There will be further data collection and analysis. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.įinally, the report indicates what we have all been hoping to hear. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. The report further elaborates on the stigma concern, stating:Īlthough the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously in public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic.Īnd there’s candid recognition that military equipment is focused on identifying known aircraft, not “unknowns”: It’s pleasing to read in one section of the report that “sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations remain obstacles to collecting data on UAP”. It does, however, acknowledge that these phenomena probably lack a single explanation and might require an “other” category. Unsurprisingly, the report fails to mention the possibility that some UAP could be of extraterrestrial origin - a hypothesis that’s becoming more readily considered by a number of interested parties. 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. 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. To date, there is no indication that these unknown craft or objects are advanced technology produced by Russia, China, or another country - although neither can this be ruled out as of yet. We already knew about one near miss with a UAP, but the report confirms more cases: “The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was responsible for producing the report and they acknowledge that “UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. A few characteristics of UAP might be beginning to emerge:Īlthough 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. 80 of these “involved observation with multiple sensors”. 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.ġ44 incidents were reported to the UAPTF from US government sources - so think pilots - between 20. In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. It goes on to acknowledge another important point:Īnd a handful of UAP appear to demonstrate advanced technology. 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. This is only a preliminary assessment - and a cautiously worded government one at that - but it’s a start. Whereas the unclassified nine page report is unable to “draw firm conclusions” about the nature of UAP, it does confirm that they are real and, in all but one of the 144 instances, remain unexplained. The eagerly anticipated UAP Task Force (UAPTF) report is out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |