US Navy 'will not release UFO information'

[UM-Bot]

A move to formalize the process of reporting UFOs will not result in details being released to the public.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/327411/us-navy-will-not-release-ufo-information

[stereologist]

Not a surprise. I wouldn't expect anyone collecting information to divulge what they are connecting.

The military and government in general is keen to avoid the dissemination of PII, or personally identifiable information.

https://www.gsa.gov/reference/gsa-privacy-program/rules-and-policies-protecting-pii-privacy-act

 

[bison]

The U.S. Navy has already provided us with significant information. They've admitted publicly that they are interested in gathering more reports on Unidentified Flying Objects. They've also made it plain enough that further study of the phenomenon is desired, a phenomenon which they do not properly understand. 

[Robotic Jew]

I don't understand why people think they would.

[Seti42]

Remember, UFO =/= aliens.

[bison]

Not inevitably, of course. Many UFOs will, under study, eventually be identified as having some mundane cause. A significant fraction will not be so identifiable, even when the information available should be adequate for identification. It has been this way for decades.

The U.S. Navy, and other military bodies, of various nations have observed substantial, solid objects that fly in a manner that we could not and can not explain, nor duplicate. Unless we posit some power on Earth that can work super-science miracles  and remain secret for seven decades, or longer, it seems that an extraterrestrial civilization must be considered.

[marsman]

who cares?  the US isnt the only navy.....just one of many

people seem to forget that

[pallidin]

It appears not unusual, nor indeed unwarranted, that classified military sources/locations/methods are redacted (or the entire report omitted entirely) from public release.

Seems many countries follow that general rule.

Edited May 2, 2019 by pallidin

[Timothy]

32 minutes ago, pallidin said:

It appears not unusual, nor indeed unwarranted, that classified military sources/locations/methods are redacted (or the entire report omitted entirely) from public release.

Seems many countries follow that general rule.

Yep. It should not be a hard concept for people to grasp. 

And anyone who thinks that this is in any way a confirmation of anything else is grasping at straws as usual.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, bison said:

Not inevitably, of course. Many UFOs will, under study, eventually be identified as having some mundane cause. A significant fraction will not be so identifiable, even when the information available should be adequate for identification. It has been this way for decades.

The U.S. Navy, and other military bodies, of various nations have observed substantial, solid objects that fly in a manner that we could not and can not explain, nor duplicate. Unless we posit some power on Earth that can work super-science miracles  and remain secret for seven decades, or longer, it seems that an extraterrestrial civilization must be considered.

I'm not so sure that is the case. I would be interested in hearing about a few UFO events from around the world that are as you say "could not and can not explain, nor duplicate". All of the events I've ever heard about are either well documented and mundane, or the reports are vague and unsubstantiated and an explanation cannot be determined.

[bison]

A number of military and government studies have examined many UFO reports and  concluded that the likeliest explanation for some of these is extraterrestrial intelligence. Among these reports are:

Project Sign, United States Air Force 1948

Swedish Air Intelligence study referred to in a formerly top secret United States Air Force document, 1948

West German study, headed by Dr. Hermann Oberth, rocketry expert, 1951 to 1954. Dr. Oberth thereafter spoke and wrote repeatedly about the conclusion that some UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft.

GEIPAN study, France, 2005

In addition, there is the private COMETA Report, France, 1999, which employed the services of military defense analysts. 

One of the chief reasons for these conclusions, which crops up again and again, is the anomalous flight characteristics of these  objects, which could not be equalled by terrestrial flight technology. The  value of expert conclusions, based on a number of reports, taken together, seems greater than that of a recounting of one or a few specific reports.

Edited May 3, 2019 by bison

[Timothy]

@bison, is this the GEIPAN you’re referring to? 

Slightly more recent than 2005.

And it doesn’t really seem like they’re on the ET bandwagon as you are suggesting:

‘And what about the alien hypothesis?

A large part of you, readers, is probably expecting some words on this matter. Having clearly said that the GEIPAN, to this day, has no proof of their existence, we will not formulate an opinion. An absence of proof does not make a proof of absence !
The alien hypothesis is constantly present in the work of the GEIPAN. It can be suggested or clearly expressed by the witness but also can only be present in his/her emotion in reaction to the sighting. Medias and journalists in particular have most of the time this aspect in mind during interviews, looking to find the best teaser or the best title for their paper. The GEIPAN’s work is also scrutinized and criticized by some UFO blogs and associations who are pros of the alien hypothesis..’

Doesn’t really support the argument you were trying to make? 

Edit: Link: http://www.geipan.fr/fileadmin/documents/News-V3-VBA-February20-2018_V1.pdf

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Timothy
Edit.

[the13bats]

Quote

An absence of proof does not make a proof of absence

what a silly word game mostly used by ego driven true believers when they have zero. in that case sounds like geipan is aching to say "aliens" and wont because without proof they know they would look ridiculous, that or they want to try to stay in good graces with TBs.

the phrase actualy means zip because like always mistaken by TBs the burden isnt to prove something doesnt exist the burden is to prove it does,  if its not proven then it as good as doesnt exist, TB belief isnt and never will be proof. except in the believers mind.

of course all goverments/ military keep some things from the general public, they dont want their enemies to gain anything of value or to give away aby secrets, i fully support that,

i do not support the TB cry that automatically means our goverment is hiding aliens, remember, the "U" in UFO means unidentified it doesnt mean "alien" and some things because of crappy evidence might remain unidentified,

if a person has all these confirming reports that have the correct credibility, providence etc to prove thst aliens have visited earth, are still doing so and are here, post your proof of move on.

 

[RoofGardener]

38 minutes ago, the13bats said:

.....if a person has all these confirming reports that have the correct credibility, providence etc to prove thst aliens have visited earth, are still doing so and are here, post your proof of move on.

Well, it would appear that the person who DOES have these reports is the Secretary of the Navy, and he isn't talking !  

[the13bats]

17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, it would appear that the person who DOES have these reports is the Secretary of the Navy, and he isn't talking !  

no, its not proven not by a long shot that the SotN has the documented proof of alien visitation, but your reply fits perfectly,

so i rebut prove the SotN has such reports...

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, bison said:

A number of military and government studies have examined many UFO reports and  concluded that the likeliest explanation for some of these is extraterrestrial intelligence. Among these reports are:

Project Sign, United States Air Force 1948

Swedish Air Intelligence study referred to in a formerly top secret United States Air Force document, 1948

West German study, headed by Dr. Hermann Oberth, rocketry expert, 1951 to 1954. Dr. Oberth thereafter spoke and wrote repeatedly about the conclusion that some UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft.

GEIPAN study, France, 2005

In addition, there is the private COMETA Report, France, 1999, which employed the services of military defense analysts. 

One of the chief reasons for these conclusions, which crops up again and again, is the anomalous flight characteristics of these  objects, which could not be equalled by terrestrial flight technology. The  value of expert conclusions, based on a number of reports, taken together, seems greater than that of a recounting of one or a few specific reports.

So where in all  of this is such an event. It is fine to point to some people that think some events might be unexplicable so they turn to an explanation.

That's the old "I don't know, therefore aliens" non sequitur.

We have all seen many suggestions that turned out to be mundane such as the IR videos from TTSA, the Chilean video promoted by Kean, the Phoenix Lights still promoted by people.

A simple explanation for the "anomalous flight characteristics" is bad data or misinterpreted data. That happens all of the time in the science lab, yet here we are to suppose that the data is 100% accurate.

This statement, "The  value of expert conclusions, based on a number of reports, taken together, seems greater than that of a recounting of one or a few specific reports." I do not agree with. This cobbles together some vague notion without examining the issues. This is the sort of effort tried by crop circle proponents, chem trail proponents, BF proponents.

All I see here is no evidence for ET, but there is the "I don't know, therefore ..."

[stereologist]

I admit I was not aware of Project Sign. Looked into it and it seems that the report was never released.

https://thedemoniacal.blogspot.com/2010/07/project-sign-1947-1948.html

According to this blog Sign was staffed by alien believers and Grudge was staffed by not alien believers. The two projects came to different conclusions. That can happen easily when there is no evidence to support the conclusion reached. Without evidence it is all about belief and wishful thinking - on both sides of the argument.

Project Sign does not meet this claim as far as I can see:

Quote

The U.S. Navy, and other military bodies, of various nations have observed substantial, solid objects that fly in a manner that we could not and can not explain, nor duplicate. Unless we posit some power on Earth that can work super-science miracles  and remain secret for seven decades, or longer, it seems that an extraterrestrial civilization must be considered.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by stereologist
spelling

[stereologist]

When I read this statement, "Swedish Air Intelligence study referred to in a formerly top secret United States Air Force document, 1948" it suggests to me that there is no evidence, just a reference to a report that was never produced.

I don't see how that suggestion meets this claim:

Quote

The U.S. Navy, and other military bodies, of various nations have observed substantial, solid objects that fly in a manner that we could not and can not explain, nor duplicate. Unless we posit some power on Earth that can work super-science miracles  and remain secret for seven decades, or longer, it seems that an extraterrestrial civilization must be considered.

 

[Essan]

15 hours ago, bison said:

Not inevitably, of course. Many UFOs will, under study, eventually be identified as having some mundane cause. A significant fraction will not be so identifiable, even when the information available should be adequate for identification. It has been this way for decades.

The U.S. Navy, and other military bodies, of various nations have observed substantial, solid objects that fly in a manner that we could not and can not explain, nor duplicate. Unless we posit some power on Earth that can work super-science miracles  and remain secret for seven decades, or longer, it seems that an extraterrestrial civilization must be considered.

Whist they are only seen on Earth (or within Earth's atmosphere) the evidence that they originate elsewhere than Earth is zero

We have yet to see any unidentified space craft.   Only air craft.

[stereologist]

I looked again into this guy,

Quote

West German study, headed by Dr. Hermann Oberth, rocketry expert, 1951 to 1954. Dr. Oberth thereafter spoke and wrote repeatedly about the conclusion that some UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft.

I didn't see that he had done a government study. He did write some articles expressing his opinion. What I don't see if a basis for the claim "solid objects that fly in a manner that we could not and can not explain, nor duplicate". That does not seem to be in his work. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Oberth

[the13bats]

43 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I admit I was not aware of Project Sign. Looked into it and it seems that the report was never released.

https://thedemoniacal.blogspot.com/2010/07/project-sign-1947-1948.html

According to this blog Sign was staffed by alien believers and Grudge was staffed by not alien believers. The two projects came to different conclusions. That can happen easily when there is no evidence to support the conclusion reached. Without evidence it is all about belief and wishful thinking - on both sides of the argument.

Project Sign does not meet this claim as far as I can see:

 

sign, grudge and blue book had Hynek at the helm,

my issues with hynek is his credibility, ufo TBs hail that he started skeptic but flipped to true believer, not entirely true, he went from skeptic to saying there was more to the ufo phenomenon,

but he did things like wrote a book, "the edge of reailty" where he claimed to see and have time to unpack a camera and photograph a UFO only to later claim he never saw a ufo himself and if he did wouldnt admit it.

i saw on a documentary Raymond E. Fowler say and i paraphase, that hynek and he were close friends and while hynek was at his home visiting he badgered him why did he dismiss the mich sighting as swamp gas and he said hynek told him had he not said that he might loose his job with blue book,

fowler was trying to say in my opinion the gov controlled what hynek said to the public but what he really did was show his friend had zero problem compromising his principals to lie to the public to keep his job, that is if hynek didnt believe it was swamp gas, if he did believe it was then he didnt lie and either way fowler failed.

hynek appears in the movie close encounters, pretty cool.

in the end i cant take much of what hynek says as fact and he might have became a believer in UFOs are aliens im not sure but never found anything to prove it.

 

[bison]

In order to respond to a number of replies to my last post, I offer a link to a portion an article on the extraterrestrial hypothesis. This discusses, among other things, the studies to which I referred. It coves such points as the existence of the West German project which Dr. Hermann Oberth headed, a precis of the conclusions  of the Swedish Air Intelligence Study, and of the French GEIPAN study of 2005. All of these concluded that extraterrestrial intelligence was the likeliest explanation for some UFO reports.   

Project Sign also concluded that extraterrestrial intelligence was the likeliest explanation for some UFOs. This conclusion was quashed by a general who personally disagreed with the conclusion, but had not taken part in the study. I don't think that an exercise of raw power like that can be said to change anything about the conclusions of Project Sign, or tells us anything of scientific merit. . Given the general's expression of disapproval, it's not surprising that the following project, called Grudge, reached the opposite, negative conclusion. 

All of these conclusions were about probabilities, not proof. The same can be said for a great many scientific conclusions about a number of subjects, which are still found reputable and acceptable. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_hypothesis#Documents_and_investigations_regarding_ETH     

Edited May 3, 2019 by bison

[the13bats]

like you said it was called "probability" their opinions and a huge issue i have is many if not all the cases they said this about had poor weak evidence and they did the "we dont know...so it must be ET " two step so very popular with TBs.

[Minimalists]

42 minutes ago, the13bats said:

like you said it was called "probability" their opinions and a huge issue i have is many if not all the cases they said this about had poor weak evidence and they did the "we dont know...so it must be ET " two step so very popular with TBs.

Yep.. They rely heavily on the argument from ignorance...."I don't know what it is so it must be aliens from another planet!" I don't know if this stems from not really knowing or if they actually believe it's an alien craft. I don't know, so much of this relies on eyewitness testimony that can be confusing and at times unbelievable...How much of actual eyewitness testimony do we believe? 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Alien Origins

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

Yep.. They rely heavily on the argument from ignorance...."I don't know what it is so it must be aliens from another planet!" I don't know if this stems from not really knowing or if they actually believe it's an alien craft. I don't know, so much of this relies on eyewitness testimony that can be confusing and at times unbelievable...How much of actual eyewitness testimony do we believe? 

me? well, "believe" is the word, 

sometimes people will tell some tale that no, i dont "believe" it happened as they say or i dont get an impression of integrity when they want to jump over all the far more likely prosiac explanations and are dead set it must be paranormal/supernatural that hurts my assessment of their credibility as does the typical anger and insults that seem to always flow when we dont subscribe that it just must be otherwordly,  if their belief is real to them it should be enough to me the anger and insults come from their insecurity and doubt.

im not suggesting everyone who tells a wild story is a liar some are very honest sincere people but a person can be sincere and dead wrong,

its a bit harder if i like and or respect the person, as example somewhere on here a guy posted he saw a ufo but i wouldnt believe him, on the contrary i did believe him his manors and attitude played a big part of that.

if i saw something more than a blurry dot but i didnt know what the devil it was sure i would share the tale and expect doubters but i would just ask for help in finding an ecplanation, "unexplained" does drive my OCD nuts.