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 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.
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.
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.