[HN Gopher] Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
___________________________________________________________________
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
Author : tailspin2019
Score : 149 points
Date : 2021-06-25 20:36 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dni.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dni.gov)
| pueblito wrote:
| > 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?
| trasz wrote:
| 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."
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| Interestingly the Nimitz incident was 14 November 2004 (14 days
| into this stated time window of analysis).
| dandelany wrote:
| 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.
| thebeefytaco wrote:
| I didn't expect to see anything like that, but I wanted to.
| y04nn wrote:
| 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.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Problem is that pretty much everyone here can lay those
| causes easily...
| yuvadam wrote:
| 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?
| krferriter wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| krferriter wrote:
| 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.
| mkl wrote:
| 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.
| krferriter wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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?
| [deleted]
| awesomeusername wrote:
| There are some smug looking dudes at Lockheed right now
| ALittleLight wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| ML/AI/"algorithms" are the buzzwords of the day in the public
| _and_ private sectors right now.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Yep that's fair enough. And satellite imagery too I guess.
| nradov wrote:
| Most ATC now uses _secondary_ radars. Those generally only
| pick up aircraft carrying transponders.
| trasz wrote:
| Good point. What about the radars used by Air Force to
| guard the airspace? Do they cover the interior, or only
| the borders?
| xxpor wrote:
| Secondary radar == just an RX only antenna?
| nradov wrote:
| Transmitter also, but not powerful enough to get a useful
| return from an aircraft without a transponder at any
| significant range.
| joshuajill wrote:
| If you're curious, this previously released footage is quite
| detailed.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/pentagon-relea...
| 1337biz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-repor...
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Our government expects visitors soon and this was a step
| towards preparing the public to what is about to come? xD
| bostonsre wrote:
| Something like that sounds plausible. If they knew for sure,
| I doubt they would want to dump all evidence at once. Would
| be incredibly interesting to see how the world would change
| if that happened tho.
| s5300 wrote:
| I saw not too far back that the Pentagon/other places got
| _absolutely_ fucking swamped by FOIA requests, to the point it
| was seriously bogging man-power down internally, when COVID
| lockdowns started because people had nothing better to do.
|
| To make them all stop, they basically said "okay, we're going
| to release these reports in some determined length of time"
|
| Sounds fairly reasonable.
| zrail wrote:
| The Senate ordered DNI to write a public report last year.
| someguy101010 wrote:
| There is a whitest kids you know sketch about this where the
| government was talking about the invasion by ak47 weilding
| bears.
|
| The reporters asked: "wait a minute, are we invading Iran
| again?"
|
| This always is on my mind when I see these reports.
| petermcneeley wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvjgIxuVdo4
| pkaye wrote:
| Senator Rubio added it into one of the COVID bills last year
| requesting disclosure of this information. It also funds the
| continued investigation of UAP sightings.
| onychomys wrote:
| 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.
| thanksforfish wrote:
| Or atleast as a security measure. Denial of service is a
| security concern... embarrassing.
| vmception wrote:
| 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
| bb88 wrote:
| 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.
| amerine wrote:
| > 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.
| nynx wrote:
| Nothing too crazy here. Exactly as expected.
| [deleted]
| lend000 wrote:
| 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_Spatia...
| frellus wrote:
| 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)
| babelfish wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That's because you've only looked on the top side. If you
| peek over the edge at the bottom you will see.
| echelon wrote:
| > "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.
| bb88 wrote:
| > I'd also wager it's probably by design impossible for us
| detect.
|
| Humans are orders of magnitude smarter than dolphins, yet
| that doesn't prevent humans from experimenting on them.
| echelon wrote:
| An interstellar intelligence is probably post-biology.
|
| Biological aliens are more than likely carbon and water
| based, and most likely use oxygen/oxidation for energy. The
| worlds that harbor these must be of a certain temperature
| and mass, which means the biological aliens evolved adapted
| to these conditions. Gravity, gravity wells, temperatures,
| metabolic and resource needs that are far from ideal for
| space.
|
| Let's also assume post-biology intelligence has the extra
| benefit of duplicating, transmitting, and modifying
| memories, experience, etc. and optimizing it. Compute nodes
| probably have access to more than the sum total of human
| knowledge at an instant, and can probably run math,
| chemical, and physical simulations rapidly. These
| intelligences will be orders of magnitude smarter than us.
| Imagine a trillion of the smartest humans operating at peak
| performance, except even smarter.
|
| These intelligences will also be concerned about other
| intelligences that have more resources and that may not
| take a friendly disposition. Unless there's an omnipotent
| intergalactic police force that prevents attack and
| extermination, intelligences will hide their presence by
| default.
|
| Since other adversarial intelligences probably also have
| technologies beyond our own, the technological needs and
| techniques for advanced cloaking may be beyond our present
| understanding.
|
| I didn't claim alien intelligence wouldn't study us. (They
| probably would.) I claimed they would remain very well
| hidden.
| bb88 wrote:
| For observation, yes you're right. I'm not disagreeing
| there. We do that in nature all the time -- e.g. wildlife
| safaris with large telephoto lenses downwind
| lions/tigers/etc.
|
| But when we experiment with dolphins, the beach ball has
| to be visible so we can see what the dolphin does with it
| (even if we're hidden behind two-way glass). If it is
| aliens (and I'm not suggesting it is) why can't it be
| that they're measuring our intelligence capacity? This is
| the proverbial, beach ball, as it were.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Likely in the galaxy, seems unlikely there is advanced
| nonhuman intelligence hiding in our solar system.
| echelon wrote:
| Maybe.
|
| I did some Googling, and apparently the human race has
| produced between 1 and 2 billion cars in the last 100 years
| [1]. That's an incredible feat!
|
| Assuming a post-biology intelligence has started space
| manufacturing, they probably have the capacity to produce
| an incredible volume of intelligent probes.
|
| Wikipedia claims that the Milky Way galaxy is composed of
| 100 - 400 billion stars. [2] This figure isn't far out of
| the ballpark for the number of cars we've made in 100
| years.
|
| Creating a single space probe to reach a star is probably
| within their capability, and I'd wager they can match and
| exceed our figure for vehicle production. It's not hard to
| imagine they could send at least one probe to every star.
| They have a lot of time to do it, too.
|
| Important factors I'm not accounting for are time of travel
| and interstellar expansion, but I don't think that changes
| the fact that an advanced race could manufacture and send a
| lot of probes in all directions.
|
| Maybe they've already made it here. Maybe before we even
| arrived.
|
| [1] https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-
| are-th...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
| LarryEt wrote:
| 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.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| 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.
| jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote:
| > In most cases, you can guess these are probably aircraft from
| other countries.
|
| From the report: _" We currently lack data to indicate any UAP
| are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a
| major technological advancement by a potential adversary."_
| [deleted]
| ssully wrote:
| They also say: "We are conducting further analysis to
| determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated."
|
| Basically, the summary of the report is that there are 10+
| incidents that they cannot explain to what they believe is
| insufficient data, so please give them more money so they can
| collect and analyze more data to try and identify them.
| neom wrote:
| Bill Nelson sorta said as much in this interview:
| https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/06/04/ufo-nasa-navy...
| busyant wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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."
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Having some views that are out of the mainstream, I
| sympathize that trying to have a good faith argument can be
| frustrating, but remember it's generally bad actors and
| trolls who are most likely to downvote and reply to a post
| they think they can easily shame. There's plenty of people
| who would appreciate a different perspective even if it's
| mostly downvotes.
|
| I recommend the excellent documentary "Behind the Curve"
| for a good look at what happens to people when their views
| are marginalized. They dig in and develop tunnel vision.
| The way the lab leak theory for COVID subtly shifted from
| conspiracy theory to real theory illustrates how important
| it is not to be dismissive.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Seconded! I'm one of them too.
|
| (Thanks for posting some encouragement.)
| busyant wrote:
| Wasn't trying to be confrontational. It just seemed like
| you might have a contrarian view that might be worth
| hearing.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| I didn't think you were being confrontational. It's just
| not something I'm interested in discussing at this time.
|
| I'm also not interested in a large number of people
| inferring I believe the opposite and then acting like I'm
| "lying" or "did an about face" on my opinion should I
| ever change my mind and decide I wish to discuss it.
|
| People are really bad about making unfounded inferences
| no matter how carefully you talk about a thing and then
| hanging their baggage on you over what they imagined you
| believe when you never said anything about what you
| believe.
|
| Government reports about unidentified aerial phenomena
| aren't motivated by a belief in aliens. Me reminding
| people of that fact is not motivated by a belief "That
| aliens don't exist."
|
| Maybe "UFO" will stop getting used in titles and the new
| term UAP will get popular and these conversations will
| generally improve.
|
| After I left my comment, the title was changed. That's a
| good thing and makes my reminder less pertinent. Maybe I
| will just stop leaving them entirely.
| tw04 wrote:
| 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?
| f02a wrote:
| I, for one, 100% believe that at least some of this is
| advanced, non-human tech.
|
| Trying to convince HN about the "why" is at best
| problematic. I could give evidence from my own
| observations and experiences, but they would be easily
| dismissed due to lack of evidence.
|
| I'll just say that we, as humans, do not fully understand
| how consciousness works. I'm certain that there are
| others in this galaxy who do, and I have personal
| experience to back that up. What percentage of HN is
| going to believe that I, for whatever reason, have come
| into contact with an advanced, non-human intelligence?
|
| Spoiler: near zero. That's why I post about this topic on
| a burner account.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| I mean, I'll believe that something happened to you that
| has completely convinced you, and it's a nice piece of
| data that helps explain why some people believe
| differently than I do. The goal of every discussion
| doesn't have to be to convince the other person, just
| acknowledging the existence of differences is enough
| sometimes.
| aliasEli wrote:
| Actually, I really prefer the term UAP (Unexplained Aerial
| Phenomenon) over the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object).
| Using the name object makes everybody assume that it is
| physical object, which may or may not be true.
| drcode wrote:
| Do you really think there is a single human being that reads HN
| and thinks "UFO" means 100% aliens? I sorta doubt anyone here
| needs such a reminder.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Yes, the reminder is needed. In fact I saw a fella on HN
| argue that because some rocks on Mars looked a bit like
| faces, we should consider the alien possibility. (This was
| many months or years ago; HN becomes an orange blur after
| awhile, but it was surprising enough to stick in my memory.)
| fghorow wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Most likely the original report was like 20 pages long, and
| after those 5 months, the "publishable" parts is what we are
| seeing here.
| mindcrime wrote:
| _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?
| benlumen wrote:
| 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-so...
| codezero wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I think that is what was meant by "These observations could be
| the result of ... spoofing" in the document just released.
| codezero wrote:
| Didn't catch that. I searched for interference. Good to hear
| this is on their minds.
| staunch wrote:
| > _" 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.
| avs733 wrote:
| 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.
| trasz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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/InfraRed...
|
| [2]
| https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techn...
| iagovar wrote:
| 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.
| lawwantsin17 wrote:
| big ol 9 pages of nothin
| wydfre wrote:
| 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
| krferriter wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| junon wrote:
| For anyone looking for a sane analysis of the "leaked" UFO
| videos, look no further than Mick West.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword
| tossaway9000 wrote:
| Page 5 at least settles one debate. BIRDS AREN'T REAL, they're
| just "Airbone Clutter"
|
| > Airborne Clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, ..
| streamofdigits wrote:
| This neither confirms nor denies that Satoshi was an alien
| intelligence
| marc_io wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| hirundo wrote:
| Next: A conspiracy theory that the government is covering up the
| fact that UFOs don't exist.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That's what the government wants you to believe.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Shhhh.
| kgwxd wrote:
| The government doesn't want us to know that everyone,
| everywhere is able to identify, with 100% certainty, all flying
| object ever encountered. If we knew how powerful we actually
| are, Big Brother would never be able to control us!
| nr2x wrote:
| I see no reason we couldn't have multiple conflicting
| conspiracies, it would not be the first time.
| maxwell wrote:
| Not a theory, the intelligence community has been covering up
| the fact that UFOs don't exist since 1947, e.g.
| http://oregonmufon.com/PDFs/UFODisinformation.pdf
| beckingz wrote:
| If UFOs don't exist why would we need to give money to the
| military industrial complex to track UFOs and Chinese air
| traffic?
| nyokodo wrote:
| That's what they want you to not believe!
| Y_Y wrote:
| https://fas.org/irp/nro/fy08/cbjb.pdf
|
| That's a question for the National Reconnaissance
| Organisation.
| fukpaywalls2 wrote:
| It's a cookbook!
| arthurcolle wrote:
| I can't believe this is it. What a bunch of garbage.
|
| Obviously this isn't birds or balloons
| m1 wrote:
| 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-
| gove...
| krferriter wrote:
| 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.
| tw04 wrote:
| 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
| owlbynight wrote:
| Just kill me or give me cooler technology. Until then, this is
| all a pointless exercise.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Direct link to the PDF report:
| 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."
| xbar wrote:
| 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.
| Animats wrote:
| 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.
| aliasEli wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| Yep. And other countries may very well be having the same
| issues trying to indentify US-originated UFOs.
| Retric wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kolinko wrote:
| They didn't release any details on specific incidents, right?
| This pdf is all there is?
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Yep, it doesn't look like there's anything else that has been
| published.
| raverbashing wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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]
| 238475235243 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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... 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.
| marc_io wrote:
| "The thing to notice is cameras have become much more
| prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures
| haven't."
|
| Just two examples of high resolution UAP videos:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ1Ftj4hPE&ab_channel=OrdoN.
| ..
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmGhxYrkug&t=0s&ab_channel=.
| ..
|
| The problem is not resolution per se, but the fact that is
| quite easy nowadays to manipulate images and videos (I'm not
| saying these videos are fake, BTW).
| King-Aaron wrote:
| > The thing to notice is cameras have become much more
| prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures
| haven't.
|
| Get out your phone, and take a picture of your hand. Its very
| close, and you'll get a great photo.
|
| Now, go outside at night, look at the beacon on top of a
| crane in the distance, or a plane landing a few kilometres
| away. Try to take a photo of it with your phone camera.
|
| We have great cameras, sure, but not everyone is carrying a
| 300mm lens in their pocket
| 238475235243 wrote:
| 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.
| krferriter wrote:
| > 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing
| discs in the sky for literally thousands of years.
|
| People have reported talking to ghosts and angels for
| thousands of years too. People's senses and memory is
| fallible and can lead to misinterpretations and
| misunderstanding.
|
| > 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from
| 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly.
|
| You are assuming that their reports that the objects
| actually made these movements are indeed correct
| perceptions of the movements seen.
|
| > 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.
|
| A lot of conflation going on here. The Nimitz incident did
| involve 4(?) people, but not at the same time. The radar
| technician (radar data has not been released) did report
| seeing multiple objects on the radar, but not much else
| about them such as the rapid, physics-defying movements
| reported by the Fravor the pilot who reportedly saw an
| object with his own eyes. The IR video captured by another
| pilot also does have reasonable explanations (even
| including the on-screen display sensor readings) that
| counteract the claims that the object was moving as fast as
| they thought it was at the time, or as the video might make
| it seem.
| 238475235243 wrote:
| > but not at the same time.
|
| The initial two F-18's had two people each.
| no-dr-onboard wrote:
| For those that can't be bothered, the photo linked above is a
| Lockheed Martin F-117, an early-era stealth fighter jet.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| Not a person who has looked much into this stuff, but the
| videos you see online lately sure seemed impressive. FWIW, I
| felt educated by videos by Mick West, who is a debunker.
| [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwa-yYCEGEc&t=1316s) is
| one that a technical person such as an HN reader might like.
| f02a wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-a...
|
| Also, Stellaris is a great game for these thought
| experiments. =)
| dadver wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-25 23:00 UTC)