US Has No Explanation for Unidentified Objects and Stops Short of Ruling Out Aliens (nytimes.com) 187
According to The New York Times, citing a highly anticipated UFO report released on Friday, "The government still has no explanation for nearly all of the scores of unidentified aerial phenomena reported over almost two decades and investigated by a Pentagon task force, [...] a result that is likely to fuel theories of otherworldly visitations." From the report: A total of 143 reports gathered since 2004 remain unexplained, the document released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said. Of those, 21 reports of unknown phenomena, involving 18 episodes, possibly demonstrate technological capabilities that are unknown to the United States: objects moving without observable propulsion or with rapid acceleration that is believed to be beyond the capabilities of Russia, China or other terrestrial nations. But, the report said, more rigorous analysis of those episodes is needed. There is no evidence that any of the episodes involve secret American weapons programs, unknown technology from Russia or China or extraterrestrial visitations. But the government report did not rule out those explanations.
The nine-page document essentially declines to draw conclusions, announcing that the available reporting is "largely inconclusive" and noting that limited and inconsistent data created a challenge in evaluating the phenomena. The report said the number of sightings was too limited for a detailed pattern analysis. While they clustered around military training or testing grounds, the report found that that could be the result of collection bias or the presence of cutting-edge sensors in those areas. Government officials outlined a plan to develop, if additional funding is available, a better program to observe and collect data on future unexplained phenomena. [...] The government intends to update Congress within 90 days on efforts to develop an improved collection strategy and what officials are calling a technical road map to develop technology to better observe the phenomena, senior government officials told reporters on Friday. Officials said they would provide lawmakers with periodical updates beyond that.
The nine-page document essentially declines to draw conclusions, announcing that the available reporting is "largely inconclusive" and noting that limited and inconsistent data created a challenge in evaluating the phenomena. The report said the number of sightings was too limited for a detailed pattern analysis. While they clustered around military training or testing grounds, the report found that that could be the result of collection bias or the presence of cutting-edge sensors in those areas. Government officials outlined a plan to develop, if additional funding is available, a better program to observe and collect data on future unexplained phenomena. [...] The government intends to update Congress within 90 days on efforts to develop an improved collection strategy and what officials are calling a technical road map to develop technology to better observe the phenomena, senior government officials told reporters on Friday. Officials said they would provide lawmakers with periodical updates beyond that.
They stopped short (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
of ruling out wizards and dragons too. Doesn't mean it's any more likely since we've seen just as many as we have aliens, i.e. a big fat zero.
Woah. Hold up there. Zero? Surely Nessie counts as some kind of dragon.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no (Score:2)
of ruling out wizards and dragons too...we've seen just as many as we have aliens
No-one has reported any dragons flying about (complete with video and/or still images) so you can obviously rule out dragons.
Wizards do not fly (well unless it's a quidditch match) so obviously not wizards.
Thus in fact, it is far more likely to be aliens, than wizards or dragons - because we do have proof of something, that exhibits technology vastly beyond what we can do.
Therefore it is up to you to say, what is reasonable to
Re: (Score:3)
One was sighted flying over Farnsworth
https://youtu.be/mr0k7sb-f_g [youtu.be]
Flying Wizards are sighted all the time, but everybody knows they have spells that blank pictures of them.
Re: Umm, no (Score:3)
It is unlikely that each of these phenomena have the same explanation. It is also unlikely that we will figure them out. Aliens only seem like a strong possibility because of all the fictions we have created about them.
Re: (Score:2)
No-one has reported any dragons flying about (complete with video and/or still images) so you can obviously rule out dragons.
The images are so blurry and/or low-resolution you can not rule out dragons.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we can. I think it's a long-standing rule that if you can't determine whether or not it's a dragon, it's definitely not a dragon.
Dragons aren't subtle things. They don't get mistaken for butterflies or motes in the eye. Dragons are about as subtle as nuclear explosions.
Re: Umm, no (Score:2)
That still does not rule out alien wizard dragons.
Re: (Score:2)
No-one has reported any aliens flying about (complete with clear video and/or still images).
FTFY
As Neil deGras Tyson said "Why are they only visiting Navy pilots? There are three billion smart phones on this planet. Each one has a high resolution color camera and video recorder...."
Re: Umm, no (Score:2)
Give him a break, he just flew in from Alpha Centauri.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buddy, you do NOT rule out wizards! They're subtle...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It does not mean "space aliens".
Is "space aliens" still around? Lots pf restaurants didn't survive the pandemic.
The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:5, Interesting)
Romulan cloaking technology?
Re:The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here." - Mitch Hedberg
Re: The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:4, Insightful)
is to blur every image/video taken of them, ever, even with 2021's camera resolution. Romulan cloaking technology?
This "explanation" is getting very old, so try this experiment instead. Go outside at night and use your 273-gigafuckpixel smartphone camera with the lens smaller than a dime and start filming.
Now zoom in. A LOT. You know, like you're trying to film something important at distance, in hopes you can use your 50x digital zoom to catch something important. Make sure you hold that camera like it's mounted on a tripod too, the whole time you're filming.
Then come back and brag about your 4K-awesome footage. Reality might show you otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:4, Funny)
So, they are only out at night....good to know.
They mostly come out at night... mostly.
Re:The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:4, Funny)
"These people are here to protect you. They're soldiers."
"It won't make any difference."
Re: (Score:2)
Also triangular UFOs like to be filmed on cameras with triangular aperture, what are the odds?
Re: (Score:2)
This "explanation" is getting very old, so try this experiment instead. Go outside at night and use your 273-gigafuckpixel smartphone camera with the lens smaller than a dime and start filming.
You figure that is what USAF pilots do? I'm not even American but I would absolutely contribute if someone sets up a Go Fund Me to buy them better cameras.
Re: (Score:3)
It's odd you know. American pilots are all super geniuses who couldn't possibly be mistaken, confused or embellish their stories for fame, but they've got the same shit cameras everyone else does.
Re: (Score:2)
It's odd you know. American pilots are all super geniuses who couldn't possibly be mistaken, confused or embellish their stories for fame, but they've got the same shit cameras everyone else does.
Maybe their cameras are all made in China?
Re: (Score:2)
I really only have 1 example, my buddy's brother in law flies C-17s for the USAF.
Straight up? Real talk?
That guy is a fucking idiot.
He may be skilled at operating that beast of a fucking vehicle, but I wouldn't trust him to be able to figure out a 1-digit combination lock.
Re: (Score:3)
This. I spent my 42 year working career in the USAF and as a defense contractor. There's nothing special about pilots.
I'm no expert (Score:2)
Re:I'm no expert (Score:4, Informative)
Then you are mistaken, as the cameras on those planes are 10, 20, 30 years old.
And most video footage is simply only a recording from the radar screen / avionics HUD in the plane, and not of the real objects.
Re: (Score:2)
Avionics are typically updated much more frequently than that.
Here's a quote from an article on obsolete avionics indicating the F22s systems being replaces about every 5 years...
Long weapon-system development and procurement cycles are also part of the problem. The F-22 Raptor program, for example, was begun nearly 20 years ago and is still at least five years away from fielding aircraft in squadron strength. Currently, $50 million a year is being budgeted to replace the “old” F-22 avionics wit
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
I exaggerated.
My point is there is a new phone camera every few months. (Bottom line phones make good looking photos, but are actually either less capable, or use nifty tricks, to make them).
Re: The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:2)
We just watched a clear security video of a condo spontaneously imploding in the middle of the night in Florida, with clear nighttime photos from many onlookers.
The aliens must know when only shitty zoomed in handheld cameras are watching.
Re: (Score:2)
We just watched a clear security video of a condo spontaneously imploding in the middle of the night in Florida, with clear nighttime photos from many onlookers.
The aliens must know when only shitty zoomed in handheld cameras are watching.
Ironically enough, if I were a sufficiently advanced species with technology at my disposal, I'd also probably build a system capable of detecting cameras or weapons to preserve my survival.
I'd imagine those who still value privacy would too, as we watch the ignorant masses welcome an Orwellian world.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate how good smart phone video capabilities are these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I got some pretty fucking rad crystal clear video off my phone of the SpaceX second stage burning up over my house in pitch blackness. Frankly, I was really surprised it was able to get the exposure right.. but it did. I think you underestimate how good smart phone video capabilities are these days.
First off, light matters. A second stage burning up, ain't exactly the same thing as filming a single engine F-16 afterburner at distance. Yes, I'm estimating the emissions from a "photon drive" or whatever a UAP would use. Not to mention stealth technology. (what, we humans are the only ones who would think to hide emissions for the purposes of self-preservation?)
And if I'm mistaken and underestimate camera capability, then I guess the rest of the UAP-observing planet is making the same mistake.
That still does not explain a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
No the most likely explanation is that AS the footage became with tech less blurry more and more explanation were found, until AGAIN the limit of tech were hit.
In other word, by examinating the trend we find that as tech evolved , all footage which were less blurry were eliminated, NONE left as UFO, leaving only the blurry one as UFO, and thus hinting at that all the rest have probably the same origins. If it was really alien or flying dragon, you would have less blurry footage by now, because there is NO REASON that the alien would increase observational distance in proportion of the technology we have, leaving ONLY the blurry footage are left. In other word , the simplest explanation is that it is all mis-identification of further away mundane stuff, while the nearest blurry stuff in the 50ies nowadays clear by zoom, have been eliminated.
UFO is only a reflection of our own zeigeist, and technology limit. They are more in trend when we have a malaise in our society , less when all runs good.
Re: (Score:2)
You and every moron who modded you insightful needs to go watch Neil deGras Tyson's comments on UFOs.
No matter how "old" it's getting to you, the fact remains there are no clear pictures in a world where half the planet has a high resolution camera and video recorder in their pockets. No matter how badly you want it to be true, there remains zero clear evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The most amazing ability of these UAPs (Score:5, Informative)
is to blur every image/video taken of them, ever, even with 2021's camera resolution.
Romulan cloaking technology?
Yet visual imaging was only a small part of detecting them
The Pentagon report states, “a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.”
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the other ones were anecdotal evidence by people offering guesses with no real point of reference, and sensor readings no one can corroborate the accuracy of. That's so much more convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these "things" are inherently fuzzy, such as plasma.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this article is about "unidentified" objects. Plenty of things have been captured in high resolution and good detail, but then you're able to identify them and work out that they're something mundane.
Some of these blurry objects captured on camera could easily be mundane things like specs of dirt or insects which are very close to the camera or even on the lens itself, where the camera is setup to focus on far away objects.
Well duh! (Score:3)
If they had an explanation then they wouldn't be "unidentified"!
Re: (Score:2)
Unsurprisingly, the report ended by asking for more money. Also it's a really boring report.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the whole point of the report.
Re: (Score:2)
Also it's a really boring report.
You expected something with some drama, romance, comedy? It's their jobs to write boring factual reports, otherwise they wouldn't be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I expected facts.
I'm not sayig it's not aliens... (Score:2)
...but ITS NOT ALIENS!
Aliens would either be better at hiding or better at talking.
Frankly time travelers makes more sense. They are more likely to want to learn about us and have a good reason to not make contact (can't mess up the past).
Re: (Score:2)
This galaxy is old and this species is juvenile and views an old galaxy the way it views itself, juvenile. The underlying ego, born of psychopathy and narcissism, genetic subspecies of humanity, demands not only they own the entire planet as individuals but the entire universe, ego born of social insanity, spread to the rest of human society.
The psychopaths and narcissist demand the illusion of control over everything, so they can continue that control over ALL OF YOU MORONS. So the lie goes from no aliens
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make sense but astrologers prove it real [smbc-comics.com].
Re: (Score:2)
A time traveler is also a space traveler.
Perhaps you want to read up where earth was about 1000 years ago, or will be in 1000 years.
Also: time travel, as neat as it is, would violate the first law of physics: conservation of energy. You take a mass from one time into the other, so you have suddenly two "copies" of the same universe with a different mass than before. Obviously: impossible.
Just add authentication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the most commonly reposted pictures is clearly a mylar special-edition batman balloon, I'm not sure 2-factor is useful.
Or needed.
https://ordonews.com/ufo-photo... [ordonews.com]
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/file... [shopify.com]
I mean (Score:2)
Presuming they are not lying and it's not a natural phenomena.
Something that is superior to both the US and everyone else on the planet, what are the alternatives?
I'll be waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if one were to assume that the observations were accurate, which there is no real evidence to support, on what basis do you determine that something is superior to everyone else on the planet? Something being beyond the capabilities of US technology at the time is no indication that it isn't achievable by another country with completely different research priorities. Russia out-innovated the US in a lot of areas that weren't priorities for the US during the Cold War (and beyond), other than that perhap
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? An air force comprised of these not strategical?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends entirely on the theatre of war. Both Germany and Russia have a history of developing war machines that were incredible at the time, pushed the technological envelope, and were complete and utter failures as they had no real practical application beyond use as propaganda tools. Small fast-moving craft may be great for recon, but utterly useless for anything else. There's no information to go on to determine things like range, how much weight they could carry, etc. Even the US abandoned most of its
Re: (Score:2)
Even the US abandoned most of its high altitude recon planes once satellites were capable of providing better telemetry in a shorter period of time.
Wrong. The U2, Global Hawk, and others are in constant use. Satellites are much more expensive, require much more costly sensors, and can't loiter within range of a target to gather the real time information that's necessary. It's not all about grabbing snapshots like the SR71 was used for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space Canadians? /Archer
Re: (Score:2)
Most are not "natural" they're fucking sensor artifacts, don't be a maroon.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, sensor artifacts that align with photos that align with radar data. They're probably all in on it together.
Re: I mean (Score:2)
I think you donâ(TM)t quite understand how radar works.
You cannot just say âoeradar dataâ like its a google image search. Also, what radar data are you drawing your conclusions from? How did you obtain it?
Re: (Score:2)
A sensor artifact is not hunted by a plane, tracked by an ASICS cruiser and on radar of a carrier and popping up on another radar of an Hawk Eye, and it is certainly not locked by a ship to air missile as an infrared target.
Read at least the summary, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are dozens of this particular set of videos on youtube. Including the interviews with the pilots. The ones here are just summaries, no idea what thy actually talk about. For some reason hobbyists try to declare observations (in this video summery) as artifacts, when the original videos show several planes chasing the "same artifact", and have radio talk "about that artifact" with the tower on the carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry,
it is not "random videos" - it is the original Air force and Navy footage.
Seriously, how daft are you?
this is about the official US Navy videos and the official report. No it is not. It is a summary. The originals, or earlier reports are all on youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presuming they are not lying and it's not a natural phenomena.
These are not presumptions one can so casually make.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you'd have to be presuming that everyone involved is lying, and that's a conspiracy that would require a lot of people over decades keeping the lie, and a reasonable reason for doing so. As Ben Franklin said "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-... [phys.org]
Aliens are smart enough ... (Score:2)
Russian or Chinese (Score:3)
What can we rule out? (Score:3)
We can't rule out time-traveling alien dragons. Or wizards in flying saucers. Fine.
What can we rule out? Lense flair? Weather? Swamp gas? Surely there has been progress on what they are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them are lens flair, so you don't want to rule that out. Many are weather.
Fewer are swamp gas.
We can rule out time-traveling dragons, because paradoxes are not possible. But we cannot rule out dragonflies. Or wizards, eg, technologists.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but for those who actually want to know...
https://www.ishootshows.com/un... [ishootshows.com]
Brilliant tard redirection (Score:5, Interesting)
Disinfo is mandatory because secrecy to protect the truly important programs (consider how long F-117 was a black program) matters while entertaining the double-digit IQ schizo crowd makes good cover.
Pilots, other aircrew, controllers and ground radar operators do not need to know about programs they're not required to know for their mission. Their "UFO" experiences reinforce obfuscation efforts well because they are sincere. Sincere believers will not be detected as deceptive! It's refreshing to know at least a few in government are smarter than the idiot public.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because that's as elaborate as information warfare has become over the last 100 years.
Remote sensor manipulation (Score:2)
Many of the events could very likely be enemies or even our own defense research teams manipulating the sensors and making objects appear on displays. Since a lot of the events were at night, there might not be any confirmation with the naked eye.
Re: (Score:2)
And they were all recorded with FLIR sensors (to your point that they were captured at night).
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory xkcd (Score:3)
And it's a recent one, too.
https://xkcd.com/2472/ [xkcd.com]
If they knew they were aliens would they say? (Score:2)
I have a difficult time imagining a scenario where the Air Force would say "here is a set of photos of what is almost certainly an extraterrestrial spacecraft flying in our atmosphere". To be clear, I have no reason whatsoever to think that the images are aliens, but I don't think the report changes that in either way
If they're real they're American. (Score:2)
Nobody with technology MORE advanced than America would risk handing that technology TO America by stupidly buzzing around American aircraft carriers for kicks. Aliens would also not travel the galaxy and then risk their ships by approaching the most dangerous thing on the entire planet before anyone else. The risks would be astronomical and the rewards literally zero. If these things aren't just weather balloons then they all belong to America and on each sighting somebody was told not to fire on it and
Re: (Score:2)
UFO's are still unidentified (Score:2)
Obvious Disinformation (Score:2)
Some of these alleged UFOs are obviously lens artifacts or similar. The way they move relative to the display, which is to say not at all makes this painfully obvious. If you've got a you-fer passing sideways across your frame of reference and you're trying to keep it centered in your crosshairs then from your POV it accelerates and decelerates as it passes. Some of these objects don't vary in position within the frame AT ALL. I get that these are military pilots, and competent, but it's still obvious.
Given
RE-read the article! (Score:2)
Reading between the lines, this isn't about whether aliens exist. I read this article as, "We spent years evaluating some data. We can't make conclusions. Give us more money."
Please explain (Score:2)
This youtube video is similar to what I saw [youtube.com] when I was photographing the lunar eclipse recently.
My wife and I were out on our deck and I had my camera set up taking photos of the lunar eclipse. I've photographed eagles hunting, helicopters, military and civilian jets as well as simply observing things flying in the sky, zooming in on commercial aircraft, photographs of mars and looking at Jupiter's moons. She decided to hang out with me for the duration of the lunar eclipse while I photographed it in seq
But if they could explain them, (Score:2)
they would not be unidentified objects, would they? So the images exclude weather balloons, freaky clouds, reflections in aircraft windows, and so on, because those are explained.
Re: (Score:2)
PornHub, you say? I'll be back in a few hours, I have to do some... research.
Re: (Score:2)
Read more news around the world, plenty of UFO sightings everywhere. Also recommend searching using other languages than English.
Re: (Score:2)
What people claiming "aliens" do is make the leap from "we can't say conclusively what is was" to "well then it must have been aliens"
small g