Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents

MclachlanM

Active Member
I dont. When I say "Gravity are little invisible goblins shooting harpoons with a string attached at every object and pulling it towards themselves exactly at the rates our data suggests" than this isnt a good theory. its bullcrap without any evidence supporting it.

Sorry, my sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet.
I was just pointing out that although Elizondo doesn't directly come out and say what he believes, he leaves plenty of room for the people who believe in aliens, Skinwalker Ranch and gravity goblins to get behind him whilst also trying to keep a bit of distance for his own image.
I think it is statements like this and his flexible definition of theory that show this most clearly.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
question for the guys living in the us, is this topic really becoming as big as it feels or is this a flawed perception because I / we have an interest in it and are actively looking for information and news about it?
A small number of medium-high-up people think it's big. But even people like Rubio have vastly more important matters to consider. The media is just largely confused.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
But Sam Harris would be? Assuming Lue IS part of the team preparing this report, it may be legitimate that Harris has been contacted by the someone ( the government ? ) as he has stated recently, and will be included on a zoom call with "Former Heads of the CIA and the Office of Naval research".

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxtgx1LiIU

Sounds like the usual suspects (Elizondo, Mellon, maybe even the not-so-usual-suspecty but alien-sympathetic Brennan). Sam Harris seems to be perpetrating the lay error of mistaking these opinionated gentlemen for official US. Government (CIA and DoD) reps. At the time Harris was approached, Elizondo et al may have been actively involved in the Pentagon report, going all-out with the alien hypothesis, only to be later reined in by the Pentagon "proper". These self-same dynamics probably got him "resigned" from the Pentagon in the first place.

The closed door congressional briefing on the report that was going to be earth-shattering according to Harris in the Harris/Gervais podcast, happened some ten days later, and proved unremarkable. Luis Elizondo was disappointed and is now expecting a "watered down" report.

Much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Comments from Marco Rubio, yesterday, Jun 21, 2021
https://otter.ai/u/V-ZhIPJoJG6pQ50r5YsJurV1u3k

TMZ 0:02
With, this is June now, we're waiting for the hearing. Well, not the hearing, the results from the report from UFOs.

Marco Rubio 0:10
They keep telling us it should be out any day now. So, you know, I think we'll have more information but I think at the end, I don't think people should be expecting, that's gonna be, that's gonna answer a lot, there's gonna be a lot of questions even after and I think the gist of the report is probably going to be something like: these are documented events. These are the ones we can explain, these are the ones that we can't, but for me, it's about treating it seriously. This could be a foreign adversary with an advanced capability and we can't get surprised by that.

TMZ 0:36
And we're not gonna see a lot of retracting stuff are we?

Marco Rubio 0:39
Well, there is, it's classified, it's not because we're keeping it secret, well they are but it's not because they're hiding it from people it's because they don't want people to know how they collected on that information, like releasing it might give away some, some technological advantage we have or the way we collect intelligence, so they generally that's why the classified

TMZ 0:56
that's the only thing that scares the public because we see that time and time again

Marco Rubio 1:00
Well, the way politics are now I assure you if the classified has something spicy in, ain't no way that doesn't leak. You known what I mean?
Content from External Source
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Comments from Marco Rubio, yesterday, Jun 21, 2021
https://otter.ai/u/V-ZhIPJoJG6pQ50r5YsJurV1u3k


Well, there is, it's classified, it's not because we're keeping it secret, well they are but it's not because they're hiding it from people it's because they don't want people to know how they collected on that information, like releasing it might give away some, some technological advantage we have or the way we collect intelligence, so they generally that's why the classified
Content from External Source

It seems Rubio and perhaps other Members of Congress were briefed by the Pentagon on standard criteria of classification during the congressional hearing.

Put formalistically:

The legal justification for all military classification is to preserve or gain a military advantage over the adversary. This applies to:

(1) Classification of information revealing a secret US program or capability (publicly denied or obfuscated by the Pentagon even if such a capability would feature in any of the UAP evidence)

(2) Classification of information featuring non-US assets while revealing secret US intelligence-gathering technology or methodology (could also be regarded as a subset of 1)

2.1 Classification of information which reveals what kind of sensitive information the military is able to gather and how (secret intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities)

2.2 Classification of information which reveals the current limitations of ISR (which Rubio failed to mention, perhaps the Congress wasn't briefed on this criterion of classification)


In terms of the upcoming UAP report, 2.1 and 2.2 likely account for most of the incidents included in the classified annex. In other words, they are effectively "identified", but not publicized.

The unclassified portion of the report is likely to comment on the leaked footage along general lines whilst not offering detailed explanations, nor referring to them as "leaks" (an embarrassment). The (leaked) unclassified UAP evidence is sufficiently (a) non-revealing or (b) mundane, in terms of both 1 and 2, to be deemed unclassified. For the Pentagon to offer higher quality evidence on the same incidents, satisfying both believers' or skeptics' curiosity, would risk disclosure of classified information of both types 1 and 2.

For the Pentagon to offer a straightforward answer that the (leaked) unclassified footage features drones, planes or balloons in an optically deceptive manner is unlikely. To do so would be to publicly undermine the (poor) work done by the AATIP/UAPTF under its own wing. Pentagon does not shoot itself in the foot. The unclassified portion of the report is therefore likely to be a broad summary of the conclusions of AATIP/UAPTF whilst dialling down on the wildest hypotheses.

Pentagon is responding only due to leaks and the consequent public/congressional pressure. It will not say anything more than necessary and would rather this circus had never taken place. And hence the public will remain largely unimpressed.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the usual suspects (Elizondo, Mellon, maybe even the not-so-usual-suspecty but alien-sympathetic Brennan). Sam Harris seems to be perpetrating the lay error of mistaking these opinionated gentlemen for official US. Government (CIA and DoD) reps. At the time Harris was approached, Elizondo et al may have been actively involved in the Pentagon report, going all-out with the alien hypothesis, only to be later reined in by the Pentagon "proper". These self-same dynamics probably got him "resigned" from the Pentagon in the first place.

The closed door congressional briefing on the report that was going to be earth-shattering according to Harris in the Harris/Gervais podcast, happened some ten days later, and proved unremarkable. Luis Elizondo was disappointed and is now expecting a "watered down" report.

Much ado about nothing.

Elizondo stated when asked if it was him or Mellon who spoke to Harris that neither he or Mellon knew who he was. A bit odd considering the fuss over it on twitter. But something to note. Source: https://youtu.be/0fwZY6aJIyM?t=4069
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
There actually isn't a hard deadline for reports like this, despite them having an expected date. It's very common for them to be delayed.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
While most people here will focus on the prosaic implications mentioned in the report they've also managed to leave the door open for some pretty weird stuff.

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

and

Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
While most people here will focus on the prosaic implications mentioned in the report they've also managed to leave the door open for some pretty weird stuff.
I mean..... wow.....

This will change significantly the global discourse regarding the subject.
 

folly4

Member
@Alphadunk

I think you'd need to be extremely charitable to read the small blurbs you've pointed out as anything significant. The language is full of qualifiers, and it says they'll need "additional rigorous analysis" to even determine if it's "valid." (e.g. any incredible movement might just be anomalous errors in sensors)

"small amount of data/cases"

"appear/appeared"

"degree"

If I were a diehard UFO believer, I'd feel very misled by all the hype leading up to this right now.


The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of some of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"
"... and please can they be Hal Putoff, Eric Davis and their cronies"
 

Akton

Member
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of some of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"

This smells to me again like the Chilean UFO where those supposedly in institutional authority dithered about and did not put the same level of work into analysis as interested amateurs. People shouldn't be so surprised that this happens.
 

Synov

New Member
I can easily see this situation devolving into a Qanon-esque debacle where the UFO enthusiast community's suspense is perpetually sustained on tidbits of ambiguous information like this report, fed to them by hucksters. Elizondo seems poised to play disclosure prophet as a career and the community is already in a cult-like state. Alternate reality, here we come.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
"... and please can they be Hal Putoff, Eric Davis and their cronies"

This smells to me again like the Chilean UFO where those supposedly in institutional authority dithered about and did not put the same level of work into analysis as interested amateurs. People shouldn't be so surprised that this happens.

Given Bigelow kickstarted the whole thing it was never setup to succeed at rational analysis. Probably more to generate UFO videos with the US Gov "seal of approval."

It seems pretty clear they have never been rigorously investigated, so anyone claiming the "worlds largest military has put all its resources into this and has no idea" is seemingly mistaken. Those resources have not been made available or applied to this.

"The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis"
"Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data."
"limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis."

So either they kicked out the UFO people a little while ago and have tried to do some actual analysis but don't have the budget, access (no co-operation with other sections) and personnel to produce something for the harder cases. Or there'll be some new contracts for someone's company employing some familiar names.
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
I'm glad the Congress UAP report raises the most important ( and often overlooked ) issue of all :-

"There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting."

This is just another way of saying that UFOs cover such a broad scope that there's no real indication that different observers are even seeing the same phenomenon. A great many mysteries only exist because a whole range of disparate things get lumped together, and it is only that wide range that sustains the 'phenomenon' at all.
 

Peter

Active Member
Well that's a bit of a dud. A few pages of abstract descriptions of.. what? They could've sufficed with 'We saw some stuff that we couldn't readily identify a few times'.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
A rather specific thing that has been a point of discussion here, that I have raised along with others, was noted in the report.
Interesting

1624662759433.png
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
Given Bigelow kickstarted the whole thing it was never setup to succeed at rational analysis. Probably more to generate UFO videos with the US Gov "seal of approval."

It seems pretty clear they have never been rigorously investigated, so anyone claiming the "worlds largest military has put all its resources into this and has no idea" is seemingly mistaken. Those resources have not been made available or applied to this.

"The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis"
"Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data."
"limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis."

So either they kicked out the UFO people a little while ago and have tried to do some actual analysis but don't have the budget, access (no co-operation with other sections) and personnel to produce something for the harder cases. Or there'll be some new contracts for someone's company employing some familiar names.
They've had 74 years ( since Kenneth Arnold ) to do additional analysis. It took 8 years from Kennedy's speech to land a man on the Moon. It took 3 years for the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Seventy four years of being unable to say what a phenomenon is does rather suggest there is no genuine phenomenon.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
As has been already shared earlier in the thread, the report is now officially out for public review. Even a quick analysis leads to the following 6 conclusions:

(1) Only 21 out of 144 UAP reports collected throughout 2004-2021 are interesting even for the UAPTF in terms of the apparently unusual flight characteristics they feature. These 21 reports concern 18 incidents.

(2) The report concerns solely data submitted to the AATIP/UAPTF through its own reporting mechanisms. What the DoD in toto knows, doesn't know or internally reports about these incidents, cannot be inferred from the report.

(3) The UAPTF continues to be a tiny and somewhat lonely entity, lacking both in human resources and access to classified material. It is especially telling that, while an entity 'technically' under the DoD, the UAPTF tacitly admits not knowing about DoD's own secret programs.

"USG or Industry Developmental Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected."

(4) The UAPTF, as it currently stands under Brennan McKernan, has dialled down on ufology, seems more level-headed, and has pored over Mick's analysis.

"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."

(5) The UAP incidents investigated by the UAPTF are not a priority national security concern for the DoD.

(6) The UAPTF is not the go-to source of intelligence on unidentified phenomena for the various DoD service branches. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) remain largely de-centralized, specialized by service branch and operation, and priority concerns for the DoD.
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
ECADB7E9-B02D-4D7F-BFE3-3FCAD35C677A.jpeg

here we go, elizondo pushing his ET narrative pretty obvious right now.

its interesting how absolutely different one can perceive a piece of information based on his own bias / believe system

if i didnt knew that elizondo was "employed" by biggelow it would big time puzzle me how someone with a clear lack of critical thinking could officially put in charge of a serious UAP investigation program.
 

DebunkMee

New Member
"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."


This to me is the most interesting part of the entire report, and the various interpretations one could draw from it largely determines how likely this is to be something beyond the mundane.

Interpretation 1: The quality/amount of evidence regarding these encounters is so lacking that the explanations listed are considered likely.
Interpretation 2: The evidence does give strong support for real objects having unusual flight characteristics, but they want to secure a higher confidence level before stating it.
Interpretation 3: The task force does not have the resources and/or qualifications to even evaluate the evidence in order to make a prima facie assessment.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin.
Content from External Source
The report does not mention extraterrestrials. The reason seems obvious:
Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues.
Content from External Source
Translation: " If you say you've seen a UFO, you're going to look like a nut case."

We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.
Content from External Source
Translation: "None of our evidence so far is solid enough to prove that we're actually looking at an unknown technology."


When aviators encounter safety hazards, they are required to report these concerns. Depending on the location, volume, and behavior of hazards during incursions on ranges, pilots may cease their tests and/or training and land their aircraft, which has a deterrent effect on reporting.
Content from External Source
I'd like some background on this. My assumption would be that safety hazards are more likely to be reported than UAP that are not hazards, precisely because safety hazards are more important than mere unidentified sightings.


most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis
Content from External Source
What exactly are these challenges? 121 incidents written on note cards fit comfortably on a blackboard.
As the dataset increases, the UAPTF’s ability to employ data analytics to detect trends will also improve.
Content from External Source
Translation: "We didn't really see a lot of patterns in our data."

The initial focus will be to employ artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms to cluster and recognize similarities and patterns in features of the data points. As the database accumulates information from known aerial objects such as weather balloons, high-altitude or super-pressure balloons, and wildlife, machine learning can add efficiency by pre-assessing UAP reports to see if those records match similar events already in the database.
Content from External Source
Translation: "We wanted to use computer magic to help us find patterns, but the "big data" analysts told us we are a "small data" outfit." The cynical take on this is "we were trying to waste tax dollars on artificial intelligence, but even the artificial intelligence guys refused to take our money."

One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars.
Content from External Source
Translation: "Our plan is to feed all radar data we can get our hands on into one big artificial intelligence." Cynical take: "That'll generate a huge number of additional unexplained phenomena that we can then investigate. Job security achieved!"

* the data they have is useless
* they want more data
* which I expect will also be useless, but allow them to spend more money
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
It reads to me like this

"There was never any real deep analysis of some of this stuff, now everyone is asking about it so can we have some money/scientists/engineers who know what they are doing for the small amount of cases of less immediately explicable stuff"

"We need a lot of money now to research the UAPs, but we will never tell you where we allocate the money to. We promise to use it wisely"...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...ry-john-kirby-on-unidentified-aerial-phenome/

Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Assessment:

Today the Director of National Intelligence delivered to Congress a preliminary assessment on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and the progress that the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense UAP Task Force has made in understanding this threat.

Analyzing UAP is a collaborative effort involving many departments and agencies, and the Department thanks the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for leading a collaborative effort to produce this assessment, as well as the other contributing departments and agencies.

Incursions into our training ranges and designated airspace pose safety of flight and operations security concerns, and may pose national security challenges. DOD takes reports of incursions – by any aerial object, identified or unidentified – very seriously, and investigates each one.

The report submitted today highlights the challenges associated with assessing UAP occurring on or near DOD training ranges and installations. The report also identified the need to make improvements in processes, policies, technologies, and training to improve our ability to understand UAP.

To that end, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks today directed the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security to develop a plan to formalize the mission currently performed by the UAPTF.

This plan will be developed in coordination with various DOD components, including the military departments and the combatant commands, and with ODNI and other interagency partners. The plan will establish procedures for synchronizing collection, reporting and analysis of UAP; provide recommendations for securing military test and training ranges; and identify requirements for the establishment and operation of a new follow-on DOD activity to lead the effort, including its alignment, resources, staffing, authorities, and a timeline for implementation.

You can find the ODNI UAP assessment report on dni.gov.
Content from External Source
This all seems quite reasonable.
 

famking

New Member
ECADB7E9-B02D-4D7F-BFE3-3FCAD35C677A.jpeg

here we go, elizondo pushing his ET narrative pretty obvious right now.

its interesting how absolutely different one can perceive a piece of information based on his own bias / believe system

if i didnt knew that elizondo was "employed" by biggelow it would big time puzzle me how someone with a clear lack of critical thinking could officially put in charge of a serious UAP investigation program.

Maybe its his job. Spreading this Alien topic. As part of an disformation campaing.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
ECADB7E9-B02D-4D7F-BFE3-3FCAD35C677A.jpeg

here we go, elizondo pushing his ET narrative pretty obvious right now.

its interesting how absolutely different one can perceive a piece of information based on his own bias / believe system

if i didnt knew that elizondo was "employed" by biggelow it would big time puzzle me how someone with a clear lack of critical thinking could officially put in charge of a serious UAP investigation program.


Meanwhile , the report actually says.
Unable to confirm, does not mean wasn't

1624694637882.png
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Looking back at the first newspaper report and the conclusions drawn:
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"?).
No such acknowledgment.
And I don't think the report even says that a "vast majority" are non-UGS -- they simply don't know.
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.
One case.
It "held up" in one case, but could not be ruled out in many others.
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.
Again, not in the report. All the report says it that the possibility is there, but the evidence to support it is not.

tl;dr be cautious when drawing conclusions from newspaper reports; go to the original source instead.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
Also, if it was US secret technology. There is no way in the world they are going to confirm that to the UAPTF
Classified/Secret with an added need to know means exactly that
They wouldn't even tell most brass about the SR-71 or stealth bomber

And let's not forget when Harry Reid, a senator, applied for clearance to go and see what was happening at Lockheed Martin and....... it was denied
 
Last edited:
Top