In the next few months we should hopefully have an update to that page as the 2025 NDAA is passed. There are two UAP hearings in the works with the Senate and House that could help push for more of the UAPDA to pass this year. I'm not hopeful that everything will pass, but each bit that passes will make an impact.

I've been keeping an eye on the National Archives and trying to get a hold of someone there that confirm if any agency has complied with the record transfers outlined in the 2024 NDAA. Agencies just have a month left to comply, but so far nothing has been updated online besides what the archives already had in its possession. Even then, there seems to be documents that they haven't uploaded online or added to their UAP topics page. In the meantime I've been helping tag UAP related records. There are already a lot of interesting historical records online, so I can only imagine what different agencies have in their possessions.

I just got his book, "Imminent", and I'm curious what it will add to the discussion. It seems like the book and his recent appearances are aimed at reaching a broader audience than the typical UAP community. If the content is accessible and understandable to a general audience, then this could help build public interest in the topic.

This could also help stir additional whistleblowers or those with knowledge to speak out about these programs. Just yesterday in response to this book, Harald Malmgren stated on Twitter/X: ""Imminent" a book to be published tomorrow, Aug 20, by Luis Elizondo on what our government knows about UAP, or alien visitors to Earth. This book breaches a dam & I expect will likely be gradually followed by more awakening disclosures ahead"

And his follow up tweet: "60+ years ago I was provided highest level classifications to lead DOD work on nuclear weapons&anti-missile defense. Informally briefed on "otherworld technologies" by CIA's Richard Bissel (who had been in charge of Skunkworks, Area 51, Los Alamos, etc.) but sworn to secrecy."

These books, articles, and public statements can help put pressure on the government, particularly Congress, into seeking transparency on these programs. The UAP amendment is still in the works to be added to this year's NDAA, so public interest could be pivotal in getting the amendment passed in full or at least build off of last year's amendment.

Awesome photo. Though, I was thrown off by the picture. In the US we often refer to vultures as buzzards and we would likely refer to this as a hawk. I'm not sure how we messed that one up.

Where I grew up had a ton of Red-tailed Hawks and the occasional Swallow-tailed Kites. I always love seeing and hearing them around.

That is quite a bit to go through. I actually just started a dive into UAP documents at the National Archives, so I've already got a pile of reading ahead of me. However, I'll set aside some time later to glance over this.

I personally go into this subject open minded and try not to get too wrapped up in assumptions on what occurs. Incidents can vary drastically, though there are also common themes that come up in a lot of encounters. While I don't have many specific beliefs on the phenomenon, I do appreciate people sharing their experiences and thoughts on what's occurring.

I'm not familiar with Goodwood Revival and didn't find much else about this particular UFO display. I guess they wrote this with assumption of knowledge of the event and perhaps its unusual performances. While I could piece together that it was a themed part of the event, it definitely benefits from context and background.

It's not the first time I've seen articles on fake crashes like this. I remember seeing a school and some other groups/locations with "crashes" that made the rounds with articles written from the perspective of being real. The events themselves seem to embrace the idea well, but the reporting could use some work. The topic of UAP has grown in the news in recent years and is clearly having a lot of cultural impact.

Paywall free here: https://archive.ph/SEgu8

Paywall free link: https://archive.ph/SEgu8

It's a busy couple days for UAP articles, particularly surrounding the science and analysis. At the end of the day, the phenomenon is unknown by definition and will take science and research to understand. While some answers may be disappointing, others could lead to new insight into science and our understanding of the universe.

Thanks. I'm personally used to it, but it limits the growth of Lemmy when people down vote posts just because they don't care for them. People are less likely to engage in smaller communities when they're subject to down votes. It'd be best if people curated their feeds by filtering out the communities they don't want to see posts from.

That's a fairly spot on breakdown. The key thing is that the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's goal is "resolution", so they'll be focusing on cases they can resolve. Some of these cases are "resolved" if they can be partially replicated.

Take for example the Eglin UAP sighting, which AARO was able to replicate "some aspects" of with a commercial lighting balloon. "AARO conducted extensive testing using one of these balloons and found it could replicate some aspects of the pilot’s account." Because of that, the case is marked as "resolved" with "moderate" confidence.

They didn't confirm if any of these lighting balloons had been lost. And, while these balloons are powered by cable, AARO concluded that they could have been adapted to use a battery. Though, that would also limit their time powered and make it easier to pinpoint the source of a lost balloon. But, because some elements could be replicated by making adjustments to a physically similar object they were able to "resolve" the sighting.

Even with that approach to resolution, they still have unexplained anomalous events. And, it's completely understandable that there will be cases they can't explain or can't admit to publicly. However, their attempts to dismiss the truly anomalous events have been disingenuous.

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf

Yes, it's often used as clickbait, but I hope you don't take an adage as fact. Especially when your own source says the adage is wrong.

A 2016 study of a sample of academic journals (not news publications) that set out to test Betteridge's law and Hinchliffe's rule (see below) found that few titles were posed as questions and of those, few were yes/no questions and they were more often answered "yes" in the body of the article rather than "no".

A 2018 study of 2,585 articles in four academic journals in the field of ecology similarly found that very few titles were posed as questions at all, with 1.82 percent being wh-questions and 2.15 percent being yes/no questions. Of the yes/no questions, 44 percent were answered "yes", 34 percent "maybe", and only 22 percent were answered "no".

In 2015, a study of 26,000 articles from 13 news sites on the World Wide Web, conducted by a data scientist and published on his blog, found that the majority (54 percent) were yes/no questions, which divided into 20 percent "yes" answers, 17 percent "no" answers and 16 percent whose answers he could not determine.

There seems to be a common practice of pivoting the conversation to "extraterrestrial". Even with recent questioning of Department of Energy's Secretary Jennifer Granholm she brought up "alien" when trying to dismiss the questions on UAP.

There could be a few reasons behind this. First, there's still a stigma around the idea of extraterrestrials and it twists the conversation into sounding like nothing more than sci-fi.

Secondly, it takes investigation and proof to say with certainty that something is "extraterrestrial". Hypothetically, if the government recovered a craft with a stereotypical grey alien, they can honestly say that there is no evidence it's extraterrestrial. They can't honestly say that it isn't an NHI. It'd be clear at first sight that it's not human and is of advanced intelligence based on the craft operated. But, without investigation, they can't say what the origin is. That's not to say that there hasn't been recoveries and research that determined their origin, but spokespeople like Kirkpatrick can play the fool and not be overtly lying.

Thirdly, it is possible they know that the origin isn't extraterrestrial and is instead terrestrial, interdimensional, etc. Though, I don't recall any direct questioning of spokespeople around the other origins.

There's a reason that the UAP amendments have focused on the term "non-human intelligence"/"NHI". It's important to cast a broad net and avoid semantic games. When groups like AARO/DoD and the DoE are changing the conversation to avoid answering questions, it just goes to show the need for better oversight to understand why.

This covers something that I think about a lot with this topic, which is the vastness of Earth itself and how much goes unobserved. The majority of Earth’s skies and airspace are not being actively observed by human eyes. And, while there is radar, satellite, and other imaging, they may not have the resolution to observe all UAP. The equipment that is able to detect could potentially have filters for “noise” or objects that aren’t actively being sought out.

This was the case leading up to the UAP detected in February 2023. Radar previously had filters for objects not seen as a threat. Certain sizes, speeds, and altitudes could be ruled out from known threats such as planes, so they weren’t being monitored. Adjusting the filters lead to the objects detected and engaged over North America.

The difficulty in monitoring for UAP becomes exponentially harder as you expand to the surrounding solar system, galaxy, and universe. That’s not to say it’s not feasible to do so, just that it can be easy for an object to go undetected. You have to look with the right tools and criteria or luck out to find something.

This may get buried a bit at the moment, though this will be slow news to build. Following last year’s stripped down UAP amendment passed in the NDAA, Senators Rounds and Schumer have continued their efforts to pass a comprehensive law to gather, review, and release UAP records and materials to the public.

Keep in mind, the negotiations on the last NDAA went late into the year and the act didn’t pass until mid December. The UAP amendment in that act primarily focused on telling government groups to provide the National Archives with all documents related to UAP. Those will be due for release this October. However, with the stripped down amendment, there is a lack of oversight to ensure these groups follow through with the mandate.

The timing of the release of documents could at least help sway this year’s NDAA. If either significant documentation is released or there is a clear pushback, then it should warrant passing the amendment in full.

Ryan Graves gives a good breakdown on the current state of both the UAP Disclosure Act and Safe Airspace for Americans Act. While progress is being made, it's still an uphill battle getting some of the key components of the bills passed.

You can always lend your support as suggested by Ryan, noted below. Plenty of people do hear back from their reps on the matter and reaching out does help keep the topic active with them.

"To support these bills:

1. Contact your representatives. UAPCaucus.com provides an easy-to-use guide and contact list.
2. For the UAP Disclosure Act's inclusion in the 2025 NDAA, consider signing the petition created by Lue Elizondo's UAP Disclosure Fund.

Regardless of your beliefs about UAP's nature, these bills promote transparency and safety - principles that benefit everyone. The sheer volume of credible reports and high-level interest suggests there's substance here worth investigating. Supporting these bills will help bring us closer to understanding what's truly happening in our skies."

Yeah, the tilt before taking off seems to be a common theme. Searching NUFORC and MUFON turns up quite a few reports of UAP with that behavior.

Are you suggesting that the sighting was a drone, even though it was described as several hundred feet long? And the article doesn't suggest anyone is conspiring about UFOs. It's just a report of a sighting.

I imagine it's an autocorrect from missing a space in "boy scout trick". The user was responding to a lot of comments, so I think an error or two is fair.

NUFORC Report

Additional reporting from Denver Gazette.

Reddit user Lemonator8976 claims to be the witness that reported the sighting and provided some additional details.

The follow up article explains it, but basically we were working. We were loading semis full of expensive concert equipment and then one guy noticed it and pointed it out. We all looked at it and then one guy shined his flashlight on it. Then the thing tipped, moved slowly to the east and disappeared. By the time we realized what was really happening it was gone. 30 seconds max.

A big misconception is that this thing was way up in the sky. It wasn’t. It was hovering over the hill not very high off the ground. It was just off the horizon, not way up above our heads. An old boycott trick is to hold your hand up to the horizon to see how many hand lengths you have left before the sun sets. This thing was just two fingers above the horizon.

Couldn’t see any other features. It was too far away and it was matte black. Like the blackest black you’ve ever seen. The black blended in with the night sky so well, we probably wouldn’t have seen it if it didn’t have its lights on.

The lights were around the edge rim of the disc. They were evenly spaced apart and you could see them curve around the to backside of the disc.

I was not wearing my glasses and I have an astigmatism, so I could not make out the windows. All I could see was the disc and the lights going around it. It was my a couple of my coworkers who said they could see the windows. They said it was like a grid that was 3 squares high several dozen squares long all the way around the craft. The thing was a couple blocks long, hence why I described it as a “3 story office building in the sky”. It really was that big.

That’s a good possibility. It didn’t quite sound like a hawk, but I’m not too familiar with falcons.

I’ve had some bird of prey around my apartment in Brooklyn that keeps eluding me. I’ll hear it from time to time, but never quite know where it is.

I caught a glimpse of it once out of the corner of my eye. I saw a blur as something swooped down to snag a pigeon off my window sill. It was courteous enough to return half of the bird to my fire escape. That was fun to dispose of.

I saw my share of hawks growing up in Florida, but it’s still cool seeing and hearing them around the city.

Not too surprising. There seems to be a global effort now to at least monitor for UAP. Back in March AARO announced their compact UAP detection system, Gremlin, with suggestions of offering to other countries. While some UAP objects are later identified as prosaic, the focus of this system and these discussions are clearly focused on the truly anomalous events.

It's also important to note that there has already been collaborative effort between the US and Canada since at least the sightings over North America back in February 2023. Outside of the separate incident with the spy balloon, the objects in February remain considered UAP.

The UAP discussion does seem to be gaining some steam, even if AARO is dismissing the subject along the way. Hopefully we start seeing more governments publicly embracing the topic.

“I also propose that we put a warning on all horseradish that clearly states that if you ingest an entire bottle, that you will blow out your sphincter. Also, if anyone knows anyone that recently died with an intact size 3 sphincter, please contact me as I am currently very low on the waiting list for a donor.”

• Stan Smith

Ryan Graves has started back up his Substack account, starting with his "Reflections" and more recently highlights of his visit to the McMenamins UFO Festvial. For those unfamiliar, Graves testified alongside David Grusch and David Fravor in the 2023 congressional hearing on UAP. He also established Americans for Safe Aerospace to provide a resource for pilots to report sightings and has worked to break the stigma of discussing UAP.

As for the McMenamins UFO Festival, it sounds like quite the experience. I'm always interested in the psychological and sociological aspects of the phenomenon, so I really hope to be able to attend a UFO festival one day. I would love to hear people's experiences, beliefs, and what draws them to engage the topic.

It’s the same. I know it as Dog Vomit Slime, but there seem to be a ton of regional names for it. Scrambled Egg Slime is one of the more inviting names, but I’ll always prefer my dog vomit.

Lemmy definitely has some weird algorithms. These posts do hit All, but I'm not sure what dictates how they're listed in Hot or Active. I've had posts receiving downvotes within minutes of posting, so there seem to be a lot of people catching new posts.

Personally, I don't care about the voting of my posts. Though I hate the idea of posts getting buried just because people don't like the topic or source.

I would like to see the topic brought up with candidates, though the questions would need to be presented in a way to limit ridicule. I think the best route would be framing the questions around security and lack of transparency in the government. The historical and recent UAP sightings near nuclear facilities and military locations would be a good focus to show that there is a long standing security concern that isn't getting properly addressed.

The downvotes are always strange to me. I see my share of posts get downvoted for no clear reason. Fox does make some people instinctively downvote, so maybe that's part of the reason.

I wish people would at least engage the comments to voice their opinions. And, if the UAP topic isn't something certain people want to see in their feeds then they should block the community instead of downvoting the posts. Lemmy is still small and when people downvote posts without discussing why then they're just going to stifle Lemmy's growth.

Looks like slime mold to me, particularly Fuligo Septica.

To start, the post is about a large range of proposed origin of UAP. Why did you latch onto extraterrestrial when it encompasses a small fraction of suggestions of what non-human intelligence could be?

You then make the assumption that they are from another planet that would require FTL travel and that they are concerned about being seen.

Did you look at this post and have you listened to Karl Nell's discussions? It seems that you came in here to make an argument without understanding what you were arguing against.

I'm not stating that Nell is right in his claims, but please at least address the claims he's made.

Since the Schumer amendment didn't pass in full, there could be some deviation to the timeline. However, some essential elements of the amendment will get the ball rolling.

By October of this year, all UAP related government documents should be provided to the National Archives. That means we should be seeing non-classified documents and redacted classified documents being made public this year. Though, one of the items stripped from the amendment was the committee needed to review the classified documents and ensure all documents are provided to the archives. However, there is potential for that to be added in any of the upcoming National Defense Authorization Acts.

This is a great breakdown of potential origins. It's important to note that the phenomenon is broad and will encompasses multiple origins on this chart.

For anyone that wants more info on Colonel Karl Nell's statements, there is the SOL foundation presentation this slide came from and Nell's discussion at SALT where he stated “There’s zero doubt” that non-human intelligence has been interacting with humanity.

This will be a hearing focused on AARO and separate from plans by members of the House to hold their own follow up hearing.

I’m not a fan of Gillibrand’s focus on the resolved cases and not the incidents that AARO has no explanation for. AARO’s goal is obviously to resolve incidents, but it’s the truly anomalous events that are crucial to understand. So far, it seems that they’re handpicking easy to resolve incidents and sweeping the difficult to explain cases under the rug.

This article highlights a history of UAP sightings at Pantex Nuclear facility ranging from the 1950s to as recently as 2015. These events help highlight the long history of UAP sightings around nuclear facilities.

“From the late 1950's to the mid 1960's UFO's were seen over Pantex Ordnance Plant near Amarillo TX. I lived three miles away to the east at the time. During this period there were about 100 sightings, but those of us that remember [sic] don't talk about it much.

The Airbase was still open and they would scramble Fighters to intercept. But it was always the same. When the jets closed to 2 miles the object would go up at high speed. The jets would circle a while [sic] then land. Then sometimes it would come back down to its spot.

This was repeated on many nights. Always the same type of object, that changed colors.”

It's good to hear that they're still working towards hearings and intend on bringing in new witnesses. The election is bound to shape the discussion this year, so I'm hoping that they can get a hearing established soon before it gets overshadowed.

I do wish Tim could back the full UAP amendment put forth by Schumer and recently Garcia. He gets fairly defeatist on whether any of these laws will have any impact, which is understandable. But, he puts too much faith in his own amendment which is too short to cover any of the technicalities needed to ensure Congress can actually obtain and review needed records.

And, there does seem to be a lot of momentum behind the scenes by various groups in Congress to continue passing legislation and keeping the topic in public spotlight. There may be some headbutting along the way, but the overall goal seems to be full disclosure. We're already on the way, since the National Archive should have UAP documents handed over by October. What power Congress has to review it and ensure that they did in fact receive all relevant records may be dependent on upcoming legislation. Regardless, there should be some more UAP info come to light by years end.

It definitely would depend on what disclosure entails. I believe just disclosing the existence of and government engagement with a non-human intelligence could be easy to embrace or shrug off for most. However, introducing details of their culture or beliefs would redefine a lot of people's ideologies. Collectively, humans never fare well with introducing new culture into their lives. And, if there comes a day that we publicly engage a non-human intelligence then we'll be facing a range of new social and psychological conflicts.

Regarding religious acceptance, I've always felt that the idea of extraterrestrial or non-human intelligence would mesh well with the major religions. I think a lot off devout people would morph the idea of non-human intelligence to match that of angels or messengers. You can already get hints of that from some of the Republicans pushing for disclosure. Whether or not they're right in their interpretation, the overall concept of NHI would be accepted by a lot of people.

The biggest part of a controlled disclosure is preventing political conflicts and keeping the economy stable. If there has been decades of UAP/NHI recovery and research, then it could create tension within and amongst countries. We're always seeing tension grow between Congress and the DoD over the issue and public disclosure would just fuel distrust.

Any reveal of research and the companies involved could make for major fluctuations in the stock market. On top of that, I'd imagine there would be an onslaught of lawsuits with those companies to make research and patents public.

I wouldn't expect a basic disclosure to be catastrophic to the public, but it would be to the government and contractors. The hold up at this point is likely those involved trying to cover their asses to limit the consequences for themselves.

The core idea is that there are legacy programs that have acquired and are covertly researching non-human technology and biologics. These are a combination of compartmentalized government groups from the DoD, DoE, CIA, etc. and private contract companies. The programs are sealed away by over classification that prevents oversight. Even if you have clearance to know about the programs you'd need to know where to find them and who to seek for the information. And, just because these groups fall under a larger group like the DoD doesn't mean the chain of command above them is in the know. They know that there are programs, they know just enough details about them, and that they're needed. Outside of that, there is deliberate ignorance to limit any direct liability and to obfuscate effort to look into them.

While some individuals in Congress would have had briefings on incidents and certain programs in the past, they were still in the dark of the programs as a whole. David Grusch and other individuals provided testimony to help connect the dots needed for them to pursue disclosure. What Congress currently knows is pure speculation to the public, but there had to have been some damning details emerge that it has become a bipartisan effort in both the House and Senate to seek disclosure.

Naturally, there has been opposition so far from the DoD and members of Congress whose primary donors are companies with military contracts. Thanks to some legislation that has passed and more that is in the works, it seems that a form of disclosure is on the horizon. What the disclosure will entail and whether it will truly reveal any form of non-human intelligence is yet to be seen. But, over the next few years there will be details on legacy programs come to light. Some details will remain classified, but there should at least be enough come forward for the public to have a gist of what's been going on and if there is indeed non-human intelligence involved.

Interesting note that "non-human" appears 25 times in the 47 page amendment. That wording, grouped with "unknown origin", is clearly casting a broad net to try to encompass anything that can't directly be tied to human origin. Whatever the believed origin of some UAP are, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are putting a lot of effort into uncovering potential non-human technology.

Tim Gallaudet's paper: "Beneath the Surface: We May Learn More about UAP by Looking in the Ocean"

I always hope that videos provide enough in the scenes to estimate depth and distance. One of the tricky things with capturing objects in the sky is that there will always be a sacrifice in what you capture. If you zoom in to just the sky, then you lose trees and objects on the ground to establish some sense of distance and visual anchors to match the movement of the objects to. If you're zoomed out then you lose clarity of the object itself.

I do find the consistent rotation of the main object interesting. I've seen quite a few videos posted of objects that show tumbling movement, though it's usually hard to make out exactly what they are.

Public sightings are a hard numbers game to win. It really just comes down to chance that someone with a good enough camera spots something and captures enough details. There's a lot of open sky, time in the day, and not a ton of people actively watching the sky. But, enough videos like this can help categorize sightings to better determine what is anomalous.