The final report from NASA on the UAP topic has been placed on their webpage: https://science.nasa.gov/uap
The direct link to the report is here: report
Additionally the report will be presented, actually now.
As seen on Astronomy Picture of the Day, this phenomenon occurs in the sky over our heads, not the sea. It is a type of lightning known as red sprite, and rarely has it ever been photographed in this detail. Even though sprites have been recorded for over 30 years, their root cause remains unknown.
They follow up with pictures of aurora borealis, a meteor, a weather balloon, von Karman cloud vortices, ...
One point they keep making is that "you need to understand the chaff" in order to be able to find out what the interesting sightings are.
From my experience on FB UFO groups, I think the "chaff" consists mostly of the following:
- Starlink launches / trains
- Airplanes
- Party balloons
- Bugs close to the camera.
One point they keep making is that "you need to understand the chaff" in order to be able to find out what the interesting sightings are.
From my experience on FB UFO groups, I think the "chaff" consists mostly of the following:
- Starlink launches / trains
- Airplanes
- Party balloons
- Bugs close to the camera.
You're seeing that in the context of conventional observations. NASA wants to network sensors with better data and metadata (what I thought the old UAPTF report already hinted at) and then use AI to find anomalies in the flood of data. But since we don't know what something unknown looks like, that system needs to be able to very precisely discard the data about all the known phenomena (the chaff), and only present the remainder. (Good luck with that.)
flarkey shared:
I'll admit to being slightly irked that they used "conclusive." I might have suggested a word several steps lower on the road to "conclusive," perhaps "no good evidence..."
My further immediate reactions upon first reading are:
-------------------------------------------
The Executive Summary reads, to me, like it could be further summarized as "Hey, if the government is going to be spending money on this, we want some of it." One could also more charitably read it as "Hey, if you are going to spend money on this, spend at least some of it through an organization that will look at it in a rigorous scientific way."
---------------------------------------
On page 12:
Beyond this, the panel applauds the efforts undertaken in the private sector and
U.S. academic community to employ one or more inexpensive ground-based
sensors that are capable of surveying large areas of the sky. Such sensors,
which could potentially be rapidly deployed to areas of known UAP activity may
play a key role in establishing so-called “pattern-of-activity” trends, as well as
potentially the physical characteristics of UAP themselves.
I am guessing this is a reference to Project Galileo? They go on to discuss NASA's potential role in getting more and better sensors out there. This would be a fine idea if there is in fact a new phenomenon to be discovered in the UAP field. My concern is that while this may push the Low Infromation Zone out a bit, the LIZ CANNOT be eliminated, we can expect such an approach to generate MORE insufficient data cases, while the identified balloons and such do not get reported as UAPs. More work for folks like MetaBunk, which would be fine job security if we were getting paid, but also more bunk getting put into the public sphere.
...NASA’s very involvement in gathering future data will play an important
role in reducing stigma associated with UAP reporting, which very likely leads
to data attrition at present. NASA’s long-standing public trust, which is essential
for communicating findings about these phenomena to citizens, is crucial for
destigmatizing UAP reporting and scientific research. The scientific processes
used by NASA encourage critical thinking; NASA can model for the public how
to approach a topic, such as UAP, by applying transparent reporting and
rigorous analyses when acquiring future data.
Were I NASA, I'd be cautious that this doesn't work the other way, with damage to NASA's reputation accruing from getting involved with the Usual Gang of UFO believers. Perhaps they believe NASA can be the "adults in the room" and rein in the silliness. I'm... well... skeptical.
When it comes to detecting anomalies – such as UAP – within datasets, there
are two approaches. The first approach involves constructing a model that
represents the expected signal characteristics then searching for any matches
against this model. The second approach involves using a model of the back-
ground properties and searching for anything that deviates from that model.
The panel notes that the first approach is difficult as we do not possess a
consistent description of the physical characteristics of UAP. The second
approach, on the other hand, requires an understanding of what is considered
normal and known in a given search area, which can then be distinguished from
what is unusual and unknown.
Does this not presuppose that UAP are A class of thing with A set of characteristics that "deviate from the model?" That they are NOT normal and known objects/phenomena? If that presupposition is not true, will these "approaches" be able to avoid being fooled by LIZ cases that SEEM anomalous?
----------------------------------------------------------
Page 17:
If all unidentified events move at conventional speeds and accelerations, this
likely points towards a conventional explanation for these events. Convincing
evidence of verified anomalous accelerations and velocity would point towards
potentially novel explanations for UAP.
If that is generalized to other characteristics, and LIZ cases are dropped, this is the exact moment I stopped worrying so much about NASA chasing indistinct blurry distant balloon photos down the rabbit hole. Still a LITTLE worried, but I feel better.
And that is probably more than anybody wants of my reactions to the report, so I'll stop there, with a final note recognizing the intermittent sprinkling of the magic wand of "artificial intelligence" here and there in the report amused me, as did the padding with 9 full page photos from the NASA archives that were not related to the paper.
I'll admit to being slightly irked that they used "conclusive." I might have suggested a word several steps lower on the road to "conclusive," perhaps "no good evidence..."
Which is why they jump on the "threat to US airspace" train, despite no aircraft having ever been threatened by a UAP in a way that wasn't the aviator's own doing.
And also that much of the harassment is from the 'ufo community' towards prominent investigators and scientists who show scepticism or identify UAP as prosaic phenomena.
Which is why they jump on the "threat to US airspace" train, despite no aircraft having ever been threatened by a UAP in a way that wasn't the aviator's own doing.
That's something I've thought of as well. I believe it was Graves who said something to the effect of "it is only a matter of time before a collision with a UAP" (not an exact quote). That was said years ago, yet the number of UAP collisions is 0.
Which is why they jump on the "threat to US airspace" train, despite no aircraft having ever been threatened by a UAP in a way that wasn't the aviator's own doing.
It's hilarious that one of the default responses to Mick on Twitter is about seagulls, when birds probably cause more accidents than flying pyramids or tic tacs.
It's hilarious that one of the default responses to Mick on Twitter is about seagulls, when birds probably cause more accidents that flying pyramids or tic tacs.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates bird strikes cost US aviation 400 million dollars annually and have resulted in over 200 worldwide deaths since 1988.[60] In the United Kingdom, the Central Science Laboratory estimates[9] that worldwide, birdstrikes cost airlines around US$1.2 billion annually. This includes repair cost and lost revenue while the damaged aircraft is out of service. There were 4,300 bird strikes listed by the United States Air Force and 5,900 by US civil aircraft in 2003.
That's something I've thought of as well. I believe it was Graves who said something to the effect of "it is only a matter of time before a collision with a UAP" (not an exact quote). That was said years ago, yet the number of UAP collisions is 0.
Both the USN and USAF have (or at least had) programs for aircrew to report aviation safety/hazard issues, including in flight near misses. They were run out of the services' respective safety centers at Norfolk NAS and Kirtland (and previously Norton) AFB. I worked with both over the years. Although I never worked with them, I assume the Army has a similar program, probably run out of Fort Rucker.
I never saw "UFO" in the data dealing with near misses I saw from those programs, but did see both "unidentified aircraft" and "unknown aircraft" in filed reports.
