2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2023-01-12_14-13-19.jpg

The much anticipated 2022 UAP report is a disappointment. It certainly fails to fulfill the wishes of UFO enthusiasts seeking "disclosure" of the government's secret knowledge regarding UFO propulsion and possibly their pilots. But it's also disappointing for people seeking some clarity on if there's actually anything significant behind the story.

The majority of the report details procedural issues, talking about which departments are involved, and plans for better reporting and investigation. That's great, but what about the actual investigations?

The only data there is contained largely on page five, where the numbers are broken down in a way that will certainly be misinterpreted as evidence of large numbers of amazing craft flying around our airspace. It does not say that, but it is unfortunately ambiguous in its language, allowing people to project their own interpretation based on their preferences and their needs to sensationalize things.

There's some hard numbers, and some soft quantities. Let's start with the hard numbers

  • 0 Transmedium Objects. There's no mention of anything flying into water or space.
  • 0 Health effects from UAP encounters. "there have also been no encounters with UAP confirmed to contribute directly to adverse health-related effects"
  • 144 UAP reports from the ODNI preliminary assessment (the first "UAP report") prior to March 2021
  • 366 new UAP reports (119 were prior to March 2021, 247 after)

The 144 original UAP reports are basically ignored here, which is a shame because they probably include the Nimitz, Gimbal, and GoFast cases - i.e. the three famous Navy videos. Early reporting by ABC News and the New York Times included Pentagon officials saying that Gimbal and GoFast had been partially characterized as a sensor issue for Gimbal's famous rotation, and a parallax illusion for Go Fast. Yet there's no hint of that in the Report. The Pentagon has the opportunity to stop the speculation there, and they should do so.

The 366 new cases are broken down into:
  • 26 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (i.e. Drones)
  • 163 Balloons
  • 6 clutter, such as birds, weather events, or debris like plastic bags.
  • 171 "uncharacterized and unattributed" (a bit less than half, 47%)

Those are all the hard numbers. Where the room for speculation comes in is with the soft quantities:

  • Some of these (171) uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.
  • Many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.
  • A select number of UAP incidents may be attributable to sensor irregularities or variances, such as operator or equipment error.
  • Multiple factors affect the observation or detection of UAP, such as weather, illumination, atmospheric effects, or the accurate interpretation of sensor data.

The most likely misinterpretation of these loosely quantified statements will be to claim that 171 cases are unidentified and show unusual flight characteristics. In fact it's only some of that group of 171. The actual number is unknown. Knowledgeable sources describe it as "a small number", but won't tell you what that number is. 2? 20? It's frustratingly unclear.

It's also unclear in the "many" reports that lack good data, what number of them are also in the "unusual flight characteristics" group. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. Is there good data that clearly shows something amazing? Or are all the "interesting" cases only tantalizingly interesting because they are all in the LIZ, the Low Information Zone that characterizes all UFO reports.

Ultimately we have a small number of cases that may or may not show unusual flight characteristics and may or may not have sufficient data to demonstrate this and that data may or may not come from operator error or equipment error which may or may not have been affected by multiple factors.

We do know that all the accurately characterized objects turned out to be mundane objects, with the majority being balloons. So it's pretty safe bet that a significant portion, if not all, of the remaining cases are similar, but simply lack sufficient information to make a characterization.

There's no smoking gun here. There's the inevitable reality of UAP studies that there will always be cases that are just beyond the reach of resolution or even basic characterization. The LIZ, the Low Information Zone, can be pushed back, but it can never be eliminated. Perhaps one day a UFO will emerge from the LIZ, but there's no available evidence that has ever happened, and if that evidence exists then there's no hint of it in this report.


https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf
    550.8 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some key points:
Multiple factors affect the observation or detection of UAP, such as weather, illumination, atmospheric effects, or the accurate interpretation of sensor data. Regarding review or analysis of UAP events, ODNI and AARO operate under the assumption that UAP reports are derived from the observer’s accurate recollection of the event and/or sensors that generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments. However, ODNI and AARO acknowledge that a select number of UAP incidents may be attributable to sensor irregularities or variances, such as operator or equipment error.
Content from External Source
= data might be unreliable

Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has formulated and started to leverage a robust analytic process against identified UAP reporting. Once completed, AARO’s final analytic findings will be available in their quarterly reports to policymakers. AARO’s initial analysis and characterization of the 366 newly-identified reports, informed by a multi-agency process, judged more than half as exhibiting unremarkable characteristics:
 26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;
 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and
 6 attributed to clutter. 2
Content from External Source
= mostly balloons

Initial characterization does not mean positively resolved or unidentified. This initial characterization better enables AARO and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.
Content from External Source
= Nothing unambiguously anomalous, just things that "seem" unusual, with more study needed, and reinforce in teh enxt paragraph

Regardless of the collection or reporting method, many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.
Content from External Source

Flight Safety Concerns and Health Implications UAP pose a safety of flight and collision hazard to air assets, potentially requiring aircraft operators to adjust flight patterns in response to their unauthorized presence in the airspace, operating outside of air traffic control standards and instruction. To date, there have been no reported collisions between U.S. aircraft and UAP. Regarding health concerns, there have also been no encounters with UAP confirmed to contribute directly to adverse health-related effects to the observer(s). Acknowledging that health-related effects may appear at any time after an event occurs, AARO will track any reported health implications related to UAP should they emerge.
Content from External Source
= no evidence of health effects from UAP encounters
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
That all sounds rather reasonable and level-headed. Some people aren't going to like this, or they'll glom on to the unidentifiable encounters as "proof" the government admits there are aliens in our skies:

Regardless of the collection or reporting method, many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.
Content from External Source

I'll also note that right on the opening page it says "unclassified", so you know, the good stuff must be in the "classified" report:

1673548523332.png
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
AARO and ODNI assess that the observed increase in the UAP reporting rate is partially due to a better understanding of the possible threats that UAP may represent, either as safety of flight hazards or as potential adversary collection platforms, and partially due to reduced stigma surrounding UAP reporting.
IS a stigma against reporting a problem in official circles? I'm thinking, for example, of the starlink sightings, which continue to be reported by professional pilots. Now that they've been well identified and the parameters for sighting them have been clarified, I would expect there to be fewer reported sightings in the future, not more. Do we know of any significant number of cases in which a person failed to report something for fear of being laughed at or censured?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jplaza

Active Member
Regardless of the collection or reporting method, many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.
Content from External Source
I'd say that's the definition of LIZ
I'll also note that right on the opening page it says "unclassified", so you know, the good stuff must be in the "classified" report:
I don't think so. In the 2021 report, the classified part was just a few pages longer, but without any interesting detail. These seem to be annual reports just to tell senators they are working on it, an "overview" of what they are doing, but not really going into details. I think the "good stuff" (or maybe , "better stuff than this"), would be found in the "quarterly reports":

Scope and assumptions
(...)
This report provides an overview for policymakers of UAP1 that have been reported since the 05 March 2021 information cut-off date for ODNI’s preliminary assessment on UAP, published 25 June 2021. Per the NDAA, AARO delivers quarterly reports on UAP to policymakers that contain greater detail regarding analysis and attribution of UAP events.
Content from External Source
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
IS a stigma against reporting a problem in official circles? I'm thinking, for example, of the starlink sightings, which continue to be reported by professional pilots. Now that they've been well identified and the parameters for sighting them have been clarified, I would expect there to be fewer reported sightings in the future, not more. Do we know of any significant number of cases in which a person failed to report something for fear of being laughed at or censured?

More sightings are likely, not fewer. From the last paragraph of the executive summary:

Article:
UAP events continue to occur in restricted or sensitive airspace, highlighting possible concerns for safety of flight or adversary collection activity. We continue to assess that this may result from a collection bias due to the number of active aircraft and sensors, combined with focused attention and guidance to report anomalies.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
My main takeaways:

(1) Similar in content and format to the 2021 UAP report. Concise, no-frills and circumspect.

(2) The classified portion is unlikely to "wow" senators/congressmen just as in 2021.

(3) Just like in 2021, the scarcity of high quality sensor data, rather than a governmental attempt to hide important secrets, contributes to the modesty and low resolution of the report itself, including probably the classified portion.

(4) In the absence of "high certainty" evidence, low quality data will never cease to fuel ufology.

(5) That UFO theorization invariably concerns itself with low quality data is to be expected from any exercise requiring speculative latitude.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
More sightings are likely, not fewer. From the last paragraph of the executive summary:

Article:
UAP events continue to occur in restricted or sensitive airspace, highlighting possible concerns for safety of flight or adversary collection activity. We continue to assess that this may result from a collection bias due to the number of active aircraft and sensors, combined with focused attention and guidance to report anomalies.
That wasn't my question. They mentioned a stigma against reporting UAPs, and I questioned whether that was likely to be the case.
 

Duke

Active Member
IS a stigma against reporting a problem in official circles? I'm thinking, for example, of the starlink sightings, which continue to be reported by professional pilots. Now that they've been well identified and the parameters for sighting them have been clarified, I would expect there to be fewer reported sightings in the future, not more. Do we know of any significant number of cases in which a person failed to report something for fear of being laughed at or censured?
Stigma/fear of reporting UFOs in the military is an interesting topic, and one with which I have a good deal of experience. In a near 35 year career (NASA/USAF/DoD), I asked hundreds of both former and current USAF pilots about seeing UFOs. That number is probably over a thousand if I include aircrew other than pilots (EWOs, navigators, flight engineers, loadmasters, boom operators, gunners, etc.) and aircrew from the other US military services. I also talked to a handful of NASA pilots (including Neil Armstrong) and a few pilots from both the RAF and RN.

I'd estimate no more than 20% admitted seeing anything while airborne they could not identify. Most were visual, some on radar. Less than half that number filed reports, either officially or unofficially. Many of those who did file did so using their individual service's flight safety reporting system designed to keep tabs on, and if necessary investigate, flight safety events such as near misses and violations of air traffic regulations.

Of those who filed reports, not one mentioned any repercussions for having done so.
 

flarkey

Senior Member.
Staff member
My thoughts on....

The 366 new cases are broken down into:
  • 26 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (i.e. Drones)
  • 163 Balloons
  • 6 clutter, such as birds, weather events, or debris like plastic bags.
  • 171 "uncharacterized and unattributed" (a bit less than half, 47%)

Those are all the hard numbers. Where the room for speculation comes in is with the soft quantities:

  • Some of these (171) uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.
  • Many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.
  • A select number of UAP incidents may be attributable to sensor irregularities or variances, such as operator or equipment error.
  • Multiple factors affect the observation or detection of UAP, such as weather, illumination, atmospheric effects, or the accurate interpretation of sensor data.

Regarding the numbers , I'd like to know of the 171 "uncharacterized and unattributed"
  • How many are unable to be be identified due to poor or insufficient data ?
  • How many of these appeared to show "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities."
Also, I'd like to know a breakdown of the "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities", particularly the dynamics of the sighting, ie how many show objects moving really fast, and how many show objects moving really slow ?

Finally, can't believe how the report authors didn't include any nice pie charts in there....

1673600313490.png
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Do we know of any significant number of cases in which a person failed to report something for fear of being laughed at or censured?
From fuzzy memory, I remember interviews with military pilots about their deliberate non-reporting of what were being called sprites out of fear that either they'd be considered loonies imagining things or even just having visual issues that might make them unsuitable as pilots. It seems that now it's become a more serious field of study what the pilots were seeing are now called "jets" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric_lightning#Jets rather than "sprites" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning) , in particular as I'm sure the pilots mentioned them being blue, which is a nitrogen emission line, and associated with "blue jets". The documentary I saw was from the early 90s, hence fuzziness, and time for the terminology to have been made more precise.

Wow! : https://noirlab.edu/public/media/archives/images/thumb700x/iotw2108a.jpg
 

flarkey

Senior Member.
Staff member
The trouble with relying so much on eye witness testimony is that there is so much room for erroneous information to creep in. Even if every single UFO sighting was actually attributable to a new weather or natural atmospheric phenomenon there would always be room for the ET or NHI hypotheses because the genuine explanation does not satisfy every eye witness account. We saw this in the recent Starlink flap.

I think that is the issue with the UAP Report when it is the hands of the UFO enthusiast. Any ambiguity is room for the unsubstantiated. Any omission is confirmation of the coverup.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Finally, can't believe how the report authors didn't include any nice pie charts in there....
I guess because it resembles a flying saucer, and they do not want to be associated with that in any way.. ;)

I seems they have not made much progress in data analysis since the previous report. But two interesting things stand out to me:
1. None of the UAP's have been explicitly attributed to a foreign power.
2. The definition of UAP has been broadened:
The FY 2022 NDAA expands the definition of UAP to include air, sea, and transmedium objects, and this report
maintains that nomenclature during the transition phase and stand up of AARO.
Content from External Source
The definition of "transmedium" given in the report is:

Transmedium Objects or Devices: Objects or devices that are observed to transition
between space and the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and bodies of water,
that are not immediately identifiable.
Content from External Source
 

flarkey

Senior Member.
Staff member
@Itsme Yeah, I noticed the definition of UAP in the report...

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed for analysis.

So the only criteria for an object being noteworthy is that it is not immediately identifiable. By who - the original observer? Using what - their eyes or sensor data? When - at the time, or on video playback?

With the establishment of the AARO and the team who are looking into each of these reports , it then creates a sub - category : Airborne objects not identifiable after thorough analysis by suitably qualified and experienced personnel - which is by its nature subjective and dependent upon those individuals who have access to and have analysed the data.

This can then presumably be split into the two further categories that I mentioned above:
  • Those that are unable to be be identified due to poor or insufficient data.
  • Those with sufficient good quality data that appeared to show "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities" which prohibits them from being identified as a known phenomena.
The last of these can again be split into two categories.
  • Those that appeared to show "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities" due to sensor irregularities or variances, such as operator or equipment error. (this is mentioned in the report)
  • Those that actually have "unusual flight characteristics or [advanced] performance capabilities".
I suggest this last category is very small.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I suggest this last category is very small.
So, your saying there's a chance! Aliens are real.

I like your breakdown of categories, but we know that no matter how small the final list of "unidentified" is, that's where the action is.

The few morning news snippets I caught this morning were all focused on the 171 cases that were "uncharacterized and unattributed" and that displayed "unusual flight characteristics or advanced performance capabilities".

Clearly those looking for "disclosure" were disappointed as all they really got was 171 "maybes" to pick through.

Going forward, I do see where this could backfire a bit on the UFOlogists. Supposedly some part of this group, or a completely different one, is supposed to go back and look at previous UFO sightings, including Roswell, Scirocco, the Echo flight missile shutdown and according to Vallee, his pet project Trinty:

The National Defense Authorization Act, which passed Congress this month, includes a section requiring the Department of Defense's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to review and prepare a report on all previous government investigations of UFOs dating back to 1945.

The bill's text previously only went back to 1947, but a late amendment changed it to '45.
Content from External Source
'I was not involved in the drafting of the legislation, but several of my DC friends were, and they got the date of the investigation pushed back to 1945,' Vallée told DailyMail.com.

'Several of the Congressmen involved have the book that Paola Harris and I wrote about our research at (the alleged crash site called) Trinity.'
Content from External Source
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...1945-crash-mysterious-avocado-shaped-UFO.html via Jason Colavito's blog: https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...amended-to-incorporate-his-crashed-ufo-claims

IF that happens, there is the possibility that Vallee's Trinty case is reveled to be just the clouded memories of some octogenarians and bits of industrial waste. Likewise, the Echo flight missile case or others could be shown to be hyped up and largely irrelevant.

Quite the opposite of disclosure.
 

Itsme

Active Member
It's interesting that one of the requirements to the UAP report is:

(G) Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by unidentified aerial phenomena to the national security of the United States.
Content from External Source
Yet the investigation seems to
efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.
Content from External Source
Apparently, the characterized UAPs, such as:
26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities
Content from External Source
demand less attention than the ones that appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities?
 

dimebag2

Active Member
The trouble with relying so much on eye witness testimony is that there is so much room for erroneous information to creep in. Even if every single UFO sighting was actually attributable to a new weather or natural atmospheric phenomenon there would always be room for the ET or NHI hypotheses because the genuine explanation does not satisfy every eye witness account. We saw this in the recent Starlink flap.

I think that is the issue with the UAP Report when it is the hands of the UFO enthusiast. Any ambiguity is room for the unsubstantiated. Any omission is confirmation of the coverup.
Does it ever occur to you that what keeps "UFO enthusiasts" interested is the non-resolution (or disclosure) of famous UAP cases. As a reminder, DoD themselves published the three Navy videos on their website in 2020, saying they show unidentified things, while no revealing any sensible system capability. So nothing harmful to national security, in their words.

3 years later, and after two UAP reports and one Congress hearing, the DoD (through Bray and Moultrie) says one is still unexplained (Nimitz), while they obviously have more data than we do. And no mention of the Gimbal/GoFast during hearing or in the reports. If these two were explained, DoD could very easily end speculation around them. Why not doing so?

People who closely follow UAP investigations are also not fools and they realize mundane explanations for these videos are still disputed, as there are still of lot of questions around them.

I think there is much more than UFO enthusiasts reading what they want in the report, there is still clear ambiguity around some very well-known cases, for the good reason that they are difficult to explain.

We hear less about racetrack patterns seen by pilots these days, because they have been convincingly explained as Starlink flares, thanks to you guys (especially you Flarkey). This is what is lacking for Gimbal, FLIR1/Nimitz, to a degree less GoFast. IMO
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
This is what is lacking for Gimbal, FLIR1/Nimitz, to a degree less GoFast. IMO
Having followed threads on those vids on this site, and some of the more recent statements by "the military," while I'd agree that they have not been identified down to the "It was these specific starlink satellites, here we can predict when you can look and see these other specific starlinks flaring in the same way" level, it has been pretty conclusively demonstrated that what is shown in the vids and claimed to be mysterious/impossible flight characteristics (rotating in flight in a weird way, suddenly accelerating out of frame at impossible speeds, going fast) does not in fact happen. We don't know exaclty what plane or flight they were, or what balloon/bird. We do know that they don't DO anything of interest -- at least to my satisfaction, and recognizing that your level of satisfaction may vary! ^_^
 

dimebag2

Active Member
(rotating in flight in a weird way, suddenly accelerating out of frame at impossible speeds, going fast)
All these claims originate from TTSA. What the aviators say is more nuanced. Like you say it depends on what the goal is. Debunk TTSA, or explain? That needs to be clearly stated when discussing those.

If the goal is to explain and you say those are random planes and a balloon, we need to discuss and be careful/precise. There are problems with FLIR1/Gimbal being random distant planes. GoFast may not go at 2/3 the speed of sound, but there are problems with it being a party balloon. I've pointed to this in the dedicated theads, don't want to go off-topic here.

Debunking TTSA is great (glowing aura and 2/3 speed of sound being the worst claims imo), but it is different than solving the videos.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
  • Those that appeared to show "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities" due to sensor irregularities or variances, such as operator or equipment error. (this is mentioned in the report)
  • Those that actually have "unusual flight characteristics or [advanced] performance capabilities".
I suggest this last category is very small.
I think for both of those categories, they could determine what other features they should exhibit if they were as large or as fast as they appear. Such things as a significant heat signature or a sonic boom, being interactions with what's been referred to as "Air 1.0", are not a characteristic of the object we don't understand, but of the atmosphere which we do, and no amount of "mysterious alien technology" of the craft is going to change that. If the other features are not present when they should be, a good many of these could be wiped off the books and put down to mistaken identity.

Can we get the last two categories down to the size we can drown them in the bathtub?
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
I'm surprised people are not talking about the slide show Sean Kirkpatrick presented recently and has been released about AARO. It seems to have some good bits in it
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Debunking TTSA is great (glowing aura and 2/3 speed of sound being the worst claims imo), but it is different than solving the videos.
Fair enough. I'd come down on "insufficient data" to "solve" any of them down the specific flight number or such. Maybe more info will eventually allow that. Given that none of them do anything amazing, or unusual, though, I'm not to stressed about knowing exactly what they were... they look like mundane things would look, they don't do much... odds are high that they are mundane things.
 

TinFoilHat

New Member
My thoughts on....



Regarding the numbers , I'd like to know of the 171 "uncharacterized and unattributed"
  • How many are unable to be be identified due to poor or insufficient data ?
  • How many of these appeared to show "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities."
Also, I'd like to know a breakdown of the "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities", particularly the dynamics of the sighting, ie how many show objects moving really fast, and how many show objects moving really slow ?

Finally, can't believe how the report authors didn't include any nice pie charts in there....

1673600313490.png
Nice chart. I'd really like to know the shape of these "other". The last classified report had Common UAP shapes redacted. I find it very odd that common shapes are classified. How many times have tic tac shape crafts been observed, or is the saucer shape also observed?
 

Ernest

New Member
include the Nimitz, Gimbal, and GoFast cases ... The Pentagon has the opportunity to stop the speculation there, and they should do so.

I agree with you that the report is very procedural issues and little or no data.
But, don't you think that if they could have disproved these bulky cases they would have done so very willingly? Just as they got rid of almost 200 objects, why would they hold back on these 3.
Don't you think the answer is that these objects may not be what you think they are? It seems to me that Elizondo also told you this when you interviewed him, that there is a lot of other evidence and a lot of other data that you don't have access to, and without which it is impossible to establish anything correct.
How can you make judgments without taking into account, for example, Radar data, which was certainly present in all 3 of these events?
And in the Congressional Hearing on UFOs last May, Scott Bray himself, when asked about the Nimitz case says that "we have data on that, and that simply remain unresolved.... being something that is difficult to explain."
If as you claim they are just sensor issue or parallax illusion problems, don't you think they would not be that difficult to explain?
Clearly these data they have are not going in the direction of sensor issues or parallax illusion.
What they lead to is not yet known, but certainly not these simplistic assumptions.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
The last classified report had Common UAP shapes redacted. I find it very odd that common shapes are classified. How many times have tic tac shape crafts been observed, or is the saucer shape also observed?
Or "distant point light sources" and other LIZ stuff.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Regarding the numbers , I'd like to know of the 171 "uncharacterized and unattributed"
  • How many are unable to be be identified due to poor or insufficient data ?
  • How many of these appeared to show "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities."
Also, I'd like to know a breakdown of the "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities", particularly the dynamics of the sighting, ie how many show objects moving really fast, and how many show objects moving really slow ?

Finally, can't believe how the report authors didn't include any nice pie charts in there....

1673600313490.png
This ambiguity is leading to journalist misinterpreting things, NPR:
Article:
The Pentagon's new office for investigating potential UFO sightings received hundreds of new reports in 2022, and while it can explain more than half of those events, a sizable chunk remains a mystery.

Within the new batch of sightings, the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence say, they're focusing on some 171 cases in which objects "appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."


I issued a sternly worded tweet:
Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1614308627413893120
 

TinFoilHat

New Member
Or "distant point light sources" and other LIZ stuff.

Or "distant point light sources" and other LIZ stuff.
But really is there any justification within reason classify a common shape of an observed object? Especially if the shape is observed with the naked eye, and sensors. Seeing a shape with the naked eye that is not giving away sources and methods.

The only time a shape is given in the range foulers reports is when it has been determined to be a prosaic object, such as the deflated balloon report. All other reports have the shape description redacted.

I'd like to know the common shapes and I'm really puzzled why no one seems to care about this aspect and bring this up. We know only the tic tac shape, which has no wings or exhaust heat signature, so how does it fly?!
 

Itsme

Active Member
This whole report is in the "Low Information Zone". For instance this part:

AARO’s initial analysis and characterization of the 366 newly-identified reports, informed by a multi-agency process, judged more than half as exhibiting unremarkable characteristics:
- 26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;
- 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and
- 6 attributed to clutter.

Initial characterization does not mean positively resolved or unidentified. This initial characterization better enables AARO and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.
Content from External Source
So it seems their initial filtering was based on 'unremarkable' characteristics (whithout any further explanation what that means). It seems that Umanned Aircraft Systems, balloons, and clutter are seen as 'unremarkable'.

More than half of the UAP reports was 'unremarkable' in that sense, and resources are now mainly focused on the remaining ones. Some of the remaining ones require further analysis because they "appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities". Does that mean the rest of the remaining ones will not be analyzed any further?

The big question is: Would this be a logical approach if you are primarily trying to improve flight safety and are searching for spying drones from foreign countries? Because this is what they seem to imply in the report. An 'unremarkable' UAS can still come from a foreign country and an 'unremarkable' balloon can still be a flight safety risk. 'Remarkability' does not seem a logical initial filter if you are mainly looking for these, not does it make sense to focus your efforts on the remaining ones in the Low Information Zone (if one assumes that is where most if them reside) if you want to find out who is spying on you.

They are clearly searching for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, not for spying adversaries or flight safety hazards. That in itself is interesting.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Senior Member
They are clearly searching for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, not for spying adversaries or flight safety hazards. That in itself is interesting.
The UAP team is a tiny and unimportant part of the DoD. There are probably (and certainly should be) greater resources elsewhere devoted to 'spying adversaries' and 'flight safety hazards'. So the UAP team is by default left to deal with the 'whacky' cases. For comparison, in the British MoD Nick Pope's 'UFO desk' was mainly concerned with handling public and media interest in UFOs, while other parts of the MoD investigated possible flight incursions by foreign powers, etc. We should also bear in mind the political and media pressures on the DoD to be seen to be 'doing something' about the currently important topic of UAPs. There is probably also a team somewhere in the DoD working on gender identification, appropriate pronouns, etc, for service personnel, but I doubt that it is a major priority!
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
But really is there any justification within reason classify a common shape of an observed object? Especially if the shape is observed with the naked eye, and sensors. Seeing a shape with the naked eye that is not giving away sources and methods.
Only one I can think of is "it is one of ours, a secret project, and the shape is part of what makes it new and secret." However, "because I feel like it" remains a possibility.

We know only the tic tac shape, which has no wings or exhaust heat signature, so how does it fly?!

First step would be to establish that something that is actually that shape, with those characteristics, is not a balloon and is flying actually exists. To my knowledge, that has not happened yet.
 

Itsme

Active Member
The UAP team is a tiny and unimportant part of the DoD.
Maybe, but according to their own report their tasks include:

(4) Evaluating links between unidentified aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or nonstate actors.
(5) Evaluating the threat that such incidents present to the United States.
Content from External Source
and their report should contain:

(G) Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by unidentified aerial phenomena to the national security of the United States.
(H) An assessment of any activity regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that can be attributed to one or more adversarial foreign governments.
(I) Identification of any incidents or patterns regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that indicate a potential adversarial foreign government may have achieved a breakthrough aerospace capability.
[...]
(M) The number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena with military nuclear assets, including strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships and submarines.
(N) In consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with facilities or assets associated with the production, transportation, or storage of nuclear weapons or components thereof.
(O) In consultation with the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena or drones of unknown origin associated with nuclear power generating stations, nuclear fuel storage sites, or other sites or facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Content from External Source
Quite a task for a "tiny and unimportant part of the DOD..
 

Itsme

Active Member
First step would be to establish that something that is actually that shape, with those characteristics, is not a balloon and is flying actually exists. To my knowledge, that has not happened yet.
It was witnessed as such by four crew members in two jets. Closest point of approach was a few thousand feet. And it made these strange maneuvers at the merge plot area where radar operators saw it rapidly descending. That to me is pretty compelling.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I'd like to know the common shapes and I'm really puzzled why no one seems to care about this aspect and bring this up. We know only the tic tac shape, which has no wings or exhaust heat signature, so how does it fly?!

Remember, many of the UFO/UAP "shapes" have changed over the years. From the late '40s it was the "flying saucer" based on the Kenneth Arnold sighting (bold by me):

This was the first post-World War II sighting in the United States that garnered nationwide news coverage and is credited with being the first of the modern era of UFO sightings, including numerous reported sightings over the next two to three weeks.

Arnold's description of the objects also led to the press quickly coining the terms flying saucer and flying disc as popular descriptive terms for UFOs
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting

This continued through the "80s with popular hoaxes like the Gulf Breez photos using the flying saucer:


Starting in the '80s and into '90s the "black triangle" became popular (bold by me):

During the early 1980s several hundred people claimed to have witnessed UFOs flying over, or near to, the Hudson River in New York state. These sightings involved hovering or slowly-flying, V-shaped objects rimmed with colorful lights.
Content from External Source
The Belgian UFO wave began in November 1989. The events of 29 November were documented by over thirty different groups of witnesses, and three separate groups of police officers. All of the reports related a large object flying at low altitude. The craft was of a flat, triangular shape, with lights underneath.
Content from External Source
A widely reported appearance(s) of black triangles involved the "Phoenix Lights" events, during which multiple unidentified objects were observed near Phoenix, Arizona and videotaped by both the local media and residents beginning on Thursday, March 13, 1997.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)

These days, it's the Tic Tak, which is just a way of saying an indistinct blob that is wider than it is tall. That's only since the release of the Navy videos in 2015, though I'm not sure when the phrase was actually coined:

Underwood recorded the FLIR video, and coined the description "Tic Tac" to describe the infrared image, but did not himself see any unusual object.[9]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

After each initial sightings, lots more followed seeing the same shape as each new shape became popular.

I'm just suggesting that the "shapes" of UFO/UAP are as much a part of the popular zietgeist as much as any actual observations.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
It was witnessed as such by four crew members in two jets. Closest point of approach was a few thousand feet. And it made these strange maneuvers at the merge plot area where radar operators saw it rapidly descending. That to me is pretty compelling.
In the absence of good supporting evidence, it is not compelling at all to me, but to each their own. I think it is very significant that the Navy case where we don't have such evidence but must rely solely on witness reports is the one that can stay mysterious, while the ones with the Atflir video and such turn out not to show strange and impossible flight characteristics at all. Witnesses are fallible, memories change over time... I put much less stock in them.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Remember, many of the UFO/UAP "shapes" have changed over the years.
In THE UFO EVIDENCE, published by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena in 1964, a statistical overview of reported shapes in the period 1942-1962 is presented:
Screenshot_2023-01-15-18-37-03-749~2.jpeg
Source: http://www.nicap.org/ufoe/section_12.htm

A "cigar shape" (cigars were more popular than tic-tacs in those days) was reported in 8,3% of the cases.
A "triangular" shape was reported in 2% of the cases.
A "disc" was reported in 26% of the cases.

So tic-tacs ('cigars') were quite common in the early years and triangles were also occasionaly observed. It is true that some UFO 'flaps' in later years were dominated by triangular shapes or V-shapes but hey, why would ET drive the same model for 70 years? ;)

Despite the variation in shapes, three of the 'five observables' have been present since the first UFO sightings:
1 Hovering while overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.
2 Sudden and instanteneous acceleration.
3 Hypersonic velocities without signatures.

This 'signature' could point to a breakthrough technology as yet unavailable to us.
 
Top