Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents

[LilWabbit]

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.

This all seems quite reasonable.

Yes it does. She's also issuing an internal directive in public to assure the Congress of DoD compliance. If there were no leaks nor Bigelow, all such unclassified internal directives, nor the entire charade we have come to know as AATIP/UAPTF, would likely not be necessary. There is no reason to believe Pentagon hasn't always taken seriously any and all unidentified phenomena reported at training or test ranges, whether they have been later identified or not, spoofing/tactical deception by DoD's own capabilities or not.

 

[LilWabbit]

Looking back at the first newspaper report and the conclusions drawn:

No such acknowledgment.
And I don't think the report even says that a "vast majority" are non-UGS -- they simply don't know.

One case.
It "held up" in one case, but could not be ruled out in many others.

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.

Hence the qualifier in the OP: "If indeed the report determines..."

Looking at the way most media outlets are misreading and misreporting even the actual report released yesterday, your point on not reading into anything that they write/broadcast is more valid than ever. It's the sad truth.

As to the "they simply don't know", that may very well be the case with the UAPTF. But not necessarily with the DoD in toto. In fact, the following wording, while it can be construed as ignorance on the part of the UAPTF, could also be read as a very careful balancing act between not lying and yet not revealing:

"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."

In both scenarios the UAPTF would be "unable to confirm" secret US capabilities featuring in any UAP report, (1) knowing but not being allowed to confirm, (2) not knowing.

 

[Mendel]

I can't get over this.

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 industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall "other" bin. With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.

If these guys were zoologists, they would see a 4-legged animal; immediately make categories for 1-legged, 2-legged, 3-legged, 4-legged and "other" animals; only to later find out that there are no 1 legged animals sighted, that all 3-legged animal sightings were really 4-legged animals that had lost a leg; and that the vast majority of animals have either no legs or more than 5.

What this paragraph actually says is "if we see a UAP report, we're going to guess it's one of these 4 things, or we give up ( we're not guessing "aliens", nice try) -- unfortunately nobody ever tells us if we guessed right".

 

[Jayne Miller]

View attachment 45580

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.

"I will always tell the truth" pinned to his profile.
Really shocking, this.

( Specifically: 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.)

 

[Rocky]

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.

And this surprises you? /s
The news will do anything for clicks. Besides, it's all opinion now anyway.

 

[SkepticSteve]

If these guys were zoologists, they would see a 4-legged animal; immediately make categories for 1-legged, 2-legged, 3-legged, 4-legged and "other" animals; only to later find out that there are no 1 legged animals sighted, that all 3-legged animal sightings were really 4-legged animals that had lost a leg; and that the vast majority of animals have either no legs or more than 5.

What this paragraph actually says is "if we see a UAP report, we're going to guess it's one of these 4 things, or we give up ( we're not guessing "aliens", nice try) -- unfortunately nobody ever tells us if we guessed right".

"Words, like the chisel of the carver, can create what never existed before rather than simply describe what already exists. As a man speaks, not only is the thing which he is declaring coming into existence, but also the man himself."

 

[Rory]

Congress demanded the report after the US military reported numerous instance of objects seen moving erratically in the sky. The Pentagon then established the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force last August to look into the reports.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57619755

Here's a theory:

- Congress said "go form a group to look at these things and make a big report"
- Pentagon reluctantly shrugged its shoulders and did as it was told
- Made group and people got salaries
- Someone said "now what?"
- Smart person said: let's just doss about for seven or eight months and pretend we're doing things, and then at the end we'll whip up a half-assed report in like a week and say we can't figure it out
- Smart person added: then we'll release it to the public and Mick West and his people will put in hundreds of hours and solve them all for us
- Group nodded, and that's exactly what they did

 

[Jayne Miller]

Here's a theory:

- Congress said "go form a group to look at these things and make a big report"
- Pentagon reluctantly shrugged its shoulders and did as it was told
- Made group and people got salaries
- Someone said "now what?"
- Smart person said: let's just doss about for seven or eight months and pretend we're doing things, and then at the end we'll whip up a half-assed report in like a week and say we can't figure it out
- Smart person added: then we'll release it to the public and Mick West and his people will put in hundreds of hours and solve them all for us
- Group nodded, and that's exactly what they did

If I was one of those smart folks who produces excruciatingly detailed posts about all manner of maths/stats and so on on this forum, I'd be adding in little easter eggs just to see if 'they' were using the wonderful efforts contributed here once further reports appear.

 

[Alphadunk]

This all seems quite reasonable.

In the past you've seemed dismissive of this whole mission, basically implying it was just a pet project of the UFO nuts (Reid, Puthoff, etc.), which it was initially haha, and there was nothing to it other than a wide variety of human and system failures. Would you agree that their push to study UAP actually made sense now that we know more? It seems like getting to the bottom of this stuff will be beneficial to American military interests.

One thing I found curious about the report was the lack of geographic data. It would be interesting to know if they had any "events" outside of the training spaces mentioned.

 

[Itsme]

Interesting to read that most of the unknowns were reported in the 2019-2021 time period, while the report spans the whole 2004-2021 period. This means the establishment of a reporting procedure in 2019 while lifting the stigma a bit must have produced many more reports than in the prior 15 years. I wonder how many cases were never reported in the 2004-2019 time period.

The report itself is very shallow, given the fact that AATIP alone already consumed 22 million dollars. Where did all this money go? I would have gladly written a similar story for just 1 million The 1947 Twining memo already contained more info than this report.

 

[Mick West]

In the past you've seemed dismissive of this whole mission, basically implying it was just a pet project of the UFO nuts (Reid, Puthoff, etc.), which it was initially haha, and there was nothing to it other than a wide variety of human and system failures. Would you agree that their push to study UAP actually made sense now that we know more? It seems like getting to the bottom of this stuff will be beneficial to American military interests.

What I was dismissive of was the focus on ET or physics-defying technology, for which there is no good evidence, as reflected in this report.

 

[Agent K]

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

9 pages? Where's the rest of it?

 

[DavidB66]

It (the published unclassified version of the report) is very thin on details. Maybe the full report to Congress has more detail on specific incidents, in which case we should expect some of it to leak out.

The one specific revelation is that one UAP has been identified as a 'large deflating balloon'. Even this is annoyingly vague. I take it that 'large' means 'large for a balloon'. If someone refers to a 'large dog', without further explanation, we would reasonably interpret it as meaning larger than the average dog, not as large as an elephant. In the case of balloons, even if we exclude dirigibles, there is a size range from smaller than a meter to many meters. The barrage balloons of WWII were 20 or 30 meters long. Balloons of similar size may still be used for some military purposes. The Google Loon balloons are/were about 15 meters across. Meteorological balloons are typically 1 to 3 meters in diameter at low level but could expand to as much as 10 meters at high altitude (according to a few online sources). But the great majority of balloons in the sky are now recreational (party) balloons, which are seldom more than 1 meter across. So one might conceivably describe anything larger than 1 meter as 'large' for a balloon. But I think it would be misleading to use the description in that way without further clarification, and I would take the reference in the report as meaning at least a few meters in diameter or 'length'.

Quite possibly the identified balloon does not relate to any of the publicly known incidents. But if it does, it would be nice to know which. The prime suspects would be the Gofast object, the TicTac and the Omaha 'sphere'. If estimates of the Gofast object at only 1 to 2 meters diameter are correct, to describe it as 'large' would be somewhat misleading. For the TicTac, if David Fravor is correct in describing it as about the size of a Hornet (~40 feet), it would be fair to say it is very large for a balloon, though not out of the range of blimp-type objects. But surely if it had been positively identified as a balloon the authorities would have said so by now, if only privately to Fravor himself? It would be rather unkind to leave him in the dark. That leaves the Omaha sphere, which is a tantalising possibility. In its favour is the fact that the sphere was seen to descend over a period of minutes, which would fit well with the description of a 'deflating' balloon.

 

[Itsme]

9 pages? Where's the rest of it?

Since they spent about 3 million per page I expect they chose their wording carefully...

Other: 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.

Why use the words "pending scientific advances" instead of something like "further scientific study"?
It almost seems to imply our science needs to be developed further first to be able to explain "the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management".

 

[Mendel]

Since they spent about 3 million per page I expect they chose their wording carefully...


Why use the words "pending scientific advances" instead of something like "further scientific study"?
It almost seems to imply our science needs to be developed further first to be able to explain "the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management".

An object that accelerates quickly without emitting visible heat is impossible by (my) current scientific understanding: either its propulsion system is based on unknown principles, or it manages to hide the heat it emits by unknown principles.

Or perhaps the observation is flawed, of course.

 

[Itsme]

An object that accelerates quickly without emitting visible heat is impossible by (my) current scientific understanding: either its propulsion system is based on unknown principles, or it manages to hide the heat it emits by unknown principles.

Or perhaps the observation is flawed, of course.

Indeed, that's why it really frustrates me that no c!ear statistics are given.

144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation
with multiple sensors.

Ok, and how many of these 80 reports fall in the particular 'other' category that is waiting for further 'scientific advances' to be explained? If multiple sensors are involved, the probability of observational errors is less. The report really does not tell much at all if you consider this lack of insight in the actual data.

Sensor vantage points and the numbers of sensors concurrently observing an object
play substantial roles in distinguishing UAP from known objects and determining
whether a UAP demonstrates breakthrough aerospace capabilities.

What does this imply about the 'real unknowns'?

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.

Well, how many sensors were involved then?

The quality of this report is terrible...

 

[Mendel]

To expand on my previous post:

Other: 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.

Why use the words "pending scientific advances" instead of something like "further scientific study"?

It looks like the proper name for the "Other" category should be "physically impossible".

I can just imagine an Elizondo-type UAPTF manager on the phone with a physicist:
M: "So, professor, can you tell me what technology these guys could be using?"
P: "There's no technology that lets you do that."
M: (jots down "unknown technology") "So we need to catch up on technology then. How many years would that take?"
P: "It can't be done, that technology would break fundamental physical laws."
M: "But the laws of physics evolve, isn't that right?"
P: "That's true, I guess."
M: (jots down "need scientific advances") "Thank you, professor, you've been a great help."

 

[Itsme]

P: Throw it in the 'other' bin, next to dark matter and dark energy.
M: Why?
P: These are also based on something we measure but cannot explain yet

 

[Mendel]

P: Throw it in the 'other' bin, next to dark matter and dark energy.
M: Why?
P: These are also based on something we measure but cannot explain yet

"cannot explain" and "breaks the laws of thermodynamics" are different things.

Also, dark matter and dark energy can be explained; so much so that several different explanations exist, none of which require throwing fundamental concepts of physics overboard. We simply don't know yet which explanation will turn out to be correct.

 

[jackfrostvc]

BTW, Spoofing doesn't necessarily mean a security issue. More likely it's not

As has been theorised, it could have been the US just testing their capabilities.
Or Spoofing used for training purposes. ie spoofing missile attacks that are then picked up on fleet radar.. This is done because it's cheaper than firing drone missiles for example

 

[Alphadunk]

Why use the words "pending scientific advances" instead of something like "further scientific study"?
It almost seems to imply our science needs to be developed further first to be able to explain "the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management".

It's possible they're considering the chance that some sightings can be explained by natural, but as yet undiscovered, means. It could be something natural, but interesting, like the Hessdalen lights. So not a situation where we're waiting for warp drives to be invented but a situation where we need more scientific study to explain a natural phenomenon that is occurring.

 

[MichaelMelisma]

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.

This all seems quite reasonable.

Bingo... They've changed the focus from 'little green men' and 'all of this is totally explainable' into 'let's collect some data'.

Of course Condon said he was doing the exact same thing, but I don't think the public will put up with swamp gas explanations from this point on..

 

[Itsme]

It's possible they're considering the chance that some sightings can be explained by natural, but as yet undiscovered, means. It could be something natural, but interesting, like the Hessdalen lights. So not a situation where we're waiting for warp drives to be invented but a situation where we need more scientific study to explain a natural phenomenon that is occurring.

I'd expect so, too.

But they also make statements like:

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.

and:

Although there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow for detailed trend or pattern analysis, there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion.

How are these generic statements backed up by the data? It almost reads like a magazine article instead of a factual report.

They also have a separate category for 'natural atmospheric phenomena'. Does this include phenomena akin to the Hessdalen lights, or do these fall in the 'other' bin?

More than 22 million dollars seems a bit expensive for such a report, don't you think?

 

[Itsme]

Here's one that was much cheaper but much more informative. That is how you create a report:
https://www.narcap.org/s/narcap_TR-3_2001.pdf

 

[Itsme]

I do wonder what the classified part of the report contains:

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said he had seen the classified UAP report when he was serving in the Senate. "The hair stood up on the back of my neck," he said in an interview.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...323b20-d52c-11eb-ae54-515e2f63d37d_story.html

 

[Mendel]

I do wonder what the classified part of the report contains:

Bill Nelson served in the US Senate from 1/2001 to 1/2019, and was a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

 

[LilWabbit]

Bill Nelson served in the US Senate from 1/2001 to 1/2019, and was a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Peppered with Elizondo's outlandish interpretations the same somewhat unimpressive -- and by now largely demystified -- footage would have surely raised hairs pre-2019. I have no doubt even Obama received a briefing featuring, one way or another, Elizondo's explanation of physics-defying flight characteristics as a viable alternative.

The newly-released report suggests Brennan McKernan has been far more open to Mick's analysis as a viable account for some of the same footage. The dialling down with the alien hypothesis has been significant. But as was to be expected, a Pentagon report would not go as far as to openly discount its earlier UAPTF/AATIP work, no matter how sloppy and fringe.

Why shoot itself in the foot and upset the Congress in the process for having forced the DoD's hand to dabble with nonsense. For the same diplomatic reasons the Pentagon does not declare openly its aviators to have likely made errors. However, I was positively surprised that the unclassified report did dare to mention misperception as a possible explanation for the reported "unusual flight characteristics", while also suggesting that these 18 stranger incidents were based on human observation (i.e. anecdotal eyewitness accounts) rather than sensor data.

 

[LilWabbit]

I do wonder what the classified part of the report contains:



Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...323b20-d52c-11eb-ae54-515e2f63d37d_story.html

Marco Rubio on 21 June 2021 after the classified congressional briefing (cited earlier by Mick on this thread):

"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."

 

[jackfrostvc]

My favourite bit in the UAPTF report:

"Foreign Adversary Systems: Some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity"

"non-governmental entity", 100% proof that Spectre still lives

 

[Mendel]

while also suggesting that these 18 stranger incidents were based on human observation (i.e. anecdotal eyewitness accounts) rather than sensor data.

How did you arrive at this assessment? I only found this:

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

You believe if these reports also contained sensor data, they'd have mentioned it?

 

[LilWabbit]

How did you arrive at this assessment? I only found this:

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

You believe if these reports also contained sensor data, they'd have mentioned it?

The word "observers reported" caught my eye. If these were supported by sensor data it would have warranted a mention if only to highlight why the UAPTF thinks these incidents especially merit a closer expert review with extra resources. Obviously I do not claim this logically implies such corroborative data is non-existent. But it does seem like it.

Otherwise maybe a wording "observers reported and sensor data indicated" would have been used, or something along these lines.

 

[Itsme]

The word "observers reported" caught my eye. If these were supported by sensor data it would have warranted a mention if only to highlight why the UAPTF thinks these incidents especially merit a closer expert review with extra resources. Obviously I do not claim this logically implies such corroborative data is non-existent. But it does seem like it.

Otherwise maybe a wording "observers reported and sensor data indicated" would have been used, or something along these lines.

What about the next paragraph:

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.

So I guess it's observers plus a 'small amount of data', whatever that may mean.

 

[Mick West]

The word "observers reported" caught my eye. If these were supported by sensor data it would have warranted a mention if only to highlight why the UAPTF thinks these incidents especially merit a closer expert review with extra resources. Obviously I do not claim this logically implies such corroborative data is non-existent. But it does seem like it.

Otherwise maybe a wording "observers reported and sensor data indicated" would have been used, or something along these lines.

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.

That's some inordinately vague terminology, but it is "sensor data"

So I guess it's observers plus a 'small amount of data', whatever that may mean.

Again, weird wording "The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show" - why not say "sensor data"?

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

"Handful"? What's that? Five?

 

[Alphadunk]

Additionally what is meant by "Advanced Technology?" The amount of subjective terminology in the report is pretty laughable.

 

[LilWabbit]

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.

That's some inordinately vague terminology, but it is "sensor data"

Or electro-magnetic effects interfering with aircraft systems such as radio and compass, similar to what was earlier reported in the 2001 NARCAP technical report. If indeed the "small number of cases" refers to EM interference on electrical systems, it would not qualify as relevant "sensor data" providing accurate readings on the UAP, that could be used to support eyewitness anecdotes on strange flight characteristics. It would, however, corroborate that something physical with EM signatures was likely being observed.

As to the NARCAP report, while cursorily more detailed, it is almost entirely anecdotal, based on a somewhat subjectively determined scoring system of 1,300 reports over many decades. Pilots' flight hours (an argument from authority), among other things, adds significant weight to a UAP report in their scoring. On the positive, the 'severity of EM effects' on aircraft systems is also weighted into the score. While there is no reason to doubt that in many of these cases EM effects on aircraft systems were actually associated with eyewitness accounts, there is no way to verify (1) if those aircraft systems were actually affected, and (2) exactly how and when were they affected in relation to the eyewitness sightings of the UAP.

While far from being in awe of the newly-released UAPTF report, earlier in the thread someone said the NARCAP report is an example of a good report. It's true that the NARCAP report features more quantified data (i.e. it features a greater abundance of neat-looking figures and percentages), fooling the cursory reader to think it's somehow more informative. However, highly specific quantitative data irrelevant to the problem at hand is as useful as the exact figure of Washington Navel Oranges harvested in California in 2015 to indicate the 1985 GDP of Romania.

 

[folly4]

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

"Handful"? What's that? Five?

The bold paragraph in the 'Executive Summary' clearly seems to be related to the "And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" section on page 5.

Reasoning...

1. The order of items (paragraphs with bold beginnings) in the Executive Summary roughly (but actually pretty closely) matches the layout of the sections in the report. It serves as a de facto table of contents. Which all makes sense, as it's a summary.

2. Note the congruence in language between the Executive Summary paragraph in question and the "Handful" section on Page 5.

"limited number of incidents"

"Handful of UAP"


"UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics."

"unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics"


"require additional rigorous analysis"

"Additional rigorous analysis are necessary"


Thus, I think the simplest reading is "Handful" = "limited number" = 18 incidents, and the language from the relevant Executive Summary applies to these incidents: "These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception"

18 out of 144 = 12.5%

It could be argued that "handful," colloquially, connotes fewer than this. But it's imprecise language. Hard to know.

Now, there might be some possible parsing between "Advanced Technology" and "unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics."

Perhaps some "unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics" is not equal to "Advanced Technology," per se. Perhaps it is just notable or remarkable, but does not reach the threshold for "Advanced Technology."

If this is the case, the "Handful" might be, say, 5 incidents of apparent Advanced Technology, with the remaining 13 incidents being notable/remarkable for their unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics.

In this way, "Advanced Technology" might be a subset of "unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics" that includes only the UAP that are SUPER unusual.

 

[jeffcondor]

Perhaps some "unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics" is not indicative of "Advanced Technology," per se. Perhaps it is just notable or remarkable, but does not reach the threshold for "Advanced Technology."

If this is the case, the "Handful" might be, say, 5 incidents of apparent Advanced Technology, with the remaining 13 incidents being notable/remarkable for their unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics.

This is something I've been thinking about as well. Specifically, the report states - under the relevant heading about unusual movement - that they hold data appearing to show UAP "demonstrating acceleration." This doesn't seem odd at all, given that the report itself suggests some UAP are probably misidentified drones, planes or other aircraft - all of which are capable of acceleration. That the report only suggests these UAP were "demonstrating acceleration," and not something like 'demonstrating extraordinary or impossible acceleration,' might be indicative of UAPTF interest in these incidents because they display the characteristics we might expect of a new foreign drone type that US intelligence isn't familiar with. The same is true of signature management - it's an advanced tech in a sense, but also one humans are perfectly capable of. It is, however, perhaps indicative of attempt at stealth flight - which is of course of great interest to the DoD.

This would fit with the reports call for further analysis "to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated" - this could quite possibly refer NOT to technologies defying our understanding of physics, but to technologies that US intelligence does not believe foreign powers to curreny possess - even if they have already been deployed by the DoD. They don't even half to be 'vertical' breakthroughs, so to speak, it could be a lateral breakthrough - some kind of tech that isn't necessarily more advanced but simply distinct from what US intelligence expects.

 

[LilWabbit]

What about the next paragraph:

So I guess it's observers plus a 'small amount of data', whatever that may mean.

Indeed. Why couldn't the UAPTF report as follows (the word in bold added and the phrase with the strikethrough deleted)?

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of these cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.

Why use the imprecise language "associated with UAP sightings" when the strength of the argument for further funding and resources could be easily bolstered by specifying that the aircraft system anomalies exactly co-occurred with eyewitness sightings of seemingly unusual flight characteristics? Unless of course these two observations did not exactly co-occur.

Unpublicized data on electro-magnetic interference with aircraft systems (RF energy), along with the leaked footage, including of the USS Omaha radar readings, would account for the below wording:

"The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management."

Again, if this "small amount of data" (such as video and radar records, or records of EM interference with aircraft systems) would exactly co-occur with the eyewitness sightings of strange movement patterns, the observation would be more impressive for funding requests. Given such a tiny number of interesting cases (18), it stands to reason that more poignant and clear language would have been worth the while.

All of the above suggests that eyewitness anecdotes remain the sole source for the reported unusual movement patterns. Aside from strange footage of course (partially leaked and debunked).

Also, in the executive summary, the word "reportedly", employed together with "appeared", caught the eye, attaching an already qualifier-charged phrase with a further qualifier:

"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics."

"In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics."

It's almost as if there's exceptionally little 'there' there.

It would therefore be reasonable to assume that these 18 interesting incidents are all based on (1) 21 eyewitness reports (whether witnessing real-time video-streaming, other instrumentation readings or making direct eyeball-to-object observations) from the same overall exercises/training events as are (2) the "small number of" physical records, while (3) 1 and 2 do not describe the exact same incidents.

The few interesting physical records consist mainly of footage (some of it familiar leaked and already demystified footage), radar readings (one already leaked), wind speed readings and possibly EM interference occurring during the same overall exercise.

 

[Mendel]

18 out of 144 = 12.5%

144 is the number of reports, not the number of incidents. The 18 incidents correspond to 21 reports.

I have the notion that there were 121 incidents (and the pre-release reporting mentioned "over 120" incidents), but the unclassified report doesn't seem to say.

@LilWabbit , I would be extremely cautious when drawing conclusions from wordings that are dependent on how you would have worded things.
Without knowing the writers and their style (and this was likely written "by committee) and their motivations, your conclusions can't be more than guesses.

These people threw logic out the window with this report:
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 industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall "other" bin.
First of all, "other" is not an "explanatory category", it might as well be named "unexplained". Secondly, their "analysis of the data" explained exactly one incident, so in truth this analysis supports exactly 2 "explanatory" categories (one of which is not explanatory), and these categories are "balloons" and "unexplained".

What they really want to communicate is that if they collect more reports, including some kind of global radar data feed, they hope to be able to explain some of these incidents, and they hope to be able to find some instances of unknown foreign technology that would otherwise have gone undetected.
However, clearly there's a lack of evidence that would show that this hope will ever materialise; there's no precedent for it, and neither AATIP nor UAPTF have been able to establish any, though clearly they've tried.

To gain knowledge of foreign technology, traditional methods of intelligence and espionage look to be more effective.

The report obfuscates all of this because its audience is Congress, and they want to keep getting funded by Congress; so they're using an unfounded fear of the unknown (presumed superior tech) combined with an unfounded claim that too little is being done (not enough reports) to drive home the "need" to keep funding this organization.

And that's why the report is low on information. Less information helps their goals ("so much unknown"! "need more data!") when more information would enable critical thought and the realisation that there's nothing behind that curtain. It's straight out of the CT playbook we all know: take some facts, a lot of imagination and fear, and a healthy dose of urgency, and you'll soon have a concerned audience happy to send money your way.

The report might as well claim we would know more about foreign technology if only we employed more fortune tellers to divine what the Russians and Chinese are up to. The evidence for it is the same: none.

 

[LilWabbit]

144 is the number of reports, not the number of incidents. The 18 incidents correspond to 21 reports.

I have the notion that there were 121 incidents (and the pre-release reporting mentioned "over 120" incidents), but the unclassified report doesn't seem to say.

@LilWabbit , I would be extremely cautious when drawing conclusions from wordings that are dependent on how you would have worded things.
Without knowing the writers and their style (and this was likely written "by committee) and their motivations, your conclusions can't be more than guesses.

You nailed it @Mendel. Reasoned 'guesses' are exactly what they are and intended to be. Don't let the verbiage fool you to think yours truly is doing anything more than hermeneutically indulging in linguistic minutiae (also known as 'geeking out') with full knowledge of the speculation involved.

Similarly I would not express with any confidence that the report is "using an unfounded fear of the unknown" in a particularly calculated way. It could have been far more poignant in order for it to produce that effect. I think you are correct in assuming the unclassified report is deliberately vague, which I reckon has more to do with the classified aspect of the specifics. Which in turn, if Rubio is right, has more to do with not revealing classified ISR capabilities than the UAP featured in the data.

P.S. I did offer also some conclusions earlier in another post, which could be backed by evidence and more rigorous reasoning than the more speculative linguistic guesses above.