Monday, June 28, 2021

What The Pentagon Prelim UFO Report Isn't Saying: 'The Aliens Are Here, We Just Don't Want To Admit It."

 




"I think in all likelihood this report will come and go, and with it the mainstream chatter around U.F.O.s, until definitive proof is exposed. A planet that can’t come together on climate change or a global pandemic might not pay much attention even if wreckage or an alien corpse is discovered. The culture wars alone might eclipse it, so rabidly are we in their grips." - Chris Carter, NY Times, Saturday   

U.S. intelligence officials reviewing dozens of reports of mysterious flying objects found 18 in which the objects displayed no visible propulsion or appeared to use technology beyond the known capabilities of the U.S. or its adversaries.  This according to an intelligence report released Friday.  

But this may not have been immediately apparent to  the casual reader wading through nine pages of dodgy techno babble, much of it replete with too many head -spinning qualifiers and cautions - as we will see.  One example of what I mean: According to one official connected with the report:  

"We have no clear indications that there is any nonterrestrial explanation,” 


But as the NY Times' Chris Carter  opined, he might have said exactly the same thing if wreckage of an alien craft had been discovered, or an alien corpse.  If the aim is to "terrestrialize" any findings (i.e.  overthinking them into an earthly or mundane frame), then the refrain will always be that:  "greater technological understanding may be required to determine what was behind the unexplained cases."  

My point?  If the unexplained craft seen in the videos are as advanced as I suspect then even a thousand more years of human techno development may not be sufficient to solve the riddle of their propulsion.  Hence, the appeal to a "greater technological understanding" right now emerges as just a clever copout. It is tech speak 'filler' designed to avoid the necessary conclusion these are alien craft, but "We have no idea what to do about them because we can't match their technology."  Such an admission would be more honest but would freak out the terrestrialist Senators - like Marco Rubio -  who pushed for the release of the report (because he suspects the UAP  are Chinese or Russian craft).   

Given this background let's look at some of the main parts and offer some interpretations, insights:


"Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation. In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. 

These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting."


Here I've separated the straight up honest assessment (top paragraph) from the hooey. By that I mean the acknowledgement of the use of multiple sensors rules out sensor errors or spoofing.  This is critical and I will come back to it again and again.  It is simply damned near impossible to simultaneously rig multiple sensors to deliver abnormal findings - all of which show the same intelligent control of the craft. Thus, the appeal to "sensor errors" and "observer misperceptions" in the 2nd paragraph is merely intended as a distraction from the main point.  Much like Neal deGrasse Tyson's "glitch" nonsense.  

We go again to the more honest segment describing the core signal:

 "A Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. 

Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated

But as I already noted, if the unexplained craft seen in the videos are as advanced as I suspect then no amount of "more rigorous analysis" now will reveal their nature or underlying breakthrough technologies.   This is because it takes a more advanced technology to adequately analyze a given breakthrough  technology.  Think of Neanderthals trying to make sense of an F -117 Stealth aircraft and you get the idea.   Or in the words of another official behind the report:  "Some of those could require scientific advances on our part to allow us to better understand what it is that we’re observing,”

The point?  No current terrestrial technology (even hypersonic)  exists to do that and will be unlikely to attain such level even in another thousand years as I pointed out.  The inescapable fact is the "breakthrough technologies" are already self evident given we can't duplicate them.  Why not just admit it and also that we are seeing indirect evidence for extraterrestrial craft in our airspace? 

Perhaps the best answer has been provided in a paper published in the journal Political Theory by Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall, viz.

Herein they note the phenomenon of the UFO tends to be rejected as real because it comes up against the human concept of state sovereignty. Prof. Daniel W. Dresner, in an article appearing in The Sunday Denver Post on June 2, 2019, put it this way:

'UFOs have never been systematically investigated by science or the state, because it is assumed to be known that none are extraterrestrial. Yet in fact this is not known, which makes the UFO taboo puzzling given the ET possibility.  The puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO  exception to anthropocentrism  while preserving the ability to make such a decision. The UFO can be known only by not asking what it is."

Hold that thought: a "UFO exception to anthropocentrism"  - in other words, an entity regarded seriously as an exception to human superiority. Hence, the real reason UFOs have been dismissed or treated as unworthy of serious human attention is because of the existential challenge they pose to a species that fancies itself the lords of creation - as well as the most technologically advanced life form.  In effect, to admit the reality of the UFO as an alien craft would directly challenge this comforting codswallop, engendering enormous cosmic uncertainty and rejection of the fake techno superiority meme.    This is also exactly why "stigmas"  arise associated with UFO research or claims/admissions of their reality.  In a word, those  skeptical responses amount to an elaborate defense mechanism for egocentric humans, who would otherwise have to fess up that they're second rate at least in technological terms.  We see this even in the released  report, e.g.

"Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues. 

Although the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously in public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic. "

We also see this avoidance dynamic in assorted distractive baloney and balderdash in other parts of the report, e.g.

"Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security."

The five categories "construct"   is again,  a lot of hooey- mental fluff and piffle designed to distract from serious inquiry.  There are not any "five  categories" only one real one that's directly associated with those UAP  "beyond U.S. or its adversaries technological capabilities" described at the outset.  These form the very core of the UAP which point to an alien origin, without the need to drag in gigabytes of bunkum and artificially massaged mundane window dressing.  

While "experts" supposedly continue to check sensors for "flaws" to explain the extraordinary dynamical behavior and one skeptic clown, Mike West(who actually admitted - D. Post, 6/23-   that alien craft was the simplest hypothesis) has sought to invoke "infrared glare" to account for certain rapid spin motions - the simplest explanation is avoided at all costs.  Why? Because humans would prefer to overthink, invent outlandish pseudo "mundane" explanations and make excuses rather than admit we are not at the top of the cosmic food chain we had supposed. In the words of Prof. Dresner:   

"The UFO can be known only by not asking what it is."

In other words, dodge the reality by covering it in bunkum,  techno babble and bland, middle mind tropes and memes. Or to quote astronomer Chris Impey:  "This is still mostly an area where scientists fear to tread."   

Well, you can add high end public officials, most of the corporate media and the military too.  In the meantime it's best to remember the words of one of the most beloved literary sleuths:  "When you've eliminated everything else whatever remains - however unlikely - must be the answer."

See Also:

Even if You Think Discussing Aliens Is Ridiculous, Just Hear Me Out     

How would contact with U.F.O.s and other civilizations change ours?

And:



No comments: