“US Intel Report: UFOs Are ‘Real Things’ And Can’t Be Explained”

“A senior U.S. official, asked about the possibility of extraterrestrial explanations for the observations, said: “That’s not the purpose of the task force, to evaluate any sort of search for extraterrestrial life. … That’s not what we were charged with doing.”

“Of the 144 reports we are dealing with here, we have no clear indications that there is any non-terrestrial explanation for them – but we will go wherever the data takes us,” the official added.

The report established five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, U.S. government or American industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems and a catch-all “other” category.

All but one of the incidents, an instance attributed to “airborne clutter,” remain unexplained, subject to further analysis, U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters during a briefing describing the report’s findings.

For the remaining 143 cases, the government has yet to rule in or out whether the sightings might be of extraterrestrial origin, the officials said.”

Comment: “That’s not what we were chargd with doing.” This is a favorite “dodge” among the bureaucrats and the naval intelligence people are jut another kind of “dead soul.” Not my job man! It’s not my job.

When you add to this the resistance to the idea of non-human intelligent life on the part of the bible bound and the extremely narrow minded problem solver mentality of many senior officers, it is surprising that this report is as expansive as it is.

The first sentence in the report says that it is a “preliminary report.” We will see. pl

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ufo-report-intel-pentagon/2021/06/25/id/1026487/

 13,440 total views,  5 views today

This entry was posted in Space. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to “US Intel Report: UFOs Are ‘Real Things’ And Can’t Be Explained”

  1. TTG says:

    Do any of the 144 cases address phenomena outside of our atmosphere? We have all sorts of telescopes and sensors looking out there. We may not be able to, or willing to, explain UFOs in space, but we should be able to detect something out there if they’re buzzing all over our atmosphere.

    I found an interesting quote from the writings of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ. Seems he was fully accepting of sentient beings beyond our terrestrial species. The current and last two popes have made his writings much more acceptable in the Church.

    “It seems we are now reliving after 1,500 years the great conflicts with arianism – with the big difference that we are now concerned with defining the relations, not between Christ and the Trinity, – but between Christ and a universe that has suddenly become fantastically large, formidably organic and more than probably poly-human (in thinking planets – millions perhaps). And if I may express myself brutally (but expressively) I see no valid or constructive way out of the situation except by making through the theologians of a new Nicea a sub-distinction in the human nature of Christ between a terrestrial nature and a cosmic nature.”
    (Letter to Andre Ravier SJ, 14 January 1955, Lettres intimes, 452)

    • Pat Lang says:

      TTG
      I haven’t read the list as yes but there have been numerous observations in space

      • TTG says:

        The wikipedia page on the subject is a real letdown. Almost all astronaut sightings are confirmed space debris. I tend to think there’s more captured by telescopes and other sensors that we are still not privy to.

  2. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Colonel, you wrote:
    “the resistance to the idea of non-human intelligent life on the part of the bible bound”.

    What resistance?
    Please cite examples.

    I have known very well several people who take the Bible religiously, yet are open-minded on the possibility of extra-terrestial life.
    For a public, verifiable, statement from a soundly biblically-based source, see
    Does the Bible preclude the existence of life elsewhere in the universe?
    The answer is no; that’s speculative.

    There is nothing in Scripture that says there can’t be some form of life somewhere.
    https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/existence-of-life-elsewhere-in-the-universe/
    Ligonier Ministries, founded by R.C. Sproul, would I suspect be very happy to be called “bible bound”.

    • Pat Lang says:

      KH
      You are preaching to the choir. I am a believing Christian but am not one who searches scripture for references to elephants or aliens to know if they are demonic. My church gave up that kind of happy horse shit 500 years ago. Unlike you I functioned at very high levels of DoD. You want an example – Boykin would be one. He is such an egregious case that I do not mind naming him, but there are many others both in OSD and senior uniformed positions.

    • Keith Harbaugh says:

      Purely as an aside (I know full well the differences between science, religion, and art)
      let me recall how some of the writings of Isaiah, hypothesizing supernatural beings, were transformed into glorious music:

      https://youtu.be/LWGEMj70dFw?t=8m20s

      Purely for your enjoyment, not education.

      Some more musical settings of the Te Deum are in this playlist:
      https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6WIWapSWYkc-A9078hsjPFM89MvsV1d6

  3. Eric Newhill says:

    The report was limited to cases from the last couple of years and to the purview of US Navy (SecNav). It addressed only a small sample of the total body of UAP material.

    An assessments memo was released after the report. It appears that UAPs are being taken seriously and there will be an enhanced (greater scale/greater scope) program to study them.

    https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-assessments-memo-issued-after-report-release/?fbclid=IwAR3nGRyJWF4xSKwVJSG43WyI7U3-mIps375satGssIy_TR_VsiZN_xXywso

    Wikipedia has a hardcore scientific materialist professional Scoffer bent when it comes to the “paranormal”. Just because wiki says something has been disproven or “debunked” doesn’t make it so. Many wiki editors think it is their duty to defend the “scientific community’s” current understanding of the world, even if it means omitting or lying about evidence that points to the current understanding being incomplete or wrong.

  4. Eric Newhill says:

    Also, there was a classified annex to the report containing information on sources and methods. Apparently the classified annex does not deviate from the publicly released report in any meaningful way, according to the ODNI. It merely contains details that cannot become open source. That should damped suggestions that the whole UAP project is an information operation for some conspiratorial purpose (i.e. telling the public something that is substantially different and contrary to what is known internally).

    I imagine that if the ODNI was lying about the consistency of the classified and non-classified reports that sooner or later it would be leaked(?).

  5. Leith says:

    Interesting article on SpyTalk about an engineer from the Naval Air Warfare Center at Patuxtent who obtained a patent for a physics-denying craft that could fly at massive speeds in the air under the sea and in space.

    https://www.spytalk.co/p/did-the-navy-try-to-build-its-own

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

    Sounds hokey to me, but then I’m no physicist. Although there are plenty who are that say it is impossible with today’s technology. So is this guy a genius, or a just a dreamer, or a dezinformatschik trying to blow smoke up Shoygu’s and Wei Fenghe’s butt?

Comments are closed.