UAP Investigation: A Congressional Hearing

The latest news (April 19/2023) in the world of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) is like something out of a science fiction novel. Dr. Kirkpatrick, heading up a specialized office within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Security, participated in an in-depth Congressional hearing. The spotlight focused on the office's high-tech methods for tracking and reporting UAP incidents, with the progress of their implementation coming under scrutiny. The slow rollout has raised eyebrows in Congress, and members are pushing for faster action.

On the other side of the debate, the public has voiced concerns about the office's seemingly hands-off approach to recent UAP incidents. Dr. Kirkpatrick, however, assured listeners that they're actively involved, albeit behind the scenes. While we're still in the early stages of understanding UAPs, these hearings indicate that the government is taking the issue seriously.



Inadequate Response to UAPs Due to Prejudices and Stigma

As former Deputy Secretary of Defense, David Norquist, observed, had any of these objects, had the label made in China, There would be an uproar in the government and media. There would be no stone unturned and no effort spared to find out what we were dealing with. We can look at the recent incursion of the unidentified PRC high tube balloon for as an example. But because of the UFO stigma, the response has been irresponsibly, anemic, and slow.

Understanding the nature of UAPs and the need for interagency cooperation

UAP challenge is more an operational and scientific issue than it is an intelligence issue. As such, we are working with industry, academia, and the scientific community, which bring their own resources, ideas, and expertise to this challenging problem set. Robust collaboration and peer review across a broad range of partners will promote greater objectivity and transparency in the study of UAP.

The challenge and importance of data in resolving UAP cases

While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases. Without sufficient data, we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific standards we set for resolution. And I will not close a case that I cannot defend the conclusions of.

The commitment to scientific rigor and objectivity in investigating UAP cases

In doing so, AARO is approaching these cases with the highest level of objectivity and analytic rigor. This includes physically testing and employing modeling and simulation to validate. Our analyses and underlying theories. Then peer reviewing those results within the US government industry partners and appropriately cleared academic institutions before reaching any conclusions.

The current lack of credible evidence for extraterrestrial activity or objects defying known laws of physics

I should also state clearly for the record that in our research, AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity off world technology or objects that defy the known laws of physics

The process and challenges of analysis

The trend analysis of all the cases in AARO Holdings, right to date. What you'll see on the left is a histogram of all of our reported sightings as a function of altitude. So most of our sightings occur in the 15 to 25,000 foot range, and that is ultimately because that's where a lot of our aircraft are. On the far right upper corner, you'll see a breakout of the morphologies of all of the UAP that are reported. Over half, about 52% of what's been reported to us are round orb spheres.

The process of gathering more data about anomalous aerial events

So, How are we gonna get more data? We are working with the joint staff to issue guidance to all the services and commands that will then establish what are the reporting requirements, the timeliness, and all of the data that is required to be delivered to us and retained from all of the associated sensors. That historically hasn't been the case, and it's been happenstance that data has been collected.

Analyzing anomalous events and interpreting sensor data

This particular event South Asia MQ9,looking at another MQ9, and what's highlighted there in that red circle is an object that flies through the screen... That's actually not a real trail, that is a sensor artifact. Um, uh, each one of those little blobs is actually a representation of the object as it's moving through...We pulled these apart frame by frame, we were able to demonstrate that that is essentially a readout, uh, overlap of the image. It's a, it's a shadow image, right? It's not real. Further, if you later follow this all the way to end, it starts to resolve itself into that blob that's in that picture in the top of the right. And if you squint, it looks like an aircraft because it actually turns out to be an aircraft.

Analytic process for unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs)

We have a essentially a five step process, right? So we have, we get our cases in with all the data... My team does a preliminary scrub of all of those cases as they come in just to sort out, do we have any information that says this is. In one of those likely categories, it's likely a balloon, it's likely a balloon, you know, a bird, it's likely some other object, or we don't know. Then we prioritize those based off of where they are...I have an intelligence community team made up of intelligence analysts and I have an s and t team made up of scientists and engineers and the people that actually build a lot of these sensors or physicists...And then that will go out as the, the case determination...

Department Integration and Response to UAP Incidents

When the objects were first detected, I got called by joint staff leadership to come in late one night to review events as they were unfolding, and to give them a you know, an assessment based on what we knew at that time.

a reply to: andre18
I've watched a part of that hearing, and it all leads to what we all fear to be the outcome to put this once and forever into a blackhole,

It's not in into national security to tell the public what our adversaries can expect what we retrieved or studied from UAP's

So we continue with national security "now" legally budgets " because we can because we acknowledge the "threat "

I'm afraid that could be the outcome we not want to hear?

a reply to: 0bserver1

Well that explains it, if you had watched it in it's entirely you would have heard them refer to their ongoing work

with industry, academia, and the scientific community, which bring their own resources, ideas, and expertise to this challenging problem set. Robust collaboration and peer review across a broad range of partners will promote greater objectivity and transparency in the study of UAP.

No one in the hearing communicated post retrieval and study of actual captured UAP objects, that remains to be seen what becomes of that if and when that surfaces.

You give off the impression that because this is not exactly what you wanted to hear, that it's then not good enough. You may want to exercise a higher tolerance of patience when considering the implications of such proceedings. Expecting outcomes to match our preconceived notions are a poor grasp on reality when determining the validity when we are ourselves aren't directly involved in or privy to in-depth internal knowledge.