Month: June 2021

Here is a link to the official document. It’s only 9 pages. Read it for yourself.

First the title: “Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”, issued by the Director of National Intelligence.

• This is an initial report on UAP in response to the congressional request. Follow up reports will be issued within the next 90 days, according to the New York Times coverage. And this report makes clear the study of UAP will be ongoing.

“The Director, UAPTF, is the accountable official for ensuring the timely collection and consolidation of data on UAP.”

• This suggests that the Task Force director is the point person on all things UAP. So far he or she is unnamed and unknown to the public. The New Yorker UAP story describes this person as a “civilian intelligence official with the rank equivalent to that of a two-star general.”

“The dataset described in this report is currently limited primarily to U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021. Data continues to be collected and analyzed.”

• These dates limit the scope of the investigation. November 2004 is the Nimitz encounter with the TicTac shaped craft, which produced the FILR video. The fact that the most recent UAP encounter was three months ago, and nearly a year after Congress requested the report, is interesting to say the least. I’m not sure if that encounter has been previously reported. An interesting question is why limit the data set to these years? There are UFO encounters near military property in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, and 50s. Maybe due to time and resource constraints they wanted to limit their work to that which presents the most relevant and up to date national security implications. Perhaps they will continue to study surviving records from previous decades as points of comparison.

“…with input from USD(I&S), DIA, FBI, NRO, NGA, NSA, Air Force, Army, Navy, Navy/ONI, DARPA, FAA, NOAA, NGA, ODNI/NIM-Emerging and Disruptive Technology, ODNI/National Counterintelligence and Security Center, and ODNI/National Intelligence Council.”

• As others have noted, CIA is missing from this list of government agencies who contributed to the report.

The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) considered a range of information on UAP described in U.S. military and IC (Intelligence Community) reporting, but because the reporting lacked sufficient specificity, ultimately recognized that a unique, tailored reporting process was required to provide sufficient data for analysis of UAP events.
—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.

• I bolded some words to help me understand the subject/verb tense arrangement here, because this passage is both significant and puzzling. First of all, don’t get bogged down in the syntax–this is a big deal and what UFO researches have been calling for for a very long time: a systemic approach to researching a phenomena that is impossible to predict when and where it will occur. UAPs are not an unsolvable mystery. We can use our brains to figure them out if we just try, and it looks like the government is now committing to try. My questions are about the timeline. When did the UAPTF “ultimately recognize” they need a “unique, tailored reporting process”? Was it in the past few months when this report was being written, or was it in August 2020 when the Task Force was formed, or was it in the years after its predecessor office AATIP was formed in 2010? Does the quote above mean that the “majority” of the 2004-2021 UAP encounters were reported using this new process at the time they happened? Or does it mean that because of the better data available from those years, the encounters can be filtered though the new process retroactively? If UAP cases have been examined through this rigorous process for the last ten years or more, that is wonderful news for the scientific method approach to UFOs. If that process is only beginning now, that’s good as well. (This also explains why they did not look at, say, the Loring Air Force Base UFO encounter from 1975).

“In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.”

• On the one hand, on the other… this is where this report gets its reputation as inconclusive. It does not commit to the claims of pilots that these craft defy laws of physics and aerodynamics. However, it does concede that the craft appear to do so. It admits that those pilots may be correct in their assessment. But the DNI is not going out on that ledge itself without using a scientific approach that rules out all other explanations.

“Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin.”

• The word “resolved” indicates stages of UAP classification. A more telling and useful term might be “solved.” If a UAP is determined to be airborne clutter like a deflated ballon or a Chinese or SpaceX drone, well then, the mystery is solved. It is no longer a UAP because it is no longer unidentified. However, if it is an “other” then the UAP remains unidentified, which means its observed characteristics remain inexplicable. Where does the research go then? What subcategories of “other” can there be? That is the point where the UAP story gets interesting.

“UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.”

• Again the report concedes that some UAP seem to exhibit inexplicable advanced technological abilities, though here it is couched in the possibility that it may be a foreign adversary breaking away from current 21st Century capacities.

“Limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020, but it remains limited to USG reporting. The UAPTF regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by those observers.”

• This answers some of my questions from above. The first report I know of on the Navy guidelines was from Politico in late April 2019. They wrote that is was “a significant new step in creating a formal process to collect and analyze the unexplained sightings — and destigmatize them.” The fact that military personnel are not reporting encounters proves the need to remove the stigma. Now that there is so much downward bureaucratic pressure on the need and obligation to report, hopefully the UFO taboo will subside quickly.

“the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable.”

• Here are some specifics about what the reporting standards probably entail. Someone had to eyeball it, but it also had to be picked up on radar or other sensors.

“These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021, with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community.”

The report cites 144 UAP “incidents” since 2004. (In the index aa UAP incident is defined as a specific part of a larger UAP event.) This is not the total of all incidents, or even total reported incidents, just the total amount the DNI included in this report. And, apparently, a majority of those occurred in the two years from March 2019, when the Navy implemented its new standards, to March 2021, when the last incident occurred that was included in this report. A majority of 144 is at least 73. So the military has had at least that many since early 2019. We also know about a series of sightings prior to 2019: The east coast “wave” from 2013-2015, which was mentioned in the recent 60 Minutes report, and the originator of the GOFAST and GIMBAL videos. The UAP “swarm” near San Diego, where the sphere was videoed entering the ocean, occurred in July 2019. I could be wrong, but many dozens of breaches of military airspace–where “[m]ost reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity”–in the span of 24 months would be huge national news in any other circumstance. Then again, that may be why the government is finally moving to address these questions publicly.

“Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues. Although the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously in public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic.”

• If these things were not real, there would be no need to de-stigmatize reporting them. If, in fact UAP were not actually happening, the military would want to maintain the stigma because the stigma would serve the purpose of keeping military people from believing in unreal things. The opposite is happening. The military is saying: UAP is real, we don’t know what they are, but we want to know, and the only way to find out is for you to follow these protocols when you see one.

“…determining whether a UAP demonstrates breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Optical sensors have the benefit of providing some insight into relative size, shape, and structure.
Radiofrequency sensors provide more accurate velocity and range information.”

• Again, we see this report concedes what pilots have been saying not just since 2004 but since the 1940s: these craft do not fly like conventional airplanes. The quote also suggests more about the methodology for reporting with the use of different types of sensors. Size and speed are two key pieces of data. Many UFOs are described as smallish, like the size of a fighter jet or smaller. However, some multiple-witness sightings have described crafts the size of aircraft carriers silently floating across the sky. Some pilots have estimated UFOs to be the size of a small city. It is very difficult to estimate relative size of objects in the sky, which is why getting a non-human measurement is so critical to solving the UAP mystery. Speed is another key indicator. So many pilots over the decades have described craft zipping around at impossible or near-impossible speeds–all, again, estimations based on visual input. To really prove these things are breaking the laws of physics, we need the hard sensor data mentioned in the quote above.

“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.”

• This is an interesting statement because it implies that maybe UAP are overly interested in our military capabilities, or not. They could so be sightseeing over Mount Rushmore or the Sistine Chapel just as frequently and we would not know it.

“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.”

• This is interesting if you rephrase the statement: In only 12.5% of the UAP incidents covered by the report was the UAP flying in an unconventional way. That means that in the other 125 cases, the UPA either did not move at all or did not move in a way that was deemed different than a conventional aircraft. In other words, most UAP fly in a conventional way–yet they remain unidentified. Why? What other characteristics made them so far impossible to classify? As for the 18 cases, euphemisms abound. How is unusual, abrupt, and considerable defined? Any aircraft is capable of maneuvering abruptly, or at considerable speed (relative to, say, a car). The military must have attached metrics to these terms that specify ranges outside of a conventional aircraft’s capabilities. These metrics are noticeably missing from the report.

“The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.”

• Again (again), the writers of this report are saying: we know what it looks like, but we simply refuse to commit to a conclusion without further study. But it is clear–by page 5 of the 9 page report–that much of the data points to UAP capabilities that are simply not possible with known technology. And again there are more undefined terms: acceleration and signature management. How much acceleration? Impossible amounts? Signature management is a military term for taking steps to mask your visibility by turning off lights, going radio silent, concealing your heat exhaust, etc. (soldiers in WWI learned to light their cigarets just short of the amount of seconds it would take for a sniper to shoot them dead). So what exactly does the collected data reveal about these craft’s measures to conceal their technological signatures? We the public do not know. Yet.

“Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.”

• This shows the range of possible categories. Available data will help them code each event.

“USG or Industry Developmental Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected.”

• This leaves open the possibility that UAP are classified programs that they simply were unable to get confirmation of. Presumably they did ask. A lot depends on whether the answer was “No” or “No comment”.

“Other: Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.”

• One way to read this is as evidence of the writers’ extreme caution. They are not about to make any claim in the Other category unless it is backed up by ironclad evidence and undergirded by bedrock scientific principles. On the one hand this level of cautionary judgement is admirable. On the other hand it may absolve them of ever having to make a definitive judgement. In other words: until the next Einstein comes along and changes our understanding of the laws of physics so that these craft make sense, don’t look to us to go out on a limb by naming what we think these things are. This is really the rub of the whole UFO mystery. If the government or military reaches the conclusion that UAP exhibit capabilities beyond current human scientific understanding, they would then be admitting that UAP are the result of an anomalous intelligence that is separate and distinct from present human civilization. Once you reach that point, there are only a few options for which Other might be–all of which are well trodden sci-fi tropes: Visiting aliens…Trans-dimensional beings…. Time travelers…. A Bond villain who has been living inside a volcano for the last 80 years… ? The above quote, which was probably workshopped in many meetings, probably amounts to one of the UAP Task Force’s prime directives: We’re never going to go there until it’s clear to everyone what these things are. Defining these things is not our call, not our job, not our duty. We’ll collect the data, and provide a framework for research. That’s it. The fact that they are officially classifying true UPA with the noticeably un-flashy term “other”–recall that if UAP are any of the previous four categories they are no longer UAP by definition–signifies that the military and intelligence agencies will refuse to project a narrative onto UAP, even as they provide fresh data about them. This means, in the short term, civilians who have shaped the UFO narrative currently and in the past will continue to push the narrative that UAP are real, they are traditional UFOs that have been reported since the 1940s, that they are probably aliens–and that narrative will continue to be ignored even by most scientists and so-called UFO allies in the government. This stasis of disclosure, only marginally different than pre- and post-Blue Book era, could persist for decades. It could persist no matter how clear the next UAP video or picture is. The government will release a simple press statement: Yes, that is a UAP; it’s flying Warp 2 over South Dakota; we don’t know what it is. In the long term, if the phenomenon persists, the only way out of this stasis will be when the only group within our government whose job and skillset it is to craft and project narratives finally decides it’s time to talk about UFOs for what they are–and that is the political class of elected leaders. They will only do this when the data and their political incentives align.
• It is clarifying that this report–at the least–tells us how the UAPTF is going to define the scope of their work: better data collection and analysis of the UAP technological capabilities (namely flight characteristics and signature management). Which, again, is a further reminder that they think observed UAP are exhibiting unknown technology.

“Depending on the location, volume, and behavior of hazards during incursions on ranges, pilots may cease their tests and/or training and land their aircraft, which has a deterrent effect on reporting.”

• Notable that 1) UAP events can be described with adjectives like “volume” and “hazards” and 2) military personnel stop doing their job (break orders?) because of UAP, which makes them also not want to report UAP. This quote mainly jumped out at me because, for anyone saying this report is a “nothing burger” or written to downplay the situation, on the contrary, this report is describing some supremely weird shit going on with some frequency.

“The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.”

• This not surprising given the historical record.

“We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.”

• “We currently lack data” about foreign technology has a different connotation than “We were unable to confirm” about U.S. technology. Hard to guess how significant that difference might be.

“UAP have been detected near military facilities or by aircraft carrying the USG’s most
advanced sensor systems.”

• So we have sensor data. Of multiple events. That much is clear.

“the UAPTF’s long-term goal is to widen the scope of its work to include additional UAP events documented by a broader swath of USG personnel and technical systems in its analysis. As the dataset increases, the UAPTF’s ability to employ data analytics to detect trends will also improve.”

• Well, good. Again, this sounds very earnest and forthright.

“The initial focus will be to employ artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms to cluster and recognize similarities and patterns in features of the data points. As the database accumulates information from known aerial objects such as weather balloons, high-altitude or super-pressure balloons, and wildlife, machine learning can add efficiency by pre-assessing UAP reports to see if those records match similar events already in the database.”

• Good, also. But it reinforces the point above about narrative. They are looking for ways to push the responsibility of explanation onto others, in this case AI and machine learning. It’s not us saying this crazy thing, it’s the computers. Or, more charitably, we’re not crazy because the computers back us up.

“The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting”

• Interesting. Why? Might it have to do with UAPs and the ocean? Or the fact that the Navy started reporting over a year before the Air Force did?

“The UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and has begun receiving data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).”

• Ahh, maybe, in the near future, the amount of data will indicate a wider spread across the military branches.

“In addition, the FAA continuously monitors its systems for anomalies, generating additional information that may be of use to the UAPTF. The FAA is able to isolate data of interest to the UAPTF and make it available. The FAA has a robust and effective outreach program that can help the UAPTF reach members of the aviation community to highlight the importance of reporting UAP.”

• So this sounds like UAPTF is forming a real partnership with the FAA.

“The UAPTF is looking for novel ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when U.S. forces are not present as a way to baseline “standard” UAP activity and mitigate the collection bias in the dataset. One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars.”

• This is spooky. First of all, the military has evidence of UAP “cluster areas.” And the question they have: Does this happen over non-military areas or on only over military areas? This statement is the military admitting it has been swarmed by UAP.

“The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, UAP R&D Technical Roadmap, and a UAP Program Plan.”

• I’m not sure about this, but it sounds like a signal to Congress that the UAPTF wants it to put its money where its mouth is. It will do the work, but Congress has to pay for it.

—

On the same day that the UAP report was released the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memo: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Assessments

“It is critical that the United States maintain operations security and safety at DoD ranges. To this end, it is equally critical that all U.S. military aircrews or government personnel report whenever aircraft or other devices interfere with military training. This includes the observation and reporting of UAPs.”

• Here the Pentagon is framing the UAP problem as one of military readiness and security. This is a significant change in attitude and perspective from how the military has behaved during long ago and recent encounters. Before now the unstated policy of the military seemed to be this: since UAP events did not pose a threat and are unexplainable, we’re going to ignore them since solving ‘unsolved mysteries’ is not part of our mandate. Now the DoD has officially stated a much different policy. It does not change the threat assessment of UAP, but it does say that UAP in controlled airspace or interfering in trainings is unacceptable. It further provides a mandate for all military personnel to gather as much data as possible during these events and report it immediately.

“UAP activity expands significantly beyond the purview of the Secretary of the Navy, who heads the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF)”

• Here the DoD is laying out an organization problem. The Secretary of the Navy can’t direct work in other branches of the military.

“I direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security to develop a plan to formalize the mission currently performed by the UAPTF.”

“synchronize collection, reporting and analysis on the UAP problem set”

“establish recommendations for securing military test and training ranges.”

“include the organizational alignment, resources and staffing required”

“Be developed in coordination with the Principal Staff Assistants, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and the Commanders of the Combatant Commands and with the DNI and other relevant interagency partners”

• Basically, the DoD is ordering everyone in the bottom right quadrant of this national security org chart to get on the same page regarding UAP and to coordinate data collection with one another and the UAPTF. This significant because, as mentioned in the report, the Navy was first to establish UAP protocols in March 2019, and the Air Force adopted them in November 2020. No word is made in the report about the Army’s position. Now they all have to follow the same playbook. Including, for example, if Cent Comm has a UAP even in the skies over Iraq, it now has to formally report that. The entire Department of Defense is now officially serious about UAP. Will the Justice Department (think FBI) and the CIA follow suit?

“All members of the Department will utilize these processes to ensure that the UAPTF, or
its follow-on activity, has reports of UAP observations within two weeks of an occurrence.”

• This is the ultimate goal: report all UAP events within two weeks.

—

Finally, on the same day the report was released, Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, gave the perspective from Congress in a press release. It closes with this:

“We look forward to reviewing the report and will host a classified briefing for the Members of the House Intelligence Committee later this year based on its findings and to build on the Member briefing held last week. As we continue to receive updates, we will share what we can with the American people as excessive secrecy will only spur more speculation.”

• This is the all-important public side of the issue. Whatever the UAPTF finds and presents to Congress will be made public at least partially. As I was reading the first two documents above I had a worry that all of this great research will be conducted and then buried in the basement of the Pentagon. I also wonder if the military leaks that have given the public the videos and data we have from recent years will dry up since there is now a formal process for reporting and perhaps for disclosure. Schiff is committed to keeping the public informed, but public pressure will need to be maintained if we want more information. What will be the formal process for disclosure of UAPTF data? Will we only get updates when they brief Congress? Will UAPTF put out regular public press statements, especially when there is a UAP event? Will they provide more data, specific metrics about size, speed and maneuverability? These are unanswered questions at this point.

—

In Summary: The full group of Military and Intelligence Agencies (minus the CIA?) are now taking active measures to study UAP; there is urgency and a research framework across the Navy, Air Force, Army and the FAA to collect new data, particularly on UAP technology and capabilities, as well as gleaning insights from historical data. They also seem to be leading with the hypothesis that UAP exhibit “breakthrough technology” that is currently beyond what the U.S. and its adversaries have. At this point they are not going to jump to even the smallest conclusions about what might explain how that is possible.

Now we wait for more data and the next encounter.