8 ms·

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 exp

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.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I honestly don't know what you mean. If it's a plane, but not detected as such, then by definition they don't know it's a plane to put it into a "normal plane" category. We know ever recorded flight path of every aircraft. If it is plane-like and isn't one if those planes and we don't know precisely what or whose plane it is, there are two categories in the list that are the most likely explanations. -USG or Industry Developmental Programs - Foreign Adversary Systems
        mkl 5y ago
        That list is a list of possible causes of UAP. UAPs are things that have not been categorised. None of those listed categories are categories UAPs have been put into. Instead, they are categories that UAPs could be put into in the process of becoming identified aerial phenomena. We know every recorded flight path, sure, but it would hardly be surprising for some ordinary plane flights not to be recorded (e.g. of small planes with a malfunctioning transponder). If a small plane without a functioning transponder was detected on radar, without visual or flight path information, it would be a UAP, since it would be unidentified. If someone then sees the plane, or the pilot later says "that was me", it would cease to be a UAP and be put in the "normal plane" category. I.e. "normal plane" should be one of the possible causes of UAP.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Small planes: 1) Still often file a flight path in advance, and must do so if they are using instruments to fly, which is anytime they are flying at night, reduced vision, or even mildly poor weather. Even those who choose not to file will still have their takeoff/landing activity recording in flight logs. 2) If the transponder fails they will still be in radio contact. They are required to radio control, and will be proactively contacted by control as well, and then be tagged on radar. 3) If both radio & transponder are not functioning, it is a serious enough incident to require an incident report afterward as it will require an emergency landing performed with significant risk & without coordination of control. In all of the above circumstances there will be easy data available to identify the aircraft. At best, your argument says there are circumstances where a normal plane will-- very briefly during flight-- be a UAP as control attempts to regain coms or land the plane safely. They will never make it to the point of needing to be accounted for in a National Intelligence report on UFO's and their possible causes.
    - krferriter 5y ago
      They're listing possibilities. Planes are one possibility, just as balloons, birds, and everything else they listed. Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online (not in this dataset). Planes are a legitimate, high likelihood possibility for some of the reports. It has to be included on any list of possibilities used in investigating them.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I misunderstand what you mean by Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online It sounds like you're saying that civilians have videos of planes but the people taking the video don't know what they are. Is that what you mean? If so, the people taking the video may not know what it is, but that doesn't mean US Military & Intelligence agencies don't know. In general though, you seem to be faulting a report whose explicit scope was an assessment only of UAP reports originating from Military or intelligence community sources. It was not an examination of every civilian report & video of something they can't identify. Balloons, birds etc fall into various categories, yes. Planes on the other hand will be identifiable by by military & intelligence agencies. They don't need a special category because we have the data necessary to identify them. Meaning if we can't identify them, they aren't a normal plane, so we don't need to include that in a list of possibilities.
      - raverbashing 5y ago
        The Air Force knows how to identify other planes. It's not hard (for them). Radar and flight plans give little margin of doubt.
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  Problem is that pretty much everyone here can lay those causes easily...
- yuvadam 5y ago
  The "other" bin sounds oddly suspicious. Why would the report creators step out of their way not to clearly define a bin for intelligent (and far more advanced) extraterrestrial activity?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Because that is so unlikely that, had they listed it, they should have also listed things like Angels or Ra's chariot. Note: there are more people in the US who believe in the literal existence of Angels and Ghosts than UFOs.
krferriter 5y ago
They referenced 18 cases in which "observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics". Of course this does not mean the object/phenomenon actually exhibited unusual movement or flight characteristics, rather that the person who observed it thought it might have been. They need to list each of those 18 key cases they referenced, as well as what their current state of knowledge about each is. One incident they say they already know for certain was just a balloon, but they don't say which incident it was. Maybe this is just a preliminary document, but if so, or if they think this is sufficient, it's not sufficient and we do need a deeper report. The longer this drags on the more wild stories some people in the public and press will spin to justify their belief that a lot, or even most, of the UFO sightings are really aliens visiting Earth. Worth noting that those 18 key cases came from a pool of 144 cases meeting the criteria "witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable", which came from a larger (size unspecified) pool of less reliable reports. They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities.
- beaner 5y ago
  > They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities. Is that because the observers are disproportionately likely to be near US military testing/training facilities?
  - krferriter 5y ago
    I don't think entirely so. Perhaps to some extent there is a sampling bias, since members of the military spend a lot fo time around military facilities. But much of the reports are from aircraft carrier strike groups that tend to meander around and take trips between US bases and also patrol strategically important water areas. A significant number of the reports come from the immediate visible vicinity of San Clemente Island off the coast kind of in between San Diego and Los Angeles. San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island next to it is the site of a US Navy base with multiple runways used to test drones and other aircraft and run training exercises from companies on the mainland. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman all have extensive engineering facilities both in Los Angeles and San Diego. In fact in the 2004 "Nimitz incident" the carrier was undertaking a training exercise next to San Clemente when the objects were reported to have appeared on the radar display and when they sent out the fighter planes which reportedly saw an object and got it on infrared camera.
thebeefytaco 5y ago
I didn't expect to see anything like that, but I wanted to.

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.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I honestly don't know what you mean. If it's a plane, but not detected as such, then by definition they don't know it's a plane to put it into a "normal plane" category. We know ever recorded flight path of every aircraft. If it is plane-like and isn't one if those planes and we don't know precisely what or whose plane it is, there are two categories in the list that are the most likely explanations. -USG or Industry Developmental Programs - Foreign Adversary Systems
      - mkl 5y ago
        That list is a list of possible causes of UAP. UAPs are things that have not been categorised. None of those listed categories are categories UAPs have been put into. Instead, they are categories that UAPs could be put into in the process of becoming identified aerial phenomena. We know every recorded flight path, sure, but it would hardly be surprising for some ordinary plane flights not to be recorded (e.g. of small planes with a malfunctioning transponder). If a small plane without a functioning transponder was detected on radar, without visual or flight path information, it would be a UAP, since it would be unidentified. If someone then sees the plane, or the pilot later says "that was me", it would cease to be a UAP and be put in the "normal plane" category. I.e. "normal plane" should be one of the possible causes of UAP.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Small planes: 1) Still often file a flight path in advance, and must do so if they are using instruments to fly, which is anytime they are flying at night, reduced vision, or even mildly poor weather. Even those who choose not to file will still have their takeoff/landing activity recording in flight logs. 2) If the transponder fails they will still be in radio contact. They are required to radio control, and will be proactively contacted by control as well, and then be tagged on radar. 3) If both radio & transponder are not functioning, it is a serious enough incident to require an incident report afterward as it will require an emergency landing performed with significant risk & without coordination of control. In all of the above circumstances there will be easy data available to identify the aircraft. At best, your argument says there are circumstances where a normal plane will-- very briefly during flight-- be a UAP as control attempts to regain coms or land the plane safely. They will never make it to the point of needing to be accounted for in a National Intelligence report on UFO's and their possible causes.
  - krferriter 5y ago
    They're listing possibilities. Planes are one possibility, just as balloons, birds, and everything else they listed. Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online (not in this dataset). Planes are a legitimate, high likelihood possibility for some of the reports. It has to be included on any list of possibilities used in investigating them.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I misunderstand what you mean by Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online It sounds like you're saying that civilians have videos of planes but the people taking the video don't know what they are. Is that what you mean? If so, the people taking the video may not know what it is, but that doesn't mean US Military & Intelligence agencies don't know. In general though, you seem to be faulting a report whose explicit scope was an assessment only of UAP reports originating from Military or intelligence community sources. It was not an examination of every civilian report & video of something they can't identify. Balloons, birds etc fall into various categories, yes. Planes on the other hand will be identifiable by by military & intelligence agencies. They don't need a special category because we have the data necessary to identify them. Meaning if we can't identify them, they aren't a normal plane, so we don't need to include that in a list of possibilities.
    - raverbashing 5y ago
      The Air Force knows how to identify other planes. It's not hard (for them). Radar and flight plans give little margin of doubt.
markus_zhang 5y ago
Problem is that pretty much everyone here can lay those causes easily...
yuvadam 5y ago
The "other" bin sounds oddly suspicious. Why would the report creators step out of their way not to clearly define a bin for intelligent (and far more advanced) extraterrestrial activity?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Because that is so unlikely that, had they listed it, they should have also listed things like Angels or Ra's chariot. Note: there are more people in the US who believe in the literal existence of Angels and Ghosts than UFOs.

krferriter 5y ago

They referenced 18 cases in which "observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics". Of course this does not mean the object/phenomenon actually exhibited unusual movement or flight characteristics, rather that the person who observed it thought it might have been. They need to list each of those 18 key cases they referenced, as well as what their current state of knowledge about each is. One incident they say they already know for certain was just a balloon, but they don't say which incident it was. Maybe this is just a preliminary document, but if so, or if they think this is sufficient, it's not sufficient and we do need a deeper report. The longer this drags on the more wild stories some people in the public and press will spin to justify their belief that a lot, or even most, of the UFO sightings are really aliens visiting Earth. Worth noting that those 18 key cases came from a pool of 144 cases meeting the criteria "witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable", which came from a larger (size unspecified) pool of less reliable reports. They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities.

beaner 5y ago
> They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities. Is that because the observers are disproportionately likely to be near US military testing/training facilities?
- krferriter 5y ago
  I don't think entirely so. Perhaps to some extent there is a sampling bias, since members of the military spend a lot fo time around military facilities. But much of the reports are from aircraft carrier strike groups that tend to meander around and take trips between US bases and also patrol strategically important water areas. A significant number of the reports come from the immediate visible vicinity of San Clemente Island off the coast kind of in between San Diego and Los Angeles. San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island next to it is the site of a US Navy base with multiple runways used to test drones and other aircraft and run training exercises from companies on the mainland. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman all have extensive engineering facilities both in Los Angeles and San Diego. In fact in the 2004 "Nimitz incident" the carrier was undertaking a training exercise next to San Clemente when the objects were reported to have appeared on the radar display and when they sent out the fighter planes which reportedly saw an object and got it on infrared camera.

thebeefytaco 5y ago

I didn't expect to see anything like that, but I wanted to.