Pentagon UFO Report

[Super Nova]

I think they will report nothing new and hide anything that would be of interest. So nothing for the public. So speculation will be fuellled.

Interesting article from SciAm: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... fo-report/

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

Extract.

Although the task force’s unclassified assessment is not expected until June 25, the New York Times provided a cursory preview of its contents in an article on June 3. Citing anonymous senior officials familiar with the report’s contents, the story said that the assessment has come up short of explaining what UAP are and that it provides no evidence to link them with any putative alien visitation—despite reviewing more than 120 incidents from the past 20 years. The report’s firmest conclusion, it seems, is that the vast majority of UAP happenings and their surprising maneuvers are not caused by any U.S. advanced technology programs.

Lastly, according to the New York Times article, the final report includes a “classified annex” of information deemed unsuitable for public release—leaving more than enough room for die-hard UFO advocates to remain convinced that the U.S. government is hiding the truth.

So I really want the classified annex released with the military secrets removed.

[Super Nova]

It will be big news on 25-Jun.

Hold your breath for that is the day the aliens will announce themselves.

Get ready.

[Aussie]

Amazing that every photo ever produced of a UFO is so grainy to be completely indecisive.

[Super Nova]

Amazing that every photo ever produced of a UFO is so grainy to be completely indecisive.

Yes,

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They don't cut it.

However recently the US military have good images and radar confirmation plus eye witnesses from multiple ships for the same sightings.

That starts to be more credible as evidence.

Until I saw that, I was 100% convinced it is all BS. Now..... I await this report.

[Bobby]

Amazing that every photo ever produced of a UFO is so grainy to be completely indecisive.

Yes,

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They don't cut it.

However recently the US military have good images and radar confirmation plus eye witnesses from multiple ships for the same sightings.

That starts to be more credible as evidence.

Until I saw that, I was 100% convinced it is all BS. Now..... I await this report.

This scientist reckons it's bullshit:



Anton Petrov

9 months ago


A lot of you wonderful people mention interviews by pilots, radar operators and so on and though it would make sense for me to talk about their part of the story too, there is a reason I chose not to:
Joe Rogan show, New York Times magazine and other media sources that featured those pilots paid them exuberant amounts of money for telling a story. They were not asking for facts or for most rational explanation. They were asking for a story, a fun one, one that brings audience.
If I were one of the pilots and was told "we will pay you $20000 for a few hours of your time if you can come and tell us about what you saw" I would instantly realize I just hit a gold mine and would make it as interesting as possible so that the other media would invite me later. Would I really go and just tell them "well I saw an object, it was distant, could have been a plane, but probably an old one, I've never seen before" or would I paint a colourful encounter making national news in the process? I think the answer here is pretty obvious.
In the age of media, it's very important to remember that if a person is being paid for telling a story, you have to put extra scrutiny on everything you hear. Nothing they mentioned was collaborated by the camera footage and in one anecdotal case the camera movement (and parallax) was interpreted as faster than speed sound.
So in conclusion? In this particular example I don't think any of the "witness" evidence is admissible in court due to financial bias.