We can safely say that ufos – now called uap (unidentified aerial phenomena, or “unidentified aerial phenomena”) – are back. In recent years, concern has grown for aircraft capable of defying the laws of physics and penetrating the airspace of the United States. They could be the fruits of a technological breakthrough by foreign rivals or whatever. However, many were rather disappointed by the publication of the highly anticipated Pentagon report on UAPs. The results are inconclusive, which raises serious doubts about intelligence and why the issue has skyrocketed to the top of Washington’s agenda.
While making several hypotheses, the report admits that analysts are unable to explain at least 143 of the 144 reported sightings. The problem, they acknowledge, is that there is insufficient data to draw solid conclusions. The point is not so much whether the extraordinary things described in the sightings belong to Russia, China or the Klingons, but whether something truly extraordinary is happening.
In some ways this is not surprising. In all the episodes of sighting of a uap, no one agrees that they have actually seen something extraordinary: for example an aircraft that defies the laws of physics. According to skeptics, most of what happens in heaven can be the result of a wrong description, a technical or human error, or a phenomenon of optical illusion.
The meeting of the Nimitz
A clear example is the so-called Nimitz case of 2004, when two pilots of the US aircraft carrier spotted a white object that resembled a huge Tic Tac candy by its shape. The strange object would have reacted to the movements of the pilots and then disappeared in the blink of an eye. He reappeared shortly thereafter, at which point a third driver recorded the video that someone passed on to the New York Times in 2017.
The episode would have investigated the Aatip (Advanced aerospace threat identification program) of the Pentagon, later renamed the Uap task force. The recent report on uap was made by this body. The news caused a sensation thanks to the willingness to speak of one of its main witnesses, Commander David Fravor, who in an interview with ABC News declared that the huge Tic Tac seemed “not of this world“.
The case, however, appears heavily vitiated by errors of description and inconsistencies in the testimonies. Fravor has denied claims by other members of the crew of the Nimitz aircraft carrier, including allegations that mysterious officers have requisitioned important data. And the other pilot protagonist of the first meeting, Alex Dietrich, he has declared that his Tic Tac sighting lasted about ten seconds, which contrasts greatly with the five minutes Fravor talks about.
The point is that memory and misperception can play tricks on even the best-trained pilots. Mick West, a famous skeptic, argues that much of the pilot’s testimony and what is seen in the film can be explained by an optical illusion, and the report admits that “the observer’s misperception” cannot be ruled out. some sightings.
The case of the Nimitz, as well as other UAP sightings, was supported by data processed by radar and sensors, which, however, have not yet been revealed to the public. And we must still consider the fact that even the most sophisticated technical systems are not infallible. As the report admits, instances where uap have highlighted “unusual flight characteristics” could also be the result of sensor errors or spoofing (“Mockery”) – a technique that deceives radar systems by displaying inaccurate information.
The need to know
Analysts are faced with a huge undertaking. Those who deal with uap do so on the basis of certain information gathering systems. But as the report points out, US military sensors are “designed for a specific mission” and are “not normally suitable for identifying a UAP.”
It is more likely that in some cases, other tools, more scientific collaboration and studies for expert scrutiny will be needed to understand what is going on, the exact opposite of intelligence’s “need to know”. Any answers will come from NASA’s recent involvement, not from the closed world of the UAP task force.
Moreover, with such limited data, analysts are more exposed to their own cognitive biases. The Aatip was initially contracted to a company whose founder, Robert Bigelow, is a famous paranormal aficionado. And former Aatip director Luis Elizondo continues to fuel the narrative that UAPs are aircraft that may not have human origin.
And then there is the problem of exaggeration. Officer Christopher Mellon, who set the Nimitz story in motion by leaking the video to the New York Times, admits that he and Elizondo wanted the UAPs to enter “the national security agenda.” Politicians should be guided by sophisticated intelligence assessments, not by the personal inclinations of analysts and officials who form their opinions on the basis of poor quality data.
The gap of the bomber
In reality, these events are similar to the “bomber gap” observed during the Cold War, when air force analysts exaggerated estimates of Soviet nuclear bombers to ensure that Congress granted more funding. With their efforts, Elizondo and Mellon have made it possible for the UAPs to be dealt with now, regardless of their actual existence. The report just published also calls for “investments for analysis, collection and resources”.
In parallel to the request for more insights, however, the congress should also ask for more responsibility. Military videos featuring uap (however trivial) continue to be passed on to videomakers who then use them for their UFO videos. These ongoing attempts to influence politics, carried out by inside members of the military without an adequate context or analysis, reflect a troubling intelligence crisis.
Finally, there is the question of politicization. The Aatip was created by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on the advice of his close friend Bigelow. Reid’s enthusiasm for UFOs is well known and documented, suggesting that the whole thing was tainted from the start. If the task force on UAPs is expanded, it will be necessary to provide a healthy distance between politicians and the people who draw up the evaluations.
As things stand, the UAP issue resembles a kind of microcosm of everything that can go wrong in intelligence. The report would seem to suggest that pilots are trying to make sense of increasingly noisy skies, that military sensors are not always reliable, and that all of this is beyond the capabilities of Pentagon analysts.
It also shows that, in the absence of firm evidence on an undeniable aircraft that would be behaving in an undeniably extraordinary way, congress and public opinion should view those who speak of the UAP with some skepticism.
(Translation by Giusy Muzzopappa)
.