Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis

LilWabbit

New Member
Based on all the valuable Metabunk efforts so far, here is an attempt to put together a Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis (statements 1 through 7) followed by 3 observable theory-predictions (statement 8). The hypothesis has been further refined based on very valuable comments in the forums and there was a suggestion for a separate thread on the topic. Please feel free to criticize and refine the hypothesis further.

Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis


(1) All UAP evidence acquired from the DoD by the UAPTF (and its predecessor the AATIP) portrays phenomena that were initially genuinely unidentified by the military staff observing and reporting them.

(2) From this body of evidence, UAP footage, radar data and other physical records represent evidence that best lends itself to reliable scientific scrutiny, while not dismissing first person accounts.

(3) However, the low information content of these physical records render them far too open to speculation, poor for scientific verification and ultimately unimpressive as evidence. That UFO theorization invariably concerns itself with low-information-content evidence is to be expected from any exercise requiring speculative latitude.

(4) Some of the observed UAP actually feature classified US military capabilities (e.g. prototype drones and drone swarms). A large number of the incidents portray generally known phenomena (e.g. planes and weather balloons) in an optically deceptive manner. Yet some portray rival technological capabilities. Unpublicized physical records (e.g. wind speed readings) inconsistent with any of the foregoing explanations may accompany a small number of incidents. Without access to such records, however, there is no way to verify such inconsistency.

(5) File names such as GIMBAL and FLIR suggest the DoD had already entertained the explanation of a likely optical illusion for the phenomena shown in some of the footage. The DoD is obviously also aware of its classified capabilities featured in other records.

(6) AATIP (and its direct successor the UAPTF) is a contracted entity loosely under Pentagon whose existence owes to political pressure from the Congress aligned with the UFO curiosities of certain DoD personnel. The entity does not owe its origins to DoD’s official national security priorities.​
  • From the perspective of DoD core functions, the creation and operation of the AATIP (and its direct successor the UAPTF) remains a fringe exercise in compliance with congressional assignment and prompted by the merging of several political agendas within the Congress. ​
  • These agendas include a genuine interest in alien technology (e.g. Reid/Bigelow), concern for rival nation military capabilities (e.g. Rubio), as well as winning over an alien-believing demographic of voters in the name of public interest (congressmen across the aisle).​
  • DoD is unlikely to express objections if such a fringe entity secures funding from outside its core budget, concerns itself with unclassified data, and strengthens Pentagon's public relations with the Congress and the general public.​
  • However, the DoD core organization is characteristically hesitant to share classified information on military capabilities with its contracted entities, especially with unclassified ones like the AATIP/UAPTF which are perceived fringe, political and ideological.​
(7) A politically motivated and unclassified fringe exercise under the Pentagon poses some information security challenges within the DoD and has produced certain unintended consequences.​
  • The DoD, on one hand, must provide UAPTF/AATIP with unclassified material to work on. On the other, it must ensure the low information content and inconclusivity of any unclassified physical record of UAP submitted by DoD staff which, unbeknownst to the staff, features classified capabilities (e.g. the USS Omaha radar footage as possibly one such record).​
  • Any low-information-content footage acquired by DoD staff (e.g. a USS Omaha crew-member) of a classified military capability specifically designed for tactical deception (e.g. a type of drone swarm), would somewhat safely qualify as unclassified footage for the UAPTF to work with.​
  • Reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence are part and parcel of DoD’s core functions in almost every military discipline. Developing these functions to quicker and better identify potential airborne threats is a core area of constant improvement. These core military functions do not rely on a separate modestly funded and unclassified fringe entity in the Pentagon that is demonstrably limited in its capacity to identify UAP.​
  • Despite its limited capacity and limited access to classified data, since UAPTF/AATIP is known to exist under the Pentagon, it is often the go-to source sought and quoted by senior officials (both legislative and executive) and media outlets in their public communications on UAP. This has resulted in confusing public statements in which leaked UAP footage, convincingly explained as optical illusion by other sources, is presented as 'Pentagon-confirmed evidence of objects behaving in physics-defying ways.'​
(8) Three Observable Predictions from the Hypothesis:

8.1 All unclassified “UAP” footage released by the DoD will continue to be grainy, fuzzy and low in information content.

8.2 The DoD will continue to officially acknowledge that at least some of the released footage portray unidentified aerial phenomena. Such an acknowledgement does not logically imply that (1) all the UAP footage so defined is actually unidentified by Pentagon, nor point to (2) the Pentagon's deficit of plausible non-alien explanations to any of the footage.

8.3. As long as UAPTF/AATIP exists as an entity under the Pentagon, its current and former members' interpretations on UAP incidents will continue to be sought and quoted by many senior officials and media outlets as authoritative Pentagon positions. Some of these positions will continue to stand in contradiction to other more convincing explanations from other expert sources, including within Pentagon.


P.S. An official Pentagon denial of classified US military capabilities featuring in UAP footage would make sense in both scenarios; (1) such capabilities actually featuring in the footage or (2) not.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Active Member
I'd quibble on point one, and in my mind change "all" to "many." Some folks are honest, some are not, and some working in high-pressure high-stakes jobs are prone to let off steam through pranking each other and the like. While i don't KNOW that anybody generating initial reports were dishonest, or messing their comrades about with prank claims (especially during the sort of UFO flaps that seem to have occurred around a couple of carriers generating the initial three vids) I can't discount the possibility that some reports of unidentified were in fact identified by those reporting them -- possibly accounting for the way several vids chop off just as you might hope to learn more.
 

Domzh

Active Member
What stands out to me is the fact how incredibly easy the GOFAST and TRIANGLE videos are to explain (not the star ID thing Mick did, thats quite impressive).

I just cant imagine how a group of high military officials and "finest engineers" can look at these footages, can talk to the witnesses involved, can read log files and reports and actually conclude it's either highly advanced black projects or ET.

Especially when we have a seemingly obvious case of EM warfare as in the 2015/17 incidents.

I just cant imagine how higher Navy officials cant know about San Clemente Island or EM warfare. Thats borderline impossible.

Whenever I hear "high military officials" I think of Lou Elizondo and maybe one or two cherry picked eye witnesses.

Whenever I hear "scientists and engineers" I cant help myself but assume it must be Bigelows folk who did such research for AATIP. The same "scientists" that Bigelow claimed have found proof for channeling, mediums, ghosts and ghouls..

Its puzzling how all "leaked" footage is from
Navy origin and seems very well selected and cut.

I can see how these footages and quotes of "officials" can persuade the senate and your regular Joe who has other priorities in life than to do research about this stuff.

You could spin a shit ton of conspiracy theories about the "why" and "who" but this leads nowhere.

Next is Lou announcing his run for public office. How convenient he showed up on TV every day for months now, becoming the face that stands for "fighting government cover ups and lack of seriousness in national security topics".
 

LilWabbit

New Member
What stands out to me is the fact how incredibly easy the GOFAST and TRIANGLE videos are to explain (not the star ID thing Mick did, thats quite impressive).

Mick's star ID is a classic confirmation of a theory-prediction (i.e. "the background pyramids are bokeh artifacts of stars") which was preceded by the main hypothesis (i.e. "the footage features bokeh artifacts of known phenomena") which Mick employed initially to explain the airplane. He confirmed the prediction by using publicly available data on star alignments at a specified time, place and angle. This is classic scientific methodology (i.e. the so-called 'hypothetico-deductive method') used even in theoretical physics. Owing to Mick's scrupulous mini-research, the bokeh-hypothesis for the TRIANGLE video can be considered pretty much scientifically proven and thereby the 'aerial' phenomena in the footage conclusively 'identified' (IAP).

This relates to a broader dilemma when attempting to bring scientific rigour into the investigation of UAP:

i. If by "unidentified" is meant "scientifically unverified", then the DoD's internally satisfactory explanations of UAP as optical illusions (say, with respect to the GIMBAL and FLIR videos) would still not qualify as "identified". Scientifically unverified means that none of the mutually competing hypotheses consistent with the same observed/recorded aerial phenomena have yet been confirmed by a satisfactory number of rigorous and observable theory-predictions. (Using the hypothetico-deductive method of physical sciences and maintaining the highest industry standards of verification). The lack of access to classified information coupled with the low information content of most UAP records makes theory-prediction extremely difficult.

ii. If the epistemological standard of "identified" is lowered to signify a hypothesis providing a satisfactory account for the UAP for operational military purposes, then a more agile and less rigorous process is sufficient for acquiring 'reasonable' confidence in the hypothesis. For all military operational purposes these two videos are, effectively, satisfactorily "identified" as optical illusions of weather balloons or planes. Unlike in the academia, agile processes are of particular importance in operational entities, especially in the military.

Obviously the number of UAP incidents reported by the Pentagon depends greatly on how rigorous a standard for "identification" is being used. The more rigorous (read: scientific) the standard of AP identification, the more UAP filed, reported and indefinitely unsolved.​
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
And the Pilots? Are they all just insane or lying or dumb?

Also remember: the Pentagon "technically" can't lie to the US public. It would be against the law. And the only reason we will see this report is because during classified briefings to congress committees overseeing them the Pentagon was unable to provide an explanation for what they were observing.

Basically their boss asked them what it was and they didn't know. The boss wasn't pleased and tasked them to find out.

The coordinated conspiracy you are proposing is improbable in my opinion.

But it's either what you are saying or:

Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis B
The Pentagon has data on some stuff they can't identify. When they fail an identification they discard and ignore the data. Congress is not happy about it and told them to figure it out. They don't know what it is and fear it could be an adversary. They are reticent to release data for fear of compromising their methods and systems or informing the enemy.
 

LilWabbit

New Member
Or just mistaken. Being wrong does not require malicious intent or mental deficiency. We're only human.

Is that true? Honest question, I'm not actually aware of any law to that effect. In fact, it seems like they lie pretty regularly.

Very regularly. Both, under the protection of the Law and in violation of the Law.

https://impeachableoffenses.net/national-security-lies/

Two citations from the above article on 'National Security Lies' by Law Professor Floyd R. Gibson:

"The President or other high-ranking Executive Branch official may authorize a known false or materially misleading national security statement if he or she determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States."

"Typically, we would not expect the Executive Branch to make false or misleading statements without having been prompted to do so, as silence would obviously accomplish the goal of keeping the existence of such programs from being known by the public. However, when an Executive Branch official finds themselves publicly questioned in a way in which either a truthful response or, critically, a refusal to answer will reveal the secret program, a false or misleading answer may be the only way that the official can continue to conceal the existence of the program."


As to the claim that the thread starter proposed "an organized conspiracy", an actual perusal of the opening post would lead to the opposite conclusion. The Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis merely explains the somewhat disorganized dynamic resulting from the interplay within the complexity that is the Executive Branch, the complexity that is the DoD, and between these entities and the Congress, the media, the public, various political interests and the UFO believers strewn about across the board.
 

folly4

Member
And the Pilots? Are they all just insane or lying or dumb?

Also remember: the Pentagon "technically" can't lie to the US public. It would be against the law. And the only reason we will see this report is because during classified briefings to congress committees overseeing them the Pentagon was unable to provide an explanation for what they were observing.

Basically their boss asked them what it was and they didn't know. The boss wasn't pleased and tasked them to find out.

The coordinated conspiracy you are proposing is improbable in my opinion.

But it's either what you are saying or:

Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis B
The Pentagon has data on some stuff they can't identify. When they fail an identification they discard and ignore the data. Congress is not happy about it and told them to figure it out. They don't know what it is and fear it could be an adversary. They are reticent to release data for fear of compromising their methods and systems or informing the enemy.

I'm speculating, and I share your skepticism about a government conspiracy (and I like your more succinct hypothesis), but I do think @LilWabbit might be on to something in noting the language games that are potentially being played here.

"Unidentified" can be a slippery term. Look at the DoD statement on FLIR, Gimbal & GoFast...

The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos, one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015, which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017. The U.S. Navy previously acknowledged that these videos circulating in the public domain were indeed Navy videos. After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena. DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified." The released videos can be found at the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA Reading Room: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents.

Identification, I think, can be said to occur in degrees, and even then it can be subjective.

If I suspect GoFast is a balloon (I do) with some arbitrarily-assigned probability of, say, 85%, would the aerial phenomena observed in the GoFast remain characterized as "unidentified"?

At what threshold of certainty might I conclude GoFast was a balloon? Would I need to know what kind of balloon? If I conclude it's a weather balloon with "high confidence" (whatever that means to me), is that sufficient? Or do I need to know the model #? Or, even still, the serial number of that unique asset?

When do I know? When is it "identified"?

And who decides if my claim to knowledge is sufficient for the purposes of the whole organization? Were there committee meetings at DoD about whether GoFast was indeed a balloon? "Okay, everyone who thinks it's a balloon, raise your hand? Okay, 1, 2...3 total. How many for giant cold seagull? No one. Okay, how about aliens?"

I feel like, if they wanted to, the government could get away with a definition of "unidentified" for any phenomena they deemed to be less than 100% fully known and understood by every single person ever. Reciprocally, they could limit the definition of "identified" to be such a high knowledge bar that it might never be reached.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
Or just mistaken. Being wrong does not require malicious intent or mental deficiency. We're only human.

Is that true? Honest question, I'm not actually aware of any law to that effect. In fact, it seems like they lie pretty regularly.
Absolutely. But in a case such as the Nimitz encounter you have 4 (+1) reputable, expert observers that all agree they clearly saw something out of the ordinary from 2 different points of view.

With radar tracks backing their observations.

That's one hell of a rare mistake. Although it is certainly possible.

In any case: the fact such an extreme event was not THOROUGHLY investigated at the time is an intelligence failure of colossal proportions. Taboos and dogmas are the enemy of knowledge and science.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Absolutely. But in a case such as the Nimitz encounter you have 4 (+1) reputable, expert observers that all agree they clearly saw something out of the ordinary from 2 different points of view.

With radar tracks backing their observations.

That's one hell of a rare mistake. Although it is certainly possible.

In any case: the fact such an extreme event was not THOROUGHLY investigated at the time is an intelligence failure of colossal proportions. Taboos and dogmas are the enemy of knowledge and science.
This is where totally independent witnesses can be more accurate than witnesses who are collaborating, they start with an initial error and then make further wrong assumptions based on the communication of that initial flawed assumption. The issue compounds itself.
 

Mauro

Active Member
Absolutely. But in a case such as the Nimitz encounter you have 4 (+1) reputable, expert observers that all agree they clearly saw something out of the ordinary from 2 different points of view.

With radar tracks backing their observations.
That's one hell of a rare mistake. Although it is certainly possible.

The absolute probability of a group of events does not matter much in itself: what matters is the relative probability of different explanations. Ie.: if the probability of having 5 witnesses making a mistake, plus a radar track 'backing' their observations is, say, one in one billion, it would yet be a more probable explanation than aliens if the probability of 'aliens' is, say, one in one trillion.

I really hate to quote myself, but if you want you could check my last post in the Rambles/"Can the Minot AFB sigthing be debunked" thread: that's even a better case than the Nimitz encounters for an UFO believer, because there were much more than 5 witnesses of many visual sightings, we also have a radar track (with pictures!), we have UHF radios stopping and then resuming working and on top of that we even have a physical break-in through security fences. A very improbable sequence of events if it was due to mundane factors, but I argument (within my limited skills) mundane factors are still much, much more probable than 'aliens'.
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
Absolutely. But in a case such as the Nimitz encounter you have 4 (+1) reputable, expert observers that all agree they clearly saw something out of the ordinary from 2 different points of view.

With radar tracks backing their observations.
- Afaik we only had ONE eye witness testimony for 17 years who saw the tic tac
- Kurth didnt see a tic tac but was on site at the same time
- Dietrich didnt say nothing until recently, said herself she was a junior, anxious and was at 20-25k feet. She framed her testimony by stating her memory could be flawed and then described the incident with the exact same words as her commanding officer, Fravor
- Fravor himself is contradicted in the AATIP report by his co-pilot (who saw "something" but described the behavior totally different to Fravor)

I still say the biggest possibility is Fravor misidentified Kurth as the Tic Tac due to no sensors, optical illusion and primed expectations.

i have even found a phenomenon that can transform a fighter jet in a temporary tic tac:

Post in thread 'Hypothesis: Fravor's Tic Tac was Kurth's FA18'
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/hypothesis-fravors-tic-tac-was-kurths-fa18.11776/post-250802
 
Last edited:
Top