War.gov/UFO - Department of War Releases UAP Files - 2026 Release 1

[Andreas]

If they can't give us anything serious, then we have no real argument against the UFO folks, it's just our "trust me bro" vs their "trust me bro".

This just isn't true. The only thing that might silence the UFO crowd is conclusive evidence that ET is here and that the U.S. government knows all about it. Anything less will inevitably be interpreted as proof that the government is hiding the truth.

Suppose the Pentagon released a remarkable multi-sensor case that appeared extraordinary at first glance. If a thorough investigation later showed that it could be explained without invoking exotic technology, it would change absolutely nothing. Believers would simply argue that the "real" cases still remain hidden from public view.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

"Seems unlikely"? Why would, for example, David Fravor's case not be "anomalous"? Is his word alone not be enough?

I think not, but even if it was, it's AARO categorization method that I find weird.

The Fravor, Dietrich accounts are eyewitness reports. They did not have radar contact. They did not use FLIR or other optics/ cameras.

The FLIR-1 footage was from another flight, in which the aircrew saw nothing unusual outside the aircraft- it was seen on-screen only.


Where does AARO say they do that? That (you are implying) they don't regard LIZ cases as "truly anomalous"?

When Koslovki said this (attached) was he thinking about eye witness accounts with no data?
Or grainy videos?
I doubt it, that being said, I'm referring to those statements.
I won't debate the tic tac, it's pointless (pun intended).

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I don't think you do, but many here are so used to "anomalies" being equated with aliens, we sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction. IF there is a video or account that seems to "defy conventional physics" it often can be slotted into a number of categories:

1. Misunderstanding or confusion about what is seen. This would include things like balloons, parallax, lost tracking and other things that create the appearance of anomalies.
2. Breakthrough technology from the US.
3. Breakthrough technology from US allies.
4. Breakthrough technology from US adversaries.
5. Aliens.

I've noted multiple times in other threads, I don't think there is any such thing as "breakthrough technology". Technology builds up on previous technology. The F35, isn't breakthrough technology, it's a follow on from the Wright brothers Wright flyer.

The idea that the Russians, Iranians or Chinese have some sort of super technology that allows them to overfly the US in anomalous appearing advanced craft is a red hearing or straw-man. It's an argument to get people riled up and take UAP seriously, particularly by UFOs as aliens enthusiasts. The Iranians are trying to keep '70s era F4s and F14s in the air with their effective, but decidedly low-tech, Shahed drones. The Russians have yet to establish air superiority over their smaller neighbor, Ukraine. The Chinese J20 and J35 may rival the US F22 and F35, but they are still advanced convention aircraft.

We're really left with 1 or 5 in an attempt to explain supposedly anomalous videos. Time and again, when there is sufficient data, option 1 prevails.

I have really no more info than you to speculate on the "what if", I was pointing out AARO directors weird statements about how they treat the anomalous vs the "simply unidentified".
And I wanted to clarify I don't believe in aliens on earth but not even Chinese anti gravity.
My questions were about the supposed "perfect transparency" of the Pursue program and stuff.