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.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I guess I don't see where this statement equal these statements:
I don't see AARO saying they have 2-5% of cases with "multi-sensor" evidence that are truly anomalous. They are saying there are a few cases that can't be explained, but are likely terrestrial. If you have information that these few cases have multi-sensor data, please provide that. Possibly this is a blending of AARO reports with the older, and problematic, UAPTF report that pre-dated the formation of AARO, as shared up-thread:
From the source:
The first thing to note, is that in 17 years, they got 144 reports, 80 or which involved "multiple sensors". Giving this time frame includes the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the general "War on Terror", 80 seems a paltry number compared to the amount of activity being sampled.
More importantly, this is the UAP Task Force report. As has been noted in other threads, it was for a time led by Jay Stratton, Elizondo's UFO hunting buddy from AATIP, and a Skinwalker Ranch alum. Stratton's memoir of UFO hunting will drop in October. Stratton also brought in Dr. Travis Taylor as the UAPTF "Chief Scientist". Taylor was a regular on the credulous cable TV show, Ancient Aliens and is one of the stars of the equally credulous cable TV show, Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch. Taylor is the person that started the claim that the sample from Art's Parts obtained by TTSA, might be a "lifting device" or otherwise some sort of anti-gravity UFO material. It's the same old Skinwalker Ranch crew involved in government UFO projects, and then hyping up the alien angle.
The more accurate way to word this, is that a portion of 144 reports could not, or would not, be explained by ardent UFO/paranormal believers from the Skinwalker Ranch cohort. Report discussed here when it first came out:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pentagon-june-2021-report-on-120-uap-incidents.11784/
I know somewhere on the forum, Mick actually explained some of what the UAPTF found unexplainable. Some of the publicly released cases from the UAPTF that were "truly anomalous", turned out to be thing like stars, drones and bokeh.
boringrealit
Member
It might also be that this is all old shoe in USA, but with internet the rest of the world is also getting involved. I had no idea that UFOs was such a big deal before Elizondo and Grusch, because here UFOs has always been on the level of ghost stories. Interesting stories that could be real, but no one really care enough to do any serious research. While in USA it seems to always been a big deal, probably due to Roswell. So the rest of the world is having its first "congressional probing" and experiencing it as an explosion of UFO-discussions, thanks to internet.
Or maybe it is just me who never paid attention.
boringrealit
Member
The more important to get the data and research, so that it can finally be debunked.
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
I think a number of congresspeople have said they have seen more compelling evidence. I'll resort to Google AI, as I'm on phone and don't keep an updated file or doc on these things.
"Unreleased Evidence: Lawmakers have repeatedly stated that the unclassified, public UAP videos (like those originally released by the Navy) are only a fraction of what exists. Some representatives have noted they have viewed classified footage that shows objects performing flight maneuvers that vastly exceed known human technology. [1]"
Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1682794623069338&vanity=NewsNationNow&http_ref=eyJ0cyI6MTc4MDc1OTY0ODAwMCwiciI6Imh0dHBzOlwvXC93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbVwvIn0%3D
"Representative Tim Burchett (R-TN) has repeatedly claimed he has viewed classified UAP videos and photos that are significantly clearer and more profound than anything released to the public. [1, 2]
He stated that the military and intelligence agencies possess "30 to 40 additional videos" that Congress has not yet been allowed to see in full, which are much higher in quality and depict objects with flight capabilities that defy earthly physics. Burchett has publicly advocated for total disclosure, stating on programs like Elizabeth Vargas Reports and in interviews on the Ruthless Podcast that the American public can handle the truth."
"
Alarming Claims From Classified Briefings
Burchett has stated that some classified briefings he has received feature information so extreme and unsettling that knowing about it could cause people to lose sleep or worry constantly. [1, 2]
- Alien Contact and Craft: He has suggested that the government has received reports of "non-earthly" machinery and lifeforms. [1]
- Details and Specifics: Burchett has mentioned that certain secure briefings have provided extremely specific, jaw-dropping details—including addresses, times, dates, and names of individuals involved—that track up to the executive branch of previous presidential administrations. [1]"
One of my first post here back in '21:
"Why lay all of your cards on the table when you don't have to? What benefit would there be in that. You want to open a channel of communication but not reveal more than you have to. Keep the doubt alive --why reveal tipping point evidence?"
Personally, I'm sure there is better video evidence. I'm sure what I've seen and has been reported by others for so long is on some video somewhere.
This has been going on for a long time:
Roscoe Hillenkoeter:
""It is time for the truth to be brought out. Behind the scenes high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense."
Last edited:
Gary C
Senior Member.
Agreed, and the full data may simply not be definitive.
Consider that military systems are not designed to generate scientific data sets. They are designed to detect potential threats and possible targets with various requirements for system performance laid out by the Pentagon as part of the acquisition process. Those requirements reflect the military's current understanding of the sensor signatures of known opposing ships, aircraft, etc. and projections as to how these signatures are expected to evolve over the planned lifetime of the sensor being procured. What they get from the contractor is limited by the available technology, the physical limitations of military's use case, and the amount Congress is willing to pay for the program.
Nothing controversial about any of this. What you will not see in a requirements document is the ability to positively identify a mylar party balloon at some arbitrary range/altitude.
Fritzkquzerk
Member
Again, we are just assuming those cases are LIZ. The two directors from AARO I quoted before explicitly distinguish cases lacking data from the 2-5% they cannot identify.
Sure, they could be wrong, but since there is no public verifiable data on those cases, and they redact even the on screen info on the videos they publish, either you trust them on their assessments, or you don't.
But again, this is based on the assumption that there is anything truly anomalous for the scientific community to investigate. Otherwise, we're simply asking to see classified footage captured using classified military systems because a number of people claim there are strange, candy-shaped craft zipping around in our atmosphere.
And the whole discussion goes in circles. The UFO community claims that the government is hiding the truth about flying saucers → the government releases files and footage → the UFO community is disappointed and accuses the government of lying and concealing the truth → the government declassifies more files and footage → the UFO community is disappointed again… and the cycle continues indefinitely.
For the first (and probably also last) time, I want to quote Nick Pope. In the last article he wrote before his passing, he summarized the current situation:
"If Donald Trump's presidency ends without Disclosure, I'll be 99.9 percent convinced that there's nothing to disclose. I'd have to accept that if extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, nobody in the government is aware of it. The acceptance of such a state of affairs might actually be rather good for ufology. After all, while some conspiracies are real, most conspiracy theories are false, and encourage a negative, accusatory approach."
Fritzkquzerk
Member
Look, as said earlier, I do not claim that there is or isn't anything anomalous. AARO does.
The only way we could actually know if they're wrong, misguided or simply incompetent is to verify the data they do not give us.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
...or, in classic UFO fashion, cannot readily be associated with the visual UFO other than in time.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
But would they have said that same thing about Gofast, Flir1/Tick-tack/ and Gimbal? The ability of a member of Congress to identify the odd bit LIZ footage is not likely to be better than that of the general public, and their tendency to see amazing impossible maneuvers in cameras ceasing to track a target or ATFLIR pods rotating is likely to be about as common as it is for anybody else. Especially for those who are UFO believers -- their tendency to see what they hope to see would be about the same as the same tendency among the believers who are not in Congress, who have repeatedly seen huge motherships in photos of ceiling-lamps reflected in a window, or inexplicable phenomena in pictures of party balloons, or the best orb-UFO picture ever in a passing butterfly.
(To be fair, all of those looked puzzling at first glance. It took a second glance, or even a third, looking for an explanation, to see what was going on. But a prior strong belief that aliens are flying around gets in the way of the process of trying to figure it out -- you don't need to figure it out if "it is unidentified" is an acceptable answer, or if "it is unidentified therefore aliens" is more in line with what you Want To Believe.)
Similar threads
