Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast)

Government UAP imagery is often classified because of the capability of the sensor platform that captured it (e.g. a fighter jet's camera), not because of the UAP subject matter itself.

if a fighter jet took a picture of the Statue of Liberty then that image would be classified, not because of the subject in the picture but because of the sensors on the plane

Only a very small percentage of UAP reports display anomalous signatures; the majority of objects reported to AARO show mundane characteristics of readily explainable sources.

the majority of unidentified objects reported to Arrow and in our Holdings demonstrate mundane characteristics of readily explainable sources

Of the morphologies AARO tracks, round/spherical 'orbs' account for a little under half of all reported UAP shapes in its database.

the vast majority of what has been reported and what we have data on: a little less than half now, our orbs, round spheres

AARO has zero reported UAP cases in either the maritime/undersea domain or the space domain within its current holdings, despite tracking across all reporting domains, which Kirkpatrick calls notable.

you will note however that I have no space reports and I have no Maritime reports - that is notable

An MQ-9 drone's EO sensor recorded a metallic, spherical orb performing apparent maneuvers in the Middle East in 2022; AARO states it demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and posed no threat to airborne safety, though the case remains under review pending more data.

this is a spherical orb metallic in the Middle East 2022 by an MQ-9... this one in particular, however, I would point out, demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and was no threat to airborne safety

A P-3 surveillance video showing 'three dots' moving erratically, initially reported as an anomalous UAP grouping, was resolved after cross-referencing with Air Traffic Control data: the objects were commercial aircraft on a flight corridor into a major airport, and the apparent erratic motion was sensor jitter from the P-3's own gimbal/platform.

when we went even deeper, looked at Air Traffic Control Data, we were able to match those to aircraft on a major flight Corridor heading into a major airport for landing

Our check Confirmed verbatim against the transcript of the recording of Kirkpatrick's remarks at the same NASA UAP panel meeting (t=38:06-39:07): a P-3 on a training mission picked up 'three dots' that could not be intercepted; the apparent erratic back-and-forth motion was sensor/platform jitter and defocusing; cross-referencing Air Traffic Control data showed the objects were commercial aircraft 'on a major flight Corridor heading into a major airport for landing.' This is Kirkpatrick's own account of an AARO-resolved case, not an independently published case-resolution report with full technical backup, so it carries the reliability of official testimony rather than a peer-reviewed reconstruction.

DoD sensors, unlike NASA's or the intelligence community's, are built and calibrated to identify and target known objects, not to produce scientific measurements, making current DoD UAP holdings poorly suited to rigorous scientific analysis without recalibration.

DOD sensors have one purpose: they are to identify an object that is known and put a weapon on it - that is what they're for

AARO's UAP case holdings grew from roughly 650 cases (as of Kirkpatrick's Senate testimony the prior month) to over 800 cases by this meeting (31 May 2023), with 50-100 new reports typically added per month.

at the time of my open hearing we were at 650 cases-ish, we are now over 800

Roughly 2 to 5 percent of AARO's UAP cases display signatures the office considers possibly anomalous; the rest are resolved or resolvable as mundane.

the numbers that I would say that we see are possibly really anomalous are less than single digit percentages of those, that total database - so maybe two to five-ish percent

AARO is exploring AI/ML techniques for UAP analysis (natural-language processing of pilot reports, target-recognition models to search existing holdings) but has not yet applied any of these for active real-time targeting, except for balloon identification, because it lacks confidence in what target signature to train against.

I have not put anything out there yet... for active targeting in real time because I don't know exactly what I would train it to go look for... except for balloons, right, we're trying to get rid of balloons as quickly as possible

AARO's official definition of 'anomalous' is: anything not readily understandable by the operator or the sensor, e.g. maneuvering against the wind at Mach 2 with no apparent propulsion.

anomalous is anything that is not readily understandable by the operator or the sensor, right, so it is doing something weird

A previously reported case of a UAP appearing to enter the water (a transmedium event) has been determined by AARO to actually be a sensor anomaly, not a real event; AARO plans to publish this finding.

it's um going into the water, which we have, we have shown is not the case - that is actually a sensor anomaly that we've now figured out and we're going to be publishing all that

AARO convened its first 'Five Eyes' (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) forum on UAP data sharing, reporting standards and sensor calibration in the week before this meeting (late May 2023).

I have just held our first five eyes Forum on this subject last week

Our check Confirmed. AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick convened the first 'Five Eyes' (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) UAP forum at the Pentagon on May 24, 2023 (the 'FVEY Inaugural UAP Caucus Working Group'), covering data sharing, reporting standards and sensor calibration -- consistent with 'the week before' this video's May 31, 2023 NASA public meeting, where Kirkpatrick described the forum in almost these terms ('discussions with our partners on data-sharing... what kind of calibration can they help us with').

Sources defensescoop.com

FAA short-range airport radars detect targets (modeled as a one-square-meter sphere) at 40-60 nautical miles with altitude detection to about 24,000 feet; long-range radars detect at 2-250 nautical miles with altitude detection to 100,000 feet.

the short range Radars... have a detection range between 40 and 60 miles and an altitude detection capability of about 24,000 feet - the long-range radar systems have a detection range of 2 to 250 nautical miles with altitude detection up to 100,000 feet

There are 880,000 registered small (Part 107) commercial drones in the US, plus an estimated 1.69 million recreational/model uncrewed aircraft, most of which are not tracked by air traffic control and are a major source of clutter in UAP identification.

there's 880,000 registered drones in the U.S., small drones I should say, part 107 drones

FAA air traffic controllers historically filed about 3-5 UAP-type reports per month nationwide; this rose to roughly 8-10 per month around August 2022 (possibly related to Starlink launches) and spiked to about 68 reports following the February 2023 Chinese surveillance balloon incident.

with the Chinese weather, or the Chinese balloon incidents, in February we did see a significant uptick and there's like 68 UAP reports that started in February

At least 184 weather balloons are launched daily across the US (twice daily from roughly 92 National Weather Service stations at 0000Z and 1200Z), rising to about 100,000 feet before bursting, not counting university or hobbyist balloon launches.

at least 184 balloon flights daily in the NAS - not to consider universities and hobbyist balloons that may be launched

The legal definition of 'UAP' expanded during the panel's tenure from 'unidentified aerial phenomena' to 'unidentified anomalous phenomena' following an NDAA provision, formally broadening scope to air, space and undersea domains, though the panel kept its own focus on the aerial domain.

the definition of UAP changed during the seven months of our fact-finding process... a is now defined as anomalous, which includes the space, air and undersea domains

NASA's role in UAP study should be complementary to, not a replication of, the Department of Defense's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, focused on what NASA specifically can contribute (open data, public trust, scientific method) that AARO's classified, national-security-focused work cannot.

it's not NASA's job to replicate the efforts of the Department of Defense but rather to consider approaches that are complementary to what the all domain anomaly resolution office is doing

The current corpus of UAP data does not meet the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) scientific data standard, limiting the applicability of machine learning and AI methods.

the current status of the data about uaps does not meet these standards - their collection is inconsistent, it's inhomogeneous, it's uncalibrated

There are two general scientific approaches to anomaly detection applicable to UAP: modeling/simulating an expected signal to search for matches, or using unsupervised machine learning to model 'the normal' comprehensively so anything inconsistent is flagged; UAP research, lacking a known expected signal, is better suited to the second approach.

the alternative approach in detecting anomalies requires a thorough and deep understanding of what is normal and usual, to tease out what is unusual

Eyewitness reports alone cannot determine the nature of UAP, but may carry value (e.g. persistent sighting locations or seasonality patterns) when combined with quantitative sensor data and psychophysical assessment of the witness.

eyewitnesses reports... cannot ascertain the nature of uaps, however they should be considered because they may contain important information, for example persistent citing locations or seasonality

NASA has recently undertaken an initiative to prepare NASA and NASA-partner archival astrophysics data for machine learning/AI use; this experience could be leveraged for UAP data, but would be much harder given the current poor state of UAP data compared to astrophysical data.

NASA has recently spearheaded an effort to review NASA and NASA-partner archival data to prepare them for machine learning and AI... we do want to emphasize that the current status of the UAP data will make this list really hard compared to even what is being done by NASA for ast

The same scientific rationale that supports the possibility of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations elsewhere also supports the plausibility (not likelihood) of extraterrestrial artifacts being found within our own solar system, most of which has not been searched for such artifacts.

the same rationale which supports the idea [that] extraterrestrial civilizations may exist... also supports the idea that finding extraterrestrial artifacts in our own solar system is at least plausible

AARO's UAP case count grew from roughly 500 to about 800 over the roughly seven months of the panel's fact-finding process, and the Department of Defense will soon mandate (if it has not already) UAP reporting by pilots, which is expected to further increase the volume of reports.

growing from an odir report that was something like 500 to... something like 800 now, so that's accelerating, and a DOD will soon also mandate, if not already, reporting by pilots

The panel states it has personally seen only a few unclassified images of UAP with adequate context, and has heard only a single firsthand account from a former military aviator during its entire seven-month fact-finding process.

our team has really only seen, I'd say, a few unclassified images of UAP which lack the contextual data that's needed to understand their true nature, and I believe we've heard a single first-hand account from a former military Aviator

The apparent extreme speed in the 2015 'Go Fast' video was largely a parallax illusion caused by the observing aircraft's own rapid motion (about 430 mph), not by the tracked object's actual speed.

some or most of the motion that we observe, the apparent motion of the object, is in fact due to the rapid motion of the sensing platform, which is about 430 miles per hour in this case

Our check Confirmed closely: physicist Josh Semeter (Boston University, Director for Space Physics) presented a trigonometric/telemetry reconstruction of the Go Fast video at a NASA UAP panel, placing the object at about 13,000 feet altitude and roughly 390 meters of travel over 22 seconds (~40 mph), noting this matches typical wind speed at that altitude and that apparent extreme speed was largely a parallax effect from the aircraft's own ~435 mph groundspeed. This independently corroborates AARO's own 2023 case-resolution finding of non-anomalous speed (roughly 5-92 mph depending on assumptions).

Sources metabunk.org, youtube.com

A quantitative reconstruction of the 2015 'Go Fast' Navy video, using onscreen elevation, azimuth, range, altitude and airspeed telemetry, placed the object at roughly 13,000 feet altitude, moving about 390 meters in 22 seconds (roughly 40 mph), consistent with wind speed at that altitude - not the extreme speed suggested by the video's nickname.

this object moved about 390 meters in 22 seconds, and that corresponds to a velocity of just 40 miles per hour, and so that's a velocity is consistent with wind speeds at 13,000 feet

Our check Confirmed closely: physicist Josh Semeter (Boston University, Director for Space Physics) presented a trigonometric/telemetry reconstruction of the Go Fast video at a NASA UAP panel, placing the object at about 13,000 feet altitude and roughly 390 meters of travel over 22 seconds (~40 mph), noting this matches typical wind speed at that altitude and that apparent extreme speed was largely a parallax effect from the aircraft's own ~435 mph groundspeed. This independently corroborates AARO's own 2023 case-resolution finding of non-anomalous speed (roughly 5-92 mph depending on assumptions).

Sources metabunk.org, youtube.com

Scott Kelly recounts that while flying a Navy jet off Virginia Beach, his back-seat Radar Intercept Officer was convinced they had flown past a UFO; on investigation it turned out to be a novelty 'Bart Simpson' balloon.

it turns out it was Bart Simpson, a balloon

Retired astronaut Scott Kelly recounts that his brother, astronaut and Senator Mark Kelly, as commander of Space Shuttle mission STS-124 (2008), saw an unexplained object in the payload bay before closing the bay doors, initially feared it was a tool or bolt that could jeopardize reentry, but a photograph revealed it was actually the International Space Station, roughly 80 miles away.

when they blew up the picture they realized that this is not a bolt or a tool in the payload Bay - it was actually the International Space Station, that was 80 miles away

A panelist recommends NASA establish a permanent office to collate, archive, and act as the open, forward-facing scientific counterpart to AARO, out of concern the panel's recommendations could otherwise be implemented ad hoc and shelved like other past review panels.

I would call for and recommend a permanent office within NASA to support this activity... I've been a part of far too many panels and studies that end up sitting on the shelf - I don't want this to be one of those exercises

The panel's draft answer to statement-of-task Question 1 is that NASA/NOAA/FAA/Commerce data reviewed was not collected for the purpose of identifying UAP, introducing bias, and that despite an immense amount of data being available, it is hard to access and the sensors used were not well calibrated for identifying anomalous phenomena.

the panel reviewed data sources... the data that we recognize were not collected for the purpose of identifying UAP, which leaves bias in the data that was collected

The panel's draft answer to statement-of-task Question 2 is that data collected by nonprofits and companies tracking UAP sightings is generally not considered rigorous scientific data: it is not repeatable, is largely based on eyewitness accounts, and is not unbiased.

the study panel concluded that much of the inputs collected by these organizations are not considered scientific data in nature, and that they do not contain unbiased information

NASA has not yet formally assessed whether its existing assets could even detect AARO's stated 'target package' (roughly 1-4 meters in size, zero to Mach 2); current NASA sensors would likely only resolve large, slow-moving 'haystack' objects, implying a frame-rate and resolution gap for genuinely anomalous small, fast objects.

we heard a lot from Arrow about specifics about the needle, one to four meters in size, zero to Mach two... that analysis has not been done

Scott Kelly states that during his 20 years in NASA's astronaut office, he was never officially or unofficially briefed on, or involved in any discussion of, anything considered a UAP or UFO, and is not aware of any NDA restricting astronauts from discussing UAP sightings.

in my experience of being in the astronaut office for 20 years there was never any formal or informal discussions at all about uaps or UFOs, or anyone reporting anything that would suggest something from beyond our planet

The panel states there is no conclusive evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggesting an extraterrestrial origin for UAP, and that the scientific standard of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' has not been met.

just like Carl Sagan I was saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - we cannot make that kind of extraordinary claims at all for any kind of big subject in science

Our check Confirmed in substance and largely in wording against the same NASA UAP panel meeting transcript (t=1:07:35-3:41:59 range, including t=3:40:55 'just like Carl Sagan I was saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... we have not seen that'). The panel repeatedly stated there is no conclusive peer-reviewed evidence of extraterrestrial origin and invoked the Sagan standard explicitly. Exact speaker attribution at the precise quoted line is genuinely ambiguous in the transcript (it could be Bianco or another panelist speaking near her turn), which the queue's own verify_hint flags; the substance of the statement is corroborated regardless of which panelist said this specific line.

Sources udel.edu

A panelist states the group has not seen extraordinary evidence of non-human intelligence and that making such a claim would require evidence they do not have.

we have not seen the extraordinary evidence that... would require... to make the claim that we see something that is evidence of, you know, non-human intelligence... and we have not seen that

NASA has not established a dedicated UAP program and has no associated programmatic budget; the Independent Study Team itself was funded consistently with roughly 100-200 other external science advisory review groups NASA convenes annually.

NASA has not established a program relative to UAP, and as a result there's no associated programmatic funding... the budget for the independent study team is very consistent with any other of our external review groups

In the 1990s, NASA scientists believed they had found fossil evidence of past life in a meteorite from Mars; the finding was verified extensively before being announced via a presidential press conference with President Clinton, offered as an institutional precedent for how NASA would handle confirmation of an extraordinary life-related discovery.

a big event actually in the history of astrobiology was in the 1990s when some scientists had thought that they had discovered fossils in a meteorite that came from Mars... there was a big, in fact, presidential press conference with President Clinton

The panel recommends NASA develop or partner on a standardized smartphone app to crowdsource UAP sighting data (imagery plus location/speed/sensor metadata) from the public at scale, leveraging the roughly 3-4 billion smartphones worldwide, with multiple simultaneous camera angles potentially eliminating optical artifacts like sensor ghosting.

NASA I think has the Prestige and visibility to develop an app or work with companies to develop apps that could collect data in a uniform and centralized way

The panel's central conclusion, stated by the chair in closing, is that better, more uniform, well-calibrated data - not new theory - is the single highest-priority need for scientifically understanding UAP.

we need better data would be my takeaway, and we need more uniform data