Should AARO be releasing non-anomalous videos as "UAP"?

[JMartJr]

I wonder if it would be possible to communicate to [AARO] that just dumping "Here's another mysterious UAP video that is mysterious because of insufficient data" is not helpful. There is nothing particularly anomalous about this image, it is merely too far away capture enough data to tell definitively what it is. Being far away is not an anomaly... lots of stuff is far away.

[Mick edit note, this discussion split off from the discussion of the Middle East 2023 and 2024 videos, discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/me24-aaro-middle-east-2024.14203/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaro-release-—-unresolved-uap-report-middle-east-2023.14190/
]

 

[Calter]

I wonder if it would be possible to communicate to them that just dumping "Here's another mysterious UAP video that is mysterious because of insufficient data" is not helpful.

I'm not sure how I feel about them sharing videos. It's true that they are so devoid of context that they are confusing, but at least it makes it look like AARO is doing something rather than just popping up every few months with a shaky report and then going radio silent.

 

[Giddierone]

It's amazing that while military surveillance platforms are a global phenomenon no country appears willing to provide at least some of the data that might help resolve these kinds of non-identifications. I assume it's down to much of the tech inside them being in some way controlled / restricted by the USG?
Also kind of amazing (read: boring) that AARO don't tell us what occured after the sighting. Was a precious installation suddenly exploded, or compromised, or did the unidentified thing just drift out of view harmlessly? Assume the latter.

 

[John J.]

It's amazing that while military surveillance platforms are a global phenomenon no country appears willing to provide at least some of the data that might help resolve these kinds of non-identifications. I assume it's down to much of the tech inside them being in some way controlled / restricted by the USG?

Why would military reconnaissance / surveillance units, or their respective parent organisations, want to be involved?
Serious recce assets do challenging, sometimes unpleasant work. They are not known for transparency.

Having to employ additional personnel just to deal with enquiries largely from UFO enthusiasts- and sceptics- would not be high on their list of priorities. It could not possibly improve, and might inadvertently compromise, security.
"Need to know": If people don't need to know, don't tell them.

Thinking more generally about defence organisations responding to queries from the public about UFOs etc., the UK Ministry of Defence had a "UFO desk", shut in late 2009 or early 2010. The National Archives say

The UFO Desk received over 600 UFO sightings and reports in 2009, treble the amount of the previous year. With this surge in sighting reports, increasing time and resources were needed to manage the UFO Desk which the files note "serves no defence purpose and merely encourages the generation of correspondence".
The files also show that in 2009, Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" (DEFE 24/2458/1). This led to their decision to close the UFO Desk and with it the UFO hotline and dedicated email address.

(My emphases; https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf).

 

[Giddierone]

Why would military reconnaissance / surveillance units, or their respective parent organisations, want to be involved?
Serious recce assets do challenging, sometimes unpleasant work. They are not known for transparency.

I'm not suggesting those organisations want to be involved in answering UFO enquiries, but that if an office like AARO is set up to allow some transparency about what various platforms capture It seems they should include some data, such as the speed / orientation of the platform capturing the footage without compromising security/secrecy. Are these AARO releases in response to public enquiry? Only generally, since specific cases only become public knowledge when AARO releases the footage. They seem like voluntary disclosures. The video releases and their brief descriptions and redactions just seem to create more problems than they solve, making it appear like either bizarre shape-shifting UFOs are buzzing military assets or operators are having difficulty understanding their own systems and maintaining focus on airborne clutter.
They have previously given better detail about the platform and instrument used, for example in their South Asian Object 2 case.

 

[Mendel]

I'm not suggesting those organisations want to be involved in answering UFO enquiries, but that if an office like AARO is set up to allow some transparency about what various platforms capture It seems they should include some data, such as the speed / orientation of the platform capturing the footage without compromising security/secrecy.

That's not up to AARO, though. It's up to the outfit that classified this intelligence how much they allow to be declassified.

 

[JMartJr]

I suspect that AARO may have been tasked with "disclosure", and instructed to share any and all UAP footage that can be declassified.

I have no issue with them doing that. it gives MB something to do! I find myself objecting to their categorizing stuff that does nothing anomalous as being anomalous. It reeks of "theremin" music and other accoutrements of the woo. I do not charge them with that intent, but I fear that effect.

When something is just too far away and doesn't do anything interesting, release it and say "this is too far away to characterize, but it does not seem to do anything anomalous."

 

[Mick West]

When something is just too far away and doesn't do anything interesting, release it and say "this is too far away to characterize, but it does not seem to do anything anomalous."

The video on dvidshub did have an additional disclaimer (which I'd omitted from the clip on the OP, now added)
https://www.dvidshub.net//video/962722/unresolved-uap-report-middle-east-2024

This video is provided for informational purposes only. Viewers should not interpret any part of the video description below as reflecting an analytic judgment, investigative conclusion, or factual determination regarding the described event's validity, nature, or significance. Viewers should not interpret the absence of a formal assessment as suggestive of anomalous characteristics.

 

[JMartJr]

The video on dvidshub did have an additional disclaimer (which I'd omitted from the clip on the OP, now added)

That is helpful, I am glad they did that. But to my mind, it is insufficient. The video shows nothing beyond a distant target too far away to characterize. There is nothing about it to suggest that it is the business of AARO, whose task it is to "resolve anomalies." This has no known anomalous characteristics.

Sure, it can be analyzed and some stuff learned -- those of you that are good at that are doing it (while there is no evidence of which I am aware that AARO has done even this much.) But there is no anomaly to explain or resolve or understand.

Putting it out there with a disclaimer is better than putting it out there with no disclaimer. But I'd suggest that AARO, when presented with a video or other imagery that is not anomalous might be best served to send it back and say, 'Sorry, this one is not anomalous, don't waste our time and resources with it," but more politely. If they must release it, I think they'd be wise to say "this is NOT anomalous. it's just too far away -- this is an example of the sort of stuff that is not of interest as there is insufficient data."

But that's just what I'd do if I was in charge at AARO. So far, I am not in that position! ^_^

 

[Giddierone]

When something is just too far away and doesn't do anything interesting, release it and say "this is too far away to characterize, but it does not seem to do anything anomalous."

Exactly. If you look at their releases so far they're starting to build up a nice set of similar looking things caught on military sensors, which would appear to dilute each one's anomalousness.

 

[JMartJr]

Exactly. If you look at their releases so far they're starting to build up a nice set of similar looking things caught on military sensors, which would appear to dilute each one's anomalousness.

Yeah, I am coming to suspect that they are falling into the trap of "it is anomalous because we can't identify it." But that is not, in and of itself, anomalous. Given that the Low Information Zone will always exist, there will always be things that cannot be identified because they are too far away to be identified, while still close enough to be detected. This is not anomalous, it is expected, indeed unavoidable.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It's reasonable that they are trying to be transparent, by releasing everything. It's a kind of PR, I guess.

But it's a Red Queen's race. The vocal ~2% of the population they are trying to mollify has a narrative.

 

[elvenwear]

Given that the Low Information Zone will always exist, there will always be things that cannot be identified because they are too far away to be identified, while still close enough to be detected. This is not anomalous, it is expected, indeed unavoidable.

There is likely more in the LIZ recorded by military equipment as it is likely to be more sensitive.

 

[jarlrmai]

LIZ videos released by AARO are just going to be added to the aliens pile unless (and probably even if) they strongly state there is no evidence of unusual movement etc.

They will follow the basic path of

1. The US military would be able to identify things if they were prosaic.
2. They could not identify this thing (UAP by definition)
3. Ergo it is not prosasic (UAP means alien spacecraft)

 

[Mendel]

1. The US military would be able to identify things if they were prosaic.

That's already a false proposition.
As a counter-example, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pyramid-ufos-in-night-vision-footage-are-bokeh.11695/ for the "US military" failing to identify stars.

Even Louis Elizondo and Ryan Graves have failed to identify prosaic things, and they're a) ex-military/ex-DoD and b) "UFO experts".

And then every sensor system has a Low Information Zone (LIZ), where stuff can be spotted but not identified. Military sensors are not exempt from that.

 

[NorCal Dave]

That's already a false proposition.

Agreed, but a large chunk of the UFO world is based on false propositions reinforcing already held beliefs. Anything unidentified is alien.

 

[sgreenstreet]

It's my opinion that changing it to "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" was intentional branding on part of either UFO activists (so now every blurry dot is "anomalous") or on part of the IC ("This blurry dot is mystifying and exciting!") because some of it is actually evidence for how incompetent they are. Or a little of both.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's my opinion that changing it to "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" was intentional branding on part of either UFO activists (so now every blurry dot is "anomalous") or on part of the IC ("This blurry dot is mystifying and exciting!") because some of it is actually evidence for how incompetent they are. Or a little of both.

Is that the official US military/government definition of the initialism now?

I seem to recall it getting changed as part of some bill or something..

 

[MapperGuy]

It's my opinion that changing it to "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" was intentional branding on part of either UFO activists (so now every blurry dot is "anomalous") or on part of the IC ("This blurry dot is mystifying and exciting!") because some of it is actually evidence for how incompetent they are. Or a little of both.

UFO is not acceptable anymore because in common language it now means "Known to be an alien spacecraft".

The need was for a new three letter acronym beginning with "U" for Unidentified.

Pick any other two letters and then think what those other two letters might stand for.
Go with whatever two words sound slightly plausible and not too silly.

Choosing the acronym first and then thinking what words it stands for is common practice in government these days.

 

[JMartJr]

UFO is not acceptable anymore because in common language it now means "Known to be an alien spacecraft".

They issue of course is that for the Big UFO folks, they are succeeding pretty well in establishing in the public mind, or at least in the mind of THEIR public, that "UAP" means aliens (or whatever the favored alien substitute is, for those moving away from "nuts and bolts" spaceships to a more "New Age" sort of UFO explanation...)

 

[jarlrmai]

They are succeeding "enough" to keep the money somewhat rolling in

 

[FatPhil]

UFO is not acceptable anymore because in common language it now means "Known to be an alien spacecraft".

The need was for a new three letter acronym beginning with "U" for Unidentified.

That's a classic terminological treadmill, barely different from its usual context, namely euphemism.
"concepts, not words, are in charge: give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name."
-- S. Pinker, /The Name of the Game/, https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/05/opinion/the-game-of-the-name.html

 

[Mendel]

UFO is not acceptable anymore because in common language it now means "Known to be an alien spacecraft".

On the contrary, UAP now means "known to be an alien spaceceaft (but inclusive of other ideas)" like dimensional travel etc.

UFO is not acceptable any more because everyone knows they're not real.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Is that the official US military/government definition of the initialism now?

I seem to recall it getting changed as part of some bill or something..

Yeah, it is currently officially "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" (changed from "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"), see: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-...ac-catalina-ufo-documentary.12367/post-344706

 

[Ann K]

UFO is not acceptable anymore because in common language it now means "Known to be an alien spacecraft".

Well, that's an embarrassment, because we've never HAD anything that is "known to be an alien spacecraft". That's like a "genuine psychic" or an "actual ghost".

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah, it is currently officially "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" (changed from "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"), see: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-...ac-catalina-ufo-documentary.12367/post-344706

From AARO' recent drone release

"Viewers should not interpret the absence of a formal assessment as suggestive of anomalous characteristics."

So not a UAP then? If so what is the classification? Do they still use "temporarily non-attributed objects"?

I guess the line of questioning for AARO is then, what does anomalous mean in the context of the videos they have released as unsolved recently.

I assume its reported as "UAP", because the observer thought it was "anomalous," but are AARO actually making any firm assessment of it's 'anomalousness' or not?

 

[Mendel]

I assume its reported as "UAP", because the observer thought it was "anomalous," but are AARO actually making any firm assessment of it's 'anomalousness' or not?

It's unidentified (and potentially unidentifiable, if it's just some flotsam) and aerial, and has been reported to them.

If AARO found evidence that the video showed something anomalous, they would come out and say so, so I expect they believe it's not anomalous. But because AARO hasn't identified it, they don't publicly claim it's not.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's unidentified (and potentially unidentifiable, if it's just some flotsam) and aerial, and has been reported to them.

If AARO found evidence that the video showed something anomalous, they would come out and say so, so I expect they believe it's not anomalous. But because AARO hasn't identified it, they don't publicly claim it's not.

Yes but UAP specifically and by US law means "anomalous," "aerial" no longer has anything to do with it.

So surely you have to know it's "anomalous" before it gets that designation.

 

[Mendel]

Yes but UAP specifically and by US law means "anomalous," "aerial" no longer has anything to do with it.

So surely you have to know it's "anomalous" before it gets that designation.

The video looks anomalous before you analyse it and realize the "anomaly" is really a result of camera tracking, same as GOFAST.
So the report is somewhat justified on those grounds, though the camera operator really should have realized what was up. But then AARO is set up to receive reports from anyone, so anyone could have found this video and reported it, while the people who knew it wasn't anomalous did not report it. That's the drawback of the "whistleblower" condition that the disclosure theorists had put in the law.

And AARO only closes cases when they identify what it is, I think.

 

[Mendel]

Yes but UAP specifically and by US law means "anomalous," "aerial" no longer has anything to do with it.

Do you think AARO gets reports of "I just saw an animal do something weird" or "here's an underexposed video of what I think may be bigfoot"? which are both anomalous phenomena.
and it would also include PSI phenomena
or the "Havana syndrome"

but instead everyone seems to understand they should only report UFOs, even if they might go in the water or into space

 

[jarlrmai]

Do you think AARO gets reports of "I just saw an animal do something weird" or "here's an underexposed video of what I think may be bigfoot"? which are both anomalous phenomena.
and it would also include PSI phenomena

but instead everyone seems to understand they should only report UFOs, even if they might go in the water or into space

I didn't choose the definition, that's what it means for the US government.

I think people started banging on about in space and underwater stuff like "USO's" to get aerial removed, but they replaced it with a "begging the question" word 'anomalous'

If they need another definition they should make one.

 

[FatPhil]

I didn't choose the definition, that's what it means for the US government.

I think people started banging on about in space and underwater stuff like "USO's" to get aerial removed, but they replaced it with a "begging the question" word 'anomalous'

If they need another definition they should make one.

They're humpty-dumptying - it's just post-structuralism/post-modernism all over again. You can't have a meaningful discussion with people who are deliberately mangling language.

And adding another definition would at most solve one problem but potentially introduce even more problems, and I'm not sure the positive feedback is merely linear. (Cf. XKCD "Standards".)

 

[Mendel]

Yes but UAP specifically and by US law means "anomalous," "aerial" no longer has anything to do with it.

I didn't choose the definition, that's what it means for the US government.

Here's the actual definition:

Article:

(8) Unidentified anomalous phenomena

The term "unidentified anomalous phenomena" means— (A) airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable; (B) transmedium objects or devices; and (C) submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that the objects or devices may be related to the objects described in subparagraph (A).

Source: 50 USC § 3373(n)(8)

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-347474300-456881131&term_occur=999&term_src=

airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable

I like it when a back-and-forth discussion like this actually makes an argument stronger, and I learn something along the way. I was ready to go all philosophical and double down on my point that meaning is constituted by actions and not by definitions, but then I thought to look for the actual legal definition. (A metabunk search helped me find it.) Going to the source is often a good strategy to ground a discussion.

 

[jarlrmai]

It strikes me that the words used and the definition are at odds, allowing room for interpretation.

 

[JMartJr]

And AARO only closes cases when they identify what it is, I think.

That seems fair, I suppose. But they need a sub-category: "Not yet identified (or unidentified due to poor data) but not demonstrated anomalous." Or something.

 

[JMartJr]

I think people started banging on about in space and underwater stuff like "USO's" to get aerial removed, but they replaced it with a "begging the question" word 'anomalous'

I suspect they were stuck with needing an "A" word, as the new acronym was already in use on all their business cards and stuff. They saved the acronym at the expense of clarity regarding what it stands for.

 

[Mick West]

The main reason they changed from "Aerial" to "Anomalous" is so that they could include underwater things. There was a brief period of time where it stood for "Aerial" and the definition included underwater and transmedium.

I wrote this to a journalist a while back

The Pentagon did not change it. It was changed by the people who wrote the language in the 2023 NDAA. My previous email:

The A stood for "Aerial" originally, which was used for the first task force in 2020-2021. See:
https://www.intelligence.gov/index....phenomena-preliminary-intelligence-assessment
It was changed to "Anomalous" in late 2022 with the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2023, signed into law on December 23, 2022 (Public Law 117-263, Section 1673).
You can see the name change in the title of the NASA panel, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_...Team#:~:text=renaming it by changing "Aerial"
The change was largely to include underwater objects, which some UFO proponents were interested in, despite vastly less evidence than for flying objects.

This legislation was written with a lot of input from a small group of UFO enthusiasts, including Chris Mellon, Luis Elizondo, David Grusch, Tim Gallaudet, and Karl Nell - along with SASC staffers like Kirk McConnell (a Skinwalker ranch fan). Previously, they had pushed to include underwater objects (sometimes called USO Unidentified Submersible Objects) or "Transmedium" objects in the legislation. That led to confusion as UAP still meant Aerial, but they also included underwater in the previous year's (2022) NDAA, which led to the establishment of AARO - with "All-domain Anomaly" deliberately in the title but with the old UAP definition in the establishing documents in July 2022.

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jul/...-THE-ALL-DOMAIN-ANOMALY-RESOLUTION-OFFICE.PDF
"The AARO will serve as the authoritative office of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and UAP-related activities for the DoD."

So in NDAA 2022, you had:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ81/html/PLAW-117publ81.htm
(5) The term ``unidentified aerial phenomena'' means--
(A) airborne objects that are not immediately
identifiable;
(B) transmedium objects or devices; and
(C) submerged objects or devices that are not
immediately identifiable and that display behavior or
performance characteristics suggesting that the objects
or devices may be related to the objects or devices
described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

Obviously, this is a little confusing, as submerged objects are not aerial

Then in NDAA 2023 it was changed to "anomalous" - basically to fix that confusion.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ263/html/PLAW-117publ263.htm

So, short story, it was the tacking on of "transmedium" and "submerged" objects to "aerial" that made the change necessary. That tacking on was done by a small group of lobbyists who thought there was something to the underwater stuff.

But there isn't. You can't see very far underwater, so there's no video or photos. There are only stories about anomalous sonar returns and occasional sightings that might as well be of sea monsters. The "transmedium" claim largely hinges on one video, "Aguadilla", which has a perfectly reasonable explanation of two wedding lanterns and parallax illusions.

 

[Giddierone]

Changing it to "Anomalous" also allows them the cast as wide a net as possible to include ghosts, angels & demons, interdimensionales, materialized psychisms etc, etc.

 

[JMartJr]

Changing it to "Anomalous" also allows them the cast as wide a net as possible to include ghosts, angels & demons, interdimensionales, materialized psychisms etc, etc.

Or perhaps slightly differently focused, it allows them to avoid making believers in that stuff feel excluded. The Nuts and bolts UFO folks vs. the New Age UFO folks is a pretty big schism in that community, as far as I can tell, if you want ALL of them telling their Congressfolks to fund your program, you don't want to push any of the community away...

I don't mean that in a snarky way, if you are a publicly known entity funded by Congress, you like folks who write to their Congressional representatives to do so supporting you, not to be mad at you for excluding them....