Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

dni.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 244 posts

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#81

Post by raverbashing »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #2

Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... > "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." > "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or…

Yeah, this "RF energy" statement is too vague.

Ok, you detected what exactly? At which frequencies? Power? BW? Does it look like something (unmodulated signal? Modulated? How?)? Do you have a recording of it?

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#82

Post by yuvadam »

y04nn wrote: post #51
dandelany wrote: post #29

Nine pages? All this hoopla for the month leading up to the release and we get NINE measly pages with no supporting documentation? am I missing something? I expected to see something similar in quality/detail to an FAA accident investigation, this is a worthless executive summary.

I would not call it a report either, this is a request for more funding, the last sentence is: > The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. I would be more interested in a BEA style analysis of each incident. But at least it lays down some possible causes: - Airborne Clutter - Natural Atmospheric Phenomena - USG or…

The "other" bin sounds oddly suspicious. Why would the report creators step out of their way not to clearly define a bin for intelligent (and far more advanced) extraterrestrial activity?

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#83

Post by trasz »

nradov wrote: post #64
trasz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

144 _reported_ incidents. They also talk about how some of the cases going unreported. It would make sense to sieve through the radar data (I'd guess all the ATC radars are being recorded, because why not?) to look for those.

Most ATC now uses secondary radars. Those generally only pick up aircraft carrying transponders.

Good point. What about the radars used by Air Force to guard the airspace? Do they cover the interior, or only the borders?

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#85

Post by aliasEli »

xbar wrote: post #76
tailspin2019 wrote: post #2

Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... > "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." > "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or…

80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.

No, they said that in most cases crucial data was lacking.

Yes, they probably have a lot more data, but they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons".

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#88

Post by xtracto »

fghorow wrote: post #42

Some poor staffer pulled an all-nighter to write this 5 months and 29 days ago, and the rest of the time has been spent wordsmithing and going through clearances.

Most likely the original report was like 20 pages long, and after those 5 months, the "publishable" parts is what we are seeing here.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#89

Post by xxpor »

nradov wrote: post #64
trasz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

144 _reported_ incidents. They also talk about how some of the cases going unreported. It would make sense to sieve through the radar data (I'd guess all the ATC radars are being recorded, because why not?) to look for those.

Most ATC now uses secondary radars. Those generally only pick up aircraft carrying transponders.

Secondary radar == just an RX only antenna?
Post reply on HN