• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Pentagon study finds no sign of alien life

To me, the key part of the sentence is: "the result of circular reporting from a group of individuals who believe this to be the case, despite the lack of any evidence".

So you have a group of believers, who lack "any evidence" telling stories to each other, and this has become something that justifies all sorts of activity from congress, investigations, and so on. Any chance this could be the final word? (Of course not, but it should be.)

I recently came across a video on YouTube from none other than National Geographic (I have no idea who owns that brand name these days. According to Wikipedia it no longer is what it once was.



ETA: I'm not endorsing the above. It's just another example of the ubiquity of UFOs in pop culture these days.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
That is indeed the report. And no, I am the one who's mentioning David Grusch, and Luis Elizondo and the lot, because that's who the report IS talking about even if it doesn't mention them by name. The contextual clues given - specifically referencing claims of "reverse-engineering" alien technology (which is the bulk of Grusch's claim), describing a consistent group of individuals that has been involved with UAP-related endeavors "since at least 2009" (which is when the AAWSAP/AATIP program Elizondo claimed to be the director of was initiated), and the mention of a "canceled DIA program" (again, AAWSAP) - make it pretty clear the report can't be talking about anyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That is certainly who they are talking about. I only wish that they had gone a step further and called them out by name instead of obliquely referring to them as "a group of individuals".
 
Annoyingly non-specific. It should include a picture of each one the public has seen, with the adjacent text explaining "this is several balloons tied together with other decorations such as flowers or streamers", "this is an infra-red, straight-up-the-nozzle view of another jet engine at a distance, when it just happens to be pointed straight away from the sensor, which is on a gimbal, with software image rotation counteracting the gimbal's rotations", or "this is a duck or goose, from too far away to resolve in detail, but moving at an expected speed and flapping its wings at an expected frequency, causing the image to subtly shift in its appearance at the wing-flapping frequency".

With anything less than that, you're pretty much asking the believers that it's aliens to say "well, they didn't answer this particular case, or that particular case, or that particular case, so they're still just hiding the truth".
 
Something not mentioned in the article is that the Pentagon limited access to the briefing of these findings to a handful of selected reporters. This shows just how tone-deaf the Pentagon is on this subject since this action immediately set off the tin-foil hat brigade, asking why not open the briefing up to the full Pentagon Press Corps? Even while releasing a rational, well-written report the Pentagon still managed to throw gasoline on the fire, just as they've done in the past.

This whole thing is dumb. And I say this as a former UFO nut who keeps an open mind on the subject. Kona Blue would have gone much like the House Committee on Assassinations did back in the 1970s. They would have dug through decades of classified projects, talked to "witnesses" who offer no physical evidence (photo, video, or documents), and then come to the conclusion that they believe it is likely the US recovered alien spacecraft, but we can't prove it, nor produce those ships.
It's 2024, we've had Wikileaks, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Snowden, Reality Winner, some guy in the USAF National Guard, and other leak all kinds of classified sensitive US government documents AND videos. We've even had classified footage leaked on UAPs leaked to the public. So where the hell are the videos, photos, and documents that MUST EXIST regarding our captured alien spaceships, if they truly exist? Not even a suspected location has been mentioned. The idiots just assume Groom Lake in Nevada, but that's not where the USAF would put them had they actually recovered something.

And you can't keep this kind of thing secret since 1947.

Example, in 2011 we crashed one of two stealth Blackhawk helicopters during the raid on Osama bin Laden. The SEALs destroyed the downed bird, but we still saw the tail section. But in 13 years we have never seen a picture of this aircraft. The Pentagon and US Army have said nothing about it since 2011, and yet we know at least one surviving stealth Blackhawk is sitting in a hangar somewhere. There are only so many places this helicopter can be stored, if still operational. And just like our alleged recovered ET spacecraft, the UAP/UFO gang should be able name the location where the US is hiding and testing these craft. And yet they cannot. This is the problem. Anyone familiar with UH-60s, military helicopters, and USASOC units can lay out a short list of where stealth helos would be based, or stored. Why can't the UAP goober do this?

Believing in UFOs/UAPs is one thing. Believing the US Government is in possession of alien craft is another. The government documents everything. At the very least there should be paperwork, and since this goes back 77 years, there should be a library of documents sitting somewhere about the program or programs related to these captured ET machines.

Here's the CIA's UFO files:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/ufos-fact-or-fiction

There are many interesting things to read. Spoiler alert: The CIA reached the same conclusion the Pentagon did.

If you want to have fun learning how the branches of government fail to communicate on a functional level, read the GAO's report on the Roswell Crash, and then compare it to the USAF's report issued a few years later:

GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-95-187

USAF: Roswell Report - Case Closed: https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf

The GAO states that it was like pulling teeth to get access to files from 1947 (this was 1995), and they found key documents had been "lost". Still, they never found anything about aliens crashing in New Mexico. The USAF report just threw a handful of options about what may have crashed in New Mexico, citing documents they'd claimed had been lost when the GAO had requisitioned them.

I get it. 1947 New Mexico was crawling with advanced weapons and nuclear weapons projects. And the USAF and Pentagon keep their advanced aviation projects on a short leash. Right now they have a new UAV undergoing testing in Nevada, and thanks to a growing population around Las Vegas, and southern Nevada there will be an uptick in UFO sightings. But intrepid secret aircraft stalkers should be getting blurry photos of this thing eventually.

Why can't the UAP "insiders" leak those photos, if they actually exist?
 
Checkmite said:
That is indeed the report. And no, I am the one who's mentioning David Grusch, and Luis Elizondo and the lot, because that's who the report IS talking about even if it doesn't mention them by name. The contextual clues given - specifically referencing claims of "reverse-engineering" alien technology (which is the bulk of Grusch's claim), describing a consistent group of individuals that has been involved with UAP-related endeavors "since at least 2009" (which is when the AAWSAP/AATIP program Elizondo claimed to be the director of was initiated), and the mention of a "canceled DIA program" (again, AAWSAP) - make it pretty clear the report can't be talking about anyone else.
Click to expand...
The big problem with the loons claims of "reverse-engineering alien technology" is, that's it's obvious to anyone with any science or engineering background or knowledge that's it's utter bollocks.
 
catsmate said:
The big problem with the loons claims of "reverse-engineering alien technology" is, that's it's obvious to anyone with any science or engineering background or knowledge that's it's utter bollocks.
Click to expand...

Sure. Of course, it would presuppose that we have an actual alien artifact to reverse-engineer.
 
Orphia Nay said:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pentagon study released Friday that examined reported sightings of UFOs over nearly the last century found no evidence of aliens or extraterrestrial intelligence, a conclusion consistent with past U.S. government efforts to assess the accuracy of claims that have captivated public attention for decades.

“The study from the Defense Department’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office analyzed U.S. government investigations since 1945 of reported sightings of unidentified anomalous phenomena, more popularly known as UFOs. It found no evidence that any of them involved signs of alien life, or that the U.S. government and private companies had reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology and had conspired to hide it from the public.

“It dispelled claims, for instance, that a former CIA official had been involved in managing the movement of and experimentation on extraterrestrial technology and said a purported 1961 intelligence community document about the supposed extraterrestrial nature of UFOs was actually inauthentic.”

https://apnews.com/article/9a32aba88eb610cf16b2e9f0908704b3

And the likelihood of that settling the matter for ufo believers is about as likely as aliens existing. :oldroll:
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, and several Pentagon "studies" declared that all the alleged health problems from Agent Orange in Vietnam were due to other causes. Another Pentagon "study" claimed that no U.S. troops who served in the Gulf War were exposed to chemical weapons, that every single one of the chemical weapons detections was a false alarm, and that the sharp rise in health problems among veterans who said they were exposed to chemical weapons was attributable to other causes. You bet.

The argument that most of the UFO sightings were cases of "misidentification" is laughable when you read the accounts of those sightings or when you view the authenticated videos that support some of those sightings.

I've never bothered to write about the UFO issue, but I find the government's repeated denials and explanations vacuous and specious.

My wife saw a UFO in the mid-1990s, and she, living with me on many military bases, had seen just about every kind of U.S. military aircraft in existence, and she said the object looked nothing like any of them and moved in ways that no human-made aircraft could move.
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
Oh, yes, and several Pentagon "studies" declared that all the alleged health problems from Agent Orange in Vietnam were due to other causes. Another Pentagon "study" claimed that no U.S. troops who served in the Gulf War were exposed to chemical weapons, that every single one of the chemical weapons detections was a false alarm, and that the sharp rise in health problems among veterans who said they were exposed to chemical weapons was attributable to other causes. You bet.

The argument that most of the UFO sightings were cases of "misidentification" is laughable when you read the accounts of those sightings or when you view the authenticated videos that support some of those sightings.

I've never bothered to write about the UFO issue, but I find the government's repeated denials and explanations vacuous and specious.

My wife saw a UFO in the mid-1990s, and she, living with me on many military bases, had seen just about every kind of U.S. military aircraft in existence, and she said the object looked nothing like any of them and moved in ways that no human-made aircraft could move.
Click to expand...

Your wife saw something she could not identify? Fascinating. And of course if the Pentagon says there is no evidence of aliens cruising the skies that is proof positive that they are actually there. :rolleyes:
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Oh, yes, and several Pentagon "studies" declared that all the alleged health problems from Agent Orange in Vietnam were due to other causes. Another Pentagon "study" claimed that no U.S. troops who served in the Gulf War were exposed to chemical weapons, that every single one of the chemical weapons detections was a false alarm, and that the sharp rise in health problems among veterans who said they were exposed to chemical weapons was attributable to other causes. You bet.

The argument that most of the UFO sightings were cases of "misidentification" is laughable when you read the accounts of those sightings or when you view the authenticated videos that support some of those sightings.

I've never bothered to write about the UFO issue, but I find the government's repeated denials and explanations vacuous and specious.
Click to expand...

Which just goes to show that this whole circus in Congress is a complete waste of time even if you are a hardcore UFO believer. They'll cheer on populist congressmembers for demanding "investigations" into UFOs, but any report that doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear will be dismissed as "well of course, it's the government, obviously they're lying". So what is even the point?
 
mikegriffith1 said:
My wife saw a UFO in the mid-1990s, and she, living with me on many military bases, had seen just about every kind of U.S. military aircraft in existence, and she said the object looked nothing like any of them and moved in ways that no human-made aircraft could move.
Click to expand...
It turns out that humans are notoriously crap at identifying flying objects by sight. There is zero corroborating evidence to support the claim of aircraft that can violate conservation laws and the speed of light. No such aircraft have been shown to exist, whether terrestrial or extra.

On the other hand, there is plenty of corroborating evidence to support the claim that your wife either misunderstood, misremembered, or misrepresented her sighting - most likely some combination.

Flocks of birds exist. Mundane aircraft in unexpected or unfamiliar orientations exist. The human inability to accurately estimate size and distance without reliable reference points is well documented. Nobody has ever shown a teleporting mystery shape aircraft to exist. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that your wife saw one.
 
My favorite thing about descriptions & videos of flying objects is that the "pulling maneuvers that nothing we've ever built could pull" thing keeps getting put in the verbal descriptions but is never part of the video. :D
 
At this point I'm almost convinced its just a hackneyed cliche that every UFO sighter feels they have to include in their description, whether they actually saw anything like that or not. I'm sure it's to the point where some sighters actually believe they did see something like that, because it's such a cliche. And also because humans are so crap at actually understanding what they're seeing in typical sighting conditions.

---

Tangentially, I note that mikegriffith has deployed the classic "friend of a friend" trope. Mike says that someone else says they saw an exotic aircraft with seemingly impossible flight patterns. Mike didn't see it, so there's no use trying to challenge his account. And how dare you try to impeach the credibility of his wife, who is a wonderful person with impeccable credentials, and she's not even here to defend herself!

Sorry, mike. I'm not throwing shade at your wife. As far as I know, she doesn't even exist, except as a narrative device. She's not here. You are. To me, that makes it your UFO story. And your UFO story is crap. Second-hand narratives from alleged and unimpeachable narrators are never the play.
 
Whenever I see a claim in a UFO report of "impossible maneuvers" I want to know what assumptions the observer was making about the size and distance of the object they were observing (and they must be assumptions, because it's impossible to estimate either if you don't know either).

To use an example that was discussed on a previous thread: that aircraft-sized object you thought was doing impossible maneuvers over a lake a couple of miles away was almost certainly a firefly doing its mating flight a few feet away.
 
The one thing we do know about UAPs is that they cannot break the laws of physics. So if one appears to be doing so, we know that it's not what it appears to be.
 
Puppycow said:
To me, the key part of the sentence is: "the result of circular reporting from a group of individuals who believe this to be the case, despite the lack of any evidence".

So you have a group of believers, who lack "any evidence" telling stories to each other, and this has become something that justifies all sorts of activity from congress, investigations, and so on. Any chance this could be the final word? (Of course not, but it should be.)

I recently came across a video on YouTube from none other than National Geographic (I have no idea who owns that brand name these days. According to Wikipedia it no longer is what it once was.



ETA: I'm not endorsing the above. It's just another example of the ubiquity of UFOs in pop culture these days.
Click to expand...

Whether a person is someone who is a skeptic or otherwise, thoughts about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe is a fairly common human musing, perhaps since Galileo. These thoughts are probably the motivation for the establishment themselves for funding the analysing of reports, ever since Condon. There is a natural curiosity, and also as has been suggested, a political and security need for these reports to be investigated, however doubtful the evidence.
 
arthwollipot said:
The one thing we do know about UAPs is that they cannot break the laws of physics. So if one appears to be doing so, we know that it's not what it appears to be.
Click to expand...

The implicit assumption of such claims is that the actual laws of physics are different from the laws of physics as we understand them, and the the aliens use their better understanding/technology to do things that comport with the actual laws of physics but are impossible according to our (flawed) understanding.

Also, "impossible maneuvers" isn't necessarily "physically impossible" but "impossible given the type of mechanism modern aircraft use for flight", some other class of vehicle that achieves flight through some other mechanism.

Of course, there's no actual case of such impossible maneuvers either in the "laws of physics" or just the weaker "modern technology" sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom