The much anticipated DNI preliminary assessment was released last Friday. My assessment of their assessment is that I could have written most of it for them years ago, it was that predictable.
##########EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
AVAILABLE REPORTING LARGELY INCONCLUSIVE
Limited Data Leaves Most UAP Unexplained…
Limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP.
- But Some Potential Patterns Do Emerge
Although there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow
for detailed trend or pattern analysis, there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding
shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion. 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. 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.
UAP PROBABLY LACK A SINGLE EXPLANATION
- Airborne Clutter
- Natural Atmospheric Phenomena
- Foreign Adversary Systems
- Other
UAP THREATEN FLIGHT SAFETY AND, POSSIBLY, NATIONAL
SECURITY\ EXPLAINING UAP WILL REQUIRE ANALYTIC, COLLECTION AND
RESOURCE INVESTMENT
#################
- The report seems to deliberately ignore the possibility of unclassified US tech but that is to be expected from the DNI. To my thinking, the revelation that most of the reports happen around US testing and training facilities is a big red arrow pointing at US experimental craft.
- I was surprised that 80 of the 144 reports showed up on more than one sensor- that is, had some kind of radar ping to suggest that the object was not a trick of light but physical- that is a much higher proportion than I would have expected.
- Of those 80, "a handful" (let's guess less than 10) demonstrate at least some characteristics worth further investigation- multiple sensor confirmations, propulsion, acceleration, radio emissions, signature management (that is, stealth).
- None of the recently leaked UFO incidents seem to match any of these handful.
- It would be nice to correlate the worthy handful with testing facilities but I suppose that's too much to ask.
I think that a rigorous examination of such reports is a reasonable security precaution and I think it is to the benefit of everybody that pilots feel free to report such phenomenon in a timely manner without a lot of hoo-hah. We should be able to turn on a lot of eyes on unexplained objects in a short period of time. If there is US tech we are trying to keep secret, commanders should have enough information to know when to turn all eyes on and when to stand down. I wish DNI and military reports were a little more willing to dismiss and debunk the obvious bullshit but I suppose that bullshit helps to mask the secret tech (and perhaps that tech's shortcomings as well). Ultimately, I am fine with spending a little more taxpayer money to improve the speed and quality of the sensors we can turn on UFOs but I am more convinced than ever that the US Govt has a pretty good handle on the nature and scope of most UFOs already.
