DISCLOSURE DEFLATED

The weeks leading up to the release of the Pentagon’s UFO report saw more ink spilled on the topic than we remember in many a year. Suddenly, there was a feeding frenzy of interest in a subject the mainstream media – tabloids aside – don’t usually care for; broadsheet newspapers and ‘respectable’ periodicals carried lengthy pieces about why it was now OK to talk about UFOs, discovering in the process that these ambiguous objects had morphed into UAPs. Meanwhile, for old-school saucer-botherers everywhere, disclosure seemed imminent...

In the event, the report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“Preliminary Report: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”) looked like a brief footnote to the acres of verbiage preceding it: a mere nine pages of distinctly unsensational findings accompanied by sober and sensible suggestions for future investigation. It should, of course, be remembered that the report’s brief was to establish whether UAP, whatever they are, constitute a danger to aviation and a security threat, not to look for proof of alien visits to Earth.

To summarise, it noted that “limited data and inconsistency in reporting” pose a key challenge to evaluating UAP and concentrated on just 144 reports from 2004 to 2021 from US military/government sources – incidents “witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable.”

It suggested that most of the UAP reported “probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.” Most sightings clustered around US training and testing grounds, “but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.”

Eighteen incidents involved unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics – the kind of sudden changes in speed or execution of abrupt manoeuvres often reported in typical UFO sightings – and might possibly “demonstrate advanced technology”. The only UAP identified with “high confidence” was “a large, deflating balloon” – which may describe the feelings of committed disclosure-heads on reading the report. The remaining 143 sightings remain “inconclusive” and “unexplained”

– a glimmer of hope for saucer-seekers, perhaps, but attributed here to limited data and inconsistent reporting mechanisms – a situation the report wants to see rectified. Eleven incidents reported near misses, and therefore a danger to flight safety.

The report makes the obvious, but fortean point, that UAP probably lack a common source and single explanation (as we have been arguing for years), but also suggests that reports would fall into five distinct categories: “Airborne clutter”, “Natural Atmospheric Phenomena”, “United States Government or Industry Developmental Programs”, “Foreign Adversary Systems”, and “Other”.

As well as problems with data and reporting, the report flagged up another issue familiar to forteans – the reluctance of witnesses to come forward due to the threat of “reputational risk”, particularly in the case of pilots and military personnel: “Narratives from aviators… describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it or attempting to discuss it with colleagues.” This was another factor making scientific pursuit of the topic difficult, but it was hoped that serious engagement with the subject on the part of “the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities” might mitigate it in the future.

The view from Fortean Towers was mostly positive, with all agreed that the creation of a formal reporting procedure, the destigmatisation of the subject and the encouragement of military personnel to report incidents were good things. Peter Brookesmith was slightly dismayed by the reluctance of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force to engage with the work done by serious researchers from the UFO community and other nongovernmental sources, and Dave Clarke added that “what they turn up needs to be open to public scrutiny. The danger is that if everything is covered by cloying secrecy it will simply encourage more conspiracy theories and media hype.”

You can read the report for yourself at: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/ assessments/Prelimary-AssessmentUAP-20210625.pdf. Meanwhile, Nigel Clarke looks at reactions to the report (p30) and Jenny Randles grapples with the notion of “disclosure” (p31); next issue, Dave Clarke will be asking what comes next, and reveals a troubling incident that took place in British airspace in 1993.