Well, “UFO disclosure at last!!!” was what some expected and/or hoped for but a Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is what we got and herein is what it reveled.
Firstly, note the change from UFO to UAP which denotes moving from referring to Unidentified Flying Objects to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Clearly, UAP allows for a fuller scope of investigation.
Both refer to and/or admit dealing with (at least initially) Unidentified this or that and the this or that are specifically Flying in the one case but Aerial in the other. Flying implies some or another level of volition, mindful purposefulness, etc. since it implies traversing the sky from point A to point B.
Yet, there could be plenty of UFOs in the sky that are not flying but could be, say, floating, being blown by wind, could be lights, etc. Thus, Aerial merely informs us that its “up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s…” who knows what?
Likewise, Object implies something, something that is actually and really, and physically present, something along nuts and bolts, something tangible. Conversely, Phenomena could be something like clouds, lights, ball lightning, the infamous swamp gas, etc.
Thus, “Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed for analysis” and “There are probably multiple types of UAP.”
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is more general and all-encompassing—which may also have the effect of watering things down (this is somewhat like moving from global warming to climate change).
The Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence released an unclassified report on 25 June 2021 AD titled, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
Its Scope includes, “to submit an intelligence assessment of the threat posed by unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and the progress the Department of Defense Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) has made in understanding this threat” note that they are identifying the aerial phenomena as a “threat.”
Yet, that is followed directly with that “This report provides an overview for policymakers of the challenges associated with characterizing the potential threat.”
Since this is Preliminary, it is meant to provide “means to develop relevant processes, policies, technologies, and training for the U.S. military and other U.S. Government (USG) personnel if and when they encounter UAP, so as to enhance the Intelligence Community’s (IC) ability to understand the threat”—it is noted, “No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020.” Also, we are told that there was a “a six-month pilot program in November 2020 to collect” such data.
One notable thing on that the report is “limited primarily to U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021.”
The Assumptions include that “Various forms of sensors that register UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments, but some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies” which is fair enough since anyone dealing with various forms of sensors, etc., knows about the key necessity of calibration.
It is specially noted, “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”
It is noted, “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.”
It is noted that those phenomena reported “between 2004 and 2021…probably do represent physical objects.”
Additionally, “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.”
Expectations are, “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 “USG or U.S. industry developmental programs” category includes that these “could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities” and no, this does not mean that military personnel in restricted flight zones who witness such Phenomena would be made aware that tests are being run within tests or training within training so that part of the experiment would be how they react, what they describe, what is made of it, etc.
Regardless, “UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security…if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.”
A subsection notes, “Available Reporting Largely Inconclusive” so that “Limited Data Leaves Most UAP Unexplained” which is also due to “inconsistency in reporting.”
Yet, “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.”
This led to the ability “to identify one reported UAP with high confidence….a large, deflating balloon.”
“144 reports originated from USG sources” with “80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors.”
It is noted “Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.”
This is interesting since UFOs/UAPs have a long history of interacting with nuclear weapons, being around restricted air space, etc. so that the aliens are either peaceniks or earthly governments are keeping tabs on each other, it is also specified, “UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds.”
Another subsection is about “UAP Collection Challenges” covering things such as “Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations…technical challenges…radar clutter…disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it.”
One interesting point is that “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.”
I will add the effect of the media in general, New Age style UFOlogists—apparently, UAVologists now—and Hollywood since it used to be that you were nuts if you believed in little green men but now you are nuts if you deny them.
I will also add Atheistic evolution and the fact that some astrobiologists/exobiologists have entire careers of essentially doing nothing. Thus, they tell us that the universe is so very vast and since life was accidented into being on Earth then it could have been accidented into being elsewhere: long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, etc.
It is noted that “Some Potential Patterns Do Emerge” which include, “there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited” yet, there is “some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion.”
The issue of “UAP sightings…cluster[ed] around U.S. training and testing grounds” is said to touch upon “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.”
Also, “a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology” specifically, “18 incidents” included, “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics” which is not surprising given the surge of drone tech since when you remove a human pilot from within a craft you have more maneuverability leeway since you no longer have to be concerned with the ill effects related to certain speed and movement related effects on the human body.
Specified is that “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.”
Overall, “UAP PROBABLY LACK A SINGLE EXPLANATION” since, again, this pertains to Phenomena in general. Yet, also due to “an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations.”
Overall, “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.”
Moreover, “UAPTF’s long-term goal is to widen the scope of its work to include…artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms.”
And so, this was a report about reporting—about reporting procedures—and not about results. This merely begins a new wave of reports and who knows what will come of it or when anything will come of it.
Oh, and no, nothing was said about aliens.
For alien related info, see my various books about such issues.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.