EM effects that seem to correlate with UAPs were already reported in 1964, see page 151 of attached pdf. So, yes, this seems to be an observation that is repeated over the years.
Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents
- Thread starter LilWabbit
- Start date
- Status
I still tend to read quite a bit of subjectivity and speculation in your conclusions, to be honest.
I tried to compile a summary purely from the observations (not speculations) in the original report:
-------------------------------
The UAPTF considered a range of information on UAP described in U.S. military and IC (Intelligence Community) reporting, but because the reporting lacked sufficient specificity, ultimately recognized that a unique, tailored reporting process was required to provide sufficient data for analysis of UAP events.
As a result, the UAPTF concentrated its review on 144 reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems the UAPTF considered to be reliable in the 2004-2021 period, with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community.
There was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow for detailed trend or pattern analysis.
- The UAPTF was able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence as a large, deflating balloon. The others remain unexplained.
- Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.
- There are 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.
- Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that 80 out of 144 UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.
- There was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion.
- Unusual flight characteristics were reported in 21 out of 144 reports, covering 18 incidents. These require additional rigorous analysis to make sure they were not the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception.
- The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. The UAPTF is conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.
- The UAPTF was unable to confirm that classified programs by U.S. entities accounted for any of the UAP reports collected.
- The UAPTF currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.
---------------------------------------
Last edited:
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Honesty is the best policy. If you could kindly highlight the subjectivity in the 6 conclusions, keeping in mind that they were based on the totality of evidence gathered thus far alongside this report, rather than based on the report exclusively.
P.S. Thanks for the summary of the summary. Seems pretty accurate.
Sure, I tend to see speculation about the UAPTF not having access to classified material, being a lonely entity, that they were less level-headed in the past but have changed their mind after poring over Mick's analysis, and currently not being the go-to source of intelligence on UAP's.
And you use the word `only' in your first conclusion ("only 21 out of 144 reports"), implying you judge these 21 interesting ones as being of low value (which is also subjective of course).
LilWabbit
Senior Member
"I tend to see speculation about the UAPTF not having access to classified material, being a lonely entity."
The report phraseology where 'some UAP may be attributable to US technology while unable to confirm it' is in the report, and not subjective speculation on my part. It demonstrates a very likely lack of access to classified data within the broader DoD. The foregoing, read together with ample indications from other sources (including from Elizondo himself) that Elizondo was largely working alone without access to a lot of classified data (together with suspicions that a lot is being withheld from him), the conclusion is logically quite warranted.
"that they were less level-headed in the past but have changed their mind after poring over Mick's analysis"
That's not an exact quote of what I said.
"currently not being the go-to source of intelligence on UAP's"
There is ample objective evidence and detailed publicly available knowledge on modern military establishments primarily basing their intelligence (i.e. on anything initially unidentified/unknown) on (1) established in-house military intelligence departments/agencies and (2) decentralized intelligence functions cutting across every service branch and the entire military hierarchy.
"And you use the word `only' in your first conclusion ("only 21 out of 144 reports"), implying you judge these 21 interesting ones as being of low value (which is also subjective of course)"
Quite the opposite, they are the only ones of real interest and the rest being of lower concern. The report makes this conclusion itself in terms of what it wishes to focus on in the future pending further money and resources. The 'only' correlates to the diminutive number of cases, not the comparatively lower value of these cases.
DavidB66
Senior Member.
If we are going to get forensic about the linguistics of the report, the phrase 'supports the construct' strikes me as odd. What does the noun 'construct' mean in this context? Is it just another word for 'hypothesis'? If so, why not use that word, which is more familiar and less ambiguous?
Perhaps I am just too old (and British), but I find the usage verging on pretentious. On checking a few online dictionaries I see that Merriam-Webster has:
I also found this, from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which seems particularly apt:
Perhaps I am just too old (and British), but I find the usage verging on pretentious. On checking a few online dictionaries I see that Merriam-Webster has:
I also found this, from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which seems particularly apt:
Reply to post #124 above:
You seem to equate Elizondo and his AATIP project with the UAPTF.
The report states:
Concerning secret US technology, the exact sentence reads:
It's true that most reports were submitted after 2019, when "the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community". Before that time period, most of it was not reported at all because "reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic". But there's no question that the UAPTF now is the focal point of UAP reporting in the Navy and Airforce.
You seem to equate Elizondo and his AATIP project with the UAPTF.
The report states:
Seems they were not very lonely and had access to many sources, unlike Elizondo allegedly stated about AATIP (do you have a source for that? as far as I'm aware he was mainly frustrated because the topic was not very popular in the IC, not because he did not have the access he required).External Quote:
Concerning secret US technology, the exact sentence reads:
The `could be' already expresses low probability, the `however' and `any' pretty strongly denies that probability.External Quote:
It's true that most reports were submitted after 2019, when "the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community". Before that time period, most of it was not reported at all because "reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic". But there's no question that the UAPTF now is the focal point of UAP reporting in the Navy and Airforce.
The Director is the Director of National Intelligence.External Quote:
LilWabbit
Senior Member
No, I did not equate Elizondo with the UAPTF. But if you do not see the context in which I mentioned him, the full background story of this modestly funded entity within the DoD, nor military's traditional ISR as the primary source for all intelligence (including UAP), then we are really missing each other by a mile.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
The report says, factually, they've resolved 1 single incident out of over 100, and that was a balloon. By all standards, the report should say that the task force was a failure and a waste of money.
What they're instead saying is "we could be looking at advanced technology from an enemy nation or even terrorists, please give us much more data and the funds to run analytics on it" with not even a hint of evidence that this won't be a colossal waste of money as well. And some of the senators seem to accept this "national security" angle without questioning it.
I'm not sure how they could have been more poignant without leaving themselves a back door to when they won't have found anything in 2 years hence.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
The Congress received first the classified annex to the report prior to the release of the unclassified summary, probably highlighting the "national security" angle in greater detail (for fundraising purposes or not). The unclassified version is more to offer a brief summary of the findings (or lack thereof) for the general public and offers no added value to the Congress. I find it difficult to buy the argument the unclassified document is primarily a fundraising plea to the Congress. Sure, it may increase public pressure on the Congress, but for a fundraising document it's dry, vague and flat. It could have been far more poignant in precisely the way you suggested:
We resolved 1 single incident out of 120+, and that was a balloon. We are under-resourced and national security dictates we need much more funding to identify the rest and more to come.
The report is primarily motivated by DoD compliance to a congressional request, while including an understandable request for further funding. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida from the Senate Intelligence Committee last December called for the report within six months, prompted by the media hoopla caused by Elizondo's leaks as well as Rubio's own national security concerns.
Last edited:
I think it's because the categories you choose are basically a construct, i.e., you could construct a different set of categories if you'd like.
Special report nr 14 (published in 1955), for example, used a different set of categories:
The `other' category here meant:
Note the `Insufficient information' category, which is set apart from the `Unknown' category.
`Unknown' was defined as:
Of 2199 investigated sightings, 435 fell in this category (19,8 %).
Now it's 21 out of 144 reports or 14,5 % - pretty close.
I attached the report for those interested.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The difficulty with this comparison is the big difference in the number of identified objects. [p.28 in the PDF, p.19 in the report:]
| 1955 report | 2021 UAPTF report | |
| Astrononomical | 479 | 0 |
| Aircraft | 474 | 0 |
| Balloon | 339 | 1 |
| Insufficient Information | 240 | 122 |
| Other | 233 | 0 |
| Unknown | 434 | 21 |
In 1955, "Unknown" aka "unexplainable" was 434/(240+434) = 64% of all reported unidentified object sightings.
In 2021, the unexplainable makes up 21/(21+122) = 15% of all unidentified reports.
My hypothesis is that better sensors (including archived video recordings of encounters) have sharply reduced the number of unexplainable encounters.
P.S.: This is how you construct categories properly.
Last edited:
Interesting table, gives a good overview. Thanks for that.
In 1955, all 2199 sightings investigated were of unidentified objects, not just 434+240 of them. They all could not be identified by the ones reporting them, just like the cases investigated by the UAPTF.
After analysis of the 1955 UFO reports by a panel of experts in different fields, 434 were judged to be unknowns, mainly because of their unusual flight characteristics. The other ones were categorized by the panel as well, after initially having been reported as a UFO by the eye witnesses. The eye witnesses were not consulted in this process as far as I know.
The main goal of the project was to judge whether the IFOs that were identified as such by the panel, had the same `signature' in terms of colour, appearance etc as the UFOs. If that were the case, one could argue that the UFOs were just unidentified IFOs. The result was negative, they did not have the same `signature'. One could argue, however, that some mundane objects are more easily recognizable than others so the distribution of the different IFO categories among the UFOs could be different, which could explain the difference in `signature'.
One of the problems in this 1955 investigation was that manoeuvrability was not one of the components they used for the `signature' of the cases, because only a limited set of cases carried information about manoeuvrability. But in the end manoeuvrability appeared to be a decisive factor in judging whether something was a UFO or a IFO.
I guess the UAPTF was not able to organise a process where every report was judged and categorized by a panel, or they did not see any need for it.
You could argue that judgement by a panel is subjective and by definition means you do not have enough `hard data' to categorize such cases with certainty, so you might as well put them in the `insufficient information' bin instead of splitting them up. Cases that do not carry any remarkable hard data are not interesting anyway, so why spend resources on them.
It makes a lot of sense to concentrate your resources on the puzzling ones. I guess we have become more focused on efficiency over the decades (or maybe because of COVID).
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
The UAPTF
I would not argue that "judgment by a panel" is subjective; why would it be?
The "Metabunk panel" has identified unidentified stuff a-plenty.
And I'd say that splitting cases up with respect to likely explanations is effort well spent. It does a lot to curb "woo" proponents, and gives a better sense of where the actual challenges are.
Last edited:
What's that figure from?
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Are you conflating the $22Mill AATIP had with what the UAPTF may of had?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, I misread post #90. I'm sorry.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
In a way, it's probably not completely inaccurate , as I presume the UAPTF used some/all of AATIP's reports for their conclusions.
Article: "The classified report includes some additional information that could not be declassified consistent with the protection of sources and methods," an ODNI spokesperson told The Black Vault in an e-mail.
When asked for additional details like length of the classified annex/report; asking if there were photos/visuals; asking if there were specific cases mentioned with dates/times/locales — ODNI would not comment beyond the above.
However, they did add, "The unclassified preliminary assessment and classified annex are substantively consistent and the key conclusions are the same in both."
In other words, according to ODNI, they did not release one conclusion to the public and another within a classified report.
Pours some cold water on the idea that the classified report has more conclusive evidence of breakthrough technology.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Also they are confirming Rubio's point on the reason for classification. "Protection of sources and methods." Rather than some mind-blowing content that would raise hairs and cause widespread panic if released to the public.
Protecting sources and methods is the most common standard for classification for most data collected by intelligence.
Yeah, and it's been the standard "no comment" reason given by Navy Spokespeople for years on this topic.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...navy-ufo-videos-and-uap-investigations.11401/
External Quote:
LilWabbit
Senior Member
From the report:
"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."
The UAPTF deems over 100 out of 120+ UAP incidents from 2004-2021 effectively uninteresting for further investigation. The 18 incidents of interest for further study are anecdotal and loosely associated with "a small amount" of sensor signatures.
Show me this isn't what the report is effectively saying, and that I'm just reading into it.
"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."
***
Overall Conclusion Based on the June 2021 UAP Report
Overall Conclusion Based on the June 2021 UAP Report
The UAPTF deems over 100 out of 120+ UAP incidents from 2004-2021 effectively uninteresting for further investigation. The 18 incidents of interest for further study are anecdotal and loosely associated with "a small amount" of sensor signatures.
***
Show me this isn't what the report is effectively saying, and that I'm just reading into it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
That's not how Metabunk works. You need to support your own claim.
I'm particularly doubtful that you can do that with your claim that the 18 incidents are "anecdotal and loosely associated with "a small amount" of sensor signatures" ; what does "anecdotal" signify? what is a "sensor signature"? and how do you know the amount? how much is "small"?
The UAPTF was not tasked to look for the presence or absence of signs of ET in the UAP data. That's NASA's job.
Whether or not a UAP incident is `interesting' to the UAPTF should be judged in the context of the questions they were tasked to answer:
The report indicates that:External Quote:
- Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.
- There are 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Not interesting enough to focus additional analysis on 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."
Cassi O
Active Member
Out of all the leaked videos from the UAPTF, which ones actually showed unusual flight characteristics? They only look impressive because of the apparent motion across the clouds, water, or horizon.but the objects themselves didn't maneuver at all and traveled at normal speeds.
True, and that puzzles me a bit because an "assessment of whether this UAP activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries" was part of the UAPTF mission. This does not depend on unusual flight characteristics alone.
The analysis so far concluded "the UAPTF currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary". Apparently this is enough to not further pursue the `slow movers'. Note the word `any', which seems to include the `fast movers' as well.
So, what hypotheses do they intend to investigate in this additional analysis on the `fast movers'? At least NASA seems to be interested, too:
I think some of the analyses on Metabunk are almost irrefutable, like the conclusion that the FLIR1 video does not show sudden acceleration, or the GoFast object is actually halfway the jet and the ocean. These are based on the sensor readings displayed on the ATFLIR screen, so if you trust these sensors there is no way around the related conclusions.
Others are more hypothetical, like the Gimbal object rotation being caused by a rotating optical glare that originates from the optics in the rotating gimbal, or the object seeming to splash into the ocean being an distant jet disappearing behind the horizon. These hypotheses can be disputed since the data is ambiguous (as can be seen in their related threads on this forum).
Of course Occam's Razor can be wielded to defend any hypothesis that is more mundane, but Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, i.e., it will not lead you to the right answer all the time, just most of the time.
If you regard the gimbal rotation as actual object rotation, or the object seemingly splashing into the ocean as an actual `transmedium travel' move of a UAP, these videos do show unusual flight characteristics.
Last edited:
Cassi O
Active Member
The background artifacts rotate at the same rate as the object, it's not ambiguous.
An aircraft hitting the water at a high rate of speed goes splat, not splash, I'll have to go with Occam on this one.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
It's less puzzling within the context of the UAPTF (and its immediate predecessor AATIP) being understood as an entity primarily established to satisfy public and political concern rather than being based on DoD's own national security priorities. The actual nuts-and-bolts work of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance on airborne threats is, and has always been a DoD priority, but it is, and has always been, done elsewhere in the DoD. There is no evidence of internal DoD pressure to put together a separate and poorly-funded entity to support that work -- and somewhat poorly at that.
Many an outsider of a major military establishment assumes the DoD is a simple monolith whose competent video analysis and other experts are fully consulted, or fully at the disposal, of the tiny and politically motivated fringe entity -- a relative new-comer and a stranger to the core DoD organization.
The issue of what amount of information is "enough" for shelving a particular UAP incident as a priority for further investigation relates to the broader dilemma of attempting to bring scientific rigour into the investigation of UAP:
If the epistemological standard of "identified" is lowered from 'scientifically explained and verified' to merely signify an internal DoD explanation providing a satisfactory assessment of the threat-level of a UAP for operational military purposes, then a more agile and less rigorous process is sufficient for acquiring 'reasonable' confidence. For all military operational purposes, the GIMBAL and FLIR footage for instance could have been, remarkably swiftly, satisfactorily "identified" as optical illusions of mundane phenomena without the necessity of rigorous scientific research into the exact identity of each object. Unlike in the academia, agile processes and quick decisions are of particular importance in operational entities, especially in the military.
Obviously the number of UAP incidents reported by the Pentagon depends greatly on how rigorous a standard for "identification" is being used. The more rigorous (read: scientific) the standard of AP identification, the more UAP are indefinitely declared unsolved.
LorentzHall
Member
What strikes me about this report is just how limited in scope it is.
Drawing any sweeping conclusions, in either direction, from this report seems misguided to say the least.
Related: conveniently, as a multi-nation agency, NORAD is exempt from FOIA and from reports like these.
External Quote:
External Quote:
This isn't "what the US government knows about UFOs" or even "what DoD knows about UFOs". This is a small scale meta-analysis of Navy pilots safety of flight issue reports during training exercises.External Quote:
Drawing any sweeping conclusions, in either direction, from this report seems misguided to say the least.
Related: conveniently, as a multi-nation agency, NORAD is exempt from FOIA and from reports like these.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Take this with an enormous grain of salt. But Richard Dolan claims someone leaked some info about the classified UAPTF report to him.
I have my serious doubts on this, so again, take it with a grain of salt. For a start, ION propulsion is a NASA project that is used for space travel only, due to it's extremely low thrust. It would not fly a craft in the atmosphere
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJNbCeE110A
I have my serious doubts on this, so again, take it with a grain of salt. For a start, ION propulsion is a NASA project that is used for space travel only, due to it's extremely low thrust. It would not fly a craft in the atmosphere
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJNbCeE110A
Last edited:
Keith Beachy
Senior Member
That has been true throughout UFO history.
_______
Other aircraft or projects could be in what the Navy thinks was their exclusive airspace.
Examples:
In W260 some pilots I flew with would fly T-38s and see how fast they could let down. As they let down a gear panel door ripped off as they got lower over 600 knots. Most like it was the rigging, slightly off could not withstand the pressure, high Q. If the Navy had been in the area, and the crew failed to read the NOTAMs, they could be a UFO. They used the WARNING area because they can fly fast low. In controlled airspace the T-38 is limited to 300 knots, a waiver of 250 below 10,000. Did the pilots see if the Area was being used?
Airspace - https://denix.osd.mil/sri/policy/re...raining-routes-and-special-use-areas-figures/
This is some of the airspace in the USA...
Years ago I was the coordinator, for a short period, for Maxwell MOA. Some Harriers wanted to "play" in the MOA during our airshow at Beale AFB. There is nothing stopping other USAF plans from being in the MOA if they fail to check with the coordinator. This could lead to UFO reports.
While in orbit waiting for the SR-71 in W-179 northwest of Okinawa at 27,000 feet an F-86 with a dart target passed in front of us. What? I felt like ducking or getting smaller in my seat. As we orbited I noticed fighters below (lower and looked like bees flying around)... Then on Guard, a knock if off call, and a call to the Tanker, us. Told them we were leaving soon... reported the incident to the SR-71/Tanker planners. If the visibility had not be so good, even though it was hard to believe I saw the F-86 and the dart target, the F-86 or the dart would have been UFO or a UFO chasing a fighter. There should not have been an F-86 with a tow target at our altitude. https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a...-f-86-sabre-aircraft-with-a-tow-target-125418
https://www.kadena.af.mil/Agencies/JOTRC/
My point is other agencies could be in the same space with the Navy/USAF due to lack of coordination, etc. Other Navy aircraft could be in the airspace the Carrier group thinks is theirs. Civilians who are clueless could be in the airspace, but usually are caught when they land after they break FAA rules.
The only "UFOs" I have seen are false Radar returns, Radar shows a return, but there is nothing there.
Another, I think was Balloon over the Pacific near Guam. Must of been more than 60,000 feet, like watching the moon, sort of follows you. A big silver ball.
I have experienced illusion while flying at night, the full Moon appeared to be on the ground, in the earth, below the horizon. Had to cross check my instruments to assure I was straight and level. Then the full Moon appeared where it should be above the Horizon as it slipped out of the cloud bank and the moon in the earth was a reflection on the water. My UFO, the moon in the earth.
Not exactly. the DOD can exempt FOIA requests which meet certain criteria with respect to NORAD. See the DOD FOIA Manual.
FOIA requests after 9/11 related to NORAD/DOD assets.
More info for NORAD and FOIA, found in "NORAD AND USNORTHCOM HEADQUARTERS, OPERATING INSTRUCTION 35-129"
https://www.northcom.mil/Portals/28/Documents/S&P Reveiw (35-129).pdf
With over 600,000 pilots in the USA, why so few UFO reports... better yet, with 7.9 Billion humans, where are all the UFO reports, and millions of real photos. The UFO-mania is back, dark matter remains invisible theory.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Indeed, the presence of other projects in exclusive airspace could be attributed to a coordination failure. Are you aware of cases where only the coordinator and on-scene commanders were aware of, say, radar spoofing or tactical deception tests using classified technologies? To ensure the element of surprise and the intended effect, the rest of the participants in the exercise were deliberately kept in the dark.
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Some funds come from private contractors." -- does this ever happen?External Quote:
EPPS stands for "Electric Propulsion sub-system (EPPS)" here:
Article: The development of the Electric Propulsion sub-system (EPPS) to be used on-board the Electra GEO telecommunication platform for orbit raising and station-keeping applications has involved the development and qualification of key technologies such as: the EP orientation mechanism (THOR), a 5kW Hall-Effect thruster, a 5kW Power Processing Unit (PPU), the xenon flow regulation sub-assembly, and a large capacity xenon tank. From the hardware development and qualification to the complete sub-system end-to-end test, this paper describes the key development and testing activities performed to validate the EP sub-system of Electra.
This is actually a type of Ion Propulsion System.
MIT has achieved this.
Article: Electroaerodynamics, in which electrical forces accelerate ions in a fluid1,2, has been proposed as an alternative method of propelling aeroplanes—without moving parts, nearly silently and without combustion emissions3,4,5,6. However, no aeroplane with such a solid-state propulsion system has yet flown. Here we demonstrate that a solid-state propulsion system can sustain powered flight, by designing and flying an electroaerodynamically propelled heavier-than-air aeroplane. We flew a fixed-wing aeroplane with a five-metre wingspan ten times and showed that it achieved steady-level flight.
Anti-gravity propulsion is (currently?) impossible.
Article: Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program[edit]
During the close of the twentieth century NASA provided funding for the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program (BPP) from 1996 through 2002. This program studied a number of "far out" designs for space propulsion that were not receiving funding through normal university or commercial channels. Anti-gravity-like concepts were investigated under the name "diametric drive". The work of the BPP program continues in the independent, non-NASA affiliated Tau Zero Foundation.[22]
This project seems like a great source if you want to write fiction about alien spacecraft technology.
I'm stopping here.
There seems to be another leak: Virginia Tech professor Bob McGwier. According to the dailysun (a tabloid magazine, but that's where the men in black got their info, too 
:
:Source: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/full-pentagon-ufo-report-was-24412111External Quote:
LorentzHall
Member
RAF friend of mine summed up the report best:
"You're trying to tell me the US DoD did a report on unidentified flying things without the US Air Force?"
"You're trying to tell me the US DoD did a report on unidentified flying things without the US Air Force?"
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
So they have anti-gravity drive craft they are flying, but also flying nd testing ion wind planes that barely stay aloft and travel at abysmal speeds.
Sounds legit /s
Sounds legit /s
- Status
Similar threads
