NASA holds first public meeting on UFO study

But the Aliens or Extradimensional Beings or whatnot, have stealth technology!

Which brings up what I think is an important issue. UFO belief is unfalsifiable. Any notion or belief system that is unfalsifiable sits crossways with me.
Doesn't the same apply to military technology? Aren't defense contractors working on multispectral camouflage?
 
First thought if you hear 'orbs seen all over the world' is: balloons.
But the 'Target package' in the slide has a signature that does not match balloons.
Especially the Radio signature seems to indicate these orbs typically emit EM frequencies in the indicated ranges.
Weather balloons have transmitters, as do amateur radio balloons and spy platforms. Also, every drone. A radio signature is not unusual.
 
Weather balloons have transmitters, as do amateur radio balloons and spy platforms. Also, every drone. A radio signature is not unusual.
It is more interesting to know if there was modulation in the signal/signature, not so much only the wavelengths. Nothing mentioned about that anywhere in the meetings I guess (sensitive topic).
 
If I spent a considerable amount of time carefully looking at what's presented as evidence for UFOs in the form of photos and videos, (and I have) I would probably come to the same conclusion. But I can't, because of what I've personally seen, I know some cases fall into the category of not mundane, and there's indeed something there to discover.
What have you seen?
 
First thought if you hear 'orbs seen all over the world' is: balloons.
But the 'Target package' in the slide has a signature that does not match balloons.
Especially the Radio signature seems to indicate these orbs typically emit EM frequencies in the indicated ranges.
I found this quite remarkable (and the only part of the meeting that was really interesting).
Does the "orbs all over the world" reference correspond only to the apparent metallic type "Mosul orb" photographed by the ISR platform over Iraq or any orb regardless of apparent size/color/composition?

I'd be willing to bet after the orb statement at that NASA public meeting, orb sightings will be all the rage in the near future replacing the popular triangles and orange fireballs of the last several years. People see what they think they should see.
 
Doesn't the same apply to military technology? Aren't defense contractors working on multispectral camouflage?
Just the opposite. Instead of trying to hide or conceal with high tech camouflage, the current military trend is toward electronic spoofing technology to project false images simultaneously across multiple mediums. I suspect proof of concept, and later operational, testing of these technologies accounts for some of the USN's UAP incidents over the years.

External Quote:
NEMESIS is not just some 'paper program.' From publicly available, but obscure documents we've collected, it's clear that, for years, the Navy has been developing and integrating multiple types of unmanned vehicles, shipboard and submarine systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare payloads, and communication technologies to give it the ability to project what is, in essence, phantom fleets of aircraft, ships, and submarines. These realistic-looking false signatures and decoys have the ability to appear seamlessly across disparate and geographically separated enemy sensor systems located both above and below the ocean's surface. As a result, this networked and cooperative electronic warfare concept brings an unprecedented level of guileful fidelity to the fight. It's not just about disrupting the enemy's capabilities or confusing them at a command and control level, but also about making their sensors tell them the same falsehoods across large swathes of the battlespace.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever
 
the current military trend is toward electronic spoofing technology to project false images simultaneously across multiple mediums.
I heard a story (true or not!) about the Germans building a fake air field during WWII, with mock-up wooden planes and hangars. The British flew over it ...and dropped one wooden bomb to tell the Germans they were not fooled. :D
 
If UFOs represent alien spacecraft, don't you think it's one of the most worthwhile scientific endeavours?
Yes- but the "If" is important. From the evidence at present, it's not likely that UFO reports represent alien spacecraft.
If we're not being visited by alien spacecraft- and there is no testable evidence that we are- it doesn't matter how much money is spent, what resources are co-opted or how many people are employed, we won't find any.

And- at least in the developed democracies- there will always be arguments about what the government/ public-funded bodies spend money on. To make an emotive example, the parents of a child with an incurable illness might well think,
"Why is the Government spending money on this?"

The point I was making earlier is that people are describing structured vehicles with unconventional flight characteristics
...I think a similar point was made by member Bill Ferguson in the (now closed) thread,
"Are All UFO Reports Wrong, Or Are They Evidence That UFOs Exist?"

External Quote:
"But eliminate cell phone videos, eliminate video and include only those photographs developed from negatives taken from the 40's through the 80s that show a structured object. ...[A] structured object or craft of some kind. A disc for example."]
Bill Ferguson's post 11/04/23
(apologies to Bill Ferguson- the "Reply" function isn't working for me on your post, maybe because the thread is closed?)

You're right, DaveG, that people have reported seeing structured objects which they believe are vehicles.
But there are no photos, and no filming, that unambiguously show an object where it is reasonable to say, "this is a technological artefact of unknown origin". I don't think that is a sceptical claim- it's objectively true (IMHO).
If anything, more recent photos tend to show much less surface detail than the claimed photos of UFOs from the '50s, '60's and 70's. The "best" photos, unambiguously showing intelligently manufactured objects (George Adamski, Billy Meier- whose photos put many 1970s TV special effects departments to shame- and "Patrick's" 1990 Belgian triangle") are all hoaxes.

Many people- most of them leading otherwise "normal" lives, and with no obvious reason to deceive anyone- report strange sightings and experiences. For example, appearances of "the Blessed Virgin Mary" (the title often used for apparitions of Jesus' mother Mary) have been reported by people who seem profoundly decent, and are (I would guess) presumably believed to be true by many millions of people who hear of such appearances. They are no less sincere in their beliefs than UFO "enthusiasts"
Should we give Theology departments a budget for IR cameras, motion sensors, etc. etc.?
Proof of a "BVM" visitation might arguably be of greater significance than proof that a UFO is an alien craft... ;)
 
I heard a story (true or not!) about the Germans building a fake air field during WWII, with mock-up wooden planes and hangars. The British flew over it ...and dropped one wooden bomb to tell the Germans they were not fooled.
Discussed here on Snopes, a fact-checking site (a useful and interesting site, plagued with intrusive adverts),
"Did the British Drop a Wooden Bomb on a Decoy German Airfield?", David Mikkelson, 30/09/2005, updated17/08/2022
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wooden-bomb/

Snopes describe the story as "unproven", I like the story but on balance I think it's likely to be a "tall tail".
In the context of World War II, it doesn't seem very likely that a 'plane and its crew would be risked "for a bit of a laugh".
 
I heard a story (true or not!) about the Germans building a fake air field during WWII, with mock-up wooden planes and hangars. The British flew over it ...and dropped one wooden bomb to tell the Germans they were not fooled. :D
Likely untrue.
Article:
Shirer did not claim to have witnessed the event, or even to have heard about it directly from any of the participants; he merely repeated a humorous anecdote told to him by an unnamed source. Multiple variants of this narrative event, with differing details (e.g., the incident occurred later in the war, the wooden bomb was dropped by Germans on a British decoy airfield rather than vice-versa, the fake bomb was dropped in Germany by American pilots).
 
If UFOs represent alien spacecraft, don't you think it's one of the most worthwhile scientific endeavours?
If unicorns exist, don't you think we should try very hard to find them?
You can see how that is not scientific thinking.

If you're a scientist, applying for a research grant, you're going to have to come up with a proposal that promises results. Ever since the Condon report, we know for certain that there is no evidence that can promise you results in ufology. It's either unreliable witnesses, blurry photos, or something you can identify as mundane (or a combination of these).

If you're a scientist looking for extraterrestrials, you have to ask yourself, how would they manifest themselves? SETI proposes they'd be sending radio waves, so that's what SETI is looking for. Some more recent endeavors plan to look for artifacts. There's no comparable rationale that would give UFO sightings any weight.
 
If unicorns exist, don't you think we should try very hard to find them?
You can see how that is not scientific thinking.

If you're a scientist, applying for a research grant, you're going to have to come up with a proposal that promises results. Ever since the Condon report, we know for certain that there is no evidence that can promise you results in ufology. It's either unreliable witnesses, blurry photos, or something you can identify as mundane (or a combination of these).

If you're a scientist looking for extraterrestrials, you have to ask yourself, how would they manifest themselves? SETI proposes they'd be sending radio waves, so that's what SETI is looking for. Some more recent endeavors plan to look for artifacts. There's no comparable rationale that would give UFO sightings any weight.
Where have unicorns been reported on such a regular basis and caused concern for governments over such a long period of time? The history of UFO reports has always had around 1-2% that remain puzzling. In AARO's 800 cases currently being investigated, 2-5% "display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous." You state, "SETI proposes they'd be sending radio waves." Well, the Galileo Project and AARO propose they're much closer to earth, in our atmosphere and surrounding space. Both The Galileo Project and AARO are developing sensors to try and detect these anomalies in that domain.
 
Where have unicorns been reported on such a regular basis and caused concern for governments over such a long period of time? The history of UFO reports has always had around 1-2% that remain puzzling. In AARO's 800 cases currently being investigated, 2-5% "display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous." You state, "SETI proposes they'd be sending radio waves." Well, the Galileo Project and AARO propose they're much closer to earth, in our atmosphere and surrounding space. Both The Galileo Project and AARO are developing sensors to try and detect these anomalies in that domain.
You can also find a small percentage of murders being not resolved, and I believe it can cause concern to governments . Should we investigate the existence of vampires, werewolves or similar stuff?
 
If unicorns exist, don't you think we should try very hard to find them?
You can see how that is not scientific thinking.

If you're a scientist, applying for a research grant, you're going to have to come up with a proposal that promises results.
Ever since the Condon report, we know for certain that there is no evidence that can promise you results in ufology. It's either unreliable witnesses, blurry photos, or something you can identify as mundane (or a combination of these).

If you're a scientist looking for extraterrestrials, you have to ask yourself, how would they manifest themselves? SETI proposes they'd be sending radio waves, so that's what SETI is looking for. Some more recent endeavors plan to look for artifacts. There's no comparable rationale that would give UFO sightings any weight.

Well made and not unimportant point. I have never seen a PhD candidate start a 4 year research period based on "just try what you can do, and good luck!". It is not only a waste of time and money, it is also a way to make sure you will never become a dr.. So indeed, all PhD programs have a starting point based on realistic predictions on the outcome.
 
Well, the Galileo Project and AARO propose they're much closer to earth, in our atmosphere and surrounding space. Both The Galileo Project and AARO are developing sensors to try and detect these anomalies in that domain.
Project Galileo:
Article:
Any investigation into poorly understood phenomena will result in scientific advances, regardless of the origin.

Historic precedent isn't unicorns, it's turning lead into gold, another big "if" that was too interesting to ignore, but that led exactly nowhere, despite a fair amount of research.

I submit that UAPs are not a "poorly understood phenomenon" in the scientific sense, where you have a repeatable observation (like the double-slit experiment) that's poorly understood. UFOs are poorly understood because the observations are essentially random and low on data while those with excellent data aren't poorly understood.

My prediction is that Project Galileo is not going to advance human knowledge in any meaningful way.
 
Question from a new member: I read in an earlier post on this thread that GIMBAL is the "poster child" among the 3 Navy videos for the true believers. Is that the consensus view among this group? I ask not as a challenge but out of genuine interest from a cohort of people who have studied these issues far more closely than I have. I had always thought that NIMITZ was the one with the greatest diversity of evidence (even if some is conflicting) and that it has so far been the most resistant to mundane explanation.

Welcome any perspectives. Thank you,.
 
External Quote:
The goal of the Galileo Project is to bring the search for extraterrestrial technological signatures of Extraterrestrial Technological Civilizations (ETCs) from accidental or anecdotal observations and legends to the mainstream of transparent, validated and systematic scientific research.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home

It sounds as if they are actively searching for extraterrestrial activity, but does that mean they will "throw the baby out with the bath water" by disregarding things that might prove to be drones or balloons sent from unfriendly countries? One would hope that all these various entities would make their data public, or at the very least make it available to other groups whose aim might be different but whose information sources overlap.
 
Should we investigate the existence of vampires, werewolves or similar stuff?
Historic precedent isn't unicorns, it's turning lead into gold
I'm not sure if I understand the comparison here. Are you comparing the possible existence of technological beings on other planets to unicorns, turning lead into gold, vampires, and werewolves? Or just the notion that they might be detectable via technological traces near our planet?
 
At 00:33:00, Sean Kirkpatrick is explaining one of his slides.
External Quote:

In the middle is what we call our typical UAP characteristics for the vast majority of the cases that we see.
One way of looking at that is a is a we'll call it a Target package this is the thing we are out hunting for in most cases.
This 'target package' is in the picture below.
Just after that, when he's showing the footage of the orb:
External Quote:

This is a typical example of the thing that we see most of. We see these all over the world and we see these making very interesting apparent maneuvers. This one in particular however I would point out demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and was no threat to Airborne safety.
Source: transcript file provided by Mick West.
View attachment 59609

First thought if you hear 'orbs seen all over the world' is: balloons.
But the 'Target package' in the slide has a signature that does not match balloons.
Especially the Radio signature seems to indicate these orbs typically emit EM frequencies in the indicated ranges.
I found this quite remarkable (and the only part of the meeting that was really interesting).

I find several things about that table really interesting.
My impression has always been that most of these videos are from platforms that have no ability to capture and record radio transmissions.
And what radars are those signatures from? Air traffic control? Military aircraft tracking and fire control radars? Kind of makes a difference.
And how many times, out of all their events, were radio and/or radar signatures collected?
Finally I find that "orbs seen all over the world" statement to be inaccurate if not downright deceptive, as their "heat map" showing where their events took place shows they all come from a very small portion of the world.

Without knowing the metrics about those signatures, in what percentage of events were they actually collected, I am skeptical if they mean anything at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I understand the comparison here. Are you comparing the possible existence of technological beings on other planets to unicorns, turning lead into gold, vampires, and werewolves? Or just the notion that they might be detectable via technological traces near our planet?
it's about the possible existence of alien craft maneouvering in our airspace largely undetected

and the argument that we have to research it because it'd be so exciting if if were true

this is also why the DoD paid for ESP etc. research, another "investigation into poorly understood phenomena" (for them) that did not "result in scientific advances", despite Harvard's Project Galileo claims.
 
And how many times, out of all their events, were radio and/or radar signatures collected?

I was also wondering about the radio signatures. How do they determine that whatever radio signals they're picking up are emanating form the orb? I'm woefully ignorant about radio signals flying around in the atmosphere, but that is what they do correct? Could the radio signals just be background noise that coincided with the sighting of the orb? I would think they would know better, but....
 
I was also wondering about the radio signatures. How do they determine that whatever radio signals they're picking up are emanating form the orb? I'm woefully ignorant about radio signals flying around in the atmosphere, but that is what they do correct? Could the radio signals just be background noise that coincided with the sighting of the orb? I would think they would know better, but....
Where does that table originate from actually?
 
One would hope that all these various entities would make their data public, or at the very least make it available to other groups whose aim might be different but whose information sources overlap.
Looks like the Galileo Project (note the modest name!) will be alright regarding your concerns. Ann K.,

External Quote:
Project Ground Rules
1. We do not work with classified information or unreliable past data.
2. Our analysis of the data is based on known physics.
3. Our data and analysis will be freely published, documented and archived.
4. No results will be released except through scientifically-accepted channels of publication
-Same link as Ann K.'s, https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home

...does that mean they will "throw the baby out with the bath water" by disregarding things that might prove to be drones or balloons sent from unfriendly countries?


External Quote:
a megapixel image of the surface of a human-scale UAP object at a distance of a mile will allow to distinguish the label: "Made in Country X" from the potential alternative "Made by ETC Y"
External Quote:
We anticipate extensive Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning (AI/DL) and algorithmic approaches to differentiate atmospheric phenomena from birds, balloons, commercial or consumer drones, and from potential technological objects of terrestrial or other origin surveying our planet
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/activities

-So if they live up to their project ground rules, they will (presumably!) make clear the nationality and nature of any terrestrial origin bogeys (or at least the appropriate information should be obtainable from their data and analysis).

Mind you, if current widespread experience is anything to go by, ascertaining how an "AI" package comes to a given conclusion (and how reliable that conclusion is) might not be as transparent as many would like.
(Aah, the beauty of GOFAI- showing my age).

The Galileo Project is led by Professor Avi Loeb at Harvard (Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb),
a very notable astrophysicist. Loeb queried whether 'Oumuamua was an ETI artefact; in 2021 his book
"Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth" was published, in which he continues to speculate about 'Oumuamua being an alien craft (Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial:_The_First_Sign_of_Intelligent_Life_Beyond_Earth).
 
So far, we've had 70 years with very little effort by the scientific community to do a proper investigation, which is why nothing's come out of it. If UFOs represent alien spacecraft, don't you think it's one of the most worthwhile scientific endeavours?
The scientific community, having a surfeit of neither investigators nor funds, cannot be limitless in its scope. The list of "things we'd like to examine when we get the chance" is a very long list indeed, and I would rank about a hundred different topics of being of greater importance. "Alien spacecraft" on my list would come in above leprechauns, but a long, long way behind disease control, responses to global climate change, research into alternative fuels, and the migratory habits of songbirds.
 
Where does that table originate from actually?

What @overlord said above. Though now looking at the slide again I find myself a bit more confussed:

1685929904479.png


So, for 27 years of reports there were "round, atypical orientation" UAPs that were "white, silver, translucent" mostly between 5K' and 30K' and they all had a radio signature between 1-3GHz and 8-12GHz? Or some did? Or something in these frequencies was picked up? I don't know.

I will note that slide #4 looked like a Metabunk thread. A P3 saw some orbs and tried unsuccessfully to chase them. Turned out to be commercial airliners that were misjudged to be closer than thought:

1685930374401.png


https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Sean Kirkpatrick - 1100am to 1130am.pdf
 
External Quote:
We anticipate extensive Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning (AI/DL) and algorithmic approaches to differentiate atmospheric phenomena from birds, balloons, commercial or consumer drones, and from potential technological objects of terrestrial or other origin surveying our planet
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/activities

Mind you, if current widespread experience is anything to go by, ascertaining how an "AI" package comes to a given conclusion (and how reliable that conclusion is) might not be as transparent as many would like.
Sounds like somebody is going to get a large amount of money to deliver software that may never work reliably. We'll see.

Note that drones are apparently not "technological objects of terrestrial origin", there's no category for airborne clutter, insects, clouds, spotlights on clouds, astronomical objects, aircraft, etc.

Compare:
View attachment 45635
View attachment 45636
via https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pentagon-june-2021-report-on-120-uap-incidents.11784/post-252773
 
If they do GIMBAL I think that would be interesting to see the reaction as it really is the iconic poster child of the modern UFO revival.

Question from a new member: I read in an earlier post on this thread that GIMBAL is the "poster child" among the 3 Navy videos for the true believers. Is that the consensus view among this group? I ask not as a challenge but out of genuine interest from a cohort of people who have studied these issues far more closely than I have. I had always thought that NIMITZ was the one with the greatest diversity of evidence (even if some is conflicting) and that it has so far been the most resistant to mundane explanation.

Welcome any perspectives. Thank you,.
Gimbal is the poster child of the VIDEOS. Nimitz is, for many, a more interesting set of events, due to the number of eyewitnesses. But the Nimitz video is pretty boring compared to Gimbal.
 
Gimbal is the poster child of the VIDEOS. Nimitz is, for many, a more interesting set of events, due to the number of eyewitnesses. But the Nimitz video is pretty boring compared to Gimbal.
Yeah I should clarify it's the video you see all the time, so it's in the context of AARO analysing videos.
 
This is a pretty cynical take, but interesting timing for Kean and Blumenthal to go to the media with the whistleblower right now. NASA holds the first panel of their UAP study group with a focus to gather higher quality data about UAP events and employ rigorous scientific analysis; Sean Kirkpatrick has to state that only a tiny fraction of reported UAP events are actually anomalous; less than a week later David Grush is on the news saying we actually have the spacecraft that have been causing the UAP events, and bonus they have dead space critters inside them. Well no need for a NASA study group or AARO I guess! The timing is likely a coincidence and Grush coming out to the public has probably been in the works for months, I think I am just becoming a reverse alien-conspiracy theorist... instead of government and media covering up the facts, the true believers in the government and media are doing everything they can to get the public to believe along with them.
 
The timing is likely a coincidence and Grush coming out to the public has probably been in the works for months
Yes.
Article:
In accordance with protocols, Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on-the-record statements were all "cleared for open publication" on April 4 and 6, 2023, in documents provided to us.

Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness.


I think I am just becoming a reverse alien-conspiracy theorist... instead of government and media covering up the facts, the true believers in the government and media are doing everything they can to get the public to believe along with them.
For that to be a conspiracy, it would have to be secret. :p
 
Yes.
Article:
In accordance with protocols, Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on-the-record statements were all "cleared for open publication" on April 4 and 6, 2023, in documents provided to us.

Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness.
Adding 2 months to the run-up, via Grusch's attorneys:
Article:
The firm filed a narrowly-scoped whistleblower disclosure with the Intelligence Community Inspector General ("ICIG") and associated personnel matters – and had represented Mr. Grusch since February 2022.
 
Back
Top