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.

 

[Andreas]

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.

When investigating the Chilean case, there were many scientists and government officials who didn't understand what they were looking at. Kosloski saying that there are cases he and his colleagues "do not understand" doesn't mean they are anything other than the usual birds, balloons, and planes.

Some people say we need to see "all the data," but I tend to disagree. To me, the demand for transparency isn't an entirely positive thing. Whole batches of videos and documents are being released, and there's hardly enough time to thoroughly debunk them all. Demanding even more videos doesn't change the fact that people will continue making outrageous claims.

When people argue that the government should release its "best cases," it's often implied that strange craft are flying around in our atmosphere. But the truth is that we have no real reason to believe that's the case. UFOs, space ghosts, and human anti-gravity technology exist in the LIZ. They live and thrive there, like the monsters we were afraid of as children, hiding in the shadows when the bedroom light was off. But as soon as the light is turned on, they immediately turn into piles of clothes or strange shadows. Asking for more funky videos from the government is like listening to the spookiest ghost stories just before bedtime, while keeping the light of.

With all that said, I do think it's good and important that skeptics continue debunking the declassified videos being released by the Pentagon. Not because I think the subject has any scientific value whatsoever, but because extraordinary claims made without evidence should be met with facts.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

When investigating the Chilean case, there were many scientists and government officials who didn't understand what they were looking at. Kosloski saying that there are cases he and his colleagues "do not understand" doesn't mean they are anything other than the usual birds, balloons, and planes.

Some people say we need to see "all the data," but I tend to disagree. To me, the demand for transparency isn't an entirely positive thing. Whole batches of videos and documents are being released, and there's hardly enough time to thoroughly debunk them all. Demanding even more videos doesn't change the fact that people will continue making outrageous claims.

When people argue that the government should release its "best cases," it's often implied that strange craft are flying around in our atmosphere. But the truth is that we have no real reason to believe that's the case. UFOs, space ghosts, and human anti-gravity technology exist in the LIZ. They live and thrive there, like the monsters we were afraid of as children, hiding in the shadows when the bedroom light was off. But as soon as the light is turned on, they immediately turn into piles of clothes or strange shadows. Asking for more funky videos from the government is like listening to the spookiest ghost stories just before bedtime, while keeping the light of.

With all that said, I do think it's good and important that skeptics continue debunking the declassified videos being released by the Pentagon. Not because I think the subject has any scientific value whatsoever, but because extraordinary claims made without evidence should be met with facts.

I agree with the idea that we don't need "more videos".
We don't, we need more "complete videos" not black boxes all over screen info.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Also because as you said before (with good reason) we cannot debunk them all, and we cannot debunk stuff like a grainy something with no further data.
Since this data is somewhere, I'd love to have that released as well.
I'm really not speculating on aliens, new technology, Chinese antigravity, interdimensional whatever. I don't care, but scientific debunking needs data (like what Mick did with GOFAST, or the Syrian acceleration video).
The real "transparency" it's not there with the latest released stuff.
Ever Corbell supposedly "leaked" stuff is more thorough than what we've seen.

 

[Eburacum]

The FLIR1 thermal video is public, and the Navy formally confirmed radar integration at the time.

They also seem to have discarded this radar data at a later date, so this 'formal confirmation' can't be examined in detail. We are relying on human memories and second-hand accounts.

 

[JMartJr]

They also seem to have discarded this radar data at a later date, so this 'formal confirmation' can't be examined in detail. We are relying on human memories and second-hand accounts.

Perhaps because the cases that do not have that sort of issue get resolved several steps before the "getting leaked or released as anomalous" step.