Credit: Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies     

Over the past few years, there have been scores of bizarre sightings by U.S. Navy pilots tangling with and tailgated by anomalous objects. Videos and eyewitness accounts of oddball Unidentified Aerial Phenoneman (UAPs) have been outed for public view. So too has Navy radar imagery showing a swarm of UAPs nearby the ocean-going USS Omaha in July 2019.

Credit: DOD/U.S. Navy/Inside Outer Space screengrab

The U.S. Department of Defense is expected to release this month findings from an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. It was set up to understand and gain insight into the nature and origins of purported aerial objects. The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalog UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Scientific examination

More important than the Pentagon report is the need to gather solid data that is shared with the scientific community, says Robert Powell, executive board member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. The group promotes and encourages the rigorous scientific examination of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena, commonly known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

Powell says the organization has publicly called for the release of all unclassified data associated with UAP held by the federal government without compromising national security sources and/or methods. “In addition, we called for the publication of data and research results from various federal agencies in the public domain in order to promote the scientific research and analysis of UAP. We maintain this position and look forward to the release of additional data by the federal government,” he says.

Credit: Orbitz

 

A nothingburger?

So, cut to the chase of UFOs, UAPs. Will this soon-to-be-issued task force report be a “nothingburger,” as some suggest, or big doings on high temp?

For a variety of views on UAPs/UFOs, take a read of my new Scientific American article “Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report – The vast majority of examined incidents were not caused by U.S. advanced technology programs, the forthcoming report concludes. So what’s going on?” at:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-weigh-in-on-pentagon-ufo-report/

2 Responses to “UFOs, UAPs – A Sky Full of Unknowns?”

  • While a mundane explanation is likely to appear for the Navy incidents, it’s important to emphasize that an explanation must fit all aspects of an incident and not just one part taken out of context.

    The Nov. 14, 2004 Nimitz case, for example, certainly baffles me. It involves an impressive array of mutually supporting evidence that there were real objects in the sky that day and displaying exceptional flight characteristics:

    – Advanced radar on the Princeton saw upwards of 20 “anomalous objects” dropping into view at high altitude in the days leading up to the encounter.

    – On the day of the incident, it was a bright sunny day, the weather was clear with little wind, and the sea was calm.

    – A Navy specialist on the Princeton says advanced radar system spotted as many as 14 objects in the sky. Less advanced radar on the Nimitz and on an airborne early warning aircraft saw a number of them as well. Initially at around 80k ft, one object descended to about 28k feet. From there it moved down to the sea surface in less than a second.

    – Worried about interference with a major fleet-wide training event planned for that day, two F-18s, including the one with the pilots who appeared on the 60 Minutes report, were re-vectored from a combat exercise to investigate.

    – When the jets reached the spot targeted by the radars, they saw the “Tic-Tac” hovering near the sea surface. The object was shaped like a propane tank about 60 feet long with no visible wings or propulsion system.

    – As discussed on 60 Minutes, the 2 crews observed the object from a continuously changing point of view for a few minutes. Then one of the jets piloted by David Fravor (commander of the F-18 squadron) moved down and briefly interacted with it before it sped off at extremely high speed, appearing on radar at a spot 60 miles away.

    – An hour or so later, two other jets flew to intersect with the object. That was when weapon systems officer Chad Underwood took the FLIR video. What they saw matched the earlier encounter. Underwood, as well as Fravor, have strongly disputed “debunkings” of the FLIR video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXFcFyZma0]

    In a recent show with Joe Rogan, Christopher Mellon said the radar data from the ships and aircraft, the IR sensor data, and the pilots’ reports are all consistent with one another. So an interpretation of the FLIR video that purports that it does not involve a real object is strongly inconsistent with all the other data and extended visual observations in clear daylight by multiple aircraft crews. Upwards of a couple of dozen Navy personnel have presented in one forum or another their supporting accounts of what happened that day. With access to the complete data, including high-resolution radar and IR imaging, the Navy investigators have been unable to identify or otherwise explain the objects.

    I’ve been quite disappointed in remarks made by notables in the sciences, like those in your Sci-Am article, who glibly dismiss the Navy reports while making it obvious that they have made zero effort to look at the details of what happened. (Similarly for on-line discussions at sites where technical types hang out.) The dominant knee-jerk assumption is that that the Navy reports involve nothing more than the usual observation of weird lights in a night sky.

    I think this is quite a disservice to the public. It undermines trust in expert analysis of science and technology issues. The NYT articles and other reports have inspired many people to become informed on the Navy incidents. When such an informed public citizen hears an “expert” dismissing these incidents while obviously knowing nothing about them, it inevitably inspires the suspicion that it must happen often that an expert expounding on a topic is actually talking out of his or her behind.

    • Marcia Fiamengo says:

      Joe Rogan is not an arbiter of truth. I suggest finding another outlet to watch. Two, the weather mentioned in the report can create visual illusions due to heat, reflectivity, and light. I know you want to believe that the government is hiding aliens from you, but many, many legitimate experts are finding simpler, reasonable solutions.

Leave a Reply