America’s rigorous report the right way to approach ‘UFOs’

The Pentagon on Friday released its eagerly awaited report on “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAP), but with rather bland and unspectacular conclusions. It left UFO enthusiasts unhappy, if not fuming. Still, the report was a very interesting development. First, why did the US Department of

Defense need to release a report that relates, at least in most people’s minds, to UFOs? In the last few years, images, videos and testimonies from US Air Force pilots have emerged, showing intriguing visual “phenomena,” sometimes with strange motion. Furthermore, it turned out that the Pentagon had conducted a $22 million study of UFO events between 2007 and 2012, following earlier investigations, all justified by the possibility that foreign powers may have developed threatening flying technologies. Thus, Congress ordered a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Secondly, I must stress that the report does not even mention UFOs, but rather investigates UAP, which relate to the Air Force and intelligence matters.

The short report (six pages, plus two halfpage appendices and a cover page) is rigorous and cautious. It acknowledges that some UAP images and videos may be due to glitches in the system. It also insists that cases of this kind — and many others that may come to light — will probably have a variety of explanations.

Indeed, the report proposed five categories of potential explanations for these UAP: “Airborne clutter” (drones, balloons, even birds); natural atmospheric phenomena (ice crystals and such); US government (possibly classified) or aerospace industry developmental programs; foreign adversary systems; and a general “other” category.

But the report also concludes that “most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects,” as 80 of the 144 cases that it documented were detected in multiple ways, including via “radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.”

However, the report hastens to stress that the data may be biased by the way that such UAP cases are observed and documented (by people, places and instruments) and that those “interesting” cases will be subjected to further analysis. In other words, UAP may or may not be just US Air Force events.

So what makes this short and rather inconclusive report “a very interesting development,” as I stated at the outset? It was a pleasant surprise to note the clarity and rigor of the report. We scientists have been saying for ages: Do collect data and evidence on these events and phenomena; do analyze everything with an open mind; ignore conspiracy ideas; exhaustively look for earthly explanations; and do not jump to extraterrestrial conclusions. It is extremely pleasing to see this approach reflected in the report.

This latest episode will not end the saga of UFO debates; far from it. Those who are firm in their views on the topic will not be swayed either way. But perhaps those who have not made up their minds will find this report useful as to how the topic should be approached. If we learn to examine problems properly, our future will be rosier.