Reactions to the UAPTF Report by UFO Researchers is Baffling

Pentagon UFO Report - Prelimary Assessment UAP

     I’m rather baffled at the glum nature of the reactions to the UAPTF report by UFO researchers.

It does not affirm aliens but at the same time does not rule it out. A remarkable admission.

Most reports are probably “physical objects.” Remember the days of hoaxes, delusions, witnesses being labeled drunks and mentally defective? A remarkable admission.

Barry Greenwood

By Barry Greenwood
The UFO Chronicles
6-27-21

A “majority” of UAP collected registered on multiple sensors, including radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapons seekers, and visual. A remarkable admission.

Some UAP displayed “unusual flight characteristics.” the reports of which require “additional rigorous analysis.” A remarkable admission.

UAP pose a “safety of flight issue” and “may pose a challenge to U.S. national security,” something I suggested in a certain book along with Larry Fawcett almost 40 years ago with completely different data. A really remarkable admission by the government.

11 documented instances of pilots are mentioned as having near misses with UAP, creating “ongoing airspace concerns.” How many times can one remember such reports pre-dating the report collection period of the UAPTF of 2004 to 2021? Fascinating.

144 reports were examined. 143 remain unexplained. The Air Force collected roughly 13,000 cases from 1947 to 1969. 701 were said to be unidentified, translating to 5.4% of the total. Looking at the Condon Report, the case section shows that roughly 30% were unexplained. The UAPTF report shows 99.3% of reports unexplained. Yikes…really remarkable.

80 of the 144 reports involved “observation with multiple sensors,” meaning independent confirmation. Isn’t this what UFO investigators always hope to find in reports? Amazing.

18 incidents in 21 reports showed “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.” Objects appeared to be stationary in wind or moving against the wind. They maneuvered abruptly “without discernable means of propulsion.” Even “radio frequency (RF) energy” was detected in a few cases. More remarkable admissions.

In admitting that UAP lack a single explanation, the report cites five categories of potential explanations for incidents.

1. Airborne Clutter (birds, balloons, drones, etc.)

2. Natural Atmospheric Phenomena (ice crystals, thermal fluctuations, moisture).

3. USG or Industry Developmental Programs (classified activity by U.S. entities).

4. Foreign Adversary Systems (Russia, China, another nation or non-government entity).

5. Other.

What is “Other?” Aside from saying it is not the other four, the meaning is very unclear. It is reminiscent of a 1950 Air Force Office of Special Investigations Catalog of Green Fireballs incidents, sightings of which plagued the southwest U.S. It was released by the FBI in 1977. Within the catalog, categories existed to classify the reports. One was simply “Green Fireball Phenomena,” which was peculiar in itself. A second was “Probable Meteor. The third was “’Disk’ or Variation.” What does that mean, an object was a flying disk that officially was not supposed to exist? In the case of the UAPTF report, if “other” is supposed to represent a previously-unknown, new phenomenon, does not that warrant scientific, and possible national security, attention?

“Some potential patterns do emerge.” Shape, size and propulsion are cited as among those patterns. “UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds” Remember the reporting in the pre-collection period of the UAPTF of UFOs concentrating near military and atomic facilities? Amazing again.

The report calls for a new investigation of these phenomena, with the desire to “standardize the reporting, consolidate the data and deepen the analysis.” From this, the investigation would widen over time and employ “artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms” in studying reports. Might it be called a Project Blue Book on steroids, with funding, facilities and manpower to attack what has become a 74-year-old government problem.

It is ironic that the Navy is the focal point here for UAP reports, while there seems to be virtually no involvement by the Air Force. In the past, it was very difficult to access Navy UFO information without going through the Air Force while the Air Force had conducted its publicly-known (at least in part) Sign/Grudge/Blue Book inquiries. Now the roles seem to have entirely reversed inexplicably. Did someone decide that the Navy would do a better job?

At any rate, it is impossible to accept that the Air Force, during the 2004-2021 term of UAP data collection, had no reports or conducted no investigations of such aerial phenomena, considering that their primary responsibility is the national defense of our airspace. The report does state an awareness of this problem: “The UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF).” With this in mind, as if a form of shaming were applied, another remarkable fact surfaces:

“….the USAF began a six-month pilot program in November 2020 to collect in the most likely areas to encounter UAP and is evaluating how to normalize future collection, reporting and analysis across the entire Air Force.”

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is recruited into the UAP dragnet too, with the UAPTF said to be “receiving data from” them. This is probably a good deal better than the days the local FAA in my area asked me to field citizen UFO reports for them, as they did other civilian UFO researchers.

UAP Assessments - Memo for Senior Pentagon Leadership 6-25-21

Very soon after the report’s release, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, issued a memorandum on June 25, 2021 for “Senior Pentagon Leadership, Commanders of the Combatant Commands and Defense Agency and DOD Field Activity Directors” to institute synchronized collection, reporting and analysis of UAP, to secure test and training ranges and essentially create a new infrastructure for this activity. This would be coordinated with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, military department secretaries and Commanders of the Combatant Commands, and be done with the Department of National Intelligence and interagency partners. They were to be responsive to the UAPTF within two weeks of an incident, such was the urgency of dealing with UAP from here on.

See the 1947 Twining memo here, as a reminder of what the military thought of flying saucers at the dawn of this modern era of reporting. Similar in many ways, isn’t it? And the UAPTF report can be said to surpass General Twining’s observations.

Comments are closed.