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:
External Quote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------
Page 14:
External Quote:
...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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Page 15-16:
External Quote:
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:
External Quote:
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.
