Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents

LilWabbit

New Member
The New York Times reported on 3 June 2021 that the upcoming Pentagon report (expected to be released to Congress on 25 June 2021) "finds no evidence U.F.O.s were alien spacecraft", "according to senior administration officials briefed on the findings of a highly anticipated government report."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/politics/ufos-sighting-alien-spacecraft-pentagon.html

For me the following passages jumped out as I was poring over the article:

"The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret."

If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?). In other words, those few incidents are technically no longer "unidentified". However, by officially naming those incidents and pronouncing them as "identified" the Pentagon would effectively be revealing to the public and the enemies which of these 120+ incidents in fact feature classified U.S. capabilities. Therefore, it stands to reason that these incidents would remain strictly anonymous and unspecified in the report. It also means the second sentence of the quoted passage contradicts the preceding sentence.

"The report concedes that much about the observed phenomena remains difficult to explain, including their acceleration, as well as ability to change direction and submerge. One possible explanation — that the phenomena could be weather balloons or other research balloons — does not hold up in all cases, the officials said, because of changes in wind speed at the times of some of the interactions."

The phraseology "does not hold up in all cases" would suggest that the weather and research balloon hypothesis holds up in many or even most cases. Yet some cases continue to puzzle the investigators.

"Many of the more than 120 incidents examined in the report are from Navy personnel, officials said. The report also examined incidents involving foreign militaries over the last two decades. Intelligence officials believe at least some of the aerial phenomena could have been experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China."

If "some of the aerial phenomena" are believed to be experimental Chinese or Russian technology, then it stands to reason that the rival nation technology hypothesis also holds water in some cases.

In other words, the Pentagon report effectively demystifies a major bulk of the 120+ incidents observed by Navy personnel over the years, and in fact tacitly admits that a small minority of them (representing US technology) are effectively solved (i.e. they are non-UAP).
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I would like to know who is in the UAPTF. And also what consultants they use


Elizondo was asked if he worked/consulted for the UAPTF and he said he was not at liberty to discuss his involvement with the UAPTF. Which is suspiciously like, yes, yes I do. Otherwise he would have just said no.

Also, are the usual suspects -> Puthoff and Eric Davis still being consulted by the UAPTF?
 
Last edited:

folly4

Member
The phraseology "does not hold up in all cases" would suggest that the weather and research balloon hypothesis holds up in many or even most cases.

I'd say it implies "some" cases. I'm not sure it necessarily denotes "many" or "most."

Technically, it could mean "all except one."

If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?).

Yes.

Although there is one other line in the article that apparently contradicts this:

Many of the more than 120 incidents examined in the report are from Navy personnel, officials said. The report also examined incidents involving foreign militaries over the last two decades. Intelligence officials believe at least some of the aerial phenomena could be experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China.

One senior official briefed on the intelligence said without hesitation that U.S. officials knew it was not American technology. He said there was worry among intelligence and military officials that China or Russia could be experimenting with hypersonic technology.

He and other officials spoke on grounds of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the classified findings in the report.

Stripped of the context, it's hard to know exactly what that "one senior official" referring to.

Overall, the language in the article seems leave plenty of room for a range of possibilities. (Maybe on purpose?)

Ultimately, I don't think it says anything terribly definitive, and it's possible to read too much into it.
 

LarryLobster

New Member
I would like to know who is in the UAPTF. And also what consultants they use


Elizondo was asked if he worked/consulted for the UAPTF and he said he was not at liberty to discuss his involvement with the UAPTF. Which is suspiciously like, yes, yes I do. Otherwise he would have just said no.

Also, are the usual suspects -> Puthoff and Eric Davis still being consulted by the UAPTF?

It is increasingly difficult to trust Elizondo. The most I can see them doing is asking him for his advice on something or other; I have no idea why he - an admitted civilian with, in his own words, no access to anything classified - would be doing anything for the UAPTF.


In his chat with Mick West, Lue Elizondo makes it clear that he does not have access to anything classified and is no longer a public servant (vid below).


 
Last edited:

Buckaroo

Member
The second half of this article is pure mystery-mongering, repackaging the familiar old cases and presenting them as face-value fact. E.g.:

"In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast."

Did they now? Actual "strange objects," "like a spinning top moving against the wind"and not a misinterpretation of mundane phenomena? How do we know? (Checks the linked reference, finds a regurgitation of the same claim with no corroborating evidence.) Ah! We don't, yet the NYT presents it as a fact. Or how about this one:

"In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects, and an official mishap report was filed."

Really? An actual "near collision" with an actual physical flying object that the pilot couldn't identify? Are you sure that's REALLY how it happened?

This is shockingly bad journalism. The NYT has a lot to answer for in propagating this hysteria.
 
Looking at an as-yet unpublished report through the filter of a reporter who may but probably isn't an expert in any field is premature at best.
 

Jayne Miller

New Member
Anne Dietrich ( Fravors Wingman ) seems to be unhappy with the current situation:

In reply to a discussion about how this topic should be "moved forward" tweeted:
"An exposé on the UFO-industrial complex. What is this subculture/economy/market worth? Who feeds off the fear/anxiety/obsession? How much do they make? How many books, TV shows, podcasts *are* there?!"
Source: https://twitter.com/DietrichVFA41/status/1401033216153341958?s=20


She tweeted further along the thread: "People should be turning my time/voice/image into a commodity? I am not a freak show to boost your ratings or profit."
Source: https://twitter.com/DietrichVFA41/status/1401042145943904258?s=20



She's not wrong.

Hope it's OK to post this on this thread, it seems relevant and didn't seem appropriate anywhere else, and is an interesting position I feel.
( I might add she seemed more than keen on embracing "ufotwitter" a couple of weeks ago, as has been noted on this forum on other threads I believe ).
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Jayne Miller


As you may have seen on twitter, both Dave Beaty and I have been paving the grounds for Alex to do an AMA and hopefully release her notes and diagrams she did at the time.
Dave has setup a facebook page for the AMA and I have been talking with Alex to set a time to do it.
She said that once she finishes unpacking she will get onto it

So we will see if it happens
 

Jayne Miller

New Member
The second half of this article is pure mystery-mongering, repackaging the familiar old cases and presenting them as face-value fact. E.g.:

"In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast."

Did they now? Actual "strange objects," "like a spinning top moving against the wind"and not a misinterpretation of mundane phenomena? How do we know? (Checks the linked reference, finds a regurgitation of the same claim with no corroborating evidence.) Ah! We don't, yet the NYT presents it as a fact. Or how about this one:

"In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects, and an official mishap report was filed."

Really? An actual "near collision" with an actual physical flying object that the pilot couldn't identify? Are you sure that's REALLY how it happened?

This is shockingly bad journalism. The NYT has a lot to answer for in propagating this hysteria.

Changed their headline to a more click attracting one too. ( Right headline amended to left ).
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2021-06-04 at 10.36.40.png
    Screenshot 2021-06-04 at 10.36.40.png
    378.2 KB · Views: 45

Domzh

Active Member
Do you guys also feel "alone" when it comes to these sort of things and critical thinking in general?

How can so many people really not recognize what "the vast majority of" means?

How can so many people, even accomplished military professionals, not understand how you can't just mush different observations together when it's not sure they are linked to the same cause?

How can so many educated people fall victim to "confirmation bias", "authority bias" and especially the "texan sharpshooter fallacy" and fully lock up when you explain it to them?

That's why I love to code, there's no bias. "1 + 1 equals 2" no matter what your believe system looks like and no matter how many "Experts" have an opinion about it.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

New Member
How can so many people, even accomplished military professionals, not understand how you can't just mush different observations together when it's not sure they are linked to the same cause?

"Accomplished military professionals" on image and video analysis were likely not approached nor consulted by the AATIP/UAPTF. AATIP/UAPTF was founded and led by ideologues. Ideologues, even when genuinely attempting critical analysis, are more bent on the wonder of the "objects" than the fallibility of the "subjects", and hence disinclined to even entertain the latter hypothesis.

The DoD 'proper' (yup, excluding the AATIP/UAPTF) is not in the business of unnecessarily upsetting these ideologues or the believing public by engaging in disproving their findings. Let alone by revealing classified capabilities with respect to some of the UAP footage. It's in the business of national security. It would also hurt the DoD's 'one team' reputation to publicly discount the work of its own employees, albeit fringe ones. The mistrust between the DoD proper and the AATIP/UAPTF seems evident, and is likely the main reason for the leaks in the first place. Hence this circus that has ensued.

Whilst far from infallible and omnipotent, the US military / DoD is the world's largest employer hiring some of the very best experts in their respective fields. This is the one point of agreement between the UFO faithfuls and the skeptics. Many believers, however, assume the DoD is a simple monolith whose amazing experts are fully consulted, or fully at the disposal, of the tiny and politically motivated fringe entity that is the UAPTF. Hence, whatever the UAPTF concludes, is mistakenly regarded as the findings of the best of the best.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm sorry I'm a bit late to the party.
For me the following passages jumped out as I was poring over the article:

"The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret."

If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?). In other words, those few incidents are technically no longer "unidentified". However, by officially naming those incidents and pronouncing them as "identified" the Pentagon would effectively be revealing to the public and the enemies which of these 120+ incidents in fact feature classified U.S. capabilities. Therefore, it stands to reason that these incidents would remain strictly anonymous and unspecified in the report. It also means the second sentence of the quoted passage contradicts the preceding sentence.
When you have these options:
1) UAP identified
a) originating from US gov't tech
b) not originating from US gov't tech
2) UAP not identified

then seeing a "vast majority" reported in group 1a) does not allow you to conclude that there are actually cases in group 1a), because you've not exhausted all the options.

So there is no "tacit acknowledgment" here.

I would also be wary of reading too much into "contradictions" in press reporting or press releases that may misrepresent or simplify what the report actually says.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
then seeing a "vast majority" reported in group 1a) does not allow you to conclude that there are actually cases in group 1a), because you've not exhausted all the options.
It allows you to conclude that there might be some that are explained by US tech test. Not that the (unclassified) report would actually tell you if they were.
 

LilWabbit

New Member
that should obviously read "reported in group 1b)"


yes, but I would not describe that as "acknowledgment"

we'll find out more when the report comes out

To quibble some more. Your fault, you started it. :D

If the working assumption is that the DoD is fully aware of all secret US tech, as well as all their testing locations and times, then for the very same DoD to "determine" in its report that "a vast majority" of the UAP incidents do not feature secret US technologies somewhat safely translates to a "tacit acknowledgment" that at least 1 incident does.

If, however, the DoD, or at least those within the DoD (say, the UAPTF) responsible for the report, are not fully in the know of all secret US capabilities and tech programs (a very reasonable assumption if indeed the report is not properly reviewed within the DoD beyond the UAPTF), then the same wording would merely imply that at least 1 incident 'might' be secret US tech.

I based my initial comment on the first assumption.

In either case, this perhaps gratuitous (whilst personally entertaining) quibbling is premised on the reporter being correct in attributing the expression "a vast majority" to the actual report.

We are in full agreement on the futility of reading too much into what a reporter writes. Especially when it is based on anonymous comments by 'senior officials' on a report yet to be officially released, while making logically unwarranted conclusions even based on these anecdotes.

P.S. Luis Elizondo is expecting a "watered down" report. This could indicate a broader DoD review of the UAPTF findings before the report release, and the consequent dialling down of some of the wilder hypotheses advanced by some current or former UAPTF staff. However, the DoD explicitly mentioning 'the optical illusion hypothesis' in reference to videos such as the GIMBAL and FLIR, or explicitly dismissing 'the physics-defying-movement hypothesis' as far-fetched, is highly unlikely. This is the case for several reasons, one of them being to avert the public impression of internal squabbling. Another is the awareness that Pentagon gains nothing at this juncture by offending the believers, whether amongst political influencers or in the general public. Keeping the alien-discussion alive and kicking may even serve classified national security programs and operations as a distraction / smokescreen, although it may have been an unintended distraction at first (owing to leaks).
 
Last edited:

neo_seoul

New Member
My main disappointment is that NYT and most other news outlets are doing a terrible job and often borderline fabricating stuff. This way of doing "reporting" doesn't help anyone unfortunately.
 

LilWabbit

New Member
My main disappointment is that NYT and most other news outlets are doing a terrible job and often borderline fabricating stuff. This way of doing "reporting" doesn't help anyone unfortunately.

That's the sad truth. Science reporting by most major news outlets has always sucked big time, mostly due to sheer lack of scientific comprehension. Unfortunately the last few decades have witnessed an increase of ideology and consequently a steady decline of journalistic standard in all types of reporting by all big media establishments. The 'post-truth society' is really a thing.

And Neue Zürcher Zeitung reports unfortunately only in German.
 

Ravi

Active Member
I did not read the report, but can we safely conclude that nothing has changed after the report came out? I do not notice any "revelation" or whatever. It is also just as I had expected.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
LarryLobster Off-Camera Pentagon Press Briefing comment on UAPs as Aliens: UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
TEEJ Pentagon to launch task force to investigate UFO sightings - August 14, 2020 CNN Article UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 28
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Agent K Air Force E-11A Communications Aircraft Crashes And Burns In Afghanistan Current Events 7
Mick West Inexperienced Pilot Recreating 9/11 Flight 77's Descending Turn into the Pentagon 9/11 77
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Aircraft Accident Package lists no. of Passengers/Fatalies as "Unknown" Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: "FBI releases 27 classified photos of 9/11 Pentagon attacks" [Not New] 9/11 8
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
USAFMXOfficer 9/11 - Pentagon 86 CCTV videos 9/11 6
TWCobra AA77-Pentagon explosion plume compared to known aircraft fires 9/11 0
Critical Thinker foreignpolicy.com: The Pentagon Has a Plan to Stop the Zombie Apocalypse. Seriously. General Discussion 4
Mick West Debunked: $8.5 Trillion Missing from the Pentagon Conspiracy Theories 19
T Fake 9/11 footage of cruise missile hitting pentagon 9/11 15
hiper lack of a Pentagon boeing video 9/11 117
BombDr Did the Pentagon have air defenses on 9/11? 9/11 20
Eric A. Eisenbise The Pentagon is The key to 911 9/11 26
Oxymoron 9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon? 9/11 147
Mick West Debunked: FunVax, Pentagon Briefing on Removing the God Gene [Hoax] HAARP 57
Mick West Debunked: Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon Quotes Debunked 52
DasKleineTeilchen 2,400 "new" unseen 9/11 photos found at estate sale, june 2019 9/11 12
Mick West A Rippled Distrail Near Las Vegas June 17 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Trailblazer Explained: Contrail Cross in Florida, June 2 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Chew Yosemite Contrail Grid 17 June 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeC International day of action June 30? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
R Worldwide Eratosthenes stick experiment, May 14, 15, 16 2021 Flat Earth 14
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
TEEJ Richard Citizen Journalist proves that Biden Rose Garden address was a live event at the White House, 12th March 2021 Election 2020 15
I Thylacines in Tasmania (New photos from 1st March 2021) General Discussion 44
Mick West Three Contrails "Descending" over Denver on Jan 31, 2021 [Military, C-17A Globemasters] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West "Advanced Aerial Threats" In Report on US Congress' Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 4
Related Articles


































Related Articles

Top