Fritzkquzerk
Member
They are the ones making the claim (AARO) of anomalous non LIZ cases, not me.
Either they show something or we 100% have to trust their unverifiable assessments.
War.gov/UFO - Department of War Releases UAP Files - 2026 Release 1
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Either they show something or we 100% have to trust their unverifiable assessments.
boringrealit
Member
This! Instead of dumping random documents and clips they should release their own research that led to those claims in the first place. Put it out in a clear structure so we know which documents belongs to which analysis and how they worked to debunk all alternatives to UAP.
By being this lazy they only make the situation worse. They make it look like they have something to hide. As if they want to avoid turning this into a scientific question and keep it as a "he said she said". They make the UFOlogists look like the scientific people and themselves as anti-scientific "trust me bros".
I tend to disagree. Sure, there are probably cases involving "multi-sensor correlation," but that doesn't mean they're worth turning the world upside down for. I'm not convinced the military should necessarily release such data, as doing so could expose potential sensor malfunctions, reveal instances of mass hysteria among military personnel, and highlight the fact that it's often difficult to determine exactly what's drifting around in our airspace. I'm frankly not convinced there's anything of scientific significance worth investigating. The UFO crowd's curiosity alone may not be a sufficient reason. I know I'm a bit harsh here, but I don't really see a reason for the public to see videos of clutter, too small or too distant to identify.
Ann K
Senior Member.
There's one major aspect of this whole kerfuffle that is often overlooked. The dedicated believers in alien visitations seem to think that the variety and sheer number of as-yet-unidentified anomalies adds up to "There must be something mysterious to this". I think that is not only an unwarranted conclusion on their part, but strengthens the arguments against them instead.
If there have really been strange spacecraft in many different sizes and shapes occasionally spotted over a period of decades, that must mean there have been many different extraterrestrial excursions to earth over a long period of time. We have discussed at length the extreme problems of a single probe venturing across the vast reaches of space to reach us here; surely multiplying those difficulties by a large number of "sightings" is even less probable.
And yet — no alien being has initiated contact. No alien craft have been found. No compelling reason has been posited why we should be the destination for great numbers of casual visitors who don't even bother to say hello. Should we think of earth as just the turning point in a competition, a sort of "race you to terra and back, buddy!" event? What would be the point of such a colossal amount of expensive effort?
It strains credulity.
If there have really been strange spacecraft in many different sizes and shapes occasionally spotted over a period of decades, that must mean there have been many different extraterrestrial excursions to earth over a long period of time. We have discussed at length the extreme problems of a single probe venturing across the vast reaches of space to reach us here; surely multiplying those difficulties by a large number of "sightings" is even less probable.
And yet — no alien being has initiated contact. No alien craft have been found. No compelling reason has been posited why we should be the destination for great numbers of casual visitors who don't even bother to say hello. Should we think of earth as just the turning point in a competition, a sort of "race you to terra and back, buddy!" event? What would be the point of such a colossal amount of expensive effort?
It strains credulity.
Fritzkquzerk
Member
I see your point.
I think choosing to look the other way out of national security concerns is a political decision, not a scientific one. Assuming these unresolved, multi-sensor cases are just 'clutter' without checking the data makes true scientific enquiry impossible for us. Science requires verifiable data, not blind trust in administrative secrecy.
If we are looking for "aliens" you are absolutely right.
If we are talking anomalies, I think better transparency would also prevent "anomalous" reports of normal prosaic occurrences, hence providing a possible counterweight to wild speculation.
UFO alien visitors believers will never be 100% satisfied, but that would be at least a start.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Somehow, using (presumably) extremely advanced technology, these phenomena are capable of defining the 'Low Information Zone' for every camera and radar system on Earth, and confine their activities to those zones. This restriction ensures that no good evidence is ever collected.
This capability goes far beyond any feasible level of technology that I can imagine (and I can imagine some extremely advanced technology).
This capability goes far beyond any feasible level of technology that I can imagine (and I can imagine some extremely advanced technology).
Do they? Where is this stated?
Have they? Where is this stated, and by whom? So far the evidence has been disappointing.
Fritzkquzerk
Member
The evidence that's publicly available is not disappointing, it's incomplete.
I'm referring mostly to what Kirkpatrick and Koslovski stated, here:
Attachments
Fritzkquzerk
Member
Regarding congressmen being shown stuff in SCIF, they are the ones stating this.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
That is the same thing; if we had access to the full data, we could assess it in more detail. In many cases the complete data is no longer available because it has been accidentally discarded, or discarded as unimportant by some bean-counter.
This is disappointing.
Who, when, where? Some congressmen are believers, so their assessments may not be accurate.
Gary C
Senior Member.
Unfortunately, that isn't as important as most people seem to think it is.
Source - https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Constitutional-Qualifications/
And I've played pinochle in a SCIF
boringrealit
Member
Here is stated that they have multi-sensor correlation: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents...-Assessment-Unidentified-Aerial-Phenomena.pdf
Page 4. 144 from USG sources. Of those 80 were observed with multiple sensors.
I think one of those 144 was debunked as a deflated balloon. Not sure if it was one of the 80.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Nor mine, which to be fair is largely to same time frame!
I think many folks who are younger or newer to an interest in UFO stuff maybe don't have a real sense of the history of UFO stuff.
If someone knows about the surge of interest in the topic following the release of the leaked Navy videos but does not know about the 80 year history of similar surges of interest as a new picture or new stories sparked a new flap and ten te subsequent relative loss of interest as nothing happened in terms of new discoveries (longer than 80 years if you count the "phantom airships" of 1896-97) this recent resurgence looks like something new and unprecedented.
If somebody is reading about the calls for "disclosure," and the predictions that it is coming "real soon now," but does not know that such calls and predictions have been the norm for most of that 80 years, and that "disclosure" in fact happened several times already (albeit the rather boring disclosure that there was no good evidence of aliens spaceships nor anything else new to science) it would reasonably feel like we're building towards something Earth-shattering, rather than just retreading the same old ground.
If you don't know the history of earlier Congressional probing into UFOs that led nowhere, the current round of Congressional hearings and interest would likely seem more exciting than they perhaps actually are.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I think you're missing the basic reason for a SCIF. Nobody outside the SCIF knows what's being said. Any claim, even such a non-specific claim as "crazy stuff", is nothing but hearsay and speculation.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
One doesn't follow from the other.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
'Multiple sensors' seems to include sightings that are reported visually, as well as on film, or sightings that are associated with radar returns but the radar returns are not recorded (or the records are not retained). This makes analysis different. None of the radar returns for the Nimitz event are available.
Fritzkquzerk
Member
That would put them in the LIZ category, and AARO would have no reason to distinguish them.
I think It does follow. If the raw sensor data is withheld, the public cannot verify AARO's claims. Therefore, we either accept their word or acknowledge that the public evidence is incomplete. There is no middle ground for verification without the actual data, so far.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
We can't verify AAROs claims, such as they are, since we don't have the full data. So there is no reason to accept their analysis - in so many cases, analyses by military organisations are flawed (look at the Chile airliner case, for example).
Cases where we do have the full data, or at least the data which is still extant, are not convincing; the cases we don't have data for are only exist as hearsay as far as we are concerned.
Cases where we do have the full data, or at least the data which is still extant, are not convincing; the cases we don't have data for are only exist as hearsay as far as we are concerned.
Momma always said you catch more Grays with honey than vinegar.
Snort!
Fritzkquzerk
Member
If we don't have the full data to verify their claims, then the public evidence is incomplete by definition.
Without more complete info, drawing a final conclusion either way is just a premature assumption rather than an objective verdict.
Similar threads
