Home‎ > ‎Current Affairs‎ > ‎News‎ > ‎

US intelligence issued document on analysis of 144 reports of unidentified aerial phenomena

publicado a la‎(s)‎ 26 ago 2021 8:23 por Plataforma Sites Dgac
On June 25, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence of the United States issued a report to the Congress on cases of observation and detection of unidentified aerial phenomena, or “UAP."
The US Pentagon.

The US Congress.
The 9-page document mentions the analysis of 144 UAP incidents that occurred between November 2004 and March 2021, 80 of which were captured by different types of sensors.

After examining the sensors that captured the phenomena, the researchers responsible found that some equipment worked very well and that others could have had some malfunctions that provoked the anomalies recorded.

It also recognizes all the recorded observations have a limited number of high quality reports, a situation which constitutes an obstacle to draw conclusions about the nature of the inusual phenomena.

The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force said in the report that “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.”

Unusual flight characteristics

The report adds tha in a limited number of incidents, the UAP seemed to exhibit unusual characteristics of flight and that it is necessary to do a more complete and detailed analysis of them.

According to the report, not all the UAP observations would have the same origin and that when they are resolved they would probably classify them in one of the following five categories:

1. Airborne Clutter.
2. Natural Atmospheric Phenomena.
3. USG or Industry Developmental Programs.
4. Foreign Adversary Systems.
5. Other.
 
UAP pose problem to flight safety

The official document states that “UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.”

It adds that these phenomena would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.

The document states that “limited data leaves most UAP unexplained.”

“Limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The
Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020, but it remains limited to
USG reporting. The UAPTF regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by
those observers,” it says.

The document evacuated by the Director of Intelligence was made on the basis of 144 reports from sources of the United States government and, of them, 80 reports involved observations with multiple sensors.

Most reports described UAP as objects that disrupted training exercises previously planned or other military activity.

Stigmatization of those who report

The report notes that the accounts from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and Intelligence Community describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues.

“Although the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously in public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic,” the document states.

Later, the document indicates that although there was wide variability in the reports and that 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,” it adds.

In the Pentagon report there is a statement that is decisive: “A handful of UAP appear to demonstrate advanced technology.”

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics of UAP.

Some UAPs appeared to remain stationary in high winds, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, with no discernible means of propulsion. 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. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated,” according to the Pentagon report.

“The UAP documented in this limited dataset demonstrate an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations,” it adds.

Probable explanations

The document evacuated by the Office of the Director of Intelligence to the United States Senate on June 25 contemplates five categories of probable explanations such as:

Airborne Clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or airborne debris like plastic bags that muddle a scene and affect the operator's ability to identify real targets, such as enemy aircraft.

Natural atmospheric phenomena: Natural atmospheric phenomena includes ice crystals, humidity and thermal fluctuations that can be registered in some infrared and radar systems.

USG or Industrial Development Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributed to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. However, the UAPTF was unable to  confirm that those systems accounted for any of the UAP reports that they collected.

Foreign Adversary Systems: Some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity.

Flight safety hazards

According to the Pentagon report, the UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security “if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.”

The report states that the majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting, but efforts are underway to standardize incident reporting across U.S. military services and other government agencies to ensure all relevant data is captured with respect to particular incidents and any U.S. activities that might be relevant.

It adds that the UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and has begun receiving data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The document reveals that although USAF data collection has been limited historically, 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.

Increasing investment on research

The report says that the FAA captures data related to UAP during the normal course of managing air traffic operations and that it generally ingests this data when pilots and other airspace users report unusual or unexpected events to the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization.

The official document suggests that “additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, UAP R&D Technical Roadmap, and a UAP Program Plan.”

Finally, from the 144 cases analyzed, the report claims to have identified just one of them as a large, deflating balloon. “The others remain unexplained,” according to the document.
Comments