Mark Your Calendars, NASA Is Holding A Public Meeting On UFOs

We’re sorry, the politically correct term these days is “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAP), as it’s less likely to excite those with a predilection for tinfoil hats. But whether you call them flying objects or anomalous phenomena, it’s that unidentified part that has us interested.

Which is why we’ll be tuned into NASA TV at 10:30 a.m. EDT on May 31 — that’s when the agency has announced they’ll be broadcasting a meeting of an independent study team tasked with categorizing and evaluating UAP data. The public can even submit their own questions, the most popular of which will be passed on to the team.

Before you get too excited, the meeting is about how NASA can “evaluate and study UAP by using data, technology, and the tools of science”, and the press release explains that they won’t be reviewing or assessing any unidentifiable observations. So if you’re hoping for the US government’s tacit acknowledgment that we’re not alone in the universe, you’ll probably be disappointed. That said, they wouldn’t have to assemble a team to study these reports if they were all so easily dismissed. As always, interstellar visitors are dead last on the list of possible explanations, but some cases have too much hard evidence to be dismissed out of hand. They might not be little green men, but they are something.

Declassified videos show US military aircraft encountering UAPs

Those with an interest in such things are likely already aware of the 2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The report explains that under the direction of the Secretary of Defense, an All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) had been established in July of 2022 to catalog and analyze credible UAP cases. The paper further reveals that of the 366 cases the AARO was actively investigating, only 195 could be deemed “unremarkable” and likely the result of a drone, balloon, or wildlife.

Does that mean the remaining 171 were the product of interdimensional incursions? Of course not. But the report does acknowledge that “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities” which makes their identification difficult. The report’s recommendation was simple enough: in order to collect more data, UAP cases needed to be taken more seriously.

This NASA meeting is a step towards that goal, and we’re looking forward to seeing the team’s final recommendations when they’re released over the summer. The truth is out there.

22 thoughts on “Mark Your Calendars, NASA Is Holding A Public Meeting On UFOs

  1. I still don’t know why all the government and private UAP research projects are ignoring each other and not sharing data. And there are more studies taking place than I initially realized; at least 6. I also don’t know why one days numerous sightings seem to involve remarkable flight characteristics while another says none of so far do.

    1. If you were testing exotic prototype aircraft, would you want the subjects to know what they’re looking at? Would foreknowledge contaminate test data? To be clear, it might not be the aircraft being tested, rather the observers and responders.

    2. They’re not “sharing data” because they are working off the same internal prompt.
      When a bunch of federal agencies start talking about it all at once it’s time to look up project bluebeam and catch up. This stuff isn’t real, they’re yanking your chain.

  2. Don’t take FOX or Discovery channel as a reliable source, it’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, Aerial and not ‘anomalous’ .
    The source I use here is the ‘OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE”s report.

    1. CNN, FOX, msnbc, CBN, NYT, AP, WSJ, Youtube, CSPAM, BBC, etc etc…
      None are reliable sources of anything. Outrage merchants with the same business model as “BumFights”, all owned by the same groups as well.

  3. Oh and incidentally, that some doofus at NASA also got the word wrong because he also pays too much attention to so-called journalists should not matter There was a definition of the initialism, and it related to aerial phenomena and thus used that word and if you want something else you should make a damn new initialism/acronym.

    1. Names change and not all departments standardise their usage of the nomenclature at the same time.

      ‘Ariel’ has lately been changed to “Anomalous”, corresponding with the ‘All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office’ (AARO) – as detections are not confined to the air but also at sea/submerged, tracked in space or transmedium.

      Formerly known as UFOs and before that ‘Flying Saucers’, they were colloquially called ‘Foo Fighters’ during World War II – some RAF crews referred to them as ‘The Thing’.

      Going back a tad further, the Romans wrote of seeing in their skies ‘Burning’ (or) ‘Flying Shields’..

  4. Obviously the UFO/UAP phenomenon started well before 2004 with the Nimitz incident. In Medicine, history tells us what is going on (aka, History of the Present Illness), physical exam tells us where it is going on (what body parts/systems are involved), and laboratory findings tells us how bad it is. That is the clinical approach necessary to diagnose and treat complex medical problems. It concerns me that the Pentagon initially chose to ignore all evidence before 2004, as if history doesn’t matter. Fortunately, Congress has pressed AARO to review UFO history since 1945. If NASA is going to take their task seriously, it too must devote personnel and resources to review UFO history as therein lies much evidence to suggest how best to study the phenomenon.

  5. @Tom

    What is the “politically correct” aspect of the term change about?

    The term change seems to be about accuracy (not all things you see are “objects” or actually “flying”). Labeling the change as “politically correct” seems to undermine the whole area of study.

    Also, about accuracy, UAP stand for “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”.

  6. Back when Obama got elected, I thought he should’ve told NASA and the Air Force to announce The Real Truth About UFOs.
    Doesn’t matter if they say “It’s all true” “It’s all a hoax” “We filmed it at Disney!” “Klaatu barado nikto”.
    If you’re the President, you ought to be allowed to have a bit of fun to make up for the seriousness of the job.

  7. “Unusual flight characteristics”, the pentagon has lost track of what? $5 trillion so far this century? What are the flight characteristics of a drone you spend $100B/unit to produce? Could you afford to use the most cutting edge metamaterials that are still decades away from commercial viability? Critical thinking is a valuable skill; what’s more likely, a drone the government spent a disgusting amount of money on, or aliens that think the speed of light is a joke?

    1. Since the described behaviours defy the laws of nature as we (or better yet: all scientists) know them, it would be quite the trick.
      Personally I think it being some projection being more likely, they have them chasing the laser dot like kittens do. After all, a projection can do insane speedups and 90 degree turns at high speed etcetera, since it doesn’t have mass. And that is probably easier than making a drone that defies all laws of nature.
      It would still be a quite novel technology though.

      1. See, I just know of no proof that they “defy” the laws of nature. If you had never seen real carbon fiber before, you would think its some kind of trick, either that its not anywhere near as strong as people say, or that its alien in nature, and even carbon fiber would be considered antiquated compared to graphene, carbon nanotubes, etc. Just because something has more maneuverability and acceleration than one would expect, doesn’t mean that its violating any natural laws. There are certain assumptions that are widely made about some of these objects that don’t necessarily follow, like it disappeared into the ocean so people assume its submersible, when maybe the truth is the operator decided their test was complete and they crashed it into the ocean to prevent recovery. Another bad assumption is in the objects lack of heat signature, where people have assumed it doesn’t generate heat, for all we know these drones have LN2 tanks used to mask jet exhaust for short periods of time, multiple types of propulsion to give off less heat while stationary (like rockets for acceleration and fans for hovering), materials like vantablack that can absorb wavelengths of light emitted from the internals. Lastly, even if there is some sparse data about these things going fast than physically possible, it wouldnt be the first time that false telemetry was reported (flight 800), sensors not calibrated for detecting objects moving at these speeds can’t be relied on, maybe there were 2 objects and they can orient themselves to reduce their radar cross section, and by way of projections, false data could be projected directly onto the radar to test

        Of course, a projection is more likely than aliens, by odds that would make ones chance at winning the lottery look pretty good. My point is just that even assuming these are physical objects, I haven’t seen anything conclusive to say that they are defying physics, it seems to me that’s a claim that requires serious scrutiny.

  8. It’s becoming clearer, we have a tale of two NASA’s. One of statements for public consumption and the other our Secret Science Overlord NASA. The Department of Defense and their disinformation agents of ufology easily promoted all over Twitter. Everything fake, to the point Whitley Strieber makes a return with new tales of getting raped and sexually assaulted by aliens. Our government sponsors a total perversion of the “truth” to confuse the masses. It’s just flat-out crazy town. We have no business funding these government liars and abusers anymore. 64 years of funding the most advanced technology ever and we are told “we do not have the quality data needed to make any scientific conclusions on UAP”. Total lies and that is what we are funding.

  9. Was Admiral Byrd and Operation Highjump really real?? Was the Media reports of a few years ago that many global government leaders and the Pope going to Antarctica really real?? Is the global ban on ANYONE flying over the center of the Sth. Pole really real?

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.