Explaining Media Inequality

As many of my social media friends and Twitter followers know, I…

Being woeful gets the thumbs up!

By Kathryn If Australians are stupid enough to buy a stinking, Z-rated Murdoch…

What’s it all about, Albo? Morrison or you?

I'm inclined to believe that the next election is more likely to…

The family from Biloela will trade one cage…

By TBS Newsbot This morning, the Minister for Immigration announced that the family…

Publicity and Exploitation: Fortress Australia and the Family…

Australian officials and paper mad types are running out of ideas as…

COVID-19 origin: a search or a witch hunt?

By Dr John Töns Scott Morrison’s support for President Biden’s assertion that there…

It's not dumb luck. Is it more sinister?

By 2353NM Australia has been fortunate through the COVID-19 pandemic. The infections and…

So Now We Can All Join in The…

Now even SBS has joined the populist throng of mainstream media journalism,…

«
»
Facebook

ET, You Bore Me: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and the Pentagon

Those of you drawing sustenance and stimulation from the traditional acronym UFO best brace yourselves. The less exciting and dull term accepted by the defence clerks – unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) – is renewing its march into the extra-terrestrial hinterland.

On June 25, the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force will release a declassified report to Congress that will do little to shift ground or alter debate on the nature of such phenomena. For those exercised about green creatures, ancient aliens and that roguish charlatan Erich von Däniken, nothing would have changed. For sceptics, it will be a case of tired yawn before returning to work. There will be many “I told you so” moments and no one will be any wiser.

Since 2017, various eyewitness accounts and videos have been circulating in such measure as to worry members of Congress. This came a decade after Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) first began tooting the horn on the subject, a measure that led to the creation of the $22 million Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. That program, along with the even lesser known Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, saw the involvement of such proponents of extra-terrestrial life as billionaire Robert Bigelow.

Such programs were hardly the first. From 1966 to 1968, the University of Colorado’s UFO Project, which lead to the publication of the tome heavy Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, was funded by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Led by physicist Edward U. Condon, the report, totalling almost a thousand pages, covered 56 “cases” (UFO sightings), of which 33 were suitably explained as “normal phenomena.”

The unexplained cases were not sufficient for Condon and his co-authors to encourage further government study or scientific investigation of UFO sightings. The words of the report are unequivocally damning: “nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record … leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”

Decades after, with interest rekindled, the Pentagon was duly pressed by US lawmakers into compiling a report examining UAP sightings. Legislation passed in December stipulated that the resulting work should contain “detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence” gathered by the FBI, the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. The latter was created in August 2020 on the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist. It was done so with a view to improving “understanding of” and to “gain insight into the nature and origins of UAPs. The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalogue UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to US national security.”

The focus of the report is bound to be workmanlike, given the DOD’s concern about “the safety of our personnel and the security of our operations.” Emphasis is placed on the potential risks posed by “any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace.” “This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing.”

So far, news outlets have veered between panting anticipation and bemused interest. The BBC suggested that, “The review of 120 incidents is expected to conclude that US technology was not involved in most cases.” The Hill, not quite grasping the meaning of secrecy, concluded that this fact “effectively rules out any secret government operations conducted by the American government”.

Both the New York Times and Washington Post went for common ground. The Times reported that senior administration officials briefed about the report found no evidence that the sighted objects seen over the past decade by Navy pilots were not of this planet. But these same officials “still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military.” US technology, it was confirmed, was not involved in the sightings. The report, according to the Post, “finds no proof of extraterrestrial activity, but cannot provide a definitive explanation for scores of incidents in which strange objects have been spotted in the sky.”

 

Image from abc7news.com

 

The Post goes on to make some broad claims, detecting a shift from “fringe conspiracy theory” to the “mainstream.” To justify the assertion, they cite such figures as Luis Elizondo, a former military intelligence official who told reporters on an April roundtable call that many objects recorded in the videos under review had “baffled pilots, military and intelligence officials for their apparent defiance of known laws of flight and gravity.”

Fox News, for its part, can call upon the observations of former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe. Those interested in the report would read of “objects that have been seen by Navy or Air Force pilots or have been picked up by satellite imagery that frankly engage in actions that are difficult to explain.”

The minds of former presidents are also being tickled with interest. “[W]hat is true, and I’m actually being serious here,” Barack Obama claimed in May on the Late Late Show With James Corden, “is that there are, there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are. We can’t explain how they moved, their trajectory.”

A good number in the scientific and sceptical fraternity have been much cooler to this excitement. “Recently,” a reproachful Andrew Franknoi, astronomer at the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco observes, “there has been a flurry of misleading publicity about UFOs [based on military reports]. A sober examination of these claims reveals there is a lot less to them than first meets the eye.”

Science writer Mick West, who has viewed much UAP footage released by the US military, affords a good perspective for debunkers. Most sightings can be put down to distortions in the image or problems in the instruments themselves. For all that, he admitted that unidentified objects appearing “in restricted airspace” presents “a real problem that needs solving.”

UFO sceptic Robert Sheaffer sees no reason for a Damascene conversion. “There are no aliens here on Earth, and so the government cannot ‘disclose’ what it does not have.” With a measure of unflagging confidence, he suggested that government sources knew “less on the subject than our best civilian UFO investigators, not more.”

Another good reason for dampening any excitement around the UAP Report is the motivation of the Pentagon. Instances of costly bungles are many, from the vast expenditure in such failed conflicts as Afghanistan to the $1.6 trillion debacle over the F-35. Perhaps, writes Matt Stieb, the DOD “simply wants a flashy reason to demand more money.”

Reid, for his part, expects little but urges continued interest in funding ventures in UAP investigations. “I don’t think the report is going to tell us too much. I think they need to study it more and not just have one shot at it.” Condon and his research team might have set him straight.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

13 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Grumpy Geezer

    Count me as a firm sceptic but it’s still a fascinating topic.

  2. Michael Taylor

    They’re not boring once you get to know them. 😁

    Btw, what’s this UAP rubbish? They’re UFOs!

  3. Roswell

    Grumpy, I may need to educate you. 👽

  4. Gangey1959

    Does this mean I’ll never get to dine at “The Restaurant at the End Of The Universe” ?
    Jeeeez.
    Bloody liberal party ruins everything

  5. GL

    Count me as thoroughly sceptical about the whole ufo crap. Nobody has provided anything that can even come close to being considered empirical evidence.

  6. wam

    It is difficult for biblers to imagine their god making aliens but the bible was written before they knew of the untold billions of suns and their planets. However for atheist the odds say we are not alone. I like UAP over UFO because I grew up laughing at the latter and trump is involved with the former. Indeed: “Israeli Defense Ministry’s space directorate, gave a sprawling interview to the nation’s Yediot Aharonot newspaper. Among other claims, he said that aliens “have asked not to publish that they are here [because] humanity is not ready yet.” The respected professor and former general added that he believed Trump knew of their existence and was “on the verge of revealing” the blockbuster details, but was asked not to, so that “mass hysteria would not break out.” Eshed also claimed there “is an agreement between the U.S. government and the aliens. They signed a contract with us to do experiments here.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment.” But trump has loose lips and will, somewhere, sometime blurt out his unimaginal anticlimatic phantoms and orson welles mark 2 will break out across the USA.

  7. silkworm

    The term “UAP” has nothing to do with Trump. It is a term that is preferable to “UFO,” because “flying object” suggests that they are mechanical devices, and these phenomena, in many cases, defy the laws of physics as we understand them, with their sudden appearances and disappearances, their sudden acceleration, their boom-free supersonic speeds, their transitions from air to water, and their right-angle turns. For the record, I have seen a slow-moving light in the night sky, which I initially thought may have been a satellite, make a sudden right-angle turn.

    The Pentagon has said recently that there is nothing in the observed phenomena to suggest they are of extraterrestrial origin, though they cannot rule it out. They simply say they do not know where they come from or where they go to. And even if they were of extraterrestrial origin, there is no accounting for their defiance of the laws of physics. I am just a little disappointed that Dr Kampmark starts out with the prejudicial description of the UAP as “ETs.”

  8. Roswell

    Hi Silky. I too have seen what I assumed to be a satellite, only to watch it do a right-angle turn without pause and shoot upwards at lighting speed.

    On another occasion I saw three large orange lights move slowly along the Adelaide coast before elevating slowly into the sky.

  9. wam

    dear mulberry leaf muncher, I am wrong again. The UAP task force was established in 2020 and I am glad it wasn’t trump but perhaps, silkworm, you can tell who was it?

  10. silkworm

    Wam, are you trying to insult me?

  11. wam

    What gives you that idea, silkworm? I have no idea who you are but I did assume, you were unaware of the date of the task force when you said it was nothing to do with trump. In case you were aware, I continued your joke. If you were unaware then?
    ps
    people of my age bred silkworms at school and ate mulberries with gusto

  12. Michael Taylor

    wam’s OK, silky. He wouldn’t have meant any offence.

    That right, wam?

    BTW, good to see you again. What’s been happening?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 16 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded.

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: