OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
I'll take it. I wonder how strange headache is reacting to the news. He was so convinced.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Aliens and UFOs
- Thread starter Grand Theft Scratchy
- Start date
- Status
INC
Member
Who? Lazaar?
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
No mr "I'm sick and tired of seeing this thread you fucking idiots"
INC
Member
SirKicksalot
Member
Ride ain't over yet:
They want a report on everyUFOUAP sighting within two weeks of its occurence.
The document is here: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jun/...UNIDENTIFIED-AERIAL-PHENOMENA-ASSESSMENTS.PDF
Source
They want a report on every
The document is here: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jun/...UNIDENTIFIED-AERIAL-PHENOMENA-ASSESSMENTS.PDF
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
The film crew said it was a balloon? Thats fine but why not just post the link? No one said it was a spacecraft.
Last edited:
Airola
Member
The early summary given earlier was more "pro-extraterrestrial" than this was. This didn't even really say anything like "we can't rule out extraterrestrials", it just said we don't know about some of them and they might have an explanation and they might not have an explanation. And they even included spoofs as one option some UAP could be.
Also, it seems radar systems may register some natural atmospheric phenomena too.
So there are all kinds of possibilities to explain things.
I kinda feels like the first summary was created in a way to get a few "soundbites" for media, while this report was nothing like that.
Or maybe they are supposed to release more. I would hope to see detailed report where they've listed every single one of those cases and have their comments and possible analysis of them.
Also, it seems radar systems may register some natural atmospheric phenomena too.
So there are all kinds of possibilities to explain things.
I kinda feels like the first summary was created in a way to get a few "soundbites" for media, while this report was nothing like that.
Or maybe they are supposed to release more. I would hope to see detailed report where they've listed every single one of those cases and have their comments and possible analysis of them.
Romulus
Member
Are you watching on a phone? Try a bigger screen. Watch the video from time 00:23 to 00:27.
The string is noticeable when the frames change. It's hard to see on a screengrab because the footage has a lot of noise, but it's obvious in motion.
EDIT: I know how to gif.
The balloon is moving but that string seems unaffected by the wind at all, just looks completely stiff. Is it a metal string or antenna like? Must be aliens confirmed.
Razorback
Member
The ballon isn't moving, the camera is.
Airola
Member
Stigma is mentioned twice in the report, both in the same page.
And I have trouble finding any other places where that's mentioned in any other words.
Romulus
Member
How do you know the balloon is moving 15, 10, 5mph vs 0mph?
StormCell
Member
Have you ever watched The Weather Channel?
I kid, but yeah, of course, radar systems can be adjusted to pick up all kinds of weather. Sleet in particular would be very complicated to adjust out since it's solid.
I've read the preliminary report probably three times now, and I feel that it very closely mirrors the briefing we got earlier. Folks in congress who are familiar with US Intelligence reports are not surprised at how vague and elusive the report is because it's written in such a way as to not convey much about what they do and don't know. The key detail of the report are some 18 objects they've encountered that they can't identify including 11 of those involved in near misses with aircraft.
No, we'll not be getting these hundred plus UAP in any sort of list with any details. They're not going to divulge what 21 cases (18 objects) were. My assumption is it would divulge too much information about what they do and don't know about foreign adversaries.
Airola
Member
And even with that there is this mentioned about it:
"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flightcharacteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."
Razorback
Member
It's a ballon, it's going the speed of wind at best. So the string wouldn't be blowing in the wind in one direction, because the whole ballon is blowing in the wind. Strings only blow one way when they are attached to something fixed.
Airola
Member
Those 11 near misses aren't part of those 18 objects.
They are saying that there are UAPs that can be safety hazards. It's not about those 18 objects at that point in the report anymore.
Here is one example:
"Airborne clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles(UAV), or airborne debris like plastic bags that muddle a scene and affect an operator’s ability to identify true targets, such as enemy aircraft."
And another right in direct context of the "11 near misses" part:
Ongoing Airspace Concerns
When aviators encounter safety hazards, they are required to report these concerns. Depending on the location, volume, and behavior of hazards during incursions on ranges, pilots may cease their tests and/or training and land their aircraft, which has a deterrent effect on reporting.
•The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.
The point is that because there are things in the sky that come by surprise, they could be a problem in tests, training and combat situation. The objects then remain unidentified especially if the pilot has to land their craft.
It's more of a concern for figuring out how to solve the problem of increasing amount of clutter in air, that's my take on it.
EDIT:
Also, this:
"UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain."
Last edited:
Zippitydodaday
Member
Somewhere, someone underground with high class profile is laughing at this report.
I can only imagine the inside jokes from the people who hold all this classified.
I can only imagine the inside jokes from the people who hold all this classified.
Airola
Member
And what the hell was it about these sightings absolutely not being part of secret US programs, when this report says this:
"Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected."
"Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected."
SirKicksalot
Member
Indeed, page 5 doesn't mention it
Outside of title, annexes and page 5 the entire thing is about the difficulty of data collection and analysis, which is then expanded upon in the orange box and pages 6 and 7. It couldn't be spelled out more clearly than here: "The FAA has a robust and effective outreach program that can help the UAPTF reach members of the aviation community to highlight the importance of reporting UAP."
They're troubled by the underreporting (partially blamed on reluctance to change/end training missions) and "regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by those observers."
They key part is "This report provides an overview for policymakers of the challenges associated with characterizing the potential threat posed by UAP while also providing a means to develop relevant processes, policies, technologies, and training for the U.S. military and other U.S. Government (USG) personnel if and when they encounter UAP". This directly lead to the Deputy Secretary of Defense's memorandum that was also published today, which tells everyone to work together and report every sighting within two weeks. This, plus the statements released by various US politicians today, signal a shift in communication and analysis. The mentions of close calls etc. are just bonuses IMO. I wasn't expecting anything more than a call to take these sightings seriously.
The rebranding of UFO to UAP kind of says it all about this new push for information.
Edit: Updated NASA FAQ
Sounds like another call for action.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
So assuming its blowing with the wind because no wind seems unlikely at altitude, why is pointing straight then down then straight as a arrow? Looks extremely thin and frail yet unaffected by any wind
Airola
Member
Indeed, page 5 doesn't mention it
Outside of title, annexes and page 5 the entire thing is about the difficulty of data collection and analysis, which is then expanded upon in the orange box and pages 6 and 7. It couldn't be spelled out more clearly than here: "The FAA has a robust and effective outreach program that can help the UAPTF reach members of the aviation community to highlight the importance of reporting UAP."
They're troubled by the underreporting (partially blamed on reluctance to change/end training missions) and "regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by those observers."
They key part is "This report provides an overview for policymakers of the challenges associated with characterizing the potential threat posed by UAP while also providing a means to develop relevant processes, policies, technologies, and training for the U.S. military and other U.S. Government (USG) personnel if and when they encounter UAP". This directly lead to the Deputy Secretary of Defense's memorandum that was also published today, which tells everyone to work together and report every sighting within two weeks. This, plus the statements released by various US politicians today, signal a shift in communication and analysis. The mentions of close calls etc. are just bonuses IMO. I wasn't expecting anything more than a call to take these sightings seriously.
The rebranding of UFO to UAP kind of says it all about this new push for information.
Edit: Updated NASA FAQ
Sounds like another call for action.
You are reading between the lines quite a bit.
Stigma is only one part of the problems in collecting data. Them trying to create a good system and protocols and whatnot to report UAPs does not mean it's there mostly to help with the stigma. Them talking about how aviators need to understand how important it is to report these things does not mean they have been not reporting it because of stigma. Stigma is just one of the challenges in collecting data. They are just trying to make a system that is good. And it includes to make reporting less stigmatizing. This report literally does not have every page, not even "minus page five, title and annexes", focusing on stigma. That's your own dot connecting you are making there.
Last edited:
Razorback
Member
We could go on like this all night asking deeper and deeper questions about string dynamics but I'm sure we both have better things to do.
Airola
Member
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed for analysis."
It's nothing more than that. It's there to allow as many types of airborne objects for their analysis as possible. If anything, to me it seems they've made the term to be more fitting to include all kinds of "normal" but unidentified stuff too such as airborne clutter and natural atmospheric phenomena. According to the report airborne clutter is a safety hazard so that has to be investigated too.
infinitys_7th
Member
>supposed to talk about UFOs
>instead talk about birds getting sucked into engines and flying into windshields like it is a never-before understood threat
Elizondo is just another disclosure huckster at best. Ufology has seen a new one come around every year, but this takes the cake. I had wondered where the fake push to relabel UFOs as "UAPs" came from, and it is literally so that the military can set up a hotline for people to report their kid letting go of a ballon or seeing a plastic bag get caught by the wind and call it a day.
Sweet Jesus this is hysterical. And the same old line about "some are unexplained" purposefully lampshaded with secret contemporary military tech not being able to be confirmed or denied as being the answer. The UAPTF will be too busy chasing pigeons off runways to look into the SeCrEt MiLiTaRy TeCh.
Though, to be fair, Elizondo probably was being truthful when he said "UAPs" were non-human Earth-based intelligence. Most birds are undoubtedly smarter than most government and military officials. Plastic bags might even give them a run for their money.
>instead talk about birds getting sucked into engines and flying into windshields like it is a never-before understood threat
Elizondo is just another disclosure huckster at best. Ufology has seen a new one come around every year, but this takes the cake. I had wondered where the fake push to relabel UFOs as "UAPs" came from, and it is literally so that the military can set up a hotline for people to report their kid letting go of a ballon or seeing a plastic bag get caught by the wind and call it a day.
Sweet Jesus this is hysterical. And the same old line about "some are unexplained" purposefully lampshaded with secret contemporary military tech not being able to be confirmed or denied as being the answer. The UAPTF will be too busy chasing pigeons off runways to look into the SeCrEt MiLiTaRy TeCh.
Though, to be fair, Elizondo probably was being truthful when he said "UAPs" were non-human Earth-based intelligence. Most birds are undoubtedly smarter than most government and military officials. Plastic bags might even give them a run for their money.
Last edited:
Wheeljack539
Member
Airola
Member
I've been reading comment sections in the videos about this before the report and now after it.
Feels like things have been going like this:
"They lie about UFOs!! They know more than what they tell us! They have to release information to us!!"
-> Releases information, we hear supposed snippets of the report here and there, media in shock.
"Oh my god, they are telling the truth finally!! Prepare to be in shock and awe, prepare for a whole new world!"
-> Report released. Nothing that new is revealed. Snippets of report went off the mark too.
"They lie about UFOs!! They know more than what they tell us in the report!"
Feels like things have been going like this:
"They lie about UFOs!! They know more than what they tell us! They have to release information to us!!"
-> Releases information, we hear supposed snippets of the report here and there, media in shock.
"Oh my god, they are telling the truth finally!! Prepare to be in shock and awe, prepare for a whole new world!"
-> Report released. Nothing that new is revealed. Snippets of report went off the mark too.
"They lie about UFOs!! They know more than what they tell us in the report!"
Razvedka
Banned
Report was solid. They're positioning themselves for funding, support, and development to process and analyze future reports. They've legitimized the discussion and analysis of these objects, and go so far as to criticize the stigma surrounding it.
Further, a glaring omission in the analysis I'm seeing in this thread is that their work only covered the past 16ish years, and even then most of the reports are only from 2019 onward.
So with very little time and only really considering two years of data, this is what we got. But the record is clear about these things from the 40s onward.
This is a big step. People need to see the big picture.
Further, the French just released their 8 year long Sigma 2 study on UFOs today. Expertly timed.
Further, a glaring omission in the analysis I'm seeing in this thread is that their work only covered the past 16ish years, and even then most of the reports are only from 2019 onward.
So with very little time and only really considering two years of data, this is what we got. But the record is clear about these things from the 40s onward.
This is a big step. People need to see the big picture.
Further, the French just released their 8 year long Sigma 2 study on UFOs today. Expertly timed.
Last edited:
nush
Member
Airola
Member
So what happened with hyper skeptic Sam Harris being asked to a secret discussion with the goal of getting him to make it easier for us to digest the truth about extraterrestrials that inevitably comes with the report?
That may be my favorite plot line in the whole thing. Too bad it feels like we are already watching the end credits of that movie and it didn't even have a cliffhanger.
EDIT:
by the way, someone should make a meme translation video with the funny laugh guy about this. I can already see the moment where near the end he says "we got the report, we got the report! and it was nine pages.. heeeeeeeeheeheeeee... nine pages.. hehehehe... and one of it is the title page and two are annexes hhhhheeeeheheeheee"
That may be my favorite plot line in the whole thing. Too bad it feels like we are already watching the end credits of that movie and it didn't even have a cliffhanger.
EDIT:
by the way, someone should make a meme translation video with the funny laugh guy about this. I can already see the moment where near the end he says "we got the report, we got the report! and it was nine pages.. heeeeeeeeheeheeeee... nine pages.. hehehehe... and one of it is the title page and two are annexes hhhhheeeeheheeheee"
Last edited:
INC
Member
GoT of conspiracies
Airola
Member
Yeah, kinda.
It was:
-Out of 144 cases they can say of one of them with high enough confidence that it was a deflated balloon. The rest of them are still unknown.
-The unknown objects can have several explanations, from airborne clutter to natural phenomenon affecting radars and cameras, and US own secret projects to things from other governments and non-government entities.
-18 cases look to have impossible looking movement. Those could be explained by several things but we don't know it because we don't have enough data.
-Not a single word about possible extraterrestrial origin. (meaning the talk on media about them "not denying extraterrestrials could be one possible origin" was perhaps someone reading between the lines - unless of course the more detailed version sent to senate says more about that)
Maybe one can think it wasn't really a nothing burger either, but I can't imagine even them thinking it wasn't really underwhelming especially considering the hype it got. Even the earlier "these are not our (the US) tech" is actually "it's possible some of it could be secret tech from the US" according to the report. And they literally list even birds as possible explanation for some of them.
Romulus
Member
INC
Member
Basically the same as before tbh, there's something, they just have no idea what
Thats about it
Airola
Member
Feels like he is serious.
100% serious:
This report is a major step forward by bringing legitimacy to discuss any installation with an open mind and not writing it off as "another nut case".
Last edited:
Razorback
Member
What does it mean to be a skeptic of Unidentified Flying Objects?
You mean people that seem pretty confident they know what it is?
INC
Member
That there's not even a phenomena to begin with.........skeptic, are all past that now? is my point.
Don't think anyone knows what some of it is? Isn't that the point? Hence UFO/UAP.....if anyone had an definitive answer, they wouldn't unidentified...
Burnttips
Member
The biggest news out of this is some of the unexplained sightings by the military are infact ours. Meaning who ever is doing the testing isn't bothering to inform military personnel in the area. So much power you're not worried about flying in restricted air space unannounced.
Romulus
Member
What? So, US secret aircraft have been zooming around their own fighters since WW2? This isn't even remotely new.
nikolino840
Member
Razorback
Member
What counts as phenomena? Does a ballon count? That's a real object. Is someone a skeptic if they think some of this stuff is just balloons?
What about something that's not an object like lens flares or sensor malfunction? Is someone that puts forth that kind of explanation someone you would label a skeptic?
If by us all being on the same page you mean we have to discredit these kinds of explanations then I'd say no, we're not all on the same page.
Because probabilistically those kinds of explanations are still the most likely.
INC
Member
How would a balloon count? You've identified it...........if its identified its no longer............
And I see you missed what I said the first time you quoted me "only skeptical to the evidence presented"
That would cover what you said above
Airola
Member
Yeah, this is why it was changed from UFO to UAP.
To have the broadest possible term to fit in as many types of sightings as possible. "Flying object" is too narrow term to use while "airborne phenomena" can mean so much more.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked