Do you believe in UFOs & flying saucers ?

Fuzzyduzzy

https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1408504005542793220?s=20

Fuzzyduzzy

https://twitter.com/Chieftog/status/1408521351917232128?s=20

steddyeddy

https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1408519483610873856

Fuzzyduzzy

https://twitter.com/UAPInTheMedia/status/1408525006246748161?s=20

Download report from DNI website here. See yis after!

macnug

Well that was a pile of sh*ite.

Fuzzyduzzy

No info about any incidents. Page 5 mentions 18 incidents. Radio frequency energy associated with these events also mentioned.

Radio frequency could be used for the UAP propulsion.

JeffKenna

Literally nothing in that report.

Fuzzyduzzy

11 incidents with near misses but again no info.

I think everyone figured this would be a first step with nothing ground-breaking.

The best outcome from this will be congressional hearings which would allow people like Elizondo to waiver their NDA if called upon to talk.

steddyeddy

In fairness this bit in the report is huge. 21 incidents of objects exhibiting advanced technology. Take it from someone who worked for the US DOE, this is a huge statement to make about a potential unknown.

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology
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

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.

macnug

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

Radio frequency could be used for the UAP propulsion.

Id say they're probably trying to indicate radio controlled.

A cautious report calling for more investment and better archiving and reportage of incidents. For the tabloids, there's talk of potential risk to national security. I suppose that at least we can now say that UAPs are officially 'known unknowns.'

igCorcaigh

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness this bit in the report is huge. 21 incidents of objects exhibiting advanced technology. Take it from someone who worked for the US DOE, this is a huge statement to make about a potential unknown.

Have they acknowledged that the craft are not theirs?

steddyeddy

If you're referring to this

In a small
number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with
UAP sightings.

it can mean they processed RF energy using radar (which uses radio waves).

Fuzzyduzzy

Does this mean this topic is eligible for its own forum now? I feel silly using this thread now when I look at other forums

steddyeddy

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

Does this mean this topic is eligible for its own forum now? I feel silly using this thread now when I look at other forums

If you ask that again......

Fuzzy it's a good idea and I'll back it but you don't start forums through After Hours. You have to go onto the forum request thread and start one.

igCorcaigh

The pdf:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

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. 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 U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a
catchall “other” bin.

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

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Have they acknowledged that the craft are not theirs?

Yes in previous interviews with military officials and through the language of the report it's clear they're unknowns. This is an unclassified report which is a part of a bigger classified report. They present this and the unclassified version to congress. The unclassified lacks the information in the classified report (radar data) but they can't state one conclusion in the public report and another in the classified one.

igCorcaigh

So, they are not ruling out a US or foreign military technology explanation for UAP.
Any "interesting" possible explanation, is in the "bin" category.

Am I reading that correctly?

Hmm...

USG or Industry Developmental Programs: 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.

igCorcaigh

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes in previous interviews with military officials and through the language of the report it's clear they're unknowns. This is an unclassified report which is a part of a bigger classified report. They present this and the unclassified version to congress. The unclassified lacks the information in the classified report (radar data) but they can't state one conclusion in the public report and another in the classified one.

But in the text I quoted, they do open the possibility that UAP may be explained by US military technology?

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

The pdf:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

Yes there's some astounding claims in here.

Potential National Security Challenges
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. We continue to monitor for
evidence of such programs given the counter intelligence challenge they would pose, particularly
as some UAP have been detected near military facilities or by aircraft carrying the USG’s most
advanced sensor systems.

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, they are not ruling out a US or foreign military technology explanation for UAP.
Any "interesting" possible explanation, is in the "bin" category.

Am I reading that correctly?

The "other bin".

and a catchall “other” bin.

igCorcaigh

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Am I reading that correctly?

Am reading it that way too:

Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this [Other] category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.

igCorcaigh

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes there's some astounding claims in here.

But:

"U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems"

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 U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a
catchall “other” bin.

Fuzzyduzzy

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you ask that again......

Fuzzy it's a good idea and I'll back it but you don't start forums through After Hours. You have to go onto the forum request thread and start one.

Okay Mr. DOE I'll stop repeating it :-P

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

But in the text I quoted, they do open the possibility that UAP may be explained by US military technology?

They include that at the start as a possibility that was considered when analysing these data. They conclude that they couldn't account for this in the final report. Don't forget this is being written by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They could confirm that UAPs account for this if they wanted to.

USG or Industry Developmental Programs: 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.

Compare it to here where they say they "don't know" if it's a foreign adversary.

Foreign Adversary Systems: Some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia,
another nation, or a non-governmental entity.

igCorcaigh

Far from narrowing down the options, this report seems like more of a backtracking, at least from what I have read.

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

But:

"U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems"

I think you should read it like a report man. The bit at the start simply means that "if and when" the unknowns are resolved then we will operate within the framework that it might be these things. It leaves everything open within the start of the report as all reports do.

Seems like a nifty idea:

The UAPTF is looking for novel ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when U.S. forces are not present as a way to baseline “standard” UAP activity and mitigate the collection bias in the dataset. One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars.