The unlimited air phenomena report (UAP) it has issued US National Intelligence Office On June 25, there is some interesting data in it, and at a quick overview, making some interesting notes. For example, he tells us that there is no evidence indicating that the UAP reported by military individuals comes from a “foreign collection program” or “the main technological progress by a possible discount.” This is Biggie because when it is famous now Pentagon videos UAP People were widely released in two camps:
“It is foreigners” opposite “it is a foreign technique”
We also know that the majority of UAP data is a US marine reports, but it is not clear how much data arises about it before the navy provides a tougher system to prepare UAP reports in 2019. From data, 144 reports arose from the United States government sources and from these, 80 reports “note with multiple sensors.”
However, all this means is that it is safe to conclude that the UAP that is observed was physical organisms as it was discovered through different sensory equipment, perhaps including radar, infrared, visual electricity and arms seekers and visual control. The important thing to be remembered here is that this device is not specifically designed “discovery, monitoring or identifying UAP” and still depends often on human interpretation, so it is not evidence of 100 % deception.
The microscopic work squad for air phenomena has developed a 5 -level system to classify UAP reports:
- Portable chaos
- Things such as birds, balloons, unmanned entertainment air vehicles (UAV), or air wreckage (such as plastic bags)
- Natural weather phenomena
- Things such as ice crystals, moisture, and thermal fluctuations that are recorded on various monitoring systems.)
- The United States government. Industry development programs
- The report indicates these reasons as “developments and programs classified by American entities” means “that you will not know the details unless you need”)
- Forgeign discount systems
- The potential technologies that China, Russia, another country, or a non -governmental entity.
- last
- AKA more research or challenge for research
Among the data collected, one report was determined to be a turning balloon (air -mobile chaos) and decreases a lot in the “other” category, which is … mysterious! UAPTF state in the report that continuous research will depend on the unified reports of accidents via military and government agencies, such as adopting a system of preparing reports updated by the US Navy. The US Air Force adopted the same reporting procedure in 2020.
This may help monitor and report on current reports on UAP and reporting and may help objective investigations in the sources. It may also give an insight into previous reports, in case of discovery of patterns through the new reports system. In my opinion, this will also rely on reducing the social shame stigma associated with public speaking about watching strange things.
For me, ready -to -meal meals, is that this is a supernatural research in short! It is almost impossible to investigate the historical reports and sometimes even persistent of strange phenomena because no one explains these things in a completely reliable way. As such, the data that researchers should work with is open to interpretation and wrong information, and can be really incomplete.
I did not accept the mysterious “other” inclusion in the evaluation system and whether it was not useful or not. A mark of these scenes as “another” does not say automatically, “We have no enough information for this.” It can be read that the reason for these scenes is something last From the other four classification designations. In fact, there are possibilities that these are “lastThe scenes presented belong to one of the first four categories, but there is not enough objective information to support the conclusion that is reached. There is room for people to treat these scenes as if they were of mysterious origin.
However, it would be easy for me to sit here and criticize the people participating in UAPTF and the non -governmental media coverage of their work, and concluded that “nothing has changed”, “This does not prove anything.” However, when the report takes the nominal value, it seems that at least someone is trying. The real question, I think, is whether the report represents a real representation of the subject of the attempt that is made or not, and at the present time, I have no answer to that. I think the time will say …
