Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Government report into UAP's released


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, kartikg said:

It's highly unlikely that any other government has come up with tech like this, the sheer amount of money and resources poured by USA government in defense is unparalleled, not to mention the intelligence network, its highly unlikely someone nation came up with such tech so many years ago. 

And no-one claiming responsibility, for propaganda currency, rules out foreign tech.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

False dichotomy.  The report says some UAP could be explained by nature.

Some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

No, people with wild imaginations have been observing perfectly natural phenomena for centuries.

No. Look at the 1560's Basel and Nuremberg 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

No. Look at the 1560's Basel and Nuremberg 

The woodcut? So the 1554 one is accurate too then? No imagination applied at all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2021 at 6:59 AM, Freez1 said:

What did you expect? If they witnessed one with little green men behind the wheel they couldn’t prove it’s aliens. It could be another nation pretending to be aliens.

you mean undocumented illegal aliens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2021 at 8:25 PM, Manwon Lender said:

At least now we know according the Government the objects can travel faster then anything we have,  can maneuver in ways we cant match

On which page of the report will we find the evidence of that?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bison said:

.. some of these exhibit highly anomalous motions, not reasonably attributable to Earthly flying machinesThey then claim that these motions might be explained as observer errors, detection equipment faults, or 'spoofing' countermeasures by the objects themselves.  A number of these reports involve multiple means of detection, including radar tracking, infrared optical images, and visual observations. All of these would have had to fail at the same time

As above, could you be specific, and link/cite/quote the very best example of the blue parts?    (Taking into account the red part....)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

On which page of the report will we find the evidence of that?

This information is located on page 5:

As a result, the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting. • Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation

UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. 

Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf (dni.gov)

 

Was that helpful @ChrLzs or were you looking for something else?

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

This information is located on page 5:

As a result, the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting. • Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation

UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. 

Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf (dni.gov)

That's not evidence at all in support of the claim that "the objects can travel faster then anything we have,  can maneuver in ways we can't match". This is just wishful thinking on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

That's not evidence at all in support of the claim that "the objects can travel faster then anything we have,  can maneuver in ways we can't match". This is just wishful thinking on your part.

Look, I am very capable of reading something and comprehending what I read. Unlike you I dont need to be disrespectful and I will not lower myself to level under any circumstances.;) This is not some kind of show that identifies who is the most intelligent person in this thread, if it were based upon IQ score you would lose hands down. So if you want to continue having conversations that's cool so long as you act respectfully during those conversations!:tu:

Here is one of the expects you have stated debunked the the videos, well in this video he admits he was lying. Do you know why, well its because either he admitted he was lying or he was going to be sued for liable and slander!!:yes: Those are the kind of people that you have based your information upon my friend!:D

Take care!!:)

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

So if you want to continue having conversations that's cool so long as you act respectfully during those conversations!

I have been disrespectful at times, you're right. The problem, for me, is forgetting that there are real people behind these avatars; my responses are often very direct, and mechanical.

My girlfriend has read some of my posts on here and she thinks that I am very blunt and curt, so I will work on it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least they only wasted 9 pages to say "we don't know"

They could have wasted 900 pages.

Edited by Seti42
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I have been disrespectful at times, you're right. The problem, for me, is forgetting that there are real people behind these avatars; my responses are often very direct, and mechanical.

My girlfriend has read some of my posts on here and she thinks that I am very blunt and curt, so I will work on it.

I have had to do the same thing, I spent 23 years in the Army and a little over 10 more as  a Government Contractor working in the Middle East. I don't suffer fools very well at all, but I have come to realize that by being a sarcastic ass, no one wants to associate with you. I am not one who is really use to being  polite, i am use to saying something once and then watching people move. 

But, I don't want to come off here like a dick because long term people will just ignore you. So, .I have toned my attitude down a great deal, but I still slip sometimes no ones perfect. However, thanks for considering what I said and for me the past is just water under a bridge. I mean I have plenty of friends here and we certainly don't agree about everything, but at the end of the day we are still friends because we act respectful towards each other. 

Peace Dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.

Probably?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Look, I am very capable of reading something and comprehending what I read. Unlike you I dont need to be disrespectful and I will not lower myself to level under any circumstances.;) This is not some kind of show that identifies who is the most intelligent person in this thread, if it were based upon IQ score you would lose hands down. So if you want to continue having conversations that's cool so long as you act respectfully during those conversations!:tu:

Here is one of the expects you have stated debunked the the videos, well in this video he admits he was lying. Do you know why, well its because either he admitted he was lying or he was going to be sued for liable and slander!!:yes: Those are the kind of people that you have based your information upon my friend!:D

Take care!!:)

I'm having a hard time following your perception of who has debunked what.

This Mike Turber appears to be a fellow traveller with TTSA.  It is the TTSA claims that Mick West debunks, not the videos.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I'm having a hard time following your perception of who has debunked what.

This Mike Turber appears to be a fellow traveller with TTSA.  It is the TTSA claims that Mick West debunks, not the videos.

Honestly Duck, I am not sure. Who debunks what I have not been following this that closely to be honest. I may be completely wrong, but let me clear one thing up. I Don't Believe that the objects in the Navy Videos are Alien Space Craft, I have an opinion what they are but I would rather wait to see what happens before I say what I think,:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Was that helpful @ChrLzs or were you looking for something else?

No, it was not all that helpful at all.  Let's go back to my original question, shall we?  I'll quote it so we don't go off on another set of lengthy handwaving...  I asked:

Quote

On which page of the report will we find the evidence of that?

Where "that" refers to your claim:

Quote

At least now we know according the Government the objects can travel faster then anything we have, can maneuver in ways we cant match

 
So, let's look at what was posted:

Quote

... Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation

One might think that they would then go on to give a good example.. But no.

Quote

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Oooh, we must be getting close!  But hangon - these incidents were just unusual, not unexplainable?  And did Manwon quote everything? - just before they said that the 18 special cases "appear to demonstrate advanced technology" 
They appear to?  They're not sure then?  And it's just advanced tech, not unknown?  

Quote

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft

Which one/s?  Certainly not those in the videos.

Quote

move against the wind

Which one/s?  Certainly not those in the videos.  And how did they determine the wind conditions at the anomalies location/s?

Quote

maneuver abruptly

Which one/s?  Certainly not those in the videos.  Drones DO maneuver abruptly, so that is an empty claim.

Quote

move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion

"Considerable speed" - what, like a fighter jet?  And what did they use to discern the propulsion?  A fighter jet in optical light may have no discernable propulsion, and drones may not have much of a heat signature..

Quote

In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.

Wait up, a minute ago it was "a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors", then it dropped to 18, and now ....

Quote

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. 

This sounds like they maybe have one or two.. but why are they so shy in giving details?  They could easily get rid of uncleared information - after all they just said nothing was beyond advanced.
So again, where is the evidence, and the numbers, and the maths?

 

 

Do you really think that waffle answered my simple request for evidence?  We've been promised that evidence for several years now.

It's pretty simple really - if a claim is made that some 'non-terrestrial' or even 'physically impossible' maneuver / characteristic applies to a report, we need to look at the actual data.

We have looked in great detail at those infamous videos and the simple and undeniable fact is that they do NOT, I repeat NOT show any such unexplainable behavior.

Anecdotes and human perception is not enough.  Similarly, guessing that a thing that was way over here on one radar sweep is the same thing seen on the next sweep way over there.. thus breaking the laws of physics..? again it isn't enough

"SHOW YOUR WORK" is the basic principle here.  ALL assumptions must be considered.

So, those of us looking into this genuinely would like something specific., We would rather not get all excited by vague claims that are simply NOT in the report.  Surely this report should present the best evidence of the unexplainable behavior that is being claimed, but in fact, it very clearly states:
 

Quote

"The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP,"


Is that somehow unclear?

And again, I ask, if *any* of these anomalies were somehow a threat, why was not a single shot fired?

 

 


Hint, for at least one claim ... drones from the San Clemente Island Droneport.. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw one last night and it was the first and only time (after seeing 45-50ish already) I've seen one display warp drive and use it to hyper jump. At one point it blinked out and about 10-15 seconds later it popped back in about the same location but with a huge flash of blue light and even a hazy blue crescent shaped shock wave or other energetic discharge that shot off in the opposite direction it was bearing. And it seems like it had to pump the brakes so to speak to slow down because it was between 80,000ft high to maybe the very edge of the atmosphere at around 120,000ft up and it managed to cover about 50-60 miles or so in about 1.2second by my estimation. Which means it was moving at about 198,000 miles per hour! That is absolutely nuts, because it's FTL speeds, which nobody on earth has been able to crack. So clearly they aren't from here at this point on time. I won't say aliens but I won't rule it out either.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brassboy86 said:

I saw one last night and it was the first and only time (after seeing 45-50ish already) I've seen one display warp drive and use it to hyper jump. At one point it blinked out and about 10-15 seconds later it popped back in about the same location but with a huge flash of blue light and even a hazy blue crescent shaped shock wave or other energetic discharge that shot off in the opposite direction it was bearing. And it seems like it had to pump the brakes so to speak to slow down because it was between 80,000ft high to maybe the very edge of the atmosphere at around 120,000ft up and it managed to cover about 50-60 miles or so in about 1.2second by my estimation. Which means it was moving at about 198,000 miles per hour! That is absolutely nuts, because it's FTL speeds, which nobody on earth has been able to crack. So clearly they aren't from here at this point on time. I won't say aliens but I won't rule it out either.

Where were you, and what date/time?  Roughly will do for the location.  We'll ask all the local astronomers who have all-night-all-sky cameras to show us their footage..

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brassboy86 said:

I saw one last night and it was the first and only time (after seeing 45-50ish already) I've seen one display warp drive and use it to hyper jump. At one point it blinked out and about 10-15 seconds later it popped back in about the same location but with a huge flash of blue light and even a hazy blue crescent shaped shock wave or other energetic discharge that shot off in the opposite direction it was bearing. And it seems like it had to pump the brakes so to speak to slow down because it was between 80,000ft high to maybe the very edge of the atmosphere at around 120,000ft up and it managed to cover about 50-60 miles or so in about 1.2second by my estimation. Which means it was moving at about 198,000 miles per hour! That is absolutely nuts, because it's FTL speeds, which nobody on earth has been able to crack. So clearly they aren't from here at this point on time. I won't say aliens but I won't rule it out either.

You were watching star trek first contact movie?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Where were you, and what date/time?  Roughly will do for the location.  We'll ask all the local astronomers who have all-night-all-sky cameras to show us their footage..

ChrLzs, ChrLzs, ChrLzs... why must you always be so onerous? 

Surely you recognise the tell tale "energetic" discharge of warp-driven craft performing a hyper jump.  Clearly, what he describes can not be anything else - except, of course, alienz - because as our valued co-member, rightly, points out nobody on earth [sic] has been able to crack FTL speeds - which at 198,000 miles per hour seem to be off by a factor of 3,600.

Go easy; or, at least, don't expect too much.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

ChrLzs, ChrLzs, ChrLzs... why must you always be so onerous?

It's my signature move - I just have no alternative approach other than to ask questions (and expect meaningful answers...)

I do sometimes get let down when my expectations are too high, so in your own ducky way, you are quite right.  I also have this perhaps excessively optimistic outlook on sightings like this.  After all, if something happens high in the sky and is as spectacular as described, then you'd think there would perhaps be someone (or several) closer .. beneath the event, with their camera/phone at hand.. and if not, I think most here would be surprised at just how many folks are out there photographing/recording the sky at all hours, ready to catch 'The Big One'..  A visit to my local astronomy club a  few years back revealed that there were at least 3 very serious astronomers within just a few kilometres of me, with small observatories in their houses / backyards - it's quite affordable nowadays.  Iirc, 2 of those do the sky cameras all night thingy...  Then there are dashcams, security cams..

Ah well, we can but hope.  Imagine being lucky enough to see 45-50!!

I'd LUV to see me some alienz, just like Neil deGrasse Tyson (the man no-one knows how to Capitalise!)

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of years back DeeJaying the old club close to 1000 there and right as a smiths song ends a gurl with a minnie mouse voice screeches out at me, "play some "real" smiths.

So i ask just which songs would those be? And she says, "you know, youre the deejay".

smi20.gif.4d0f25fd49b87e5fe9dd31d4aae12f7a.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

This sounds like they maybe have one or two.. but why are they so shy in giving details?  They could easily get rid of uncleared information - after all they just said nothing was beyond advanced.

Any technology beyond our current capacity would qualify as "advanced".

From the report:

We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

Key word here appears to be "breakthrough".

Without evidence pointing to an initial possible interpretation of such, there would be no need for any further analysis.

 

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So again, where is the evidence, and the numbers, and the maths?

Currently -- not for public consumption.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I have an opinion what they are but I would rather wait to see what happens before I say what I think

... guaranteeing you can claim "I woz right all along!"  C'mon - we expect better from you.  Let's be really brave and say exactly what we think.  Here's my offering:

"I am certain UFOs & UAPs (how long has that been an acceptable acronym?) are NOT alien spacecraft.  I am basing this conclusion on the absolute certainty that if aliens are monitoring Earth they would have the technology to do so without us noticing.  The notion that they have to fly their spaceships inside our atmosphere in order to see what we're up to is farcical and preposterous."

If I turn out to be wrong, it's because the little grey men have very poor eyesight.  That's why they sometimes approach so close.

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And again, I ask, if *any* of these anomalies were somehow a threat, why was not a single shot fired?

A very good point.  I've mentioned before - why do these UFOAPs always appear just too far away to be clear and visible?  It's almost as though they don't actually want to be noticed!  If only the highly trained pilots in their $100 million machines had some way of getting closer to these mysterious objects...

7 hours ago, Brassboy86 said:

...it managed to cover about 50-60 miles or so in about 1.2second by my estimation. Which means it was moving at about 198,000 miles per hour! That is absolutely nuts, because it's FTL speeds, which nobody on earth has been able to crack.

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

our valued co-member, rightly, points out nobody on earth [sic] has been able to crack FTL speeds - which at 198,000 miles per hour seem to be off by a factor of 3,600.

I noticed that apparent discrepancy too, so I made up an explanation.  Duckie is using conventional, terrestrial miles but Brassboy is using cosmic miles.  In astrocosmological circles mile stands for my interpolated length estimation, so one cosmic mile might be anything from one to ten thousand miles.  If Brassboy miles are more than about 3400 miles then he's right - it was going faster than light.  So now we have FTLUFOAPs to worry about.

21 hours ago, Seti42 said:

At least they only wasted 9 pages to say "we don't know".  They could have wasted 900 pages.

They should have asked the British civil service to draft it.  900 pages would just about cover the title and contents...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.