Report: No Explanations For UAP, But They Threaten Flight Safety

9

In a report long on probablies and possibles, the Director of National Intelligence said this week that dozens of sightings of unidentified aerial phenomenon have no plausible explanation but do represent a threat to flight safety and national security. “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,” the report said in an executive summary. Although sighting data seemed to be accurate and credible, the available reporting was “largely inconclusive.”

The report, prepared for the Director of National Intelligence by a government agency called the UAP Task Force, was ordered by Congress in response to numerous inquiries from lawmakers, intelligence officials and the public. The report deals mainly with UAP sightings between 2004 and 2021 and benefited from at least some standard reporting criteria developed by the military.  The report said 144 incidents originated with government sources and 80 of these were observations with multiple sensors. In the majority of these, the sighting interrupted planned training or other activities. Few of these were explainable by weather events, sensor failure or other physical phenomena not related to actual flying objects, but the task force added that more investigation should be carried out.

“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 report said. While conceding that the UAP sightings were clustered around military training areas, the report said this may be a result of collection bias since aircraft in these areas have advanced sensors and, lately, more refined and consistent reporting criteria. Some UAP, said the report, do appear to demonstrate advanced technology. “These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting,” the report said.

Ominously, the task force found national security implications. “UAP pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if some instances
represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary,” the report concluded. But in the next sentence, the report says, “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.” The documentation showed that there were 11 instances of near misses with UAP.

Somewhat surprisingly, the report concludes that in some cases, UAP have presented a potential collision hazard. “The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP,” the report said, without adding any detail on when or where these incidents occurred. Most of the reports analyzed by the UAPTF came from Navy pilots, but the agency said efforts are underway to standardize reports across all sources, military and civil. The task force said more resources, including the use of artificial intelligence to parse the data, should be applied to improve data collection and analysis.

Other AVwebflash Articles

9 COMMENTS

  1. If it’s really Aliens – I’m pretty sure they have some kind of decent “See and Avoid / Deconflicting” technology that will work 99.99999% of the time. The other 0.000001% is some unexplained crash that the NTSB/FAA might probable cause as “possible CO poisoning”.

    Me – I’m sticking with my conspiracy theory that this is a “Glomar Explorer” type story. For younger readers – a ship that was touted as mining for precious metal nodules from the seabed – actually cover for a ship that was trying to raise a sunken Russian submarine – look it up – even the Reader’s Digest covered it.

    This “report” and the credible witnesses interviewed on 60 Minutes, is cover for something we have, that we need to keep under wraps from the inevitable sightings and leaks.

  2. 144 government reports, 80 with multiple sensors is quite convincing. I am all in. I want one.

    We have changed the name from UFO to UAP presumably to be more inclusive and not hurt the feelings of the ET’s. After all who would want to be called an Object! UAP is a softer gentler version of UFO. UAP doesn’t give me nightmares and flashbacks to dead aliens at Roswell. I woke this morning feeling better that their was no longer UFO’s.

    Many of the 144 government reports have the UAP (PC version of UFO) operating into and out of the oceans. To be inclusive, and not slight our naval friends, we must rename the phenomenon USP (Unidentified Sea Phenomenon) as the unidentified transition from air to water. To simplify the process, because they are no longer objects plus transition in an out of the water really fast, we should rename the combo USAP.

    Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t MAN the second syllable of AIRMAN? Isn’t MAN the second syllable of WOMAN as well! Now comes the same government that invented UAP telling us that MAN in AIRMAN is offensive. Hence the reason You-SAP makes more sense. Perhaps it is time to reach out to the ET’s for help before we destroy ourselves?

    God bless.

    • UFO – Unidentified Flying Object – implies that it is a physical object. UAP – Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon – doesn’t make such an assumption and doesn’t rule out that it could be a sensor glitch or misperception. It also doesn’t imply that the “whatever” is “flying” (that is, using aerodynamics in some controlled fashion). There’s nothing “PC” about UFOs being renamed UAPs.

      Also, I think part of the reason for renaming them is that UFOs have a certain connotation (that’s it’s “aliens” or a hoax) that makes it hard to seriously investigate the reports.

  3. Graeme Smith is correct. I am certain that ET’s have something more advanced than TCAS. Doesn’t even require the OTHER Flying Object/Aerial Phenomenon to have a transponder… Another “the sky is falling” statement from government hacks who think they can repeal the Law’s of Physics if they have enough judges on the Supreme Court… I also agree that there is at least a 50/50 chance that MOST of not all of these seemingly legitimately, conclusively, REAL Objects/Phenomenon are OURS, and it is another DENIAL from the gov’t like there was in the beginning with the F-117…

  4. I am really pleased to see swamp gas mentioned. For many years we only had two official explanations – weather balloons and swamp gas. Then swamp gas seemed to fall out of favor. Glad it is back, and clearly as plausible as aerial clutter and Tic Tacs. Now if we could just get a handle on all those mysterious abductions.