https://phys.org/news/2023-09-nasa-publish-long-awaited-ufo.html From May "Mays conclusions There have been more than 800 "events" collected over 27 years, of which two to five percent are thought to be possibly anomalous, the report's authors said during the May meeting." This report to be released tomorrow.
NASA has given a link to watch live: https://www.nasa.gov/live My bold above... May put a damper on it???
Not sure how there could be something substantial the "other" way. You can't really prove a negative - beyond saying "there's no there there."
The data/footage yielded no evidence of anything currently beyond, physics, technology, mirages/trick of camera. Some data not currently explained. To me that would be substantial because if who has done the analysis.
Main Points. No evidence of ET but they do not know what they are. New director of UAP appointment. Work to continue, results to be available, reported transparently.
Here’s the published report: https://go.nasa.gov/3PED0qv I have not scanned it myself yet, nor the video.
Nor me yet. I will get round to it though. I have posted on this but tbh there is more interesting stuff going on regarding science, for me at least.
One of the first things that stands out is that the proliferation of small cameras is not necessarily helpful, see page 16: Observations of UAP to date are inconsistent and do not adhere to similar characteristics. As a consequence, it is difficult to put physical constraints on them at present, which provides a strong motivation for the rigorous, evidence-based framework articulated in this report. The strongest physical constraints are not on the anomalous events but on the conventional events: we know the range of velocities and accelerations that can be achieved by state-of-the art platforms, drones, balloons and planes. Deviations from this behavior, such as any well-characterized observation of velocities and accelerations outside of that range, are scientifically interesting for UAP assessment and analysis. The panel emphasizes that clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events, a fact borne out by AARO’s findings that the vast majority of UAP have prosaic explanations. This is actually part of a Response to the Statement of Task. The highlighted Finding, "The panel regards placing physical constraints on UAP, together with the suite of plausible natures and origins, as being within reach" (17), is about as bland and unimpressive as can be, considering the implications if such values escape scientific assessment. But think about a really mundane sentence in the Response: "The panel emphasizes that clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events, a fact borne out by AARO’s findings that the vast majority of UAP have prosaic explanations." Okay, that should be a mundane sentence. A shorter form, to emphasize: "The panel emphasizes that clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events." In case I need to be more direct: "Clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events." An inexpensive security camera is not sufficient. A mobile phone camera is not sufficient. This is easy enough to observe; see South Asian Object (pp. 12, 18) "The cavitation is likely a sensor artifact resulting from video compression." And we will encounter a question of reliability with nearly any digital image. The image comes with a standard disclaimer about "the appearance of U.S. Department of Defense visual information"; compared to unidentified objects and uncertain legends of pop-culture murmur and buzz, even the part that the military must take these encounters seriously will find the discussion perpetually trying to account for data compression in digital systems. And, no, not every unidentified aerial phenomenon DoD recorded was locked-on with a targeting system, so, no, they won't necessarily have sufficient distance information in the recorded data. Comparatively, no, the footage or images recorded on a phone camera will not necessarily be useful, and a perpetually growing heap of alleged mysterious phenomena that cannot be usefully analyzed is just noise of approximately detrimental value. In considering the types of scientific data available, for instance, the study acknowledges, "for a particular UAP event, we will need to be fortunate to obtain high-resolution observations from space". One reliable data set from an Earth-observing satellite would prove more useful than pretty much all the low-res, earthbound images captured by smaller imaging devices such as security, dashboard, and mobile phone cams. "Robust data calibration", and "standardization of collected information", are essential (13). † There is nothing truly groundbreaking in the NASA report; it's just not that kind of paper. But a discussion of the famous "go fast" UAP describes how available data is used to understand what an object is. Spoiler alert: "Using the calculated true air speed (TAS) and a bit more trigonometry, we find the object moved about 390 meters during this 22-second interval, which corresponds to an average speed of 40 mph. This is a typical wind speed at 13,000 feet." It's not precise; the "calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft", so there is some uncertainty in thsoe numbers, but coupled with the apparent lack of propulsion heat, "the object is most likely drifting with the wind". Where we have the data, we will see a lot of these mundane explanations, and in its way we might suggest we won't see anything spectacular until we do. And something about the language suggests NASA is aware of why they're bothering to put out a report explaining the obvious: "UAP data are rarely, if ever, collected in a concerted effort to understand the phenomenon," the report reminds (28), "they are usually coincidental observations … As a result, existing observations are neither optimized for studying UAP nor are they suited for a systematic scientific analysis". And their discussion of scientific principle (29-30) isn't simply written for believers, but for reads as if it was penned in response to armchair pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists: As a general principle, the data should support measurement that can rule out specific explanations or interpretations, leaving us with no choice but to embrace its opposite. In the case of UAP, the hypothesis we seek to reject (or “null hypothesis”) is that the UAP have phenomenology consistent with known natural or technological causes. Eye-witness reports should be considered along with corroborating sensor data in the study of UAP as reports may reveal patterns (for example, clusters in time or location). Yet, without calibrated sensor data to accompany it, no report can provide conclusive evidence on the nature of UAP or enable a study into the details of what was witnessed. While witnesses may be inherently credible, reports are not repeatable by others, and they do not allow a complete investigation into possible cognitive biases and errors (such as accuracy in perception, or misperception caused by environmental factors, errors in the recording device, judgment or misjudgment of distance or speed, for example). Therefore, the reports do not alone constitute data that can support a repeatable, reproducible analysis, and the hypothesis that what was witnessed was a manifestation of known natural or technological phenomena cannot be falsified. That is to say, they describe the difference between science and superstitious histrionics. And, really, that might be the whole reason for the report, which often reads like a sort of bland, traditional political paper; the highlighted, left-column findings, for instance, are the pabulum of bureaucratic responses to political oversight. The one page given to Overall Conclusions and Recommendations isn't even a sales pitch, but the kind of thing you send a junior staffer to recite to Congressional aides so everyone can say the politicians were briefed. ____________________ Notes: Spergel, David, et al. NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team Report. 2023. Science.NASA.gov. 14 September 2023. https://go.nasa.gov/3PED0qv
No, but two cameras is sufficient to triangulate (biangulate?). And in this increasingly fully suveilled society, we should be seeing multi-point-of-view recordings ever more frequently. Note, for comparison that we are starting to see this kind of multi-POV corroboration with meteors and fire balls.
Metadata will be important in those cases. Per the Executive Summary, "analysis of UAP data is hampered by poor sensor calibration, the lack of multiple measurements, the lack of sensor metadata, and the lack of baseline data" (3); also, "The panel sees several advantages to augmenting data collection efforts using modern crowdsourcing techniques, including open-source smartphone-based apps that simultaneously gather imaging data and other smartphone sensor metadata from multiple citizen observers worldwide" (4). Response 1, "UAP data often consist of observations initially acquired for other purposes, which often lack adequate metadata and are not optimized for systematic scientific analysis" (11-12). Highlighted Finding, p. 13, "The standardization of collected information via well-crafted calibration will make it possible to carry out a rigorous scientific investigation into UAP"; Response 2, "metadata, which provides contextual information such as sensor type, manufacturer details, noise characteristics and time of acquisition, must simultaneously be present for an accurate characterization of both a potential UAP as well as the sensor itself"; also, "several apparent UAP have been demonstrated to be sensor artifacts once appropriate calibration and metadata scrutiny were applied" (13). And it keeps coming up, such as the Overall Conclusions and Recommendations, "At present, the detection of UAP is often serendipitous, captured by sensors that were not designed or calibrated for this purpose, and which lack comprehensive metadata" (21). It seems they're really trying to make a point about metadata. In a weird way, I think the underlying message there runs, approximately, 「There needs to be an app for that.」 But it's NASA, so the meta-analytical joke is that so many people would explicitly authorize the U.S. government to directly track their phones. Short of that, it will be like herding Schroedinger's cats, trying to get the crowdsource to standardize its data presentation.
I think that the whole point of this summer's NASA study wasn't to examine particular UAP cases or come to conclusions about them. Rather, it was to offer suggestions and perhaps even a roadmap for future study of the UAP phenomenon. What kind of information would they really need to draw conclusions? How can they best obtain that information? David Spergel held up a cell-phone and said that there are several billion of them out there. They have very good cameras and can send all kinds of metadata along with photographs: time, location, camera settings, even magnetic and gravitational fields. It did sound like they want to design a NASA citizen-science app. That would help standardize whatever cellphone data they receive. I don't think that it represents any serious privacy concerns since its use would be voluntary and it would only send time and location data for the UAP sightings being voluntarily reported, not for everywhere a person goes, all their financial transactions and calls in and out, like cell phones in China reportedly do.
And again, it's ultimately not about "space aliens" and so-forth, at least for defense and spy concerns. NASA, granted, may be a bit motivated by interest in discovering new phenomena (add to the sprites, jets, balled lightning, etc package). But the back-and-forth between believers and skeptics/debunkers tends to drown out or induce amnesia with regard to the practical rationale, to where it becomes a myopic "No ETs falling out of the process, so this whole thing is a waste." The David Grusch stuff probably is an offshoot sideshow, but one that nevertheless can play out every few decades to alleviate some gas expansion from the never-die conspiracy culture of "bodies and advanced tech". Additionally, there's the slight odor of "strategic bluff" at times, akin to the fake or very exaggerated intimidation of the "Star Wars program" back in the '80s.
Lets be clear on this; it is not a "back and forth". There are rational thinkers and there are wishful thinkers. Those who eschew conclusions versus those who like hasty conclusions. It is not a level playing field.
That is a really funny statement. There is generally no one less informed and more religious than debunkers. True believers can be irrational but debunkers are often dishonest and ignorant of even the most elementary facts. I debated people at PF for years only to eventually realize most had never even studied the cases they were arguing about. Name one case where we have evidence from multiple sources. I'd bet you have no idea. Here is their favorite bit of double talk: They demand evidence for ET but can't name any evidence they would accept beyond a craft landing at the White House and submitting to tests. And beyond that, they expect witnesses to provide proof when that is a job for science, not every Tom Dick and Harry with a mobile phone. Witnesses can only report what they saw - you know, like the Navy's top pilots who have chased these things for decades.
in other words, they make assumptions when it can't be explained. And they clearly are ignoring the testimony and video evidence of Top Gun pilots like David Fravor. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...r-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf Even the Pentagon doesn't agree. If someone can explain a sphere with no exhaust or apparent propulsion system, or lifting surfaces, hovering and going to mach 2, I'd like to hear it https://www.aaro.mil/ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is the guy who renamed UFOs, UAPs, to help destigmatize the subject. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/donhr/About/Senior-Executives/Biographies/Stratton, J.pdf Here is part of an interview with Stratton. Still looking for a link to the entire interview. Maybe it is easiest to watch the guys at Weaponized https://www.weaponizedpodcast.com/episodes-1/episode-number-3 In case the navy.mil link ever goes dead, this is the bio on Mr Stratton Office of Naval Intelligence Senior Analyst, Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center Mr. Stratton entered Senior Executive Service in September 2018. He has accumulated over thirty-two years of experience in progressively responsible positions with the United States Army, United States Air Force Reserve, and U.S. Federal Civil Service. Mr. Stratton is currently the Senior Analyst, Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center, Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). As the center’s senior analyst he is responsible for delivering comprehensive intelligence to Navy leadership and representing the Navy as a senior member of the Intelligence Community (IC). Prior to this appointment, Mr. Stratton served as the Director of Intelligence (J2) with the Joint Warfare Analysis Center; Deputy Director Executive Support with Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare (N2N6); Director Air Warfare/SPEAR with the Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center, ONI; Chief of Air and Space Warfare, Defense Warning Office, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Aerospace Engineer with ONI; Aerospace Engineer (Flight Test) with Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR); and Senior Weapons Systems Engineer with ManTech International Corporation. He has completed a variety of active and reserve positions as an Intelligence Officer and Foreign Area Officer with the Air Force Reserve including Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO) with the 459th Air Refueling Wing; Chief Space Technology with the Defense Technology Security Administration, Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy (OSD-P); Chief, Intelligence Stan/Eval with the 459th Air Refueling Wing; Detachment Commander with the II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Leatherneck Afghanistan; Military Advisor to the President’s Special Advisor for Middle East Regional Security, US Embassy Tel Aviv; and Operations and Intelligence with the 917th Fighter Wing. A native of East Texas, Mr. Stratton holds a Bachelor’s of Science from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Masters of Military Operational Art and Science from Air University. Mr. Stratton holds the IC Joint Duty Officer Designation, formerly the IC Officer Designation. He is a veteran of Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Joint Endeavor, Deny Flight, Deliberate Force, Allied Force, Southern Watch, Deny Flight, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle. His personal military decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), the Joint Commendation Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal (two awards), and the Air Force Achievement Medal. He has been awarded numerous joint and service unit commendations both combat and garrison. He has several expeditionary and campaign medals from his deployments. He was also awarded the DIA Director’s Award, DIA Expeditionary Medal, Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award, Central Intelligence Agency Meritorious Unit Commendation and ODNI Meritorious Unit Commendation.
Hiya Ivan! I remember you from PF! Well yeah, that's a pretty broad, hypothetical and surely indefensible claim. Well, the TicTac incident comes to mind. That part about "landing on the white house lawn and subjecting themselves to tests" sounds like something I would say. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's an exact quote from me. The thing is, your take on it has been paraphrased I suspect. If I recall, the question put to skeptics was "What would you accept as sufficient evidence?" And my response, if I recall was "Well a craft landing on the front lawn of the Whitehouse certainly would be acceptable". That, in no way means it is the minimum I would accept; it is simply "bookending" the argument. to-wit: there are things I would accept. Full stop. Working backwards from there to the minimum I would accept is a bit more involved than a one-liner. But the accusation was not pursued so neither was the followup. All that being said, so what? How is it a short-coming to not settle on a hard line that divides compelling evidence of dubious evidence? We don't know in what form such evidence might be forthcoming, the possibilities are endless. How can one enumerate a hypothetical? If I asked you "What would convince you God exists" could you easily draw a distinct line between compelling evidence and dubious evidence without likewise hyperbolizing? And, if you have been following this thread, you will know that even the best military pilots, in the best possible observing conditions can, and have, made egregious errors in observation. copilot who is not otherwise occupied flying the plane has the freedom to stop everything he is doing and turn his full concentration on the UAP for as long as is necessary ideal weather for observing swears he saw a UFO (not 'unidentified', not 'fuzzy blob' or 'light', but "a UFO") so much so that he convinces the pilot to break from his flight path to confirm an incredibly rare opportunity in the UAP world to actually go and verify a real UAP sighting turns out it was a Bart Simpson balloon in other words, a UAP that stood the best chance possible of NOT being misidentified. How could an object make itself more easily identifiable than being a cartoon head the size of a building? And yet, this trained military pilot, under ideal observing conditions, was certain he saw a UFO. So what's your point here? Surely not that pilots are immune from observational error. I could provide a link to this incident but you've indicated that's unnecessary, because you are certainly already familar with this case, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
