Is there a “UAP phenomenon” worth studying?

[Andreas]

This discussion came up in another thread, and I want to continue it here. Personally, I see no reason to study the so-called "UAP phenomenon" scientifically, since I see no reason to believe such a phenomenon exists. To me, UAPs only exist in the LIZ, and not even better equipment will help us, since it will only move the "phenomenon" further into the distance. When people claim we should conduct more scientific studies on UAPs, I'm personally confused about what that even means.

It might sound like a reasonable demand. We want to know what those blurry videos actually show and what the "whistleblowers" are actually talking about, don't we? But when people make such demands, it's often implied that the "UAP phenomenon" is something anomalous—something strange that has been kept secret from the public. The sad truth, however, is that after seeing piles of videos, we still have no real reason to believe that's the case.

To me, the role of a skeptic should be quite passive. It is important to react to the videos that are released and to comment on the claims being made. But I will never demand more material showing "strange stuff." I will never stand on the barricades demanding more data and more information. If it looks like a pig, walks like a pig, and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig. I don't need additional data confirming that it's actually a pig. Someone claiming it's a cow will need to provide the evidence themselves.

Not wanting to spend government dollars and scientists' time studying a phenomenon that has not been confirmed to be real seems to be an extreme opinion nowadays. But that's my humble opinion, and I'm happy to be challenged on it.

 

[JMartJr]

Any scientist who studied UFOs and found a new phenomenon would make their career... if they discovered aliens or the like they'd achieve immortal fame.

Few scientists choose to study them. None of the ones that have done so made any important discoveries. Correct me if I am missing something, everybody, but as far as I can tell none of them have discovered any moderately important discoveries. Or any minor discoveries.

It does not seem that they think there is anything there worth their time and effort. Ask scientists if they'd support UFOs being studied, many will say "Yes," as scientists are seldom opposed to the quest for knowledge. Ask if they'll switch from their current work to UFOlogy, I doubt they'll be interested, if they were they'd have been studying them already.

Me, if any scientist wants to study UFOs, I'm all for it. Knock yourselves out, folks, and good luck to you. If they'd rather study something else, that they feel is more likely to produce something of value, I'm all for it.

If they don't want to do work on the topic, what are we going to do, force them?

I guess anybody is free to raise some money and try to hire some of them. I think you'll need some deep pockets, if there is little interest among researchers.

 

[Ann K]

I'm willing to dump it in the laps of the True Believers for now. I disbelieve there to be any inter-stellar component or non-human entity behind the sightings which get the UFOlogists all a-twitter, and that s true for the "anomalous" (unidentified) things as well as the ones we can identify. But, like any good scientist, I'm willing to revisit my beliefs IF AND WHEN some credible evidence surfaces. It's just not my job to dig it out, and that's the thing I'll cheerfully leave to those who make the claims.

 

[MonkeeSage]

I think often the call for further scientific study of UAP means something like more data being collected and analyzed to see if there are any anomalies. I think this can be a good thing if done well and privately funded rather than government subsidized.

For example, the Galileo Project's array of FLIR cameras and data processing pipeline, can be useful for skeptics in that it shows that even with better sensors, data and analysis, almost everything detected is attributable to mundane causes, which establishes a concrete base rate. It can also provide examples of what mundane objects can look like (see image from paper below). And if there ever are actual anomalies in the outliers (none so far), like apparent instantaneous acceleration, there will be more robust sensor data to analyze rather than just grainy videos.

Papers about the Galileo Project cameras and data processing pipeline:

Domine et al, Commissioning An All-Sky Infrared Camera Array for Detection of Airborne Objects, Feb 2025.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.07956

Abstract: To date, there is little publicly available scientific data on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) whose properties and kinematics purportedly reside outside the performance envelope of known phenomena. To address this deficiency, the Galileo Project is designing, building, and commissioning a multi-modal, multi-spectral ground-based observatory to continuously monitor the sky and collect data for UAP studies via a rigorous long-term aerial census of all aerial phenomena, including natural and human-made. One of the key instruments is an all-sky infrared camera array using eight uncooled long-wave-infrared FLIR Boson 640 cameras. In addition to performing intrinsic and thermal calibrations, we implement a novel extrinsic calibration method using airplane positions from Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) data that we collect synchronously on site. Using a You Only Look Once (YOLO) machine learning model for object detection and the Simple Online and Realtime Tracking (SORT) algorithm for trajectory reconstruction, we establish a first baseline for the performance of the system over five months of field operation. Using an automatically generated real-world dataset derived from ADS-B data, a dataset of synthetic 3D trajectories, and a hand-labeled real-world dataset, we find an acceptance rate (fraction of in-range airplanes passing through the effective field of view of at least one camera that are recorded) of 41% for ADS-B-equipped aircraft, and a mean frame-by-frame aircraft detection efficiency (fraction of recorded airplanes in individual frames which are successfully detected) of 36%. The detection efficiency is heavily dependent on weather conditions, range, and aircraft size. Approximately 500,000 trajectories of various aerial objects are reconstructed from this five-month commissioning period. These trajectories are analyzed with a toy outlier search focused on the large sinuosity of apparent 2D reconstructed object trajectories. About 16% of the trajectories are flagged as outliers and manually examined in the IR images. From these ∼80,000 outliers and 144 trajectories remain ambiguous, which are likely mundane objects but cannot be further elucidated at this stage of development without information about distance and kinematics or other sensor modalities. We demonstrate the application of a likelihood-based statistical test to evaluate the significance of this toy outlier analysis. Our observed count of ambiguous outliers combined with systematic uncertainties yields an upper limit of 18,271 outliers for the five-month interval at a 95% confidence level. This test is applicable to all of our future outlier searches.

Figure 32. After manual classification of reconstructed trajectories, we sample typical objects (in pairs) from each category. These images are crops of the objects for illustration purposes. First row: flocks of birds and the Moon; second row: planes and single birds; third row: clouds

Bridgham et al, Galileo Project's Observatory Class System Architecture, May 2025.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.00125v1

Abstract: Scientific investigation of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) is limited by poor data quality and incomplete data sets. Existing data are often fragmented, uncalibrated, and missing critical metadata. To address these limitations, the authors present the Observatory Class Integrated Computing Platform (OCICP), a system designed for the comprehensive scientific study of aerial phenomena which integrates multiple sensors to collect and analyze data on UAP. The OCICP system consists of two subsystems. The first is the Edge Computing Subsystem which directly interfaces with the sensors and is located within the observatory site. This subsystem performs real-time data acquisition, sensor optimization, and data provenance management. The second is the Post-Processing Subsystem which resides outside the observatory. This subsystem supports data analysis workflows, including commissioning, census operations, science operations, and system effectiveness monitoring. This design and implementation paper describes the system lifecycle, associated processes, design, implementation, and preliminary results of OCICP, emphasizing the system's ability to collect comprehensive, calibrated, and scientifically robust data.

 

[Todd Feinman]

FWIW, the magic 8 ball Google AI.
Survey says!:

"The number of scientists and academics studying Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) has grown steadily, driven by diminishing stigma and increased government transparency. Peer-reviewed studies, university-level research, and institutional task forces are replacing the fringe reputation of the topic with rigorous scientific inquiry. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Key Drivers of the Shift

• Academic Interest: A study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications showed that over a third of U.S. academics are interested in researching UFOs/UAP, with many pointing to a need for systematic data collection. [1]
• Institutional Recognition: The University of Würzburg in Germany became one of the first Western universities to officially recognize UAP as an object of legitimate academic research. Meanwhile, European institutions like Stockholm University and the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics actively publish peer-reviewed UAP research. [1]
• Government Declassification: The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) continue to release unclassified and declassified data for public vetting. [1, 2, 3]

Notable Scientific Initiatives

• NASA Independent Study: NASA appointed a director of UAP research and assembled a 16-member team to create a roadmap for how the agency can use open-source data, satellites, and scientific tools to help shed light on UAPs. [1, 2, 3]
• The Galileo Project: Headed by Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb, this project focuses on the systematic scientific search for potential extraterrestrial technological artifacts using a global network of telescopes and high-resolution cameras. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• UAPx: An independent organization of scientists and academics that conducts field expeditions to monitor the skies using rigorous scientific methodology and curated sensor data. [1]
• SETI Institute: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence has increasingly integrated UAP investigations into its broader data analysis, emphasizing the need for transparency, reproducible data, and independent verification. [1]

The Main Challenge
Despite the upward trend in researchers, scientists still face "boundary work"—with many facing professional ridicule, peer pushback, or hurdles regarding tenure. Researchers argue that to overcome this, the field must rely on wide-net, long-term monitoring and quantitative datasets rather than unverified eyewitness reports. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
If you are interested, I can provide:

• More details on The Galileo Project's telescope network
• The findings from NASA's UAP Independent Study Team
• Peer-reviewed academic papers that touch on this phenomenon"

Also:

"The Data and Interest

• Academic Surveys: A major study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communicationssurveyed nearly 40,000 tenured and tenure-track faculty across 144 U.S. universities. It found that 36% of academics expressed interest in conducting research into UAPs, and 37% considered further academic UAP research to be "very important" or "absolutely essential". [1, 2, 3]
• Prior Sightings: The same survey found that nearly 20% of respondents reported that they, or someone close to them, had personally observed something of unknown origin that fits the government's definition of a UAP. [1]"

 

[Stryder]

Is there a "UAP phenomenon" worth Studing?

First, some general perspectives:

For this response, I will take the perspective that what we mean as UAP phenomenon is really aliens or their technology near or on Earth. It might also include previously undocumented natural phenomenon that we have not yet found. I exclude distant life in other parts of the galaxy or beyond. I also exclude the uninteresting "unidentified" commonplace stuff.

It is not for you or I to decide what should be scientifically studied. Scientists will do this themselves. If something is interesting, then someone will study it. I don't buy the argument that scientists are afraid to do a study because of the stigma potentially attached to the area of study. It is true that scientists need funding and it may be difficult to get funding if there isn't a reasonable study design and the potential for interesting results. My opinion (which seems to be shared by many contributors here) is that so far there hasn't been a great deal of stuff to study and therefore no scientist has stepped up to the plate to study it. In adjacent fields of "is there life beyond Earth?", scientists have been studying this for decades. They don't seem to be bothered by stigma.

The scientific process requires that a hypothesis (at least one) is identified along with the null hypothesis. Once this is done, appropriate studies, tests, observations can be designed to reject the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is rejected at a sufficient (statistically speaking) level, then the scientist knows that they may be on to something and can devise further tests or revise the original hypothesis as needed. Fundamentally, if the hypothesis isn't falsifiable, then we aren't doing science. We can disprove a hypothesis, but it is exceedingly difficult to prove a hypothesis (most philosophers would say impossible).

As I've stated in in a previous thread on this topic, it is important to determine that there is something to study before spending effort on studying it. Besides the obvious issue of wasting time, effort, and money if there isn't something to study, we get into the "tooth fairy" issue. I believe the late Harriet Hall coined the term "Tooth Fairy Science". She said (and I am paraphrasing from memory, my apologies if I miss it a bit) that you could devise experiments about the tooth fairy such as analyzing the amount of money left by the tooth fairy over time or other factors that affect the amount of money left, but the results would be meaningless since you didn't start by ensuring the tooth fairy was a real phenomenon.

It is common when in the early stages of scientific discovery to conduct survey like efforts as part of developing hypothesis. The hypothesis being explored (possibly unstated) is something to the effect of "is there something here to study?" These surveys can be dedicated surveys or they can be collections of observations made over time by many people (not necessarily scientists). I would argue that UAP science is in the survey stage at best. Since there may in fact be nothing to study, it is prudent to minimize investment in time and money at this stage. Most (all?) of the data we have now on the subject of UAP is observational. Interestingly, we have a temporal set of observations that we can extract some information. Just two quick personal takeaways of these observations are: 1) they seem to be very tied to the gestalt of the time in history that they were made (i.e. we've moved from demons and angels, to nuts and bolts saucers, to orbs, to "plasmas"); 2) Even though our technology to observe and record observations has dramatically improved over the history of UAP phenomenon, we have not seen an improvement in the clarity of the observations. These taken together suggest that either the phenomenon is wholly artificial (e.g. Low Information Zone or social) or the real phenomenon is so subtle that we have just failed to capture evidence of it.

Now, what should we do? (again, "we" don't get to decide)

Without a doubt, there is fertile ground to study the sociological aspects of the UAP phenomenon. There is obviously something going on here, we have data, we could design experiments to collect more data, there are scientists that are probably interested in this. I don't know, but some of this has probably already been done. Studies of why people think what they think, how conspiracies arise, etc.

Another area that might be worth studying more is all around the neurological aspects of UAP perception. Why do people "see" UAPs. Lots of this ground has been covered both in general and specifically around UAPs.

On the topic of actually studying UAP themselves, I doubt that anyone (wealthy individual or government) is going to pony up the resources to exhaustively survey space, air, and water for the purpose of identifying UAPs as aliens. Our observations and coverage of these domains will continue to increase naturally over time due to other efforts. These include militaries defending nations, astronomers studying all things astronomical, searches in the ocean for missing ships or aircraft or resources, etc. Just the improvement in camera technology in the possession of consumers will increase the surveillance of our oceans and skies. The consumer grade IR cameras today are far better than the military grade sensors when I was working in the defence industry in the 1980s. If there is really something to UAPs, and people are "seeing" them, then it will show up eventually. I have serious doubts that this will ever happen, but I am open to evidence.

Finally, if any of the stories of crashed craft or recovered aliens is true, then it will leak. Scientific interest would grow fantastically if real physical evidence that stood up to scientific scrutiny came to light. All we need to have happen is one bit of true evidence to come out. The fact that it hasn't is not encouraging. It would take a very grand conspiracy to keep this stuff secret.