It is a real pleasure to present to you the document fruit of the work of a panel of scientists convened by NASA to deal with the UAP subject.
We recommend the careful reading of the whole document which is at
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/uap_independent_study_team_-_final_report_0.pdf
After you have done so, we invite you to read:
MY EVALUATION
1) On June 9, 2021, NASA convened a group of scientists, chaired by Dr. David Spergel , to essentially consider what contribution NASA could make as such, to help elucidate the mystery posed by the existence of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). It is not surprising that in these turbulent times, and although it may seem incredible, several members of the scientific panel complained of harassment, of having been mistreated, possibly through telephone calls or email messages, which is deplorable.
Here we express our solidarity with all the scientists on the panel, and our gratitude for the work carried out.
2) NASA has many resources, especially at the detection level, plus its years of experience, its space explorations, its satellites, etc. from all of which valuable data can be extracted that contribute to clarifying the nature of UAP:
3) Obviously, being a panel of scientists, its approach to the topic is strict, precise, and in this sense, it repeatedly points out the weaknesses that exist until now to obtain totally reliable and trustworthy information regarding the nature of UAP. The panel of scientists indicates that the way of collecting UAP information until now has been ineffective and insufficient, since there is a very important lack of data that would be basic to be able to make an adequate evaluation and have a clear image of what UAP are.
In this sense, the document is reiterative in several aspects, namely: maintaining an orderly and careful file of the registered UAP complaints. For a case to be valid, it must be accompanied by precise detections from specifically designed and correctly calibrated sensors. These sensors must also provide metadata * in order to enable calculations of distances, speeds, etc.
[* Metadata : sensor type, manufacturer, acquisition time, instrument sensitivity, information on data storage capacity, sensor location, sensor conditions such as temperature, exposure characteristics, etc.]
There are currently no archives with such quality of content, which is why, even though case reports accumulate, and some of them are interesting, little or nothing can be advanced due to lacking the information to which we refer. previously.
This leads us to reflect on the value of official research efforts developed by the United States Air Force under different projects, and especially the Blue Book . According to this scientific panel, the data collected – from a scientific point of view – only has anecdotal value and little more than that.
4) It is not that the field research previously carried out, and the analysis of photographs that illustrate a sighting, are of no use, as background information, and as elucidation of a reality in the face of the assumption and/or belief of witnesses regarding what they have seen. seen.
Thus, for 50 years, the CIOVI of Uruguay was able to satisfy all the registered “UFO” complaints.
Aero -Space Identification Center of the Argentine Air Force continues to consider “UFO” reports it receives, and explains each case.
Likewise, in Mexico, colleague Salim Sigales Montes, at the head of the Cyber-Aerospace Identification System, does a commendable job of identifying original “UFO” reports.
Thus the analysis of Engineer Luis Ruiz Noguez , in Mexico, who has defenestrated in his meticulous work “Extraterrestrials in front of the Cameras” a quantity of graphic pseudo testimonies of events that never happened as they were narrated.
Thus, Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, from Valencia, Spain, who runs his UFO-FOTOCAT-Blog where he periodically lets us know the analysis of photographs or videos supposedly of something strange, which, however, is perfectly explainable.
All these efforts are clearly valid, since they clear the panorama of UAP events, of those that do not go beyond the imagination of the witnesses.
But obviously, if we encounter a UAP event, where there are very precise records thanks to metadata , and it is possible to compose what has happened by taking a photo, a video or a recording of a radar screen, we find ourselves with invaluable material that deserves a detailed study and can potentially shed light on the nature and functioning of UAP:
5) Something that caught my attention, and is mentioned twice in the document prepared by the panel of scientists, is that UAPs are sensors, or contain sensors. The document specifically states: “Without a doubt, several apparent UAPs have been shown to be sensing artifacts.”
Now, if these are sensor artifacts, we are then talking about a technology created and used by humans, and what remains to be known is who is responsible for the development of that technology, and how the detected data are subsequently used.
6) According to geographical references of UAP events in the document, there are certain places on Earth where UAPs are recurring. The panel mentions the Middle East and South Asia.
It is worth remembering that in the last hearing of the US Senate Subcommittee on the Armed Forces, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick presented a report from the AARO, which identified 4 preferred locations for UAPs, an area of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, an area of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida, an area in the Middle East and another in South Asia.
These geographical areas indicate US military activity, either through exercises of its troops, or through missions carried out abroad.
All of Latin America does not constitute a geographical area of interest for the UAP, or in other words, it is not an area where the presence of UAP is notoriously recurrent.
7) The document prepared by the panel of scientists expresses, among other valuable concepts:
“The study of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) presents a unique scientific opportunity that demands a rigorous evidence-based approach.”
“In the search for life beyond Earth, extraterrestrial life itself must be the hypothesis of last resort – the answer we turn to after we have ruled out all other possibilities. As Sherlock Holmes said: <Once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.>
“Today, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is no conclusive evidence suggesting an extraterrestrial origin for UAPs.”
“In science, data must be reproducible, and hypotheses must be falsifiable – the scientific method works systematically by analyzing data with the attempt to demonstrate the falsity of a hypothesis.”
“At this point there is no reason to conclude that existing UAP allegations have an extraterrestrial source.”
Having said all this with crystal clarity, it is still surprising that a couple of last paragraphs of the entire document inconsiderately open a door to the extraterrestrial without any factual basis for it.
It gives the impression that someone who did not belong to the panel of scientists and did not process all the assessments and recommendations made, had the opportunity to place those couple of sentences there.
Personally, I would not be surprised if it had been NASA Administrator Billy Nelson, given public statements made in June 2021, when in an interview with CNN he said: “Are we alone? “Personally I don’t think we are.”
And he also expressed: “Remember, the universe is very long.”
[ statements published in “ The Hill” on June 28, 2021 under the title: “NASA Administrator on a UFO report: “I don't think we are alone”]
On the other hand, Nelson himself, when publicly presenting the document prepared by the panel, on the one hand stated: " NASA's independent study team did not find any evidence that UAPs have an extraterrestrial origin." And he added: “But, we don't know what these UAPs are.”
8) Finally, two positive aspects:
--the panel's recommendation that NASA operate in concert with AARO, which is the national authority on UAP research, which must be the case.
--NASA's appointment of Meteorologist Mark McInerney as Director of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Research. McInerney will oversee a demanding database for future evaluations. Prior to this appointment he was the liaison between NASA and the Department of Defense.
Milton W. Hourcade
Iowa City – September 20, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment