
Pentagon Announces Task Force To Study UFOs (vice.com) 83
The Pentagon announced last week that it had elevated the status of its UAP task force following pressure from Congress and the fact that multiple instances have been reported of unknown objects reportedly making incursions into military airspace. From a report: According to an emailed statement from Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough and a press release from the Department of Defense, on August 4th, the military approved the establishment of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). "The Department of Defense established the UAPTF to improve its understanding of, and gain insight into, the nature and origins of UAPs," read a statement made by Gough. "The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze, and catalog UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe people like OP will learn that UFO != alien space ship.
Anything unidentified flying over military bases is a serious cause for concern, even if it's just little Johnny's drone from across the street.
Re: Seems like a waste of money (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I think you mean "expect the US to pretend to become more defensive in the next decades, but actually blow all the money bombing random worthelss strips of desert wasteland."
Re: (Score:2)
sorry johnsie, but that is all lies designed to scare Americans into pouring trillions into defending against ghosts
Sure, Russia is pretty good at 40 year old launch technology, but they really haven't developed anything to threaten US air superiority and Putin's public claims align with huge military accidents, while the US continues to publicly disclose their hypersonic programs
The US has become more defensive lately, but this mainly due to the delusions of the current administration and desire to scare A
Similar groups (Score:2)
Other countries have similar groups (e.g.: France has GEPAN Groupe d'Etudes de Phenomenes Aeriens Non-identifie -- Study Group for UAPs)
At least, such task forces could serendipitously help discover new scientific knowledge about e.g. the atmospheric phenomenon that caused the (previously-) unidentified aerial phenomenon.
But I think the wildest dreams of some of the pentagon's military behind this push would be that this might uncover previously unknown stealth drones from Russia or China. (See US' "weather
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that they might discover are secret US programs, which they cannot acknowledge
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then what? What is the purpose of the group? (Score:2)
The problem is some footage was captured by extremely sophisticated and highly classified sensitive instruments on military aircraft with backing radar data from ground sources and essentially a bunch of situational proofs that can't and couldn't easily be spoofed by a lying pilot. Their tracking systems were tracking it. They likely have data from those systems showing the object tracked was doing "not possible" things and therefore they *really* want to snag this technology.
Great, lets say that is all exa
Re: (Score:1)
Well, sometimes it's actually "behaves in ways the laws of physics deem impossible... unless of course they managed to find or synthesize this one theoretical element from an empty spot on our periodic table of elements." And then we know that material is no longer theoretical, and that some of it may be relatively nearby, in space-time terms anyway. That's a huge potential tome and cost saving step for the military science research I assure you they're spending the entire budget on regardless.
Re: (Score:1)
*huge potential time and cost saving step....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"gaps" are the terms for the original elements the inventor of the periodic table theorized existed, but had not been observed. Now we just add to the table when we come up with new elements, so technically they aren't gaps. But there are elements that are theorized that if we eventually observe them will prompt the creation of new entries in the table. Element 125 is an example that as a transition metal should prompt the creation of a new row on the table (which would then have "gaps" I suppose).
Re: (Score:1)
Knowing that some impossible thing ISN'T impossible is a huge step. It allows you to immediately dismiss the objections of a whole pack of short sighting arrogant academics who love to use phrases like "little green men" and "extraordinary claims..." even though neither of those things actually has to do with science, only with making subjective assessments seem rational. Suddenly it becomes about figuring out what 'crackpot' was actually right.
Re: (Score:2)
-1 contradicts tribal lore
Re: Seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Funny)
TL:DR careful reading of official Major League Baseball Rule 6.08(b) suggests that in this situation, the batter would be considered "hit by pitch", and would be eligible to advance to first base.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if is super interesting.
Hard to parse. Confused me. Sorta made sense. Had to figure it out (latent grammar nazi tendencies). Is this just a colloquialism for a gedankenspiel? Inquiring readers want to know!
[Edit]Clicked on link. Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I came back to the comment thread a day later and my reply did my head in a little bit. Sorry about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. "Quotes" are our friend...tho it's anyone's guess whether ./ will parse them correctly :)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what would happen if the mass of the baseball totally converted to energy. How many Libraries of Congress would it destroy?
Re: (Score:2)
What is there to really "study"? Just some bad footage of odd things?
What there is to study is
1., if the images are spurious readings based on instruments being fooled, how were the instruments fooled? and how can we make sure that we don't get spurious data in other situtions where it might make a difference? and
2. whether any part of any of the images represent things we don't know, indicating capabilities of an enemy power we are unfamiliar with. If we don't know what we're looking at, it would be useful to know what we're looking at, so we can know whether there's any
Re: (Score:1)
The only reasonable guess that's not "aliens" is some kind of deep secret research project that's nearing operational readiness. It's been tested enough in pure test situations and is now being carefully (or not so carefully, depending on how you see FLIR footage being made public) being tested in force-on-force situations against US military active duty systems.
My guess is some kind of very high powered drone with some sort of active jamming system capable of fooling enemy radars into seeing "impossible"
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"If they had it, they'd do everything to suppress it and would not be releasing FLIR captures of its use. It only leaks out because even the effort of trying to suppress it internally"
Nah, that is a fairly primitive disinformation game you've got there. You leak something like those FLIR images with the implication you have no idea what it is, to cover for the fact that you know exactly what this stuff is and this is just the tip of the iceberg. By doing so you've created a handy categorical dismissal of a
Re: (Score:2)
See, even suggesting otherwise rates "troll" on Slashdot. That is how effective this form of disinformation is over time.
"Only?" [Re:Seems like a waste of money] (Score:2)
The only reasonable guess that's not "aliens" is some kind of deep secret research project that's nearing operational readiness.
"Only" reasonable guess???
The most reasonable guess is that people sometimes misinterpret things that they're not expecting to see, and that cutting-edge electronics with embedded computers and processing software screws up sometimes.
But, on the one percent chance that it isn't just electronics screwing up and people not understanding what they're seeing, yes, might be worth trying to track down just what they actually are seeing. If nothing else, worth trying to figure out why the electronics are givin
Re: (Score:2)
In the incident that got the most press, a Navy training exercise off San Diego, they had ground tracking *and* in-flight tracking of this object which was aligned.
It makes little sense that *both* of these tracking systems (which are likely totally different) saw the same "glitch" the same way. These are probably entirely different radars produced by different companies and they're operated by different people using different user interfaces.
I mean stick with your narrative that these people make mistakes
Numbers [Re:"Only?" ] (Score:2)
Do some numbers. How many Navy and Air Force flights are there per day, on the average? If, say, 1% of those has something screw up that looks anomalous, and 1% of those get misidentified instead of just dismissed by the pilot, and 1% of those have a ground radar also with screwy readings... how many UFO files does that generate?
Show your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Both the aircraft and the ship-based radar tracked a bird and an airliner, as you'd expect them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Examples?
The extremely accurate equipment is pointless if they misinterpret the data, such as the plane is turning and the camera is turning amplifying the apparant movement against the water making it seem to move and turn way too quickly.
There are YouTube videos explaining these recent videos.
As for "deeply classified" stuff, it's all hot air until it is produced. Until then, these are all just grainy or misinterpreted stuff.
Literally, people are still waiting for evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the downside of democracy: sometimes crazy shit gets political attention. Somehow I don't think the military needs any help from congress to investigate aircraft over military bases.
Hint for those who don't get it: unknown flying objects over US military bases are experimental US aircraft. The original Project Blue Book was a successful disinformation campaign to hide the creation of the A-10/SR-71 spy planes (and it actually worked).
The recently released "UFO footage" was all very ordinary footage o
Some [Re:Seems like a waste of money] (Score:2)
Hint for those who don't get it: unknown flying objects over US military bases are experimental US aircraft.
You left out the word "some".
Some unknown flying objects over US military bases were experimental US aircraft.
Re: (Score:1)
Some unknown flying objects over US military bases were experimental US aircraft.
Everything flying over a US military base is known to the US military. One does not simply fly into Mordor. When the military describes one as "unknown" that should be read as "secret".
If you go back to the early days of flight, that wasn't always true, because planes of the time sometimes lacked the performance to catch something flying past at high altitude and speed (this was especially true before jets), and radar was bad or non-existent. It's a different world today.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the Pentagon had a chuckle over that. I'm sure they'll "get right on this"
Yeah they know when the request from congress amounts to "give us something to distract the electorate until after the election" and probably have responses in the can already that they dust off once a year and update a few details in case it inevitably gets requested again.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we invading Albania again?
Re: (Score:2)
Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure I'd pin this on democracy. Wouldn't dictatorships be more prone to idiosyncrasy since only one person has to be wrong and nobody can argue with them?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might have excluded the possibility that we're much more violent than they are. Maybe they never expect hailing messages to be responded to by guided missile systems?
Re: (Score:1)
What is there to really "study"? Just some bad footage of odd things?
I've been underwhelmed by the recent releases. They're about as convincing as the ghost shows showing "proof" as we watch a person walk around in low-light conditions using a low-quality camera.
At best what the studies can do, is determine the objects true nature and thus they are not a UFO. If they can't determine it was really something from earth, what else can they produce of value?
Then eventually they'll disband it once there is no more that sci/tech can do. And/or once "they" finish testing on "Aurora v2" or whatever.
If there are truly UFOs they are so much more advanced from us, we'll either learn more when they reach out or pretty much nothing at all until then.
It seems to me that this amazing alien tech malfunctions constantly since we keep getting glimpses of "them".
Project Bluebook II (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ET came to a similar conclusion: "Humans are not very tasty. Cows better: take more."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's more like:
Re: maybe the wrong agency? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Greeting such an advanced presence with such a comparatively puerile display of aggression seems foolish.
I don't disagree, but the ship has really sailed on this one. I can't emphasize that enough.
Project Bluebook 2.0? (Score:1)
They already had Project Bluebook and similar programs in the past. They more or less dismissed everything as human judgement or perception error. I think it's a mistake to have a final conclusion for each case. Perhaps discuss the likelihood it's human judgement error, but don't select it as a final category. Not everything needs to be funneled into one category.
Some cases were truly amazing. In one broad daylight case there was a military plane with 3 people on board, two pilots and passenger. A lens-shap
Clarifications [Re:Project Bluebook 2.0?] (Score:1)
Re: "One member gazed at it out a side window"
The non-pilot.
Re: "because it was passing over a military base"
Should be, "because the plane was passing near a military base when it encountered the object."
Re: A lens-shaped object
Kind of like a lentil bean.
Re: "I'l see if..."
Should be "I'll see if..."
[Still google-binging...]
Not just bluebook (Score:2)
It's not just bluebook from the early days. There have been half a dozen invstigations announced in the last decade alone. The air force has been debunking UFOs in so many investigations for so long that I don't hold out any hope for impartiality. Unfortunately, the UFO kooks are just as bad. As soon as good evidence appears of something unusual, people like Giorgio Tsoukalos and the Funky Hairdo's come out of the woodwork and start blathering on about pyramid energy so loudly that no matter how good th
Re: (Score:2)
They already had Project Bluebook and similar programs in the past. They more or less dismissed everything as human judgement or perception error. I think it's a mistake to have a final conclusion for each case. Perhaps discuss the likelihood it's human judgement error, but don't select it as a final category. Not everything needs to be funneled into one category.
Bluebook was also likely hampered due to the fact that a lot of reports were probably of classified US military technology or property. For example, take early MiGs that the US government had managed to capture/recover and were capability testing. Their shape was rather different than the type of aircraft most Americans would be familiar with, and were often nothing more than unpainted, shiny metal bodies. From a far enough distance away (where you wouldn't be able to see the tail), they could easily be
Is XCOM losing the war? (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't this about the time that China announces that they have a pact with the aliens?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of leaders of nations, The Tinted One has said God is on his side. Why not add ET to the list of cosmic sponsors? "Millions of saucers came to cheer me. Biggest saucer crowd ever, believe me, looked like the kitchen at Grand Central Station..."
Re: (Score:2)
It is not about the aliens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That indeed could be why there is renewed interest on their part. Drones have added to the variety and shape of military threats to keep an eye on.
Of course (Score:2, Funny)
In space (Score:1)
Reality is Boring (Score:2)
could be quadcopter drones spying (Score:2)
I guess DJT doesn't like his current poll #s (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
^ this, 100% correct
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me if he doesn't get his poll numbers up, we'll hear a lot of interesting announcements from every branch of government. ...anything to get the news off them and him.
Well then, you'll probably be relieved to see this: CNN Poll: Biden and Trump matchup tightens as enthusiasm hits new high [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yah. I was thinking that during the UAE announcement that came out of the blue. That, in addition to the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, f'rinstance, might make Jews pay attention to his actions, if not his words.
Only 80 years too late. (Score:1)
Thanks guys. Really on the ball, there. I feel like our airspace is totally secure. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of note was happening 80 years ago, there weren't "space aliens" then and there aren't now. The objects are natural or manmade.
It Helps to Understand Political Doubletalk (Score:2)
"The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze, and catalog UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security."
They're going to get a budget that can now be used 99.9% as a slush fund. Most of the work will be done by one person in the 30 seconds it takes to say "nope, that's ours, so it doesn't potentially pose a threat to our national security. Next!"
Hmmmmm (Score:1)
Besides space and time being incomprehensibly vast, there's this:
https://www.corbettreport.com/... [corbettreport.com]
Space Force are GO! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If UFO means "unnaturally fat oaf"
-5 mean
Cat (Score:1)
Because they don't already?! (Score:2)
UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object", it doesn't mean "alien".
And you bet that the US military is interested in what is flying over their territory. The US certainly has its fair share of spy planes, drones and whatever classified stuff and know that they are not alone in that situation. And they are certainly very interested in spotting them.
And even if it is just a pilot who saw the moon, they can use that info to teach pilots how to make a difference between the moon and a space station. Seriously thou
Only 75 years to late (Score:1)
Better late than never? (Score:1)
Very telling! (Score:1)