The long-awaited “Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon” report (unclassified) was released by the national Office of the Director of National Intelligence on June 25.
What did it reveal? Nothing much.
The Senate asked for “an intelligence assessment of the threat posed by unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and the progress the Department of Defense Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) has made in understanding this threat.” Nothing much was discovered.
“Incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021” were examined.
Here’s one assumption underlying these analyses: “Various forms of sensors that register UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments, but some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies.”
And more: The “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) considered a range of information on UAP described in U.S. military and IC (Intelligence Community) reporting, but because the reporting lacked sufficient specificity, ultimately recognized that a unique, tailored reporting process was required to provide sufficient data for analysis of UAP events.
As a result, the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting.
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. “
“There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting.”
Meaning? Not much.
The report notes, “Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain.” The air and space domain is, indeed, increasingly cluttered – with satellites, balloons, drones, debris, who knows what.
Back to the report: “In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. 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.”
And here’s the, as-usual, conclusion of the report: “Available reporting largely inclusive.”
“Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations remain obstacles to collecting data on UAP. Although some technical challenges—such as how to appropriately filter out radar clutter to ensure safety of flight for military and civilian aircraft—are longstanding in the aviation community, while others are unique to the UAP problem set.
“The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”
“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.”
I don’t know what sociocultural stigmas were considered, as they were not addressed in this report. Bottom line –as always, is: “Increase Investment in Research and Development.” The UAP task force says “additional funding for research and development” would help.
Uh huh.
doctorlinda 