If you go back and look this report was specifically intended to be about determining methods for identifying and cataloging UAP. It is a widespread misunderstanding that it was intended to be a report about UAP. This is incorrect.
Rather disappointing, but not at all surprising. However you come down on UAP/UFO/etc the fact that there's no definitive answer from the governments, intelligence communities, authorities, etc. is mildly perplexing.
Not really - strange things that are poorly documented are often hard to explain. The things that are well recorded and documented all get explained rather quickly.
Hessdalen lights yes but they, like UAPs, have flaps. Now they are very rare so it's hard to study when they are seen so rarely but there has been a team doing it for many decades now.
Ball lightning is also very rare. So I think the commenter was talking about everyday things that happen with fair regularity, but not to put words in their mouth.
Edit: However, I will say that "explained" in the commenters case does not necessarily mean "explained correctly." Mick West with his Seagull theory for example -- he had the singular video and "explained" the video with an example that fits into our worldview, while the military still has the RADAR, multiple sources of video, and unedited (downconverted) HQ footage and sensor data which would likely monkey wrench his seagull theory very badly.
The analysis identified hydrogen, oxygen and other elements including titanium.[9] It was thought this occurs in Hessdalen because of the large deposits of scandium there. The publication of this research led to the Norwegian press proclaiming that "The Mystery in Hessdalen is Solved".
I guess it depends on who you ask. Anyone can choose to ignore solid evidence supporting a hypothesis. Just ask a 'flat-earther' if the earther is a sphere.
"The analysis identified hydrogen, oxygen and other elements including titanium.[9] It was thought this occurs in Hessdalen because of the large deposits of scandium there. The publication of this research led to the Norwegian press proclaiming that "The Mystery in Hessdalen is Solved"."
I guess it depends who you ask. Anyone can choose to ignore solid evidence supporting a hypothesis. Just ask a 'flat-earther' if the Earth is spherical.
My hypothesis is that "the government" doesn't have the information the public is looking for. It is locked away in SAPs at defense contractors, which are essentially just a private extension of the government but out of reach of public scrutiny (e.g. FOIA requests).
To be fair, with all the money the government wastes this taxpayer would be quite happy to have more resources devoted to this mixed probability/extremely high impact issue.
The media briefing just happened live, mostly saying that NASA is focussing on transparency and removing the stigma around UAP reporting so that more evidence can be acquired:
Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Report
Basically, the evidence for something anomalous is weak at best, more probably a Nothingburger (imho).
Mick West in his channel[1], plus friends at Metabunk have made fantastic research on UAPs, and they have really mundane explanations:
I think the level of expertise of some pilots has been overblown. They are human after all and not necessarily can come up for explanations for everything, especially if they are not on top of every new spaceflight development, which might be a lot to ask considering other obligations that they might have, at least in the case of commercial airline pilots.
24 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 29.7 ms ] thread"likely a sensor artifact resulting from video compression"
nothing really insightful as far as the UAPs thesmselves as far as i can tell.
Aliens? Maybe...
Plz fund global surveillance and AI?
Thx"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_lights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
Ball lightning is also very rare. So I think the commenter was talking about everyday things that happen with fair regularity, but not to put words in their mouth.
Edit: However, I will say that "explained" in the commenters case does not necessarily mean "explained correctly." Mick West with his Seagull theory for example -- he had the singular video and "explained" the video with an example that fits into our worldview, while the military still has the RADAR, multiple sources of video, and unedited (downconverted) HQ footage and sensor data which would likely monkey wrench his seagull theory very badly.
I guess it depends on who you ask. Anyone can choose to ignore solid evidence supporting a hypothesis. Just ask a 'flat-earther' if the earther is a sphere.
I guess it depends who you ask. Anyone can choose to ignore solid evidence supporting a hypothesis. Just ask a 'flat-earther' if the Earth is spherical.
{wiki page continues with another 9 theories}
With political acumen like that they will quickly have the best run UAP program in the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A
Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwU6V5GFaQA
Edit: shorter summary by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idJKLP5hcuQ
Mick West in his channel[1], plus friends at Metabunk have made fantastic research on UAPs, and they have really mundane explanations:
I think the level of expertise of some pilots has been overblown. They are human after all and not necessarily can come up for explanations for everything, especially if they are not on top of every new spaceflight development, which might be a lot to ask considering other obligations that they might have, at least in the case of commercial airline pilots.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@MickWest