Let's See the Data

Maybe the actual data from the US Military (well, the Navy, anyway) sightings make it clear that these things are doing what they say and that they can't identify them. On the other hand, data can be misleading or false or just plain bad. And the military is under no obligation to tell the "truth," only to create a report.

We've already seen videos of things they label "unidentified," and for the most part they're nothing special and actually can be identified by smart people willing to do the work. People are always posting things on the Internet they say they couldn't identify only to have it debunked in nothing flat. So whether or not they're identified has a lot less to do with the thing itself than it does with the background and experience of the people looking at it.

The report is like a Rorschach Test. People see in it what they are predisposed to see. Maybe the actual data, providing it's accurate and useful, will help sort it out. But I doubt it.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

The report is like a Rorschach Test. People see in it what they are predisposed to see.

Perhaps that's the whole point of the report.

Here's a snippet of the original mandatory release request (sourced by Dashen).

A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence..

And below is a list of missing US Naval UFO Information (including Secretary Kimball's ONI UFO project in 1952) that should of been released to the Senate Committee.

The sister Services, Army, USAF and CIA, DIA and NSA have released UFO files as have the British, Danes, French, Brazilians, Australians and even Uruguayans. Now the Russians.
It seems the US Navy’s turn. What specifically? For starters:



1. WWII study of ususual radar returns.


2. 4th AF documents concerning with air intrusion of Hanford, Navy radar and aircraft assets tasked to intercept same


3. About 50 AAF and Navy documents formerly TS and below refer to an equal number of other documents on the Scandinavian Ghost Rockets


4. A small amount of Navy documents in the USAF Project Blue Book files refer to other Navy documents not seen


5. AIR 203 was a Joint TS USAF/Navy study of UFOs. Yet Navy claims no records


6. BurAero analysis of AF document released not by Navy but DOD.


7. In 1951 Dr. Urner Liddel ONR claims after studying 2000 cases that UFOs are Skyhook balloons (USAF does even have 2000 cases in 1951. What does ONR have?


8. Korean War radar cases in OP322V, OP322V2 and COMNAVFE. (Some incomplete reports this era in Project BB)


9. Navy Sec Dan Kimball set UFO project in ONI in 1952


10. CIA document enumerating intel asset dedicated to UFOs refers to analyst in ONI


11. The old Hydrographic office was a published source of reports for the US Navy, merchant shipping and aircraft over waters. These were not investigated?


12. Large resevoir of “war stories” by old Navy salts, esp., aircrews and radar operators and other CIC personnel.



Further, Project Blue Book record indicate numerous contacts thru Air Attaches with foreign govt on UFOs. Naval Attaches have not such contacts even with Navies that UFO significant UFO incidents or Navy UFO project, Argentina, other incidents Chile, Brazil?
In reviews for the Clinton Executive Order declassifying records over 25 years old, Army and AF comes up with hundreds of UFO documents even though these were not specifically required for index. The Navy nada.
“We do not investigate UFOs.”
“We do not keep records filed for such a topic as UFOs.”
“If we had any records on UFOs, they were destroyed.”
“If we had any records on UFOs, we transferred them to the USAF.”
The dog eat my home work. Lost at sea!

Thread

Perhaps it might be a good idea to go through all aspects of the release request and list what other missing UFO information should have been released to the members of the Senate UFO Committee (AKA Condon 2.0).

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Maybe the actual data, providing it's accurate and useful, will help sort it out. But I doubt it.

I don’t think your going to get the kind of data your expecting.

This whole UFO thing has gone viral to the masses. The level of verbiage in the report, I suspect....will be in wording that will be understood by the most basic human that can read and write and have an interest.

If the expectation is a report where the data is technically daunting for the common folk to understand....it will only lead to misunderstandings.

Even the younger generation will want to understand what’s in the report...seeing how the popularity of UFO has now gotten and getting.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Regardless of what actual information is released in this upcoming report, I expect it to not change anyone's mind. Whatever side of the fence you're on now, you will most likely remain on that side after this report.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Filiing false official reports is punishable under the UCMJ.

The military is obligated to tell the truth. It's the politicians and beaurocrats that put out the lies.

That's not to say they can't wordsmith with the best of them. I did 20 yrs, and I'm exceptional at spinning BS.

But generally the military is all about the facts, think the reports of the Tuskegee experiments, nuclear testing. Testing L S D on troops...

They just classify everything and let the politicians worry about when it can be released.

originally posted by: watchitburn

The military is obligated to tell the truth.

Am sure you're right about politicians but there's a good example below of NORAD not telling the truth when it comes collecting CIRVIS Military pilot UFO reports.

The part where researcher John Greenewald Junior presents them with their own documents can be found at 0:15:00.

a reply to: Blue Shift

But, who decides what, and whether, the data, any of the data, is "accurate and (/or) useful"?

Many people are already pre-disposed to disbelieving anything "government" or "the MSM" release as fact.

Many more will on.y accept as "fact" those data points forwarded by their own favorite "UFO-ologist", claiming all others to be charlatans and/or shills for "TPTB".


And far, far too many are much to willing to cloud their critical thinking by biases garnered through excessive exposure to amusements such as movies, television, and (video) games.

(Although, if I were to indulge, myself, in the crutch of pop culture, I might suggest that a reasonable intellect read "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke, as a potential psychological prophylactic)


Maybe a more productive path forward might lie in a consideration of the implications posed by the data presented, rather that solely by the arguable data itself?

I suspect from what I've seen leaked it will be "it's something, maybe Russian or Chinese but not alien. Have a nice day." In the end half the nuts will screetch "proof" and the other half will say "debunked."

I trust my own two eyes.
I don't need government disclosure.
They are a real thing.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Blue Shift

Filiing false official reports is punishable under the UCMJ.
The military is obligated to tell the truth.

Who but the military is qualified to ascertain whether or not they're telling the truth?

originally posted by: Homefree
I trust my own two eyes.
I don't need government disclosure.
They are a real thing.

You're in an envious position. However, I've been to magic shows, and I know that I can only somewhat trust my own two eyes, and I have very little confidence in my own interpretation of what those eyes are looking at.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: Blue Shift

Regardless of what actual information is released in this upcoming report, I expect it to not change anyone's mind. Whatever side of the fence you're on now, you will most likely remain on that side after this report.

I expect that to be true of anyone who has seriously researched the subject but the general population - a 10 second read of the large print in a tabloid determines a lot of mind sets.