 |
| The unclassified ODNI UAP report. |
General comments on the UAP report
- That (some) UAP/UFOs are physical objects — UFOs are real.
- That the USG cannot explain what (some) UAP/UFOs are.
Specific points in the UAP report
1. A detailed analysis of UAP data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the UAPTF;
8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of data, enhanced research and development, additional funding, and other resources.
Even if the UAP report is better at assessing task 8 than 1, I still think the report is a step forward instead of backward (see my general comments above). As I read the report, task 8 recommends what and how the USG can enhance its capabilities to understand the UFO phenomenon and invites the scientific community.
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 category [the catchall "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. (My italics).
I interpret, "we may require additional scientific knowledge" and "pending scientific advances...", as an invitation to the scientific community to help the USG better understand some of the UAP/UFO reports. I assume that "We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances..." is referring to "a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management" (p. 5).
The quote above from page 6, and from the section "And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" on page 5, are some of the most important segments in the unclassified UAP report. Let us pause for a while and contemplate what these segments can mean.
First, if I am right to think that the quote above is an invitation to scientists in general, I find it very encouraging. It would imply that the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Intelligence Community (IC) are prepared to involve individuals and agencies outside the DoD and IC. That is, it implies greater transparency. But what about the Condon Report: scientists were involved and look how that ended?! Correct. However, as far as I am aware, there was no official report saying that UFOs are real and that the USG does not know what they are before the scientists were called in.
Today's situation is different from the 1950s (the CIA sponsored "the Robertson Panel") and -60s (Condon Report, Project Blue Book). Nevertheless, I believe it is wise and sound to keep an eye on the aftermath of the UAP report and not blindly trust the USG. That is actually a general duty of citizens in democratic (well... more or less democratic) nations.
Secondly, note the statement "a small amount of data that appears to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management" (my italics). I think that "signature management" refers to "cloaking" capabilities or other means to reduce/control whatever heat/radio/electromagnetic signature a UFO may emit.
Now, note the "acceleration" or "signature management". Here the UAP report is overly cautious with its language. Is the acceleration so high ("like a bullet" in the words of Cmdr David Fravor) that the observer cannot distinguish it from the UAP/UFO suddenly "disappearing" due to "cloaking" (Cmdr Fravor seemed able to make the distinction)? Or is it the advanced sensors that cannot distinguish acceleration from signature management? And what kind of acceleration is the UAP report referring to?
A scientific analysis of the acceleration of the "Tic Tac" (USS Nimitz, 2004) has been made by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). I guess the "Tic Tac" Navy report is included in the UAP report as "a handful of UAP" that appear to "demonstrate advanced technology". So for a future assessment, the UAPTF might want to consult people and organizations who actually made an analysis. Just a thought. Why reinvent the wheel?
My point is that I am sceptical that the UAPTF does not have more specific data than "acceleration", and I cannot see the harm in putting some quantified data in the unclassified report.
Thirdly, the statement "We would group such objects in this category [the catchall "other bin"] pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them", is intriguing. "To better understand them" does not necessarily imply that the UAPTF does not have a plausible ("high degree of confidence") assessment of what UFOs are not.
If the nation with the most sophisticated measurement and signals intelligence collection systems in the world has to wait for scientific advances, then I think the UAPTF is justified to conclude that "a handful of UAP" are not secret US technology or Russian or Chinese.
Further down, I will say something about why I think the USG will never say what some UAP/UFOs are.
- A general point so far is that you have to read the UAP report carefully and several times to notice the "gold nuggets" in the cautiously worded report. Also, you have to connect different sections of the report: a statement at the beginning of the report gets clarified (or somewhat clarified) or become more sensible in a later section or vice versa.
- Another point so far is that the language in the UAP report seems to invite the scientific community to look at the data. If correct, that is encouraging: it implies a stronger will for transparency from the USG regarding the UFO issue.
- A sceptical point is that the lack of quantified data is probably not due to an actual lack of reliable data but rather due to other reasons.
Now let us go to the beginning of the UAP report and take the rest in chronological order. So in the following, I will start on page 2, "Scope and Assumptions", and work my way through the report. In some sections of the report, I will have more to say than in others. Again, I can inform the reader that my comment on the section "Executive Summary" is the most lengthy and critical. But first, "Scope and Assumptions".
In the section Scope and Assumptions, I want to highlight a paragraph that connects to what I said about "task 8" above:
This report provides an overview for policymakers of the challenges associated with characterizing the potential threat posed by UAP while also providing a means to develop relevant processes, policies, technologies, and training for the U.S. military and other U.S. Government (USG) personnel if and when they encounter UAP, so as to enhance the Intelligence Community’s (IC) ability to understand the threat.
Due to "limited data and inconsistency in reporting" (p. 4), the quote above shows that the UAP report's main focus is on recommendations (task 8 above) rather than on a "detailed analysis of UAP data" (task 1 above). In other words, the UAP report is the first step on a long road to better understanding UAP/UFOs. You can think of it as we have reached the beginning of the beginning.
We can be sceptical of the unclassified UAP report's focus on recommendations rather than on analysis. We can question the convoluted language and lack of specific data. That is, to some extent, justified.
However, we should not be too hard on the UAPTF. Remember its prerequisites: two staff members working part-time on collecting and analyzing an enormous amount of UFO data that probably was dispersed all over the place in the DoD and IC. And then produce an intelligence assessment in 180 days... To me, it seems like someone wanted the UAPTF to fail with its mission. That "someone" or group of individuals did not quite succeed.
Maybe that opposition is one reason the UAP report gives the impression of being a painful compromise: a give and take between opinions of what to put in the unclassified report or not.
The Executive Summary: lies or truths?
Back to the UAP report and the next section, Executive Summary. In my view, the real heart of the problem with disclosure is the following, and I am not sure how the ODNI can get around it:
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. ("Executive Summary", p. 3. Bold in the original).
That is the first sentence of the "Executive Summary". The wording is clever, and it is not a coincidence that the sentence comes first in one of the most significant sections of the UAP report. How do you interpret the sentence/statement? Before you continue, please reread the statement and think about what it actually says or does not say.
Actually, you can read it as an outright lie or as a truthful statement. In my opinion, it is that black or white depending on what the UAP report means by "high-quality reporting" and whether the crucial issue at this stage is to "draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP."
Why not rephrase the sentence to "draw firm conclusions about what UAP are not"? Because I am willing to bet a considerable sum of money that the USG with a high degree of confidence knows what a handful of UFOs are not.
The ODNI knows that some UAP/UFOs do not belong to the four categories; "airborne clutter; natural atmospheric phenomena; USG or U.S. industry developmental programs; foreign adversary systems" (p. 3). I have already mentioned the catchall "other bin" where the unexplained reports are placed (by the way, "bin" is an odd word choice).
Read the following carefully: If you choose to focus on what the sentence is not saying — "We (as in the DoD and IC) know some UAP are not USG or U.S. industry development programs or foreign adversary systems" — and that "high-quality reporting" is not referring to high-quality data from, for example, "aircraft carrying the USG’s most advanced sensor systems", then the first sentence in the "Executive Summary" is an outright lie.
Why do I say you should focus on what the cleverly worded sentence is not saying? Because, as I mentioned above, you have to connect paragraphs from different sections of the UAP report to find the "gold nuggets". The quote below is one reason that justifies focusing on what the cleverly worded sentence is obscuring:
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 (p. 5).In other words, some UAP are not secret US technology. At least none of the UAP reports, collected and analyzed by the UAPTF. Another statement that justifies focusing on what the cleverly worded sentence is obscuring is the following:
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 (p. 6).
In other words, the collected and analyzed UAP reports are not a technology of a foreign adversary.
Ok, let us read the cleverly worded sentence again, and after that, I will try to make my point clear.
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. ("Executive Summary", p. 3. Bold in the original).
Now, in one sense, the statement is truthful. It is truthful to the extent that no one will ever be able to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP. How could you do that with a high degree of confidence? Why give yourself a mission impossible? I will return to those questions.
So here is my point with the cleverly worded statement: The crux of the matter (with an official disclosure) is that the USG will ever be able to state with a high degree of confidence that "a handful of" UAP are extraterrestrials, interdimensional, etc., or what "their" intentions are. Why not?
Simply because no matter the sophistication of our sensor systems, you can only reach the highest degree of certainty of the nature or intent of UAP/UFOs by "their" own account. That is, we can only know if and when the "Others" communicate "their" nature and intent in a way we can understand.
Hence, my point with the cleverly worded statement is the following:
It is a mission impossible to conclude with a high degree of confidence the nature and intent of UAP by external measurements. External behaviour or signals do not necessarily reflect who or what you are or your interior motives.
The DoD or IC will not make official statements as "we are quite certain that some UAP are..." or "we think we know the nature or intent of some UAP." That will never happen, and it should never happen (think about when every Western country ran to Iraq based on false or biased intelligence).
However, I think it would not harm anyone if the DoD and IC officially and in unambiguous terms stated what they actually know about the nature of some UAP/UFOs. Again, I am confident that the DoD and IC know the nature of some UAP: they are not the creation of or under the control of human intelligence ("earthlings").
In a sense, the UAP report is saying just that but in a very convoluted way. The reason for that convoluted language is probably the opposing wills of the high-ranking officials who have influenced the content of the UAP report. It is almost as when reading the UAP report, you can feel the struggle of putting together an unclassified report that will satisfy everyone involved. I wonder if it was the same struggle with the classified report?
To strengthen my claim that the unclassified UAP report confidently and clearly could have stated what the nature of some UAP/UFOs are not (not human technology, not natural phenomena, not airborne clutter, etc.), I could add recent statements from NASA Administrator Bill Nelson (and former astronaut and senator) and recent statements from former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe. I did add them...
Especially the statements from Ratcliffe are intriguing. I urge you to listen to Nelson and Ratcliffe in their respective interviews (each interview is a couple of minutes) and to make up your own mind on whether their statements strengthen my claim or not. Perhaps needless to add, both Nelson and Ratcliffe have reviewed the classified UAP report (or annex).
So how can the DoD and IC get around the dilemma of not ever being able to say with a high degree of confidence the nature or intent of some UAP?
Well, they can choose to tell the truth in a straight and clear way, but that option is a bit complicated for reasons I will not get into here. Another solution or option is to let some other authority "spill the beans". For example, NASA or some part of the scientific community. At least those alternatives do not have a complicated history with the general public regarding the UFO phenomenon (ok, not as complicated as the US military and IC).
That is under the assumption that the USA either wants to lead the disclosure process or has been given the lead by other nations. Otherwise, nothing stops another nation from saying what the USG does not seem prepared to say (what UAP are not). Other alternatives could be the United Nations (UN) or a civilian initiative like International Coalition for Extraterrestrial Research (ICER).
And, of course, let us not forget the main character in this drama: the UFO phenomenon. No one can neither predict nor stop the next move of the phenomenon.
The next section is titled Available Reporting Largely Inconclusive, with the curious sub-heading "Limited Data Leaves Most UAP Unexplained...". Why the three dots (...)? I leave it up to the reader to ponder that question, but my take on it is that the three .... are an expression of frustration by some of the authors of the UAP report. Frustration over what? Perhaps over not being able to be more candid with the general public? Obviously, I do not know. You can probably find some more plausible explanation.
Anyhow, this section describes the constraints of the UAP report:
... the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable. 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 (p. 4, my italics).
The section goes on by saying that "144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors" (p. 4, bold in the original). Now, according to former DNI Ratcliffe, the specific number of reports is still classified (see the link above to the interview with Ratcliffe). So does that mean that the "144 reports" in the unclassified UAP report do not match the number of reports in the classified report? If so, then the "80 reports" involving observation with "multiple sensors" probably do not match with the classified report either. Also, we would like to know what "systems" the UAP report considers reliable (though a knowledgeable person can infer what systems by looking at the agencies and departments mentioned on page 2, NRO, NSA, NOAA, etc.).
Ratcliffe has in a couple of interviews mentioned "satellite imagery". So again, are we to believe that the USG, with all of its advanced sensors, does not know the nature of even one of the 143 unexplained reports? Are we to believe that the USG is hampered in its ability to eliminate possibilities due to limited data? Personally, I find it hard to believe. Obviously, it´s irrelevant what I believe, but I am confident that time will prove me, and others of the same opinion, to be right.
On a more positive and hopeful note, the section in question highlights that sociocultural stigmas remain an obstacle to collecting data on UAP (p. 4). That statement is also a 180-degree turnaround compared to the Condon Report. It is a significant statement that hopefully will result in more openness regarding UFOs across all the departments in the DoD and all agencies in the IC. I hope the UAP report will reduce the social stigma of UFOs on a general level, among the public, the scientific community, and so on. I applaud the UAPTF for highlighting the problem with the social stigma.
Final words
That was my take on the UAP report. Evidently, I have not gone through every section or paragraph in the report, and I have most likely overlooked some significant or intriguing details in the UAP report. Therefore, I recommend you to carefully and patiently read through the whole report (only 9 pages, but as mentioned above, you have to connect the different sections of the UAP report to comprehend what it is saying or not).
To clarify my overall impression of the preliminary assessment of UAP. Despite my critic of the content in, mainly, the section "Executive Summary", I stand by what I said at the beginning of this post: The UAP report is a milestone in UFO history. For two main reasons: 1) The USG has officially confirmed that some UAP/UFOs are physical objects (UFOs are real), and even more remarkable 2) The USG officially states that it cannot explain some UAP/UFOs.
At the same time, I hope I have made it clear that I think some paragraphs in the UAP report are, if not lies, then poppycock. With that said, I want to end this post on a positive note.
Some commentators and researchers think another Department of Defense document published on the same Friday as the UAP report is more significant than the unclassified UAP report. So if you were disappointed at the unclassified UAP report, this DoD memo might be of some compensation:https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2672732/statement-by-pentagon-press-secretary-john-kirby-on-unidentified-aerial-phenome/.
If you are tired of reading, I recommend you listen to John Greenewald, Jr. explain why the memo issued by the deputy defense secretary is the bigger aspect of the story that unfolded on Friday, June 25, 2021. You can watch and listen to Greenewald Jr here (the duration of the video clip is 7:28 minutes).
I agree with Greenewald that the DoD memo is a big deal. At the same time, I do not see the UAP report and the DoD memo as two separate documents. They both went public on June 25, 2021, and with the same message to the world:
UFOs are real. We do not know the nature or intent of some UFOs, so now we have to do some serious work to figure out this validated mystery we call the UFO phenomenon.
That is why June 25, 2021, is a milestone in UFO history.
Take care!
Janne
No comments:
Post a Comment