AI/"algorithms" are the buzzwords of the day in the public and private sectors right now.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    Agreed; ML doesn't make sense to me in the context in which they present it. Seems like they just crammed in a buzzword there. Later in the report, it says this: One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars They do not mention ML in that context, but it seems like a more promising way in which they might usefully employ it.
  - trasz 5y ago
    144 _reported_ incidents. They also talk about how some of the cases going unreported. It would make sense to sieve through the radar data (I'd guess all the ATC radars are being recorded, because why not?) to look for those.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
A reminder that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. This is just a report on what the military saw in the air and could not identify. It neither confirms nor denies popular ideas about aliens visiting earth. In most cases, you can guess these are probably aircraft from other countries. In some cases, they may be experimental aircraft being developed in secret by some organization or other. I am someone who thinks there likely is alien activity on earth, but government reports about unidentified flying objects aren't about efforts to prove or disprove that aliens from elsewhere visit earth. They are data on sightings in US air space of things we could not identify. That's all they are. If you want to extrapolate "It's aliens!" Coolios. If you want to insist "Aliens don't exist! This is nonsense!" Equally coolios. "Aliens" isn't why the US government tracks this stuff. National security is the goal and nothing more than that should be inferred in terms of what the US government "believes" in.
- busyant 5y ago
  > I am someone who thinks there likely is alien activity on earth Can you elaborate on why you think this (or provide some additional detail)? For example, do you mean "intelligent" life? Or is this more along the lines of panspermia? Thank you.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    No, I don't care to elaborate on my personal opinions about this topic. I only noted that because I habitually remind people on HN that UFO just stands for Unidentified Flying Object and the reason the US government is interested is for national security reasons. I noted it just to suggest "If you are inferring that I am on your side in thinking only nutters believe in aliens you are wrong." I have no desire to have that conversation here. Comments on this topic are consistently appallingly bad by HN standards and my only desire is to say "Keep it real people. This is not a government report on aliens. That's not what this is."
    - tw04 5y ago
      I think if you threw out why you feel there is alien activity with a "not looking to debate it" that would be more interesting than saying you think people are going to argue with you. If you've stated reasoning in the past maybe just link to that?
fghorow 5y ago
Some poor staffer pulled an all-nighter to write this 5 months and 29 days ago, and the rest of the time has been spent wordsmithing and going through clearances.
- xtracto 5y ago
  Most likely the original report was like 20 pages long, and after those 5 months, the "publishable" parts is what we are seeing here.
wydfre 5y ago
The best quote I've got on UFOs is from Leroy Chiao, a former ISS commander. "Probably some sort of secret military program" [0]. Cannot find original on youtube any longer. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s
- krferriter 5y ago
  I don't really like that explanation either because, as they state in this OP document, each report has to be looked at individually because they are all actually different. He says "these objects" as if the reports are all the same and explainable by the same thing. It is possible a handful of them are actually experimental aircraft (judging by their inclusion of that as one possible explanation for some incidents in the report and their statement that the reports disproportionately come from the area around DoD testing facilities, it's plausible), but that doesn't mean all the reports are examples of that, or even that a significant number of them are.
- egfx 5y ago
  Oh yeah I watched that live on the news and I was kind of startled that he just said “well looks like the trend lines are moving and the cats out out of the bag I guess I’ll just come out and say…” I really remember this interview because I’ve always suspected this was a very advanced craft. I had an encounter in the mid 90’s and what impressed on me by looking at it was that this was something that moved, not in a natural way like a bird or a plane (or drone) but more like you were peering into a video game world like TRON. I cannot shake that feeling and it’s obvious if you’ve ever witnessed this craft. So that’s interesting right there.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Well that is one of the categories and is probably what the classified briefing was about but it doesn’t apply to the incidents they weren’t able to explain.
- kgin 5y ago
  Seems curious that a secret military program would choose to fly their super secret aircraft in airspace where the usual, non-secret military was known to be performing scheduled and easily avoidable training exercises.
streamofdigits 5y ago
This neither confirms nor denies that Satoshi was an alien intelligence
fukpaywalls2 5y ago
It's a cookbook!
m1 5y ago
Not from this report, but these quotes are crazy: > "In this country we've had incidents where these UAPs have interfered and actually brought offline our nuclear capabilities" [1] > "We also have data suggesting that in other countries these things have interfered with their nuclear technology and actually turned them on, put them online." [1] How is stuff like this possible or is it just hyperbole? [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/ufos-us-government-report https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/ufos-us-gove...
- krferriter 5y ago
  Some weapons systems may be configured to automatically power on to a more ready (as opposed sitting in low power sleep mode) mode (not launch) when unknown objects appear on a sensor system. Whether this is a wise way to do things stands to be seen.
  - etaoins 5y ago
    Nuclear weapons do not have situational awareness. They’re intended to be used as part of a larger deployment system with a human in the loop. There’s no threat model for them that includes self-arming when mysterious aircraft approach their storage location.
- tw04 5y ago
  It's not hyperbole. Computer systems have been used for decades to move weapons into a more ready state. Fortunately they have required a human to confirm before launch (as far as we know). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
comfrey11 5y ago
Angel or Devil, I don't care For in front of that door There is you -DB
JohnBooty 5y ago
This part caught my eye. These objects include birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or airborne debris like plastic bags It never occurred to me how utterly "alien" a wind-borne plastic bag's behavior might seem on radar. A constantly shifting radar cross section, sudden directional changes no "actual" flying craft could manage, etc. After all it's an object with significant surface area but nearly zero mass being buffeted around in a region of the atmosphere with swirling wind currents. Depending on the angle, the radar cross-section of a modern stealthy aircraft is reportedly about the same as a small bird or even a bumblebee. So the radar cross section of an airborne plastic bag or balloon would be pretty similar. That said, I think the visual reports and videos from military aviators are pretty clearly describing something else.
- krferriter 5y ago
  Visual experiences are often misleading especially at thousands of feet of altitude and in the ocean where reference objects for judging scale and distance are scarce. The military, and airlines and flight schools generally, explicitly train people about how visual perception can easily be flawed or mislead by normal/everyday things with non-interesting explanations.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
awesomeusername 5y ago
There are some smug looking dudes at Lockheed right now
lend000 5y ago
From a first skim, it looks intentionally vague and noncommittal, and in classic form, released on a Friday afternoon to minimize coverage. Also of note: there was no input at all drawn from the CIA, which is the agency most frequently associated with the topic for a variety of reasons, aside from the Air Force. "The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting [i.e. not in-the-know] , but efforts are underway to standardize incident reporting across U.S. military services..." I'm also unconvinced they used serious statistical rigor in finding correlations around where sightings occur. For a better analysis of the UAP phenomenon in France, which concludes with a very low p value that there is a relationship between UAP's and nuclear facilities, see: [0]. Despite the baby steps being made in the process of disclosure, it seems more and more likely that deliberate disclosure has been and will continue to be a multi-decade, slow drip of information with no particularly historic address saying "There is nonhuman intelligence visiting and engaging with Earth. We could not tell you before for national security reasons, but now we can tell you." At least, not without many years of plausibly deniable hints before-hand. [0] https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/2015-09-01_Spatial_Point_Pattern_Analysis_of_the_Unidentified.pdf https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/2015-09-01_Spatia...
- babelfish 5y ago
  Perhaps it is because there is no evidence of nonhuman intelligence visiting and engaging with Earth. I'm not sure who's surprised by this report.
  - tclancy 5y ago
    That’s because you’ve only looked on the top side. If you peek over the edge at the bottom you will see.
- echelon 5y ago
  > "There is nonhuman intelligence visiting and engaging with Earth. We could not tell you before for national security reasons, but now we can tell you." At least, not without many years of plausibly deniable hints before-hand. Do you really think that'll be the outcome? I'd be shocked. If there is nonhuman intelligence in our solar system, it's orders of magnitude smarter than us, and I'd also wager it's probably by design impossible for us detect.
LarryEt 5y ago
I just can't imagine these are not non-US Military drones. I think the problem is in the US we think of drones as the DJI phantom and not FPV drones. I mean if you look at FPV pilots like Johnny FPV or Mr Steele on youtube then extrapolate out a few billion $ on research and development you would end up with something completely alien.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  So how are they getting so close to naval groups? Aren’t those training missions in part based around detecting enemy ships and aircraft? Wouldn’t failing to detect some nearby vessel launching a surveillance drone be a massive piece of incompetence? How far behind would the navy be if all it takes to get the jump on them is a battery powered drone?
codezero 5y ago
I’m surprised nobody has suggested that these phenomenon could be an advanced electronic interference platform and that they may be able to interfere with the computing systems of multiple remote sensing systems at once.
- hcrisp 5y ago
  I think that is what was meant by "These observations could be the result of ... spoofing" in the document just released.
  - codezero 5y ago
    Didn’t catch that. I searched for interference. Good to hear this is on their minds.
- shdh 5y ago
  Doesn't explain visual confirmation by pilots.
  - codezero 5y ago
    Easily explained by most people being unreliable witnesses, even professionals. Especially if all their instruments are telling them one thing.
- lovetocode 5y ago
  Although possible, unless they have figured out how to hack your eye sight then it still leaves some seriously unanswered questions.
lawwantsin17 5y ago
big ol 9 pages of nothin
junon 5y ago
For anyone looking for a sane analysis of the "leaked" UFO videos, look no further than Mick West. https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword
tossaway9000 5y ago
Page 5 at least settles one debate. BIRDS AREN'T REAL, they're just "Airbone Clutter" > Airborne Clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, ..
marc_io 5y ago
I found it quite curious how they defined UAP as “Airborne objects not immediately identifiable” in the last section of the report. I guess the whole point of dropping the UFO acronym was to change the idea of “objects” for “phenomena”, which is much broader in scope. By keeping the word “objects” in the definition, they make the same mistake of defining upfront what is being reported.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  It is an extremely dumb mistake. There are many optical illusions that make almost everyone observe things that are not true. Machines are susceptible to similar kinds of errors. To name it an object (for most people this means a physical object) is creating a wrong frame of mind. The first focus should be on the observation and the way it was observed.
f02a 5y ago
Just a reminder that Fermi's paradox is no longer a paradox if "they" are already here. ;-) I'm not saying there are little green men in these unidentified aircraft, but if you were part of an interstellar civilization in this galaxy, and you identified there was a life-supporting planet a few light years away, you'd send probes there for sure... wouldn't you? We certainly would, if we had the means.
- dadver 5y ago
  I don't think anthropomorphizing aliens is a good way to speculate on how they possibly would behave. I really don't have a better system, but I see this tendency in alot of discussions about 'them'. (Disclaimer: I usually play as isolationist in Stellaris)
  - f02a 5y ago
    I don't think it's anthropomorphism so much as logical deduction. Our planet's chemical makeup has been advertising its life-supporting properties for millions of years. Lately we've been (perhaps foolishly) advertising ourselves to the galaxy via radio, etc. Surely it would be interesting to other observers in the galaxy. Perhaps by setting off nuclear weapons, we advertised ourselves as a potential threat, inviting more scrutiny. Here's an article that discusses this concept in more detail, if you're interested: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lets-search-for-alien-probes-not-just-alien-signals/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lets-search-for-a... Also, Stellaris is a great game for these thought experiments. =)
    - dadver 5y ago
      In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism. While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts and angels as discussed elsewhere in this thread) than something I personally imagine as a couple of hundred years into-human-future tech. Autonomous / AI probes is a pretty nice theory and I somewhat adher to it myself as a techie, but it does reek of anthropomorphism IMO. In either case, all our fantasies are colored by our experiences, I guess what I'm saying is that even though I think anthropomorphizing aliens is bad, I'm just explaining it from my frame of reference, too.
frellus 5y ago
No input by the CIA but did you catch the note about some data gathered from the FBI? "I WANT TO BELIEVE" (in the Cigarette Man, Moulder and maybe especially Scully)
benlumen 5y ago
If UFOs are real and their existence has so far been dismissible by benefit of the doubt (that the pictures and footage are fake), then the era of deniability may be ending. We’re surely not far from cryptographically verified social media content - companies like TruePic are already doing this, attempting to solve the problem of deepfakes. It makes sense to me that now would be the time for some honesty about this stuff. I wrote a piece to this effect a few weeks ago. https://benlumen.substack.com/p/nothing-is-real-right-now-soon-everything https://benlumen.substack.com/p/nothing-is-real-right-now-so...
bb88 5y ago
If you rule out aliens and sensor artifacts, then the only conclusion must be these UAP are most likely human made. If that's the case, it would be embarrassing for the US and Pentagon. We (the US) should be the best in all defense technology given how much we spend on it.
mindcrime 5y ago
Some of these steps are resource-intensive and would require additional investment. And there you have it. The "money quote" in both the literal and metaphorical sense. Of course the Military / Espionage / Industrial Complex community is going to try to keep paranoia about "UAP's" and "UFO's" stoked... as long as they can use that to justify more $$$ flowing into their coffers. They have to play a delicate balancing act though: stoke just enough fear to keep the money flowing, but not so much that anybody starts demanding they actually deliver anything measurable with that money. Nice gig if you can get it. The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP. Anybody want to team up on a new startup focused on "UAP sensors" and sell them to the government for $43,927.33 each?
systematical 5y ago
What can you really trust in this report? If you take it gave value it's pretty interesting. Given funding we should learn more over the next decade or two.
mindcrime 5y ago
Some of these steps are resource-intensive and would require additional investment. And there you have it. The "money quote" in both the literal and metaphorical sense. Of course the Military / Espionage / Industrial Complex community is going to try to keep paranoia about "UAP's" and "UFO's" stoked... as long as they can use that to justify more $$$ flowing into their coffers. They have to play a delicate balancing act though: stoke just enough fear to keep the money flowing, but not so much that anybody starts demanding they actually deliver anything measurable with that money. Nice gig if you can get it. The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP. Anybody want to team up on a new startup focused on "UAP sensors" and sell them to the government for $43,927.33 each?
- jablongo 5y ago
  It's also wrong to characterize is as fear mongering, since most people who are seriously pushing disclosure for this stuff are more likely driven by curiosity and accountability than fear. Ironically, Mick West, one of the most well known skeptics on this topic, had a paralyzing fear of aliens as a child...
- raw-23 5y ago
  While you are not wrong about organizations trying to obtain a larger budget, but it it a fallacy to assume a priori this is the case. Regardless, the budget required to research UAPs would be a drop in the bucket for what is spent on defence. There are much more efficient ways to attract tax payer money. Contrarily if they truly are observing things they cannot explain should there not be money allocated towards researching this? If not only for air safety of the pilots and crew.
- jablongo 5y ago
  While I agree w/ you that the Military Industrial Complex as an entity will do almost anything to justify increasing funding, I think this is a cynical take on this particular issue and is attempting to explain something we don't fundamentally understand with something we do - military budget increases. Unless the DoD fabricated the videos, and duped radar operators and pilots, or faked the whole thing in some way, this is a seriously interesting phenomenon ...regardless of whether it aligns with the military's insatiable appetite for more funding. Remember, Luiz Elizondo resigned because the ATAP program had insufficient funding (22M) given what he thought he was uncovering.
flowerlad 5y ago
So nobody wants to consider the possibility that these may be time-travelling humans visiting us from the future?
- EGreg 5y ago
  Why only from the future? Hehe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_(2002_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_(2002_film)
layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
Am I the only one who’ve been noticing a shift of narrative regarding UFOs in the past few years? I wonder what the endgame is…
- floam 5y ago
  An eccentric billionaire constituent of Harry Reid that was obsessed with UFOs forced the armed services to go on a wild goose chase a few years back. This is the result.
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    Who was that constituent? What evidence do you have that he had any influence on Harry Reid?
    - floam 5y ago
      Robert Bigelow. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/28/ufos-secret-history-government-washington-dc-487900 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/28/ufos-secre...
- oceanghost 5y ago
  Its part of some deliberate disinformation campaign. All the videos released thus far have been thoroughly debunked by the likes of thunderf00t. If there are non-debunked videos, I am not aware of them. Most of the news coverage involves Lt. David Fravor, Bob Lazar or Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell. Why this stuff is being leaked? I cannot fathom. I assume we are signaling to some foreign entity our ability to track items as small as birds, or angling for more funding.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > I assume we are signaling to some foreign entity our ability to track items as small as birds This strikes me as the most likely scenario. While large (small plane size) military drones have been around for decades much smaller (bird size) ones have begun to proliferate. These small drones don't have the duration or capabilities of larger ones but they're good enough for a lot of tasks. They're made of composites and small enough they're not going to show up well on civilian primary radar. Even some military primary radars might miss them or at least have limited detection ranges. Someone using such small drones might act a lot more provocatively towards the American military because they think they're not being seen. At least more provocatively than if they only had larger drones or manned aircraft. So leaks showing those drones can be detected and tracked. It's a subtle "we can see you, you're not as clever as you think". The US doesn't want some overzealous PLAN (or whomever) drone pilot doing something stupid requiring a military response.
m777z 5y ago
> The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. What exactly does "signature management" mean in this context? Cloaking?
- fhffbirrrer 5y ago
  Yeah, they respond somehow to being detected
rapjr9 5y ago
Note that the first thing this report does is throw away 20 years of data, it summarizes only data from the last two years because only that data was standardized. It also ignores data from some types of observers they consider less reliable including FAA data. So as a summary of all that is known about UAP observations this report is severely lacking. The complete lack of data to accompany the report also severely compromises the report. It reads like an exercise in data exclusion to make writing the report trivial. If I was a senator who asked for this report I'd be really upset with the quality of it.

200 points by tailspin2019 5y ago

tailspin2019 5y ago

Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... > "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." > "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings."

kolinko 5y ago
They didn’t release any details on specific incidents, right? This pdf is all there is?
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  Yep, it doesn't look like there's anything else that has been published.
xbar 5y ago
80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  No, they said that in most cases crucial data was lacking. Yes, they probably have a lot more data, but they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons".
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons" This is pretty clearly non-scare quotey security reasons territory. We are unsure if what’s on the scope is an adversary’s. Publishing a detailed quantification of how little we know and in what form would be a self goal.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Yep. And other countries may very well be having the same issues trying to indentify US-originated UFOs.
- Retric 5y ago
  This is the reminder after they explained millions of identified objects or sensor artifacts. In theory a non trivial fraction of these may be sensor errors for example, but so far they haven’t been identified as such. Ditto for clouds, balloons, drones, aircraft, missiles, falling space debris, etc etc.
- freyr 5y ago
  Only 18 exhibited unusual behavior that exceeded the capabilities of known technology. For the rest, I imagine they can conceive of explanations, but they lack sufficient data to explain with certainty.
- Animats 5y ago
  The "multiple sensors" part is important. Anything that has video or radar returns from multiple points is much more interesting than a single-point view. Most illusions break down when observed from multiple widely separated points, like several warships operating together. So little hard data is being released.
  - nomoreplease 5y ago
    Does multiple sensors mean multiple sensors on a single plane/ship or sensors on multiple planes/ships? After looking at the document, I took this to mean the former (multiple on same plane/ship)
- greydius 5y ago
  > reliable encounters with one sensor There's no such thing. An anomaly that doesn't appear on multiple sensors is a defect with your sensor.
  - biofox 5y ago
    That doesn't make sense. If I can see something that I can't smell, that doesn't imply that my eyes are defective.
    - greydius 5y ago
      Of course. But if you see something that none of the people around you see, then you might want to question your own sensor or signal processor.
- rasz 5y ago
  but then you look at one of the examples like the pyramid one and YT analysis that took couple of days to pinpoint the direct cause https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/supostos-ovnis-em-forma-de-piramide-seriam-apenas-um-efeito-optico/ https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/suposto... NVD with 3 blade iris
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    Wtf is NVD? An acronym database lists many explanations like Natural Vaginal Delivery.
    - truxten 5y ago
      IIRC its Night Vision Device. Essentially night vision cameras have triangle shaped iris which causes triangle shaped lens flare - hence the triangles in the footage.
raverbashing 5y ago
Yeah, this "RF energy" statement is too vague. Ok, you detected what exactly? At which frequencies? Power? BW? Does it look like something (unmodulated signal? Modulated? How?)? Do you have a recording of it?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.
  - jablongo 5y ago
    The RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing so much info.
    - nosmokewhereiam 5y ago
      Think SIGINT, MASINT, and EW platforms. That's what RF means to me.

pueblito 5y ago

> In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. Does this mean the objects emit RF energy of some sort?

shadowgovt 5y ago
That's one possibility, but I think the phrasing in the report is intentionally chosen so as not to rule out RF emission passing through or past the object, or RF emission from another direction being reflected towards the observer by the object.
trasz 5y ago
I'm guessing it's just their way of saying "we have RWR recordings of the radio waves, but since it's SIGINT we won't be giving you any details for another 40 years."

1337biz 5y ago

Are there any plausible theories why this stuff is getting released right now? It looks like there is no immediate reason for action. And no real reason why they wouldn't have gone on for another decade denying it.

giarc 5y ago
They had to release it. >The report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was required by the Intelligence Authorization Act passed by Congress late last year. The U.S. intelligence community was given 180 days to prepare an unclassified and classified report on what the U.S. government knew about UAPs. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/highly-anticipated-ufo-report-expected-presented-congress-friday/story?id=78486423 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/highly-anticipated-ufo-repor...
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  The classified report probably has the good stuff. It doesn't surprise me that this is extremely watered down for the public: Far more plausible than "aliens" is "foreign government figured out they can do something cool"[0], and if it's the latter, the US is not going to want to make it clear how much they do and don't understand about it. [0] Even this category can be divided out into plausible and implausible options. For instance, I'd likely believe another government figured out they could mess with our military sensors over having developed antigravity.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    I can't get around thinking there are simply just a bunch of I-want-to-believers in government, some of whom started/supported AATIP and its successor. They need budget, so invoke National Security. I truly doubt there is any "good stuff".
dt3ft 5y ago
Our government expects visitors soon and this was a step towards preparing the public to what is about to come? xD

onychomys 5y ago

Lol, looks like DNI.gov wasn't ready for the traffic. I'd have thought that all the .gov sites were pretty robust, just as a matter of principle.

vmception 5y ago
Nope they are very far behind typically and that’s the assumption I start with You should look at a few technology related executive orders to show how difficult coordination of this is and how behind they are
thanksforfish 5y ago
Or atleast as a security measure. Denial of service is a security concern... embarrassing.

amerine 5y ago

> Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected. Seems like a convenient place to hide some cool planes.

kgin 5y ago
It is seems unlikely that U.S. super secret military programs would test their super secret aircraft in spaces where non-secret military programs perform scheduled and easily avoidable training and drills.

nynx 5y ago

Nothing too crazy here. Exactly as expected.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway316943 5y ago
Except for the dozen or so incidents that had multiple sensor contacts from some of the most advanced technology we can produce while in close proximity to military training groups and no one knows what the F they were or how they were staying in the air. No big deal really. At least this report seems to open a path to normalizing basic reporting of such things so more information can be gathered. It’s worrying that they mention near mid air misses.

staunch 5y ago

> "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." Yeah, if we could just get a copy of that data real quick, that'd be greeeaat.

trasz 5y ago
This. Even the ones which are already public, like the FLIR recordings, would be much more useful if they also released tapes from other MFDs ("screens" inside the cockpit) that were also recorded in that moment, eg the radar display.
egfx 5y ago
Yes because projections have been developed to emit infrared and projections can also be detected on radar. [1] https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRedProjector/InfraRedProjector.html_bak https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRed... [2] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techniques/vS0fAQAAIAAJ?hl=en https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techn...
iagovar 5y ago
This. It's 2021. Release something or just shut up. A potato quality video from a fighter that clearly has way better video and capabilities is not gonna cut it for me, sorry.
avs733 5y ago
rationally, that would fall under 'sources and methods' which the DOD/DNI/TLA are not going to release. They care far less about the data than the system to get the data. Releasing it provides potential enemies information on systems capability. I'm loving the conversation here. I cannot imagine how little the DNI cares about this.

hirundo 5y ago

Next: A conspiracy theory that the government is covering up the fact that UFOs don't exist.

beckingz 5y ago
If UFOs don't exist why would we need to give money to the military industrial complex to track UFOs and Chinese air traffic?
- Y_Y 5y ago
  https://fas.org/irp/nro/fy08/cbjb.pdf https://fas.org/irp/nro/fy08/cbjb.pdf That's a question for the National Reconnaissance Organisation.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  That's what they want you to not believe!
DoreenMichele 5y ago
Contrary to popular opinion, UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, not Aliens From Another Galaxy Visiting Us For Some Damn Reason. Objects that fly and are not readily identifiable totally exist and are a concern for the military as they may be aircraft from another country violating our air space on a spy mission or some such.
- hirundo 5y ago
  That's what the government wants you to believe.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Shhhh.
nr2x 5y ago
I see no reason we couldn’t have multiple conflicting conspiracies, it would not be the first time.

arthurcolle 5y ago

I can't believe this is it. What a bunch of garbage. Obviously this isn't birds or balloons

owlbynight 5y ago

Just kill me or give me cooler technology. Until then, this is all a pointless exercise.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

238475235243 5y ago

The only thing they left out was swamp gas as a possible explanation (RIP Hynek). Seems like another whitewash, "it can't possibly be happening" report. If you spend some serious effort on this and stay away from the crazies you'll come to the opposite conclusion of this report. A good starting point is Vallee's books.

colechristensen 5y ago
I don't know about Vallee, but after being briefly in the defense industry, reading much, and having some experience with aerospace everything seems to fit very well into one of three categories 1) known US aircraft activity either simply misinterpreted or kept secret from the public or even most of the military apparatus, sometimes strongly denied either as a way to disseminate vague information to adversaries or misinformation 2) foreign or personal aircraft either known or unknown to the US. 3) rare weather phenomena, hallucinations, optical phenomena, or other miscellaneous things which might be rare but with mundane explanations The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't. The only things that aren't obviously something understandable are still fuzzy dots on screens despite screens and cameras getting enormously better. Just look at this https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540/F117-Nighthawk-750x400.jpg https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540... and tell me that if you saw that you wouldn't think it was a spaceship. It was kept super secret for a quite a long time and surely was the source of plenty of UFO reports. I'm not convinced or even particularly suspicious that anything that "isn't what it seems" is anything more than mundane.
- 238475235243 5y ago
  Where to begin? 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is. You're repeating old points you don't understand because as you acknowledge, you don't know the subject. Please start with Vallee.

lukeplato 5y ago

Hosting page: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2021/item/2223 https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...

trasz 5y ago

"The datasetdescribed in this report is currently limited primarily to U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021." So what happened to observations from before 2004?

tailspin2019 5y ago
Interestingly the Nimitz incident was 14 November 2004 (14 days into this stated time window of analysis).

dandelany 5y ago

Nine pages? All this hoopla for the month leading up to the release and we get NINE measly pages with no supporting documentation? am I missing something? I expected to see something similar in quality/detail to an FAA accident investigation, this is a worthless executive summary.

y04nn 5y ago
I would not call it a report either, this is a request for more funding, the last sentence is: > The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. I would be more interested in a BEA style analysis of each incident. But at least it lays down some possible causes: - Airborne Clutter - Natural Atmospheric Phenomena - USG or Industry Developmental Programs - Foreign Adversary Systems - Other And I would say the the order reflect the decreasing probability of each cause.
- krferriter 5y ago
  The fact they don't include "just other normal planes" in that list calls into question the quality of this whole document. It really seems like this document was just thrown together with no real intent to get into the weeds on the reports. It does also seem like they are trying so hard to be vague to avoid running afoul of information classification rules. The White House needs to tell them to stop going so overboard with classification. Overclassification is a real problem in government.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    If they knew it was just another normal plane then it would not be unidentified. They actually identify countless objects every day. This report was not about them.
    - mkl 5y ago
      All the things in that list are like that though, "Airborne Clutter", "Natural Atmospheric Phenomena", etc. If they knew it was one of those it wouldn't be unidentified. It is entirely possible for a plane to be detected but not identified as such, so planes should be possible causes too.

ALittleLight 5y ago

This seems awfully brief and doesn't have much detail. The tittle says it's a "preliminary" report. Is this the expected UAP report or just a preliminary document about it? I would want to see summary statistics for each reported incident and descriptions of the most compelling phenomenon. This document raises a lot of questions and answers few. The document says they have 21 reports of UAP that "appear to demonstrate advanced technology" including moving at "considerable speed" "without discernable means of propulsion." I need more detail! Are these reports among those confirmed by multiple trustworthy sensors and observers? What do we know about these UAP? What speed? Do we have video? I'm also not really impressed by their idea to use "advanced algorithms" and "machine learning". Are UFO encounters so frequent we need to resort to big data? I do think it's an excellent idea to process recorded radar data looking for UAP signs though.

tailspin2019 5y ago
> I'm also not really impressed by their idea to use "advanced algorithms" and "machine learning". Are UFO encounters so frequent we need to resort to big data? I had that same thought - on first read this report seems to contain summary analysis of 144 UAP incidents. Not the sort of numbers that immediately make me think "I need ML to process those!"
- Sanzig 5y ago
  ML/AI/"algorithms" are the buzzwords of the day in the public and private sectors right now.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  Agreed; ML doesn't make sense to me in the context in which they present it. Seems like they just crammed in a buzzword there. Later in the report, it says this: One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars They do not mention ML in that context, but it seems like a more promising way in which they might usefully employ it.
- trasz 5y ago
  144 _reported_ incidents. They also talk about how some of the cases going unreported. It would make sense to sieve through the radar data (I'd guess all the ATC radars are being recorded, because why not?) to look for those.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

A reminder that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. This is just a report on what the military saw in the air and could not identify. It neither confirms nor denies popular ideas about aliens visiting earth. In most cases, you can guess these are probably aircraft from other countries. In some cases, they may be experimental aircraft being developed in secret by some organization or other. I am someone who thinks there likely is alien activity on earth, but government reports about unidentified flying objects aren't about efforts to prove or disprove that aliens from elsewhere visit earth. They are data on sightings in US air space of things we could not identify. That's all they are. If you want to extrapolate "It's aliens!" Coolios. If you want to insist "Aliens don't exist! This is nonsense!" Equally coolios. "Aliens" isn't why the US government tracks this stuff. National security is the goal and nothing more than that should be inferred in terms of what the US government "believes" in.

busyant 5y ago
> I am someone who thinks there likely is alien activity on earth Can you elaborate on why you think this (or provide some additional detail)? For example, do you mean "intelligent" life? Or is this more along the lines of panspermia? Thank you.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  No, I don't care to elaborate on my personal opinions about this topic. I only noted that because I habitually remind people on HN that UFO just stands for Unidentified Flying Object and the reason the US government is interested is for national security reasons. I noted it just to suggest "If you are inferring that I am on your side in thinking only nutters believe in aliens you are wrong." I have no desire to have that conversation here. Comments on this topic are consistently appallingly bad by HN standards and my only desire is to say "Keep it real people. This is not a government report on aliens. That's not what this is."
  - tw04 5y ago
    I think if you threw out why you feel there is alien activity with a "not looking to debate it" that would be more interesting than saying you think people are going to argue with you. If you've stated reasoning in the past maybe just link to that?

fghorow 5y ago

Some poor staffer pulled an all-nighter to write this 5 months and 29 days ago, and the rest of the time has been spent wordsmithing and going through clearances.

xtracto 5y ago
Most likely the original report was like 20 pages long, and after those 5 months, the "publishable" parts is what we are seeing here.

wydfre 5y ago

The best quote I've got on UFOs is from Leroy Chiao, a former ISS commander. "Probably some sort of secret military program" [0]. Cannot find original on youtube any longer. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s

krferriter 5y ago
I don't really like that explanation either because, as they state in this OP document, each report has to be looked at individually because they are all actually different. He says "these objects" as if the reports are all the same and explainable by the same thing. It is possible a handful of them are actually experimental aircraft (judging by their inclusion of that as one possible explanation for some incidents in the report and their statement that the reports disproportionately come from the area around DoD testing facilities, it's plausible), but that doesn't mean all the reports are examples of that, or even that a significant number of them are.
egfx 5y ago
Oh yeah I watched that live on the news and I was kind of startled that he just said “well looks like the trend lines are moving and the cats out out of the bag I guess I’ll just come out and say…” I really remember this interview because I’ve always suspected this was a very advanced craft. I had an encounter in the mid 90’s and what impressed on me by looking at it was that this was something that moved, not in a natural way like a bird or a plane (or drone) but more like you were peering into a video game world like TRON. I cannot shake that feeling and it’s obvious if you’ve ever witnessed this craft. So that’s interesting right there.
throwaway316943 5y ago
Well that is one of the categories and is probably what the classified briefing was about but it doesn’t apply to the incidents they weren’t able to explain.
kgin 5y ago
Seems curious that a secret military program would choose to fly their super secret aircraft in airspace where the usual, non-secret military was known to be performing scheduled and easily avoidable training exercises.

streamofdigits 5y ago

This neither confirms nor denies that Satoshi was an alien intelligence

fukpaywalls2 5y ago

It's a cookbook!

m1 5y ago

Not from this report, but these quotes are crazy: > "In this country we've had incidents where these UAPs have interfered and actually brought offline our nuclear capabilities" [1] > "We also have data suggesting that in other countries these things have interfered with their nuclear technology and actually turned them on, put them online." [1] How is stuff like this possible or is it just hyperbole? [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/ufos-us-government-report https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/ufos-us-gove...

krferriter 5y ago
Some weapons systems may be configured to automatically power on to a more ready (as opposed sitting in low power sleep mode) mode (not launch) when unknown objects appear on a sensor system. Whether this is a wise way to do things stands to be seen.
- etaoins 5y ago
  Nuclear weapons do not have situational awareness. They’re intended to be used as part of a larger deployment system with a human in the loop. There’s no threat model for them that includes self-arming when mysterious aircraft approach their storage location.
tw04 5y ago
It's not hyperbole. Computer systems have been used for decades to move weapons into a more ready state. Fortunately they have required a human to confirm before launch (as far as we know). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

comfrey11 5y ago

Angel or Devil, I don't care For in front of that door There is you -DB

JohnBooty 5y ago

This part caught my eye. These objects include birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or airborne debris like plastic bags It never occurred to me how utterly "alien" a wind-borne plastic bag's behavior might seem on radar. A constantly shifting radar cross section, sudden directional changes no "actual" flying craft could manage, etc. After all it's an object with significant surface area but nearly zero mass being buffeted around in a region of the atmosphere with swirling wind currents. Depending on the angle, the radar cross-section of a modern stealthy aircraft is reportedly about the same as a small bird or even a bumblebee. So the radar cross section of an airborne plastic bag or balloon would be pretty similar. That said, I think the visual reports and videos from military aviators are pretty clearly describing something else.

krferriter 5y ago
Visual experiences are often misleading especially at thousands of feet of altitude and in the ocean where reference objects for judging scale and distance are scarce. The military, and airlines and flight schools generally, explicitly train people about how visual perception can easily be flawed or mislead by normal/everyday things with non-interesting explanations.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

awesomeusername 5y ago

There are some smug looking dudes at Lockheed right now

lend000 5y ago

From a first skim, it looks intentionally vague and noncommittal, and in classic form, released on a Friday afternoon to minimize coverage. Also of note: there was no input at all drawn from the CIA, which is the agency most frequently associated with the topic for a variety of reasons, aside from the Air Force. "The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting [i.e. not in-the-know] , but efforts are underway to standardize incident reporting across U.S. military services..." I'm also unconvinced they used serious statistical rigor in finding correlations around where sightings occur. For a better analysis of the UAP phenomenon in France, which concludes with a very low p value that there is a relationship between UAP's and nuclear facilities, see: [0]. Despite the baby steps being made in the process of disclosure, it seems more and more likely that deliberate disclosure has been and will continue to be a multi-decade, slow drip of information with no particularly historic address saying "There is nonhuman intelligence visiting and engaging with Earth. We could not tell you before for national security reasons, but now we can tell you." At least, not without many years of plausibly deniable hints before-hand. [0] https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/2015-09-01_Spatial_Point_Pattern_Analysis_of_the_Unidentified.pdf https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/2015-09-01_Spatia...

babelfish 5y ago
Perhaps it is because there is no evidence of nonhuman intelligence visiting and engaging with Earth. I'm not sure who's surprised by this report.
- tclancy 5y ago
  That’s because you’ve only looked on the top side. If you peek over the edge at the bottom you will see.
echelon 5y ago
> "There is nonhuman intelligence visiting and engaging with Earth. We could not tell you before for national security reasons, but now we can tell you." At least, not without many years of plausibly deniable hints before-hand. Do you really think that'll be the outcome? I'd be shocked. If there is nonhuman intelligence in our solar system, it's orders of magnitude smarter than us, and I'd also wager it's probably by design impossible for us detect.

LarryEt 5y ago

I just can't imagine these are not non-US Military drones. I think the problem is in the US we think of drones as the DJI phantom and not FPV drones. I mean if you look at FPV pilots like Johnny FPV or Mr Steele on youtube then extrapolate out a few billion $ on research and development you would end up with something completely alien.

throwaway316943 5y ago
So how are they getting so close to naval groups? Aren’t those training missions in part based around detecting enemy ships and aircraft? Wouldn’t failing to detect some nearby vessel launching a surveillance drone be a massive piece of incompetence? How far behind would the navy be if all it takes to get the jump on them is a battery powered drone?

codezero 5y ago

I’m surprised nobody has suggested that these phenomenon could be an advanced electronic interference platform and that they may be able to interfere with the computing systems of multiple remote sensing systems at once.

hcrisp 5y ago
I think that is what was meant by "These observations could be the result of ... spoofing" in the document just released.
- codezero 5y ago
  Didn’t catch that. I searched for interference. Good to hear this is on their minds.
shdh 5y ago
Doesn't explain visual confirmation by pilots.
- codezero 5y ago
  Easily explained by most people being unreliable witnesses, even professionals. Especially if all their instruments are telling them one thing.
lovetocode 5y ago
Although possible, unless they have figured out how to hack your eye sight then it still leaves some seriously unanswered questions.

lawwantsin17 5y ago

big ol 9 pages of nothin

junon 5y ago

For anyone looking for a sane analysis of the "leaked" UFO videos, look no further than Mick West. https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword

tossaway9000 5y ago

Page 5 at least settles one debate. BIRDS AREN'T REAL, they're just "Airbone Clutter" > Airborne Clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, ..

marc_io 5y ago

I found it quite curious how they defined UAP as “Airborne objects not immediately identifiable” in the last section of the report. I guess the whole point of dropping the UFO acronym was to change the idea of “objects” for “phenomena”, which is much broader in scope. By keeping the word “objects” in the definition, they make the same mistake of defining upfront what is being reported.

aliasEli 5y ago
It is an extremely dumb mistake. There are many optical illusions that make almost everyone observe things that are not true. Machines are susceptible to similar kinds of errors. To name it an object (for most people this means a physical object) is creating a wrong frame of mind. The first focus should be on the observation and the way it was observed.

f02a 5y ago

Just a reminder that Fermi's paradox is no longer a paradox if "they" are already here. ;-) I'm not saying there are little green men in these unidentified aircraft, but if you were part of an interstellar civilization in this galaxy, and you identified there was a life-supporting planet a few light years away, you'd send probes there for sure... wouldn't you? We certainly would, if we had the means.

dadver 5y ago
I don't think anthropomorphizing aliens is a good way to speculate on how they possibly would behave. I really don't have a better system, but I see this tendency in alot of discussions about 'them'. (Disclaimer: I usually play as isolationist in Stellaris)
- f02a 5y ago
  I don't think it's anthropomorphism so much as logical deduction. Our planet's chemical makeup has been advertising its life-supporting properties for millions of years. Lately we've been (perhaps foolishly) advertising ourselves to the galaxy via radio, etc. Surely it would be interesting to other observers in the galaxy. Perhaps by setting off nuclear weapons, we advertised ourselves as a potential threat, inviting more scrutiny. Here's an article that discusses this concept in more detail, if you're interested: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lets-search-for-alien-probes-not-just-alien-signals/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lets-search-for-a... Also, Stellaris is a great game for these thought experiments. =)
  - dadver 5y ago
    In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism. While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts and angels as discussed elsewhere in this thread) than something I personally imagine as a couple of hundred years into-human-future tech. Autonomous / AI probes is a pretty nice theory and I somewhat adher to it myself as a techie, but it does reek of anthropomorphism IMO. In either case, all our fantasies are colored by our experiences, I guess what I'm saying is that even though I think anthropomorphizing aliens is bad, I'm just explaining it from my frame of reference, too.

frellus 5y ago

No input by the CIA but did you catch the note about some data gathered from the FBI? "I WANT TO BELIEVE" (in the Cigarette Man, Moulder and maybe especially Scully)

benlumen 5y ago

If UFOs are real and their existence has so far been dismissible by benefit of the doubt (that the pictures and footage are fake), then the era of deniability may be ending. We’re surely not far from cryptographically verified social media content - companies like TruePic are already doing this, attempting to solve the problem of deepfakes. It makes sense to me that now would be the time for some honesty about this stuff. I wrote a piece to this effect a few weeks ago. https://benlumen.substack.com/p/nothing-is-real-right-now-soon-everything https://benlumen.substack.com/p/nothing-is-real-right-now-so...

bb88 5y ago

If you rule out aliens and sensor artifacts, then the only conclusion must be these UAP are most likely human made. If that's the case, it would be embarrassing for the US and Pentagon. We (the US) should be the best in all defense technology given how much we spend on it.

mindcrime 5y ago

Some of these steps are resource-intensive and would require additional investment. And there you have it. The "money quote" in both the literal and metaphorical sense. Of course the Military / Espionage / Industrial Complex community is going to try to keep paranoia about "UAP's" and "UFO's" stoked... as long as they can use that to justify more $$$ flowing into their coffers. They have to play a delicate balancing act though: stoke just enough fear to keep the money flowing, but not so much that anybody starts demanding they actually deliver anything measurable with that money. Nice gig if you can get it. The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP. Anybody want to team up on a new startup focused on "UAP sensors" and sell them to the government for $43,927.33 each?

systematical 5y ago

What can you really trust in this report? If you take it gave value it's pretty interesting. Given funding we should learn more over the next decade or two.

mindcrime 5y ago

jablongo 5y ago
It's also wrong to characterize is as fear mongering, since most people who are seriously pushing disclosure for this stuff are more likely driven by curiosity and accountability than fear. Ironically, Mick West, one of the most well known skeptics on this topic, had a paralyzing fear of aliens as a child...
raw-23 5y ago
While you are not wrong about organizations trying to obtain a larger budget, but it it a fallacy to assume a priori this is the case. Regardless, the budget required to research UAPs would be a drop in the bucket for what is spent on defence. There are much more efficient ways to attract tax payer money. Contrarily if they truly are observing things they cannot explain should there not be money allocated towards researching this? If not only for air safety of the pilots and crew.
jablongo 5y ago
While I agree w/ you that the Military Industrial Complex as an entity will do almost anything to justify increasing funding, I think this is a cynical take on this particular issue and is attempting to explain something we don't fundamentally understand with something we do - military budget increases. Unless the DoD fabricated the videos, and duped radar operators and pilots, or faked the whole thing in some way, this is a seriously interesting phenomenon ...regardless of whether it aligns with the military's insatiable appetite for more funding. Remember, Luiz Elizondo resigned because the ATAP program had insufficient funding (22M) given what he thought he was uncovering.

flowerlad 5y ago

So nobody wants to consider the possibility that these may be time-travelling humans visiting us from the future?

EGreg 5y ago
Why only from the future? Hehe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_(2002_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_(2002_film)

layoutIfNeeded 5y ago

Am I the only one who’ve been noticing a shift of narrative regarding UFOs in the past few years? I wonder what the endgame is…

floam 5y ago
An eccentric billionaire constituent of Harry Reid that was obsessed with UFOs forced the armed services to go on a wild goose chase a few years back. This is the result.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  Who was that constituent? What evidence do you have that he had any influence on Harry Reid?
  - floam 5y ago
    Robert Bigelow. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/28/ufos-secret-history-government-washington-dc-487900 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/28/ufos-secre...
oceanghost 5y ago
Its part of some deliberate disinformation campaign. All the videos released thus far have been thoroughly debunked by the likes of thunderf00t. If there are non-debunked videos, I am not aware of them. Most of the news coverage involves Lt. David Fravor, Bob Lazar or Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell. Why this stuff is being leaked? I cannot fathom. I assume we are signaling to some foreign entity our ability to track items as small as birds, or angling for more funding.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > I assume we are signaling to some foreign entity our ability to track items as small as birds This strikes me as the most likely scenario. While large (small plane size) military drones have been around for decades much smaller (bird size) ones have begun to proliferate. These small drones don't have the duration or capabilities of larger ones but they're good enough for a lot of tasks. They're made of composites and small enough they're not going to show up well on civilian primary radar. Even some military primary radars might miss them or at least have limited detection ranges. Someone using such small drones might act a lot more provocatively towards the American military because they think they're not being seen. At least more provocatively than if they only had larger drones or manned aircraft. So leaks showing those drones can be detected and tracked. It's a subtle "we can see you, you're not as clever as you think". The US doesn't want some overzealous PLAN (or whomever) drone pilot doing something stupid requiring a military response.

m777z 5y ago

> The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. What exactly does "signature management" mean in this context? Cloaking?

fhffbirrrer 5y ago
Yeah, they respond somehow to being detected

rapjr9 5y ago

Note that the first thing this report does is throw away 20 years of data, it summarizes only data from the last two years because only that data was standardized. It also ignores data from some types of observers they consider less reliable including FAA data. So as a summary of all that is known about UAP observations this report is severely lacking. The complete lack of data to accompany the report also severely compromises the report. It reads like an exercise in data exclusion to make writing the report trivial. If I was a senator who asked for this report I'd be really upset with the quality of it.