Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents

Mendel

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
That's just a laundry list of potential "advanced technologies" that's supposed to convince people that these technologies might be responsible for the "unexplainable" sightings (and it may not even have been in the report).

It might be interesting to dedicate a different thread to the question whether any of these technologies allows unusual maneuvers, or usual maneuvers without a heat signature.

("Barely stays aloft and travels at abysmal speed" feels like good fit for many balloon UFO sightings.)
 

Buckaroo

Member
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.
While that may be the popular conception about NASA, it's not true. The closest thing to searching for signs of ET that NASA does is their astrobiology program, and that concentrates on the chemical origins and evolution of life in the universe (mostly by studying it on Earth), and isn't interested at an institutional level in the question of intelligence. There's no organized effort within the agency to look for intelligent life, and NASA certainly has nothing to do whatsoever with the UAP report. It's true that our new administrator Bill Nelson made a few off-the-cuff erroneous remarks that implied that it does, but within the agency we just rolled our eyes at the over-enthusiastic gaffes of the new guy.
 

Itsme

Active Member
While that may be the popular conception about NASA, it's not true. The closest thing to searching for signs of ET that NASA does is their astrobiology program, and that concentrates on the chemical origins and evolution of life in the universe (mostly by studying it on Earth), and isn't interested at an institutional level in the question of intelligence. There's no organized effort within the agency to look for intelligent life, and NASA certainly has nothing to do whatsoever with the UAP report. It's true that our new administrator Bill Nelson made a few off-the-cuff erroneous remarks that implied that it does, but within the agency we just rolled our eyes at the over-enthusiastic gaffes of the new guy.
Source: https://earthsky.org/human-world/nasa-and-ufos-bill-nelson/

I personally think this is more interesting than landing on the next dry rock sending 'nothing to see here but dry rocks' pictures back to Earth. After a while that tends to get pretty boring.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Source: https://earthsky.org/human-world/nasa-and-ufos-bill-nelson/

I personally think this is more interesting than landing on the next dry rock sending 'nothing to see here but dry rocks' pictures back to Earth. After a while that tends to get pretty boring.
Real science is often a little boring, but it's the only way we get solid theory's and actual breakthroughs.
 

Buckaroo

Member
Source: https://earthsky.org/human-world/nasa-and-ufos-bill-nelson/
Yes, as I said, Bill Nelson said that. But Nelson is simply incorrect about this. There is no current effort to do so, nor is there likely to be in the future.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
Could this be hinting at Mick's debunking?
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
That's not how Metabunk works. You need to support your own claim.

You are now drawing a false equivalence between (1) wild inductive reasoning sloppily attached to poor evidence (which the Metabunk exists to check by dissecting the evidence and exploring more parsimonious mundane hypotheses), and (2) disciplined deductive reasoning from a short USG report, as well as from other evidence provided and explored on this thread, under the basic assumption that the report is mostly truthful.

The former is a scientifically unfounded claim that needs more evidenciary support and more rigorous hypothesis-formulation. The latter is a logical conclusion which, when evident, in normal conversation usually requires no further logical or mathematical proof. An 'evident logical conclusion' is obviously subjective in that what may be an evident and sound conclusion to one person may not be as evident to the other. Therefore, your questions seeking further clarity on my thought process are obviously welcome whilst I cannot promise quick answers nor doctoral dissertations at every turn. Now to your questions:

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?

By "anecdotal" is meant "reported by observers" as opposed to physical records such as sensor data.

"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."


By "loosely associated" is meant, among other things, the imprecise language in the report whereby some radio frequency anomalies in aircraft systems were "associated with UAP sightings". The peculiarity of the observation could be easily highlighted by specifying, if indeed true, that these anomalies directly corresponded with eyewitness sightings of seemingly unusual flight characteristics. Unless of course these two observations did not directly correspond. I vote for the latter, but did not include it into my conclusion since it is conjecture.

The few physical records mentioned in the report under the section "And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" concern UAP appearing to demonstrate "signature management" and "acceleration", as well as "military aircraft systems" processing "radio frequency energy".

The leaked footage seems to represent precisely the type of physical records that "appears" to demonstrate unusual movement patterns and acceleration whilst proving far less queer after closer scrutiny. This begs the obvious question: Does this "small amount of data" include the leaked footage, and is the undisclosed data of the same type and as easily demystifiable as the leaked records? We are unlikely to receive a satisfactory answer to this question, pending further leaks. :p

what is a "sensor signature"?

The appearance of electromagnetic (EM) effects on sensors. This could be anything ranging from normal sensor readings on real objects to the appearance of false objects on sensors and EM interference of sensors. In the case of real objects, we witness the proper intended functioning of the sensor. In the case of false objects, we could be witnessing electromagnetic deception or EM interference. Unintended or intended EM interference could also result in erratic sensor readings and sensor malfunction.

and how do you know the amount?

18 incidents were mentioned in the report.

how much is "small"?

Irrelevant to my summary conclusion as the report itself said "small" twice: "A small amount of data" and "a small number of cases" are verbatim quotes from the report. This is the UAPTF itself confirming they have a small number of physical records associated with the 18 UAP incidents reported by observers as demonstrating unusual flight characteristics. Not an additional assumption made by me. Hence my original wording:

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.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Show me this isn't what the report is effectively saying, and that I'm just reading into it.
You are now drawing a false equivalence between (1) wild inductive reasoning sloppily attached to poor evidence which the Metabunk exists to check by dissecting the evidence and exploring more parsimonious mundane hypotheses, and (2) disciplined deductive reasoning from a short USG report, as well as from other evidence provided and explored on this thread, under the basic and sensible assumption that the report is mostly truthful.
Such deductive reasoning is not evident in your original post. You're giving a quote from the report, then your interpretation of it, but no deductive reasoning that connects one to the other. That reasoning that you've effectively been asking us to challenge ("show me") was all in your mind, and therefore your claim was outwardly unsupported.

1

By "anecdotal" is meant "reported by observers" as opposed to physical records such as sensor data.
First, that's an unusual usuage of that word. Merriam-Webster defines it as "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers". An "incident" can't be said to be "based on reports"; an incident doesn't "consist of reports"; the incident = the occurence = the UAP is what is being reported.

"Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. " (Wikipedia). It seems like UAPTF has established a systematic reporting process within the NAVY to collect UAP reports, and thus thereports it has as a result of that process are no longer anecdotal. You can use statistical analysis on them meaningfully.

"Anecdotal" further signifies that the reports are not backed up by data, but you yourself write that there's sensor data for some of these reports; this means that not all of the 18 incidents have only anecdotal reports as evidence; your claim contradicts itself.

The few physical records mentioned in the report under the section "And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" concern UAP appearing to demonstrate "signature management" and "acceleration", as well as "military aircraft systems" processing "radio frequency energy".
And these are exactly those 18 incidents you're referring to. So it's possible that all of them are associated with physical records, making none of them anecdotal?

2
By "loosely associated" is meant, among other things, the imprecise language in the report whereby some radio frequency anomalies in aircraft systems were "associated with UAP sightings". The peculiarity of the observation could be easily highlighted by specifying, if indeed true, that these anomalies directly corresponded with eyewitness sightings of seemingly unusual flight characteristics. Unless of course these two observations did not directly correspond. I vote for the latter, but did not include it into my conclusion since it is conjecture.
What you seem to be saying here is that your use of the word "loosely" is unsupported by deductive reasoning and the result of conjecture on your part?

It is fair to assume that the 3 leaked NAVY videos were accompanied by reports from the pilots. I would not term association of that data to those reports "loose".

3
I asked, what is a "sensor signature"? [underline mine]
The appearance of electromagnetic (EM) effects on sensors. This could be anything ranging from normal sensor readings on real objects to the appearance of false objects on sensors and EM interference of sensors. In the case of real objects, we witness the proper intended functioning of the sensor. In the case of false objects, we could be witnessing electromagnetic deception or EM interference. Unintended or intended EM interference could also result in erratic sensor readings and sensor malfunction.
"Infrared signature, as used by defense scientists and the military, is the appearance of objects to infrared sensors." (Wikipedia) You are intermingling the object or phenomenon that is having an effect on the sensors with the effect itself, and you have no basis for calling the underlying cause "electromagnetic".

Secondly, you have no basis for claiming that the available data is restricted to "appearance"; in fact, you seem to agree with the notion that the data the UAPTF hold also shows "acceleration", which pertains the movement of an object and not its motion.
To clarify, for radar data,
-- "radar signature" is whether there is a "blip" and how strong it is (appearance)
-- radar observation also contains information where that blip is, and a sequence of radar observations implies a speed and a course (not appearance, not the signature of the object)
Note that the object under radar observation does not need to emit any electromagnetic radiation itself.

4
You wrote, "The 18 incidents ... are ... associated with "a small amount" of sensor signatures." I asked, "how you know the amount. You answer, "18 incidents were mentioned in the report." I was asking about the amount of "sensor signatures", not the amount of incidents. Is this answer saying that you believe that all 18 incidents are associated with sensor data?

What you have actually written in your claim is that the amount of sensor data is "small" in relation to the 18 incidents.

UAPTF is calling the data pertaining to these 18 cases "small" in relation to its full body of reports and data: they say these 18 cases are "a small number of cases", by implication compared to the overall number of cases that are the subject of this 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 report also says, "The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management." This leaves open the possibility that they may also hold large amounts of other data that does not appear to show UAP doing anything unusual, and that the data they have on accelerating/signature managing UAPs is small with respect to that. Which seems reasonable, as there's only small number of incidents with such data.

Nowhere in the report is "small" used in context to the amount of data associated with a single event, or this group of events, so there is no basis for you to claim that the available data is a "small amount" with regard to these 18 incidents.

As an example, if the UAPTF had radar tracks or IR footage associated with 30 out of 120 (?) incidents, you'd be justifed to say that they only have a small amount of sensor data; but if this included full radar tracks and IR footage for all of these 18 unusual events, you'd not say there was only a small amount of data supporting these 18 events, as these 18 events would have to be considered well-documented.

--

Conclusion
I don't think what you claim the report is "effectively saying" accurately reflects what the report is actually saying. You're reading into it.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Such deductive reasoning is not evident in your original post. You're giving a quote from the report, then your interpretation of it, but no deductive reasoning that connects one to the other.

Incorrect. I gave a quote but the conclusion I offered was deduced from the entire report. You misunderstood the conclusion as an inference from that one quote. Perhaps it's an understandable misunderstanding, but it is not deductive understanding. It's you reading into what I tersely wrote.

1


First, that's an unusual usuage of that word. Merriam-Webster defines it as "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers".

That is a fair definition of "anecdotal" and largely consistent with my use of the word as well as the report's more neutral-seeming usage "observers reported". The report would obviously water itself down further by using terms such as "anecdotal".

"Anecdotal" further signifies that the reports are not backed up by data, but you yourself write that there's sensor data for some of these reports; this means that not all of the 18 incidents have only anecdotal reports as evidence; your claim contradicts itself.

Incorrect. There is no inherent logical exclusivity of backup data that must always absolutely associate the word "anecdotal". That's your own inductive assumption. The 18 incidents are based on anecdotal reports and a small amount of associated data. You are again reading into the explicit words of the overall conclusion.

3
I asked, what is a "sensor signature"? [underline mine]

"Infrared signature, as used by defense scientists and the military, is the appearance of objects to infrared sensors." (Wikipedia) You are intermingling the object or phenomenon that is having an effect on the sensors with the effect itself

Actually I am not nor did you demonstrate that I was. The term "signature" can be used both for the "appearance" of objects in sensors (as in the infrared example you cited above) as well as for objects themselves (say, a heat signature).

and you have no basis for calling the underlying cause "electromagnetic".

Both, radio frequency energy processed by aircraft systems, and signature management, are electromagnetic effects, whatever the cause. EM is therefore a particularly apt category to include both types of sensor data mentioned in the report. But we could also change the expression "sensor signatures" into "sensor data" to be less ambivalent.

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 data.

Secondly, you have no basis for claiming that the available data is restricted to "appearance";

I have made no such claim. But it is interesting that the report uses "appearance" consistently in reference to the strange things that were reported.

To clarify, for radar data,
-- "radar signature" is whether there is a "blip" and how strong it is (appearance)
-- radar observation also contains information where that blip is, and a sequence of radar observations implies a speed and a course (not appearance, not the signature of the object)
Note that the object under radar observation does not need to emit any electromagnetic radiation itself.

Actually I never mentioned radars at all. But since you mentioned radars, if a radar is to pick up an object, it most certainly needs to emit radio waves. I hope you are not actually saying that radio waves, on which conventional radars depend, are not electromagnetic phenomena. Radar signature in itself is an electromagnetic effect.

4
You wrote, "The 18 incidents ... are ... associated with "a small amount" of sensor signatures." I asked, "how you know the amount. You answer, "18 incidents were mentioned in the report." I was asking about the amount of "sensor signatures", not the amount of incidents. Is this answer saying that you believe that all 18 incidents are associated with sensor data?

No, and in fact this is quite a misreading of a somewhat clear and terse expression.

What you have actually written in your claim is that the amount of sensor data is "small" in relation to the 18 incidents.

My conclusion does not make any such assertion nor can such an assertion be deduced from it. Again, you are reading more into a terse conclusion than the conclusion is reading into the actual report.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
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-24412111

Is this supposed to be an American speaking? So far as I know, 'gobsmacked' is a uniquely British expression.
 

Itsme

Active Member
'Signature management' in a military context means lowering your visibility to whatever sensors are used. Camouflage and stealth are both examples. Just Google 'signature management military' and it will become obvious.

'Low visibility' was one of the five UAP observables according to Elizondo.
The others were 'high speeds', 'sudden acceleration', 'positive lift', and 'transmedium travel'.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
But since you mentioned radars, if a radar is to pick up an object, it most certainly needs to emit radio waves

Small but important pedantry - "emit" was bad word choice. Traditionally, radars detected only *reflected* RF. Radar as a blanket term has since been extended to include "passive" radar, the detection of emitted RF, but most of the time you'll be referring to the "active" version with a transmitter.

However, on the whole, I interpret your posts as I think you intended them, not reading into them most of what you are now defending yourself against.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Small but important pedantry - "emit" was bad word choice. Traditionally, radars detected only *reflected* RF. Radar as a blanket term has since been extended to include "passive" radar, the detection of emitted RF, but most of the time you'll be referring to the "active" version with a transmitter.

However, on the whole, I interpret your posts as I think you intended them, not reading into them most of what you are now defending yourself against.

A very valuable correction.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member

Mendel

Senior Member.
Your take:
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 data.

My take:

Most UAP reports reviewed by the UAPTF are the result of a formalized reporting process [1] and carry data from multiple sensors [2] as associated evidence. Most are deemed to describe physical objects. [3] A small number of incidents can't be classified as potential known objects because the flight characteristics of the objects appear to be highly unusual. [4] This appearance could be caused by sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception [5]; or these objects could actually be accelerating or be actively managing their signature [6]. The UAPTF estimates that it would take "multiple teams or groups of technical experts" to make that determination [7]. In the future, the UAPTF is interested in analyzing these unusual incidents [8][9]; in expanding, standardizing and consolidating the reporting system [10][11]; investing in R&D that supports a collection strategy [12]; and in finding patterns in the UAP observations [13].

[1] p.3: "the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting"
[2] p.3 "a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation."
[3] p.3: "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects"
[4] P.3: "In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics."
[5] p.3: "These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."
[6] p.5: "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 ..."
[7] p.5. "Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data."
[8] p.5 "We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated."
[9] p.6 "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."
[10] p.6.: "Standardize the Reporting, Consolidate the Data, and Deepen the Analysis"
[11] p.7 "Expand Collection"
[12] p.7 "Increase Investment in Research and Development" -- "Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, ..."
[13] p.6: "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."


Comparing my take and your take

LilWabbitMendel
evidenceanecdotalformalized reporting process that includes data across multiple sensors
UAPTF interestinvestigate 18 incidentsanalyse 18 incidents; collect more and better data; invest in research, find patterns in the data
100+ "usual" reportseffectively uninterestingreviewed, classified for future analysis of emerging patterns

You've labeled your paragraph an "Overall Conclusion Based on the June 2021 UAP Report" and represented it as "what the report is effectively saying", and it falls so far short of that in these respects that I wouldn't object to calling it misleading.
 

Itsme

Active Member
According to a Wikipedia article on Fast Radio Bursts (FRB's), the first FRB reported in 2007 was disputed and thought to be of terrestrial origin. The next 16 reported in 2010 were proven to be of terrestrial origin. Then, in 2014, just one was proven to be of cosmic origin. That got the ball rolling. It took 7 years for the scientific community to determine whether there was truly something mysterious going on. A large part was discovered in historical data collected by various radio telescopes.

I don't see any reason to downplay a handful of UAP that appear to demonstrate advanced technology, found mostly in just two years of systematic reporting. The exact number is not that relevant. What's relevant is that after decades of UFO reports, a task group starts looking for them and finds at least some sensor data that seems to show signs of advanced technology. That alone is, to quote Spock, fascinating.
I wonder what a thorough search in the FAA and NORAD historical data will bring.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Your take:


My take:

Most UAP reports reviewed by the UAPTF are the result of a formalized reporting process [1] and carry data from multiple sensors [2] as associated evidence. Most are deemed to describe physical objects. [3] A small number of incidents can't be classified as potential known objects because the flight characteristics of the objects appear to be highly unusual. [4] This appearance could be caused by sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception [5]; or these objects could actually be accelerating or be actively managing their signature [6]. The UAPTF estimates that it would take "multiple teams or groups of technical experts" to make that determination [7]. In the future, the UAPTF is interested in analyzing these unusual incidents [8][9]; in expanding, standardizing and consolidating the reporting system [10][11]; investing in R&D that supports a collection strategy [12]; and in finding patterns in the UAP observations [13].

[1] p.3: "the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting"
[2] p.3 "a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation."
[3] p.3: "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects"
[4] P.3: "In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics."
[5] p.3: "These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis."
[6] p.5: "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 ..."
[7] p.5. "Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data."
[8] p.5 "We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated."
[9] p.6 "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."
[10] p.6.: "Standardize the Reporting, Consolidate the Data, and Deepen the Analysis"
[11] p.7 "Expand Collection"
[12] p.7 "Increase Investment in Research and Development" -- "Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, ..."
[13] p.6: "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."


Comparing my take and your take

LilWabbitMendel
evidenceanecdotalformalized reporting process that includes data across multiple sensors
UAPTF interestinvestigate 18 incidentsanalyse 18 incidents; collect more and better data; invest in research, find patterns in the data
100+ "usual" reportseffectively uninterestingreviewed, classified for future analysis of emerging patterns

You've labeled your paragraph an "Overall Conclusion Based on the June 2021 UAP Report" and represented it as "what the report is effectively saying", and it falls so far short of that in these respects that I wouldn't object to calling it misleading.

You are arguing against a caricature of your own making. Not my "take". In terms of your "take", I read a recap of the report with little added value. Not analysis nor conclusions.

It seems this exchange has run its natural course.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Well, let's hope John from the BlackVault is successful in getting the classified report released with specific classified bits blacked out.

1625193970873.png
 

Rocky

Member
Source: https://earthsky.org/human-world/nasa-and-ufos-bill-nelson/

I personally think this is more interesting than landing on the next dry rock sending 'nothing to see here but dry rocks' pictures back to Earth. After a while that tends to get pretty boring.
I agree that the Mars missions, although an amazing feat, pictures of rocks is getting boring. But come November when the James Webb space telescope is launched, in the words of (Dr Emmit Brown) "You're going to see some serious shit!" I cannot wait to see the new discoveries we will find.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
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.

Another small but perhaps pertinent snippet. The AP was told that the only videos shown during the classified briefing were the leaked footage:

Article:
One person who attended the classified briefing and spoke on condition of anonymity said that lawmakers were given little information beyond what’s publicly available and that the only videos shown had already been made public.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Classified report is supposedly only 17 pages long. I guess we will now more when John finds out more about his request to get it

1626401482357.png
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Elizondo now disputing the 17 page report length: https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/classified-brief-secret-ufo-report-only-17-pages-long/

Understandably, there is some confusion, but rest assured the complete report, including end notes, is over 70 pages,” Elizondo said in a statement to The Post. “I do not care to speculate about why there is confusion, nor involve myself in the debate, but the fact remains that the full and complete report is significantly longer than what is currently being stated for the record.”

Elizondo did not clarify how he knew the length of the classified report. He said last month’s public release — which didn’t find “firm conclusions” on the 144 UFO sightings reported by government sources since 2004 — left more questions than answers. Just one reported UFO was identified as a large, deflating balloon.
 
I'd assume this section of the report might include things like the Aegis (and other AESA) radar data mentioned elsewhere...These systems are highly classified and with good reason.

This might also explain the extra pages including notes mentioned by Elizondo...I'd imagine a brief explanation of the function of each of the radars and the data they gathered, plus a comprehensive list of all the 'bad things' that will happen if you discuss said radar or its data with unauthorised individuals, would take up a good chunk of those extra 50+ pages.
 

jplaza

Member
17 pages, including possible anexes
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...f-the-director-of-national-intelligence-odni/
the case filed by The Black Vault asked for, “the classified ‘annex’ or report or any other material that was given to Congress/Senate on (or around) June 25, 2021.” This language covers the gamut of all material handed over, even if it was handed over the day prior or after the original public release date. With this language defining the case, ODNI stated that the report/material requested totaled the seventeen pages already referenced here
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
A Timeline of Porter Goss 9/11 clip - After the Pentagon Attack 9/11 4
S Needs debunking: Pentagon plane could have been shot down 9/11 10
D 2018 Pentagon Triangle Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
LarryLobster Off-Camera Pentagon Press Briefing comment on UAPs as Aliens: UFOs and Aliens 2
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
TEEJ Pentagon to launch task force to investigate UFO sightings - August 14, 2020 CNN Article UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 28
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Agent K Air Force E-11A Communications Aircraft Crashes And Burns In Afghanistan Current Events 7
Mick West Inexperienced Pilot Recreating 9/11 Flight 77's Descending Turn into the Pentagon 9/11 77
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Aircraft Accident Package lists no. of Passengers/Fatalies as "Unknown" Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: "FBI releases 27 classified photos of 9/11 Pentagon attacks" [Not New] 9/11 8
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
USAFMXOfficer 9/11 - Pentagon 86 CCTV videos 9/11 6
TWCobra AA77-Pentagon explosion plume compared to known aircraft fires 9/11 0
Critical Thinker foreignpolicy.com: The Pentagon Has a Plan to Stop the Zombie Apocalypse. Seriously. General Discussion 4
Mick West Debunked: $8.5 Trillion Missing from the Pentagon Conspiracy Theories 19
T Fake 9/11 footage of cruise missile hitting pentagon 9/11 15
hiper lack of a Pentagon boeing video 9/11 117
BombDr Did the Pentagon have air defenses on 9/11? 9/11 20
Eric A. Eisenbise The Pentagon is The key to 911 9/11 26
Oxymoron 9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon? 9/11 147
Mick West Debunked: FunVax, Pentagon Briefing on Removing the God Gene [Hoax] HAARP 57
Mick West Debunked: Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon Quotes Debunked 52
A Triangle UFO over Shanghai, June 2021 UFOs and Aliens 27
LorentzHall 12 June 2021 UFO Over Lake Michigan Chicago (Short Clip) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
DasKleineTeilchen 2,400 "new" unseen 9/11 photos found at estate sale, june 2019 9/11 12
Mick West A Rippled Distrail Near Las Vegas June 17 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Trailblazer Explained: Contrail Cross in Florida, June 2 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Chew Yosemite Contrail Grid 17 June 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeC International day of action June 30? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
LorentzHall White Flying Object Over US Navy base in Japan (July 2021) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
A Explained: UFO Filmed from a Helicopter in Kamchatka, Russia. May 31, 2021 [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 2
flarkey Cigar Shaped UFO - March 23, 2021 Captured by commercial airline pilots Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
R Worldwide Eratosthenes stick experiment, May 14, 15, 16 2021 Flat Earth 14
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
TEEJ Richard Citizen Journalist proves that Biden Rose Garden address was a live event at the White House, 12th March 2021 Election 2020 15
I Thylacines in Tasmania (New photos from 1st March 2021) General Discussion 44
Mick West Three Contrails "Descending" over Denver on Jan 31, 2021 [Military, C-17A Globemasters] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West "Advanced Aerial Threats" In Report on US Congress' Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 4
Related Articles











































Related Articles

Top