U.S. Government Report Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects......

a reply to: Lumenari

No I don't believe they said "it isn't" as to anything but a secret us program

a reply to: tjocksteffe

Screw the nyt article. Wait for the actual report. It will be ambiguous enough on its own merit entirely. I can almost promise you that.

a reply to: TonyS

FOIA lawyer here. Just a small tiny point. Private contractors are not per se able to avoid FOIA. Rather, FOIA does apply to them. The difficulty is that they have lobbied hard to create statutory exemptions which, if applicable, and in these areas they tend to be, citing to national security issues, law enforcement matters, open investigations, deliberative processes, etc, will result Ina n exemption of some of their materials....often alot. Yes the result is the same as your posit, i.e. you don't get the materials but it's a substantive distinction. If foia apples, denials can be appealed. Contractors do have to provide info that is not exempt. And if they screw around procedurally, it will come back to bite them. i believe Leslie Kean had a successful appeal before her 2017 nyt piece. Went all the way into the fed circuit. Now, I don't believe her foia suit involved contractors however. These things definitely take time but she clearly kept her eyes on the prize and we are all better for it. Ok, thanks..sorry for blabbing

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Whatever we do, we should swear allegiance and trust to the pilots and Elizondo while they rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on their interview circuits. I'm sure there's not a single ounce of concern over conflict-of-interest.

Just ignore it and trust them. Good sheep.

Today’s Teasers....

“ There is not going to be any “big reveal,” says Robert Sheaffer, a leading skeptical investigator of UFOs. “There are no aliens here on Earth, and so the government cannot ‘disclose’ what it does not have. Some people think that the government knows more about UFOs, or UAPs, than the public, but it’s clear that they know less on the subject than our best civilian UFO investigators, not more.”

“ Skeptical science writer Mick West has taken on the chore of analyzing the spate of UAP videos released by the U.S. military, steadfastly investigating how some of the incidents could merely be mirages from flaws in newly deployed radar systems, as well as various sorts of well-understood visual artifacts regularly seen in cameras. Despite his work to debunk the recent claims, West maintains that reports of mysterious aircraft stalking military assets should be taken quite seriously.”

Source dated Jun 8: Scientific American

16 billion to Boeing in March of 2020, 298 million to Boeing in April of 2020... that's just a sliver of it.

originally posted by: Mob77

Screw the nyt article. Wait for the actual report.

Very well said.

From what I can gather the NYT is announcing that the U.S. Military and Intelligence do not control their own airspace (despite spending well over 500 billion dollars per year on defense).

Cheers.

a reply to: karl 12

I'm betting that the DNI UFO/UAP Report will be released to Congress on June 24, 2021; thusly making it on the 74th anniversary of Kenneth Arnold's 1947 saucers sighting.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: karl 12

I'm betting that the DNI UFO/UAP Report will be released to Congress on June 24, 2021; thusly making it on the 74th anniversary of Kenneth Arnold's 1947 saucers sighting.

That would be very fitting mate.. even though there are quite a number of flying disc reports which go back way back before that.

When it comes to government agencies ordered to submit collated information to the Senate Committee then I truly would be interested to hear anything from the National Reconnaissance Office.

Cheers.

originally posted by: Mob77
a reply to: Lumenari

No I don't believe they said "it isn't" as to anything but a secret us program

The scientific American article doesn't even say that, they used a qualifier and say the "vast majority" aren't that.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Source dated Jun 8: Scientific American

The vast majority of examined incidents were not caused by U.S. advanced technology programs, the forthcoming report concludes.

So, "vast majority" doesn't seem as exclusive as the wording of the NYT article.

originally posted by: Mob77
a reply to: tjocksteffe

Screw the nyt article. Wait for the actual report. It will be ambiguous enough on its own merit entirely. I can almost promise you that.

We can see why this is prudent advice. The wording seems to be different in the NYT article and if they got the wording wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. Even Harry Reid scolded them that he never said what they implied he said.

originally posted by: karl 12
Very well said.

From what I can gather the NYT is announcing that the U.S. Military and Intelligence do not control their own airspace (despite spending well over 500 billion dollars per year on defense).

Protecting the airspace above the US is the responsibility of the Air Force, and they are strangely silent in this whole dog and pony show from the navy, even though the air force has bases and radar installations on the east coast which should have seen the same UFOs that the Ryan Graves of the navy claims to have seen every day for two years but somehow never made any photos or videos of what he is talking about, that we know of.

Tyler Rogoway tried to look into that, but felt like he was getting stonewalled by lack of responsiveness from the pentagon spokesperson who wrote the paper about using "psy-ops".
Here Is What The Pentagon Is Not Answering About The Air Force And Recent UFO Encounters

Pentago n Destroyed E-mails Of Former Intelligence Official Tied To UFO Investigation Claims

Gough’s background prior to commenting on UAPs for the Pentagon has not made her popular to many online UFO “Disclosure” advocates. In 2003, she authored a Strategy Research Project where she wrote that the “orchestrated combination” of public diplomacy, psychological operations (PsyOps), and public affairs is the definition of what is called “strategic influence.” She adds that the “DoD needs someone with the appropriate position and authority to oversee the policy and to coordinate DoD strategic influence activities among DoD public affairs, military PSYOP, and other military information activities.”

Emphasis mine.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the links.

One of the biggest questions regarding the U.S. Navy's recent disclosures regarding strange encounters with supposedly unidentified flying craft is why are we only hearing about this highly concerning phenomenon from just one service?

Funny because until then they were the only service never to release anything.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

she authored a Strategy Research Project where she wrote that the “orchestrated combination” of public diplomacy, psychological operations (PsyOps)..

Yes well aware of Gough's dodgy PM background - it's OK though because in 2012 they changed the rules of the Smith-Mundt Act so domestic dissemination is now perfectly legal.

Hi, Ophiuchus1. Great article. What amazes me about this whole Pentagon report is that we're all going to sigh heavily. Just another disappointing stone turned on the twisty-turny road of Ufology. But fear not, dear reader: I can't help but feel we're on the cusp of something big. 🍻 reply to: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Orangemenace
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Whatever we do, we should swear allegiance and trust to the pilots and Elizondo while they rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on their interview circuits. I'm sure there's not a single ounce of concern over conflict-of-interest.

Just ignore it and trust them. Good sheep.

Have you ever done an interview on network TV or cable? How do you get to that number?

Today’s Teaser

Calling all Mather’s

The report is suppose to reference 120 sightings....will it show the math of how they derived at that number given that the 120 sightings are from many years? Certainly, the UFO’s that are reported by non-military personal, eclipses that on an annual basis.

So what are the right maths to use in the case of odds concerning UFO’s for a particular result and outcome.

My math skills are less than desirable...so I leave it up to anyone here.

Below is an article based on a math formula to calculate the odds of spotting aliens. Do you agree or disagree with this particular approach?

UFOs: how to calculate the odds that an alien spaceship has been spotted

Lead in....

“ The US military has released previously classified photos and films related to unidentified flying object (UFO) sightings, which mostly show something blurry moving strangely. Still, I hear that a friend of a friend has gone from thinking there’s a 1% chance that UFOs are aliens to now believing it is 50%. Is he rational?

People are constantly seeing things in the sky they don’t understand. The vast majority are aeroplanes, satellites, weather balloons, clouds, rocket launches, auroras, optical reflections and so on. But for some sightings, there’s no known explanation. The problem is that people jump to the conclusion “unknown = aliens”. And when you think about it, this is fairly odd. Why not angels?

Anyway, I like to do maths instead. The Bayes formula (below), a mainstay of statistics, gives the probability (Pr) of something, given some evidence.”......



Source: theconversation.com...

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Today’s Teaser

Calling all Mather’s

The report is suppose to reference 120 sightings....will it show the math of how they derived at that number given that the 120 sightings are from many years?

I need to see the report to discuss that.

So what are the right maths to use in the case of odds concerning UFO’s for a particular result and outcome.

Look at the Drake Equation, which you more or less have to solve to get an input for the equation you posted, as the linked article implies. You could say that if the input parameters are correct, then the calculated output should also be correct. The problem with the equation you posted, and with the Drake equation, is that the input parameters involve too much guesswork.

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined multiplicative effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions.

So I think the only thing that's true mathematically given our uncertainty of the input parameters in the Drake equation or the UFO evidence equation you posted, is that we can be nearly certain that whatever answer the equation gives us will not be correct for the reason stated in the Drake equation article. A lucky guess is possible, but we can guess without the equation.

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: karl 12

I'm betting that the DNI UFO/UAP Report will be released to Congress on June 24, 2021; thusly making it on the 74th anniversary of Kenneth Arnold's 1947 saucers sighting.

That would be very fitting mate.. even though there are quite a number of flying disc reports which go back way back before that.

When it comes to government agencies ordered to submit collated information to the Senate Committee then I truly would be interested to hear anything from the National Reconnaissance Office.

Cheers.

I think it coming out on 6l25 when Derek Chauvin gets sentenced makes sense with the Government's typical planning...

a reply to: LSU2018

Yes. They know teeming millions know nothing about such matters and would always believe whatever BS they dish out.

Bharat's historical documents have written records of humans from other worlds visiting this planet. Unfortunately, Muslims destroyed our universities and libraries so not much survives.

From a Skeptic’s Point Of View.....

Mick West is a British-American science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs. His first book is Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect.

Today’s Teaser

Published Jun 11

“ This month the Pentagon will release its much-awaited UFO report. Extraterrestrial buffs think they’ll be vindicated - but they’ve gotten a bit ahead of themselves”

“ But my experience with a Chilean UFO quickly suggested a more mundane explanation: infrared glare from a distant jet engine. Several studies have confirmed that this is a very likely hypothesis. I looked up the camera patent. These revealed the de-rotation mechanism used to modify the “gimbal roll”. This inevitably means that the glare rotates the way you see it in the video. This is probably why the Navy gave it the code name “gimbal” instead of “flying saucer”.”

I study UFOs – and I don’t believe the alien hype. Here’s why

Source Article: news.google.com...

Comments?

a reply to: karl 12

Just in case you haven't seen this video yet, matey:

"Luis 'Lue' Elizondo': UFO's & National Security" The Washington Post - Streamed Live: June 8, 2021