Reading that darned UAP Report...
What does the Pentagon’s UAP Report really say?
A lot has been written about the brief but fascinating Preliminary
Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena released late on Friday, June 25,
2021 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) of the US
Department of Defense.
Hardcore skeptics and debunkers are pointing out
that the Report does not mention aliens or extraterrestrial spacecraft
as possibilities in evaluating the UAPs. In fact, it avoids that
suggestion like the plague.
Ardent UFO zealots, on the other hand, read the Report as saying that
UAPs are physical objects that for the most part have no explanation.
That leaves the door open to the possibility of alien technology, since
the Report also notes that the UAPs investigated don’t seem to be either
American or foreign technology.
|
By Chris Rutkowski
The UFO Chronicles
6-28-21
|
But what does the report actually say on all these points? What details
can we glean from its meagre nine pages of information?
First, some media outlets and UFO experts are noting that only 144 cases were
evaluated for the Report, and of those, only one had an explanation:
"We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that
case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others
remain unexplained." (p.5)
That’s a very significant detail, with almost all cases having no
explanation!
But this detail was repeated a few pages later, with a slight but significant
change in wording:
"With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high
confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a
deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset
to attribute incidents to specific explanations." (p.5)
There is a big difference between saying 143 cases have no explanation and
saying there’s not enough information to definitively explain them as specific
objects or things.
The second interesting thing to note is that the Report looked at cases reported
during a very small window of time.
"The dataset described in this report is currently limited primarily to
U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March
2021." (p.2)
More specifically:
"… the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004
and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to
better capture UAP events through formalized reporting." (p.3)
This “tailored process” is quite important, because it didn’t exist until 2019!
"No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one
in March 2019." (p.4)
And further:
"The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020…"
(p.4)
This meant that the Report was very limited in scope:
"These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021, with
the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism
became better known to the military aviation community." (p.4)
What this means is that nearly all of the only 144 cases that were examined for
the Report came from a very small time period between March 2019 and
(presumably) June 2021, perhaps only two years. It’s worse than that.
"… the USAF began a six-month pilot program in November 2020 to collect in
the most likely areas to encounter UAP…" (p.7)
So the Air Force only looked at reports from between November 2020 and April
2021 as data for the UAPTF Report, and even then, only from certain unspecified
locations. We can only speculate that these were near military installations,
and near operational theaters.
And from whom did these cases come?
"…the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed
firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we
considered to be reliable." (p.4)
So this means that a rather remarkable 144 UAP reports were submitted to the
Navy and Air Force by military personnel (mostly pilots) during only the past
few years, with possibly a few exceptions.
This should be of concern, and it is. That implies that at least once a week,
American military pilots are seeing and reporting unidentified aerial
phenomena.
And what of the sightings themselves? The unclassified version of the Report
that was made available does not mention any case specifically, save the
“deflated balloon,” and even on that one we have no details as to where or when
it was seen, or under what conditions.
The Report offers a few curious tidbits, however.
"… 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors." (p.4)
These “multiple sensors” are laid out earlier in the Report:
"… a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include
radar, infrared, optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." (p.3)
Well that’s something. Eighty cases had at least two methods of observation,
such as both radar and visual, or tracked by weaponry, although the phrasing
could be interpreted to allow for simply two different visual observations of
the same object.
Then there’s this:
"And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology: In 18
incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement
patterns or flight characteristics." (p.5)
First of all, the UAP Task Force seems to have large hands, as 18 is more than a
typical handful. Secondly, these 18 UAPs moved in such a way as to seem unlike
ordinary craft. But only 18 out of 144, so that the vast majority of UAPs did
not seem to have abnormal movement compared with conventional objects.
Furthermore, some cases involved the same object. In other words, a UAP was seen
by multiple witnesses (or sensors) and reported independently. This is also
significant because it means that at least there were three reports of the same
object, bringing the actual number of UAPs included in the Report down to 141.
One can ask if this was the situation with others as well. Only an examination
of the full, unclassified version of the Report can shed light on this.
And finally:
"The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP
demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management." (p.5)
In other words, only a fraction of the total number of cases have UAPs that move
in such a way as to defy explanation. This seems more manageable in terms of
data analyses.
Okay, then, what about the reports themselves? What do they look like?
"The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial
phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the
nature or intent of UAP." (p.3)
Right in the Executive Summary, the Pentagon cautions that the Report has its
problems. Most UAP reports are incomplete or inadequate. This isn’t at all
surprising, given that formal reporting by military personnel only has a
reporting process recently, and we have no idea what that looks like.
This also echoes the problems with Project Blue Book, the original UFO
investigation program by the Pentagon (that most people, including those on the
UAPTF, seem to have forgotten or are ignoring). Even though Blue Book involved
hundreds of UFO sightings by military personnel, many reports were judged to
have insufficient or inadequate information for evaluation, despite a formalized
reporting process.
And actually, that’s why I will now point to the Canadian UFO Survey.
The Survey has four categories of conclusions regarding UFO reports. Two are
most obvious: Explained and Unexplained. But there are two additional categories
that we have been using to classify UFO reports: Possible/Probable Explanation
and Insufficient Information. These comprise the bulk of UFO reports in the
Survey every year.
Possible/Probable Explanation is used if the description of the observed UFO
fits well with a prosaic explanation or a conventional object.
Insufficient Information is used if there is information lacking that could
help identify the UFO. A lack of a definite date or location is insufficient
information, for example.
See The - The 2020 Canadian UFO Survey
Typically, the yearly breakdown in Canada has been something like: 2% Explained,
20% Insufficient Evidence, 68% Possible Explanation (for a combined percentage
of about 88%), and 10% Unexplained. From what we know from the UAP Report, they
had 0.7% Explained, something like 87% Insufficient Information or Possible
Explanation, and 12.5% Unexplained.
Not bad, for a ballpark comparison.
If a UFO report has characteristics of, say, a drone, but the specific drone
cannot be located or the operator can’t be identified positively, the report is
not completely explained, but we suspect it may have a conventional
explanation.
And if a report is submitted but the date or time of observation is not
precisely given or known, then there isn’t full enough information to evaluate
the case.
And that’s what’s missing in the UAPTF Report. It appears as though they were
considering only two options: Explained or Unexplained, without allowing for any
“grey basket” (as ufologist Stanton Friedman called it). No wiggle room.
They note this situation exactly, as noted earlier:
"With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high
confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a
deflating balloon, we currently lack
sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific
explanations." (p.5)
What were these other explanations?
"Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when
individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five
potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric
phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary
systems, and a catchall “other” bin." (p.5)
“Airborne clutter” meant “birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV), or airborne debris like plastic bags,” and “natural phenomena” include
sundogs and moisture-laden clouds that can be detected on radar.
Then there’s this one:
"USG or Industry Developmental Programs: 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." (p.5)
In other words, some UAP reports could be of classified American craft or
devices. UFO fans note correctly that the Pentagon should know if an observed
object seen by its own military personnel was one of “ours.” And indeed, the
Report states that it could not get confirmation that any UAPs were secret
American projects.
(Because, presumably, they might have been secret, and not simply “classified.”
In fact, in an unclassified report, it would be unlikely that any information on
secret programs would be provided.)
Similarly, UAPs don’t seem to be craft or vehicles belonging to China or Russia.
That we know of.
And then there’s the “catchall ‘other’ bin”:
"Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain
unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or
analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully
collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such
objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to
better understand them." (p.6)
First, note the reaffirmation that most UAPs are unidentified because of a lack
of data or information. But then the sentence goes on to note that some cases
might need “additional scientific knowledge” to understand them.
What the heck does that mean? This is a phrase that many UFO fans and experts
are pointing to as proof that notable cases such as the “Tic Tac” and the “Go
Fast” involve craft that seem to break the laws of flight and physics. They seem
to move in and out of water, accelerate but don’t make sonic booms, and so
forth.
But do they? We simply won’t know until we get more information.
What else do we know about the UAP reports?
There’s this:
"… there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size,
and, particularly, propulsion." (p.5)
Again, we don’t have the data so it’s hard to understand what this means. But
varying shapes of UFOs have been recorded for decades, and there are some shapes
that seem more common than others. Similarly, with sizes. (See, for example, the
Canadian UFO Survey statistics.)
The “propulsion” observation likely means that the witness did not see an
visible means of propulsion for the UAP, which is almost universal (pardon the
pun).
"UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing
grounds…" (p.5)
Of course they did. Most reports were from military pilots.
One of the most significant parts of the Report was in bold capital letters:
"UAP THREATEN FLIGHT SAFETY AND, POSSIBLY, NATIONAL SECURITY." (p.6)
That almost didn’t need the emphasis. If UAP are being seen by military
personnel in and around military installations or bases, and if there’s no
explanation for some of the objects seen, then that’s obviously of concern.
The Report states in no uncertain terms:
"UAP pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if
some instances represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military
activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace
technology by a potential adversary." (p.6)
If UAPs are flying circles around jet fighters, then that’s a problem. Okay, so
what happens when a pilot does see something? What does he or she do about it?
"When aviators encounter safety hazards, they are required to report these
concerns." (p.6)
Indeed, pilots are required to report UAPs (and UFOs), according to flight
regulations. In Canada, this directive is found in NAV Canada instructions on
CIRVIS reporting, under Transport Canada regulations:
1.14.2.1 CIRVIS Reports – Vital Intelligence Sightings
Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings
(CIRVIS) reports should be made immediately upon a vital intelligence
sighting of any airborne and ground objects or activities that appear to be
hostile, suspicious, unidentified or engaged in possible illegal smuggling
activity. Examples of events requiring CIRVIS reports are: unidentified
flying objects…
AIP CANADA / Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital
Intelligence Sightings (CIRVIS)
(Yes, the term unidentified flying object (UFO) is actually used in Canada, not
UAP.)
Okay, so pilots are supposed to report UAPs, but the UAP Report acknowledges
that they might not be believed, and one challenge in studying UAPs is that:
"Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from
the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP,
reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues. Although 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." (p.4)
The Report goes on to note ways in which it is hoping to overcome witness
reporting hesitancy, including by working with the FAA to reach out to pilots
who might have seen UAPs.
The FAA has its own way of gathering UAP data, analogous to the Transport Canada
and NAV Canada:
"The FAA captures data related to UAP during the normal course of managing
air traffic operations. The FAA generally ingests this data when pilots and
other airspace users report unusual or unexpected events to the FAA’s Air
Traffic Organization.The FAA captures data related to UAP during the normal
course of managing air traffic operations. The FAA generally ingests this
data when pilots and other airspace users report unusual or unexpected
events to the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. (p.7) (p.7)"
But by acknowledging that serious UFO research by members of the scientific
community has helped lessen the “stigma” of UAP reporting, the Report suggests
that civilian UFO research is having an impact on concerted studies in this
field.
This of course leads to the obvious question of who will be paying for UAP
studies by scientists. The Report offers this in its final paragraph:
"The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development
could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report." (p.7)
Send some of that our way, please.
