Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: UAP Preliminary Assessment
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
It's just a short little 9 page summary of the conclusions. (Except there aren't very many conclusions, which is the conclusion in a way.)

I believe that this unclassified summary is just a fragment of a much longer classified document that actually examines many of the better cases, but in doing so includes highly sensitive information about the capabilities of various radars and other sensors.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...210625.pdf

Most of the highlights (highlighting by me):

"Various forms of sensors that register UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments, but some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies."

"The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP."

"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."

"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."

"There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting."

"UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security."

"These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021, with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community. We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others remain unexplained.

"144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors."

"Although there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow for detailed trend or pattern analysis, there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion. UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies."

"In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. 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. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated."

"The UAP documented in this limited dataset demonstrate an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall "other" bin."
(Jun 29, 2021 04:57 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]"Various forms of sensors that register UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments, but some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies."
...
"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."

The emphasized bits seem wholly marginalized by the rest.
Quote:and a catchall "other" bin."

That's gotta be a pretty big bin, and one full of infinite surprises!

[Image: Visoki-Decani-Raspece-detail.jpg]
I'd say that while this unclassified public summary doesn't contain much detail, taken as a whole it's a bombshell in the history of UFO investigation:

In their official opinion, in many/most cases something is physically there. (That's new.)

Probably multiple kinds of somethings on different occasions. (That's new.)

It's happening repeatedly on many (more than a hundred in just the last few years) occasions. (That's new.)

More than half of these cases involve detection by multiple physical modalities such as radar, infrared, electro-optical seekers, visual. (That's new.)

They don't know what the cause(s) is/are. (That's not even remotely new, but their willingness to admit it is.)

They have a "small amount of data" that indicates that what they term "breakthrough technology" may (or may not) be involved. (The mere fact that they admit that possibility is still on the table is new.)

They suggest that the likelihood that unknown physical objects are in the skies represents a clear danger to air safety and may represent a challenge to national security. (That's new.)

My view: Even though they didn't seem to say very much (probably as little as they thought that they could get away with), what little they did say was Really Big.
Their five potential explanatory categories are interesting.

1. Airborne clutter - the one case (of 144+) that they conclusively identified was a wandering balloon that was deflating and perhaps looked weird. (Perhaps significantly, that was the only individual case that they mention in the unclassified summary.) I personally don't doubt that some sightings are of things like this. I wonder how big a percentage though.

2. natural atmospheric phenomena - This one seems to subdivide into two obvious sub-categories: 2.a. Known natural atmospheric phenomena, and 2.b. Unknown natural atmospheric phenomena. In other words, there may be things happening here that meteorologists don't yet know about. So further investigation might have scientific benefits. (In science, one often learns a lot from studying apparent anomalies.) My view is that while atmospheric phenomena can result in anomalous visual observations or radar returns, it's less likely that both would be happening simultaneously, at the same place, in such a way as to fool trained military aviators and sensor operators. Again, probably some cases can be explained this way though.

3. USG or industry developmental programs - This is the one that I've speculated about in the past. It does presuppose not only that something was physically there, but also that it was demonstrating high-end technological abilities. (The fact that this category exists at all is an admission in itself.) I suspect that it's the most likely explanation for the most exotic cases, the ones that they clearly don't want to talk about. If these are indeed secret US military aircraft with new, game-changing capabilities, they obviously wouldn't want to 'out' the existence of these "black" programs to potential adversaries. So my speculation (that's all it is) is that this category might explain some of that "small amount of data" that seemingly suggests "breakthrough technologies".

Another possibility is that they aren't aircraft at all. They may be electronic countermeasures of some sort designed to "spoof" radar and create false returns where no aircraft actually exist. We know that some ability already exists to do this and somebody may well want to test the more advanced versions. But spoofing wouldn't account for the multi-media reports that include visual and camera verification. It isn't consistent with the judgment that something was physically present. Spoofing is also intentional, so if it was happening it implies the presence of somebody trying to do it.

4. Foreign adversary systems - Much of what was said above applies to this one too. Again, it hints that the UAP sightings are both physically real and display advanced capabilities. I'm skeptical that any other country possesses those capabilities, so this one seems less likely. Much would depend on where these cases occurred. At sea off San Diego does give another country (China? Russia?) the opportunity to slip developmental aircraft into a US navy formation conducting combat exercises with all its sensors active. Very risky though, if they lost their secret aircraft that loss would reveal the existence of their program. If some of these cases happened inland over the US, foreign adversary aircraft become less likely. (Unless secret Chinese or Russian aircraft are overflying the US regularly without us even knowing, which I find highly doubtful.)

5. The catchall "other" bin. This one is necessary and is there for intellectual completeness, since the possibility exists that these UAPs are something totally unexpected.
(Jun 29, 2021 04:57 AM)Yazata 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."

[...] "144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors."


So 80 of 144, which is indeed more than half ("most").

(Jun 29, 2021 05:30 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ][...] 1. Airborne clutter...

2. natural atmospheric phenomena...

I suppose ball lightning would count as an object rather than an atmospheric effect on an instrument.

Quote:[...] 3. USG or industry developmental programs...

[...] 4. Foreign adversary systems - Much of what was said above applies to this one too. Again, it hints that the UAP sightings are both physically real and display advanced capabilities. I'm skeptical that any other country possesses those capabilities, so this one seems less likely...

[...] 5. The catchall "other" bin...


Even the latter inclusive of something potentially concrete rather than generating illusory or misinterpreted appearances.
Following up with conclusions reached by Sean Kirkpatrick of the AARO regarding the metallic orbs witnessed and filmed "all over the world". This to me is a monumental event that can't be overemphasized. Somewhat on the level of a full government disclosure of the existence of UFOs. Finally we have something to study rather than debunk. Bear in mind that we simply don't have the physics or aeronautical science to create these metallic orbs. Their existence and behavior seems to defy human ingenuity. So they fall in the "other bin" of mysterious and truly anomalous phenomena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OduLj-9uTSA