Avi Loeb announced to lead new "UAP Science Advisory Council" for White House

[RobertBillyBob]

Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/a-survey-on-public-attitudes-toward-the-pursue-uap-records-release-77816f97553d




Not sure why it matters what I think if this is a search for facts. Data sharing with war.gov ?

The image Avi chose to illustrate the article :

Why not use an image from the PURSUE files to illustrate a survey about the PURSUE files?
This is a free setup for an expectation vs reality meme.

 

[Ann K]

The image Avi chose to illustrate the article : View attachment 91687
Why not use an image from the PURSUE files to illustrate a survey about the PURSUE files?
This is a free setup for expectation vs reality meme.

Well, that's not science-fictiony at all! /s
Complete with the giant hole-in-the-mountain Secret UFO Base that nobody has ever noticed before ...tell me, is this off the cover of a comic book? To my skeptical eye, this image doesn't advertise the program but is more likely to make a laughingstock of the entire project.

 

[jumbobob]

It is a really bizarre picture to use, it already sets an expectation that these orb UAP's are adversarial?
If you dig into the survey it asks questions around how intimidated you/family/inner circle would be by confirmation of NHI/UAP's.

Dying to see the theme of how these results will be communicated.

 

[FatPhil]

Well, that's not science-fictiony at all! /s
Complete with the giant hole-in-the-mountain Secret UFO Base that nobody has ever noticed before ...tell me, is this off the cover of a comic book? To my skeptical eye, this image doesn't advertise the program but is more likely to make a laughingstock of the entire project.

But that's where the money is. A trillion dollars of money...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_glZliJDvE

 

[jarlrmai]

Probably they will be the current grads/undergrads that these guys have under them.

Avi Loeb will probably just use it to get time on important instruments to check out its wild theories about various rocks and then the rest will probably be laundering thier friends pet theories.

 

[jarlrmai]

Leaving aside the obvious history of those chosen for this board the selection of apparent skillsets (physics, astronomy, exobiology etc) would seem to have put the conclusions first.

I.e. craft exhibiting new physics with aliens from other planets.

But as we have seen this conclusion is far from a given and different expertise is needed to even show something is there that might require different skills before we bring in the exobiology etc people.

 

[jumbobob]

But as we have seen this conclusion is far from a given and different expertise is needed to even show something is there that might require different skills before we bring in the exobiology etc people.

That will be for the Biology Advisory Counsel 2028/9
/s?

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I mean exobiologists will probably be very disappointed if they started studying UAPs seriously.
I think we might just see that.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

It is a really bizarre picture to use, it already sets an expectation that these orb UAP's are adversarial?
If you dig into the survey it asks questions around how intimidated you/family/inner circle would be by confirmation of NHI/UAP's.

Dying to see the theme of how these results will be communicated.

The fact that the orbs are being labeled as "intelligent" feels like a conclusion drawn before having any conclusive data.
It doesn't seem like an "unbiased" approach. I believe a serious study on UAPs requires more skeptics on the team. It's hard to conduct objective research if you assume an alien origin beforehand.

 

[Todd Feinman]

The fact that the orbs are being labeled as "intelligent" feels like a conclusion drawn before having any conclusive data.
It doesn't seem like an "unbiased" approach. I believe a serious study on UAPs requires more skeptics on the team. It's hard to conduct objective research if you assume an alien origin beforehand.

Maybe Mick should contact Avi and offer SITREC and his services as an advisor. I'm sure Avi knows about Mick.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Maybe Mick should contact Avi and offer SITREC and his services as an advisor. I'm sure Avi knows about Mick.

Now, how many skeptics would I like for such a study? To quote someone we all know "a whole fleet of them!".

 

[Todd Feinman]

"a whole fleet of them!".

You'd have skeptics dropping from space and terrifying fighter pilots?!

 

[Todd Feinman]

You'd have skeptics dropping from space and terrifying fighter pilots?!

I've always advocated for Mick being beamed up! Nothing would silence skeptics like a message from Mick surrounded by aliens in a UFO cockpit.

 

[purpleivan]

Given what most of red/orange "orbs" turn out to be, I guess there was just a celebration going on that evening, in the secret base.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Maybe Mick should contact Avi and offer SITREC and his services as an advisor. I'm sure Avi knows about Mick.

It sounds good, especially to us, but unfortunately Mick is seen as kryptonite in UFO circles. There's a lot of the UFO world that would cry foul, even if members of Loeb's little group, or their subordinates, were just found to be using SITREC independently. It's a very powerful tool and they should definitely be using it, but I'd be surprised, pleasantly, if they actually do.

USOlogist see Mick as a debunker and by extension his SITREC tool is for debunking. They don't want stuff debunked, they want it confirmed.

Ultimately, I see a few scenarios coming out of this. Even with UFOlogists like Loeb, Szydagis, Gallaudet and the rest on this counsel, nothing much beyond what we've seen for decades will be offered up. The usual fuzzy photos, something out of context in IR, a supposed radar track and lot's anecdotes. This will lead to:

• The counsel members doubling down on fuzzy photos, anecdotes and the like being truly anomalous. Just a continuation of the current situation where anything "unidentified" is identified as likely aliens.
• The counsel members doubling down on the cover-up angle. The true good stuff is still being hidden by some nefarious cabal. As they are supposedly a Presidentialy appointed counsel, this gets increasingly difficult.
• The counsel reveals the good stuff, the actual proof of alien visitation.
• The counsel, faced with the overwhelming lack of evidence, conceads there likely is no alien visitation.

I think the first 2 are the most likely.

 

[Gary C]

It sounds good, especially to us, but unfortunately Mick is seen as kryptonite in UFO circles. There's a lot of the UFO world that would cry foul, even if members of Loeb's little group, or their subordinates, were just found to be using SITREC independently. It's a very powerful tool and they should definitely be using it, but I'd be surprised, pleasantly, if they actually do.

USOlogist see Mick as a debunker and by extension his SITREC tool is for debunking. They don't want stuff debunked, they want it confirmed.

Ultimately, I see a few scenarios coming out of this. Even with UFOlogists like Loeb, Szydagis, Gallaudet and the rest on this counsel, nothing much beyond what we've seen for decades will be offered up. The usual fuzzy photos, something out of context in IR, a supposed radar track and lot's anecdotes. This will lead to:

• The counsel members doubling down on fuzzy photos, anecdotes and the like being truly anomalous. Just a continuation of the current situation where anything "unidentified" is identified as likely aliens.
• The counsel members doubling down on the cover-up angle. The true good stuff is still being hidden by some nefarious cabal. As they are supposedly a Presidentialy appointed counsel, this gets increasingly difficult.
• The counsel reveals the good stuff, the actual proof of alien visitation.
• The counsel, faced with the overwhelming lack of evidence, conceads there likely is no alien visitation.

I think the first 2 are the most likely.

Or one or more members drop out citing "irreconcilable differences", etc.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Or one or more members drop out citing "irreconcilable differences", etc.

I think Mick would be a good addition to the team; he shouldn't be perceived as "Micktonite". If you're going to be looking at technical data, he'd be a much better choice for a skeptic.

 

[MonkeeSage]

I just saw that Avi Loeb did a Q&A stream with science communicator John Michael Godier on June 18th where they discussed the council.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKUUD9YZS8


The whole thing is over 2 hours long and I have only listened to the first 30 minutes. These were some interesting bits so far about the nature of the council and the data they will have access to.

04:32

Loeb: Just a week ago there was the third batch of released files and in it there was a report from the director of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution office, doctor Dr. John Kosowski, in which he mentions an event uh that lasted two days in October 2023 where very serious people, law enforcement officials, noticed objects that they cannot fully explain and after analysis of their report AARO decided that 40% of the phenomena reported couldn't be explained by the technologies we're familiar with either in the US or in adversarial nations. So this is very puzzling and how often do you see government official admitting that they're not doing their job? I mean we we pay on the order of a trillion dollars for the defense budget of 2026 and yet there are objects in the sky that we cannot figure out. So what is unusual about this report is it could have been submitted as a classified memo to Pete Hegseth. If there was a serious suspicion that these are these orbs that give birth to smaller orbs in some cases might be drones produced by an adversarial nation. But instead this report was made public and on the same week I was asked to lead this council with a group of scientists that I assembled.

Loeb is referring to the Western United States Event, which is completely based on witness reporting. MB thread about it here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dow-uap-d077-to-d083-western-us-event.14951/

He seems to be implying that the statements made by AARO head Jon Kosloski in the analysis of that case are the basis for his council being created.

AARO assesses that the features described by the reporting agents are sufficiently anomalous to warrant continued investigation into the nature of the underlying incident. AARO intends to integrate scientific modeling capabilities from partner agencies within the Federal Government, expertise from scientific and academic institutions, and insights from multi-domain, multispectral data exploitation techniques to inform its assessment of this and other reported UAP cases in the western United States region. AARO will continue to update its analytic tradecraft to incorporate the best scientific and intelligence analysis practices to resolve anomalies with higher confidence.

Source: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/0...alysis-Update_Western-United-States-Event.pdf

Not clear if he is extrapolating or has been in direct contact with AARO and specifically asked to create the council to work with them.


Loeb says the council will only have access to unclassified data and will provide technical recommendations about acquiring data and performing analysis, but not be directly working on classified cases.

03:47

Loeb: All the data that we will study is unclassified and therefore we could share our conclusions, our analysis, our recommendations with the public. There will be no classified data brought to our attention, and that's a great blessing because scientific work is based founded on transparency and sharing of information. Everyone should be able to understand what we are talking about if we explain it well enough. And so my hope is that we will be able to promote a resolution to uh the mystery of uh UAPs unidentified anomalous phenomena. At the moment their nature is unclear.

07:39

Godier: Now Dr., @cmoneill asks, and this is a very relevant question because I guarantee everybody's asking this one. If you discover aliens in the investigation, will you tell us?

Loeb: Of course.

Godier: And who would you report to first and would it depend on, you know, would it depend on their them to allow disclosure, which I would assume would be the US president, right?

Loeb: Well as I mentioned our council will only deal with unclassified information. So we will analyze it. We will recommend better techniques to get to the bottom of this mystery and that means recommending sensors and AI algorithms for analyzing the data, or we might do analysis that already gives us some hints about the nature of the object, and you know that's the way science is done. It's a learning experience. It takes time and at the end you know, if we end up concluding that we observed something that is definitely not human made, I think that information should be shared with the public. There is no reason to hide it because we are all in the same boat.

11:06

Godier: Now what sort of data sets are you going to be you have access to? In other words, it was floated by one of the previous directors of Arrow to set up instrument packages on you know assets, you know, military assets and things like that, you know, air bases and perhaps aircraft carriers, things like that. Is there any possibility of that here getting those data sets for your analysis?

Loeb: Yeah, of course that's very relevant. I mean that's in the spirit also of the Galileo project that I'm leading. We built three observatories with an advanced set of sensors. We are now analyzing data on millions of objects and we do triangulation to figure out their distance, velocity, acceleration. And the same can be done of course by AARO and they have a parallel program. So, indeed we can encourage them to collect data of particular types. we can guide them as to how to get the the missing data that we need in order to figure out the nature of these objects. And at the end of the day, you know, it's a collaborative process. Even if they have access to classified information that we don't, we can basically guide them as to how to figure out what is going on. Now, of course, there are lots of theories about what the government has and and some testimonies in front of Congress argue that they have materials and even biologics from crash sites. I haven't seen any any of that. And if obviously if there is such evidence beyond any doubt, you know, that would resolve the issue very quickly. But I haven't seen it as of now. So, I don't know what to make of it. You know it's still possible that we're dealing with retrieval and reverse engineering uh projects from crash sites of human made technologies. So just imagine airplanes falling down in a battlefield. Of course you want to retrieve them and figure out the technologies. Of course, you will have biologics there. And of course, you you might the intelligence might use some code names for those and call them aliens, and then someone looks at the document and thinks that they recovered real aliens. So that's always a possibility that could trigger some confusion. And until I see the evidence directly, you know, I would not necessarily believe the narrative in Steven Spielberg's movie where he actually shows at the end, the conclusion of the film, he shows bodies of aliens and videos of those that were in possession of the US government.

26:18

Godier: @JonnoPlays asks, "Sorry if you answered this already. What's up with the sensors? You going to be getting your own? Military giving you access to theirs? Inventing new ones specific to the task?"

Loeb: Yeah, so, my hope is that we can recommend that. I mean once we look at data and decide that the missing information is this and that, you know, we identify what's missing in order to crack down the mystery. We can say, "please try to build sensors that will get us this data." If you remember many of these videos that were released so far had the redacted information in them, and as long as their information is not classified, you know I think it would be very useful to know the context, what was the camera attached to, what was the distance between the camera and the objects that we're dealing with, if that is known. Having multiple sensors looking at the same object allows also not only to triangulate and figure out the distance and velocity and acceleration of the object, but also verify that it's a real object and not just an optical illusion, and also it allows to narrow down the possibility of what the objects the object might be. So I would say multi-sensor data would be the most effective in figuring out whether we're dealing with the outliers beyond the performance envelope of human made technologies.

 

[John J.]

To my skeptical eye, this image doesn't advertise the program but is more likely to make a laughingstock of the entire project.

I think a minority of people will consider this a realistic illustration, or at least an informed artist's impression of something that might be anticipated. Personally, I don't think Avi Loeb's use of it is helpful.

Books and magazines about UFOs have used highly dramatic (and almost certainly unrealistic) illustrations of "our" aircraft encountering UFOs for many years, sometimes supposedly based on real events, before the proliferation of similar images on the internet.

From Usborne's children's book "World of the Unknown: UFOs", 1977; at left the 1948 Mantell case; right, the September 1976 Iranian encounter

A selection of UFO magazines (and Fortean Times, which discusses strange phenomena) from various countries.
As far as I know these are "serious" publications aimed mainly at adults. (Quickly cobbled together from the internet, I didn't save details).

It is a trope, almost a cliché of the UFO scene. But it has almost certainly never happened in the way the illustrations might suggest- there's no evidence for it.

Many military aircraft carry cameras. In WW2, many fighter aircraft carried gun cameras, there's lots of relatively clear footage from then on of targeted aircraft, often of identifiable type, taken in situations where all those involved must have been in mortal danger. Aviation optics, both visible spectrum and IR, have improved significantly since then; the equivalent aircraft themselves are much faster, have greater ranges and can fly at higher altitudes. Their radar can detect things beyond visual range, which aircrew might engage or approach to inspect visually.

Yet we have no clear, unambiguous photos of unidentified exotic flying artefacts taken by aircraft.
Even though we are told UFOs can be large, hover for protracted periods, are seen close-up by ground observers and sometimes land.

What we have is GIMBAL, perhaps non-optimal IR imagery that doesn't resemble the shape of its far-away source, and Underwood's Tic Tac seen on an ATFLIR display but not seen by eye outside the aircraft. Fravor and Dietrich didn't use any optics/ cameras. Their USN predecessors Goose and Maverick at least had a Polaroid to hand
Oh. and we now have several bits of (mainly) IR footage apparently showing small flying things, often in environments where the presence of small flying/ airborne things like birds, perhaps small drones, balloons etc. can't be ruled out.

Evidence of aircraft-UFO "close encounters" witnessed from the ground is equally lacking, e.g. the 1988 Puerto Rico photos taken by Amaury Rivera Toro are (let's be realistic) part of a hoax, the Calvine photo probably a hoax (and convincingly replicated using modest means).

Avi Loeb's picture does not reflect anything for which we have testable evidence.
Nor is there any real reason to believe it portrays an even remotely likely scenario. It's not like, e.g., a NASA artist's impression of a proposed future Moon habitat, it is, as @Ann K said (well, implied) science fiction- and schlocky science fiction.
More Battle: Los Angeles than Arrival.
I'm genuinely surprised Avi Loeb has chosen to associate his involvement in the proposed UAP advisory council with such an image.

 

[DarkLight]

Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/a-survey-on-public-attitudes-toward-the-pursue-uap-records-release-77816f97553d




Not sure why it matters what I think if this is a search for facts. Data sharing with war.gov ?

I'm not sure that they are going to appreciate my comparison of the 21st century UAP kerfluffle to the surge in garden fairy sightings in the early 20th century, but at least my opinions are now on record.

 

[John J.]

I'm not sure that they are going to appreciate my comparison of the 21st century UAP kerfuffle to the surge in garden fairy sightings in the early 20th century....

I totally agree with you, but there are significant differences, if we compare what are arguably the best examples of each:

(1) The assorted DoW/ AARO releases of footage from sensors of/ similar to Raytheon Multi-Spectrum Targeting-type optical systems,
(2) the Cottingley fairies (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies#)

The footage we see from (1) was captured by contemporary digital optics suites manufactured by major defense contractors, operated by professional military personnel.

The photos of (2) were taken by a 16-year old girl, assisted by her 9 year-old cousin, using a Butcher's Midg No.1 domestic camera, introduced c. 1902 (Camera-wiki.org https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Midg; The Living Image website https://www.licm.org.uk/livingImage/Ensign_Midg.html).

With (1), subject distance from the camera (and sometimes camera location) are not known. Details of platform and camera gimbal movements have not been supplied, but they may play an important role in apparent subject speed, acceleration and direction changes, as has been observed before (e.g. GO FAST).
The military personnel/ defense officials submitting these items of footage are necessarily anonymous, to avoid any stigma.

With (2), the exact locations were known, camera-to-subject distances could probably be calculated to within approx. 1m/ 1 yard or so. There were no dynamic factors that might have made interpreting the imagery difficult (the subjects appear to be stationary, as was the camera).
Obviously the identities of the two girls who took the photos was clear from the outset, and they knew this would be the case.
(Maybe there was less stigma in 1917, or the girls were more resilient than some (e.g.) Reaper UAS/ intelligence staff, we can only guess)

Footage from (1) often shows examples of moving areas of contrast, maybe a few pixels in extent, with few if any definable features. Where there is a little more visual information, e.g. fluctuating shapes or brightness, in some instances it might be consistent with birds. In some instances the footage might be from areas where it is plausible that other actors might be using small drones.

The photos from (2) clearly depict what appear to be diminutive, winged but otherwise clearly humanoid- but not human- creatures with crafted clothing, indicating non-human intelligence. Examination of the photographic plates showed no sign of tampering. There are accounts of such creatures from many locations over at least several centuries; there is debate as to their motives. There have been claims of abduction; other believers think they are benign.

Of course, the Cottingley fairies were fakes. But they were not demonstrated to be fakes for over 50 years.
During that time, for believers they might have been seen as self-evidently better evidence of NHI than the AARO files would have been, had they (or some approximate equivalent) existed back then.

ETI is probably more likely than fairies, which don't exist (*pfft*, there goes another one...)

But the current evidence for ETI visiting Earth is perhaps no better than the evidence for fairies in the early 20th century.
Extraordinarily, there were educated, influential people who believed the Cottingley fairy photographs were real.

I guess we should be grateful the current US administration isn't devoting time to the study of fairies, but if it did, finding an academic to lead the effort might be easier than we might have anticipated.

 

[Mendel]

I looked through the skillsets and noted a couple of regimes missing.. namely folks experienced in photography, photogrammetry and perspective analysis, also optical detection systems (inc FLIR, radar, etc..). Let's face it, I'd suspect that if we asked all these folks what are their top 10 'favourites', most if not all would be debunked 'scientifically' by the application of those disciplines. In other words we need a Mick West-ish character on that team.

Oh well, as long as Avi's got funding, we can't go wrong ..

kinda strikes me like the absence of a magician on Puthoff's Uri Geller studies

excluding the people who know how it's done

 

[jumbobob]

The fact that the orbs are being labeled as "intelligent" feels like a conclusion drawn before having any conclusive data.
It doesn't seem like an "unbiased" approach. I believe a serious study on UAPs requires more skeptics on the team. It's hard to conduct objective research if you assume an alien origin beforehand.

I'm interested in what and how the first output from the counsel will be communicated, and like said previously, how it's themed.
I'm assuming findings will be communicated by the counsel (group approved) and not Avi. And I really hope they create a website of some sort to communicate findings rather than through personal websites/social media channels.

 

[jarlrmai]

And surely if the 'legacy programme' claims are true ala Grusch etc this whole thing is really a pointless distraction and waste of time that UFO people who believe those claims to be true should be unhappy about