Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
> they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons" This is pretty clearly non-scare quotey security reasons territory. We are unsure if what’s on the scope is an adversary’s. Publishing a detailed quantification of how little we know and in what form would be a self goal.
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
101–110 of 244 posts
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#102Direct 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
#103I'm not saying there are little green men in these unidentified aircraft, but if you were part of an interstellar civilization in this galaxy, and you identified there was a life-supporting planet a few light years away, you'd send probes there for sure... wouldn't you? We certainly would, if we had the means.
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am someone who thinks there likely is alien activity on earth Can you elaborate on why you think this (or provide some additional detail)? For example, do you mean "intelligent" life? Or is this more along the lines of panspermia? Thank you.
No, I don't care to elaborate on my personal opinions about this topic. I only noted that because I habitually remind people on HN that UFO just stands for Unidentified Flying Object and the reason the US government is interested is for national security reasons. I noted it just to suggest "If you are inferring that I am on your side in thinking only nutters believe in aliens you are wrong." I have no desire to have…
I recommend the excellent documentary “Behind the Curve” for a good look at what happens to people when their views are marginalized. They dig in and develop tunnel vision. The way the lab leak theory for COVID subtly shifted from conspiracy theory to real theory illustrates how important it is not to be dismissive.
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about Vallee, but after being briefly in the defense industry, reading much, and having some experience with aerospace everything seems to fit very well into one of three categories 1) known US aircraft activity either simply misinterpreted or kept secret from the public or even most of the military apparatus, sometimes strongly denied either as a way to disseminate vague information to adversaries or mi…
Where to begin? 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at t…
People have reported talking to ghosts and angels for thousands of years too. People's senses and memory is fallible and can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstanding.
> 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly.
You are assuming that their reports that the objects actually made these movements are indeed correct perceptions of the movements seen.
> 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is.
A lot of conflation going on here. The Nimitz incident did involve 4(?) people, but not at the same time. The radar technician (radar data has not been released) did report seeing multiple objects on the radar, but not much else about them such as the rapid, physics-defying movements reported by the Fravor the pilot who reportedly saw an object with his own eyes. The IR video captured by another pilot also does have reasonable explanations (even including the on-screen display sensor readings) that counteract the claims that the object was moving as fast as they thought it was at the time, or as the video might make it seem.
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#106"I WANT TO BELIEVE" (in the Cigarette Man, Moulder and maybe especially Scully)
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#107Lol, looks like DNI.gov wasn't ready for the traffic. I'd have thought that all the .gov sites were pretty robust, just as a matter of principle.
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#108Not from this report, but these quotes are crazy: > "In this country we've had incidents where these UAPs have interfered and actually brought offline our nuclear capabilities" [1] > "We also have data suggesting that in other countries these things have interfered with their nuclear technology and actually turned them on, put them online." [1] How is stuff like this possible or is it just hyperbole? [1] - https://ww…
Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#109Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
#110I found it quite curious how they defined UAP as “Airborne objects not immediately identifiable” in the last section of the report. I guess the whole point of dropping the UFO acronym was to change the idea of “objects” for “phenomena”, which is much broader in scope. By keeping the word “objects” in the definition, they make the same mistake of defining upfront what is being reported.
To name it an object (for most people this means a physical object) is creating a wrong frame of mind. The first focus should be on the observation and the way it was observed.