This coming Tuesday, 17 May 2022, at 9 am EDT, Congress is holding its first public hearing on the topic of UFOs (UAPs) in over 50 years. For those interested in watching, it will be streamed here:
Open C3 Subcommittee Hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
While many hope for disclosure of evidence of extraterrestrial vehicles (though few expect such disclosure), I personally hope for details regarding the DoD’s progress in standing up the new Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), the successor to the U.S. Navy’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). In particular, I am interesting in AOIMSG’s progress in building a platform for collecting and analyzing the relevant data and then their ability to gain access to the relevant data to feed into the platform.
I believe systematic collection and analysis of high quality data will be key to understanding the various unidentified aerial phenomena that are being anecdotally reported.
For 30+ years I have been involved in (and currently am again with Ennetix) building such systems for cyberspace - from creating sensors, to collecting and organizing the data, to analyzing the data, to presenting the findings. I am always amazed what can be discovered once you build and deploy such platforms.
I hope the Representatives asking the questions during the public hearing move through the UAPTF’s report from June 2021, "Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" (PDF), highlight statements in that report, and ask specific questions about progress in these areas.
Questions I hope are asked and answered
Below are quotes from the UAPTF’s report and questions I hope are asked about them.
Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations remain obstacles to collecting data on UAP.
What specific steps have been taken to reduce the stigmas and address sensor limitations?
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.
Have groups of technical experts been identified and committed to performing this analysis?
Has this additional analysis been performed?
Are reports available of their findings?
the UAPTF’s long-term goal is to widen the scope of its work to include additional UAP events documented by a broader swath of USG personnel and technical systems in its analysis. As the dataset increases, the UAPTF’s ability to employ data analytics to detect trends will also improve. The initial focus will be to employ artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms to cluster and recognize similarities and patterns in features of the data points. As the database accumulates information from known aerial objects such as weather balloons, high-altitude or super-pressure balloons, and wildlife, machine learning can add efficiency by pre-assessing UAP reports to see if those records match similar events already in the database.
What specific progress can you share on the development of a system to collect relevant data on both UAP reports as well as known objects such as weather balloons and and wildlife?
The UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and has begun receiving data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Is the Air Force currently sharing all relevant data on UAP that their personnel report and sensors collect?
Is the data being shared by the FAA an automated process, shared via ad hoc manual reports, or something in between?
Does the FAA data include sensor data?
The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, UAP R&D Technical Roadmap, and a UAP Program Plan.
Have the collection strategy, technical roadmap, and program plan been developed?
Have relevant reports been produced?
Questions Christopher Mellon would like asked and answered
Christopher Mellon, who spent nearly 20 years in the U.S. Intelligence Community including serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, developed a lengthy set of questions he hopes are asked. I encourage you to read his full posting here:
Draft Issues and Questions for the House UAP Hearing on May 17th
Here are a few of Mellon’s questions I hope are asked and answered. Mellon has many questions that are directed at the Air Force’s apparent stonewalling of the UAPTF’s mission.
Who owns the urgent mission of getting to the bottom of these ‘drone’ swarms plaguing our ships and bases and what are they doing about it?
The DNI’s preliminary assessment of the UAP issue states in bold letters: “EXPLAINING UAP WILL REQUIRE ANALYTIC, COLLECTION AND RESOURCE INVESTMENT.” Has the Administration identified the investments required to explain UAP? What are the most helpful things Congress can do to facilitate improved collection and analysis?
Some of the Air Force’s oversight committees have been advised that last year the Air Force warned its personnel not to approach the UAP Task Force without prior approval. There are also reports that individuals participating in a classified DoD chat room devoted to UAP issues were subsequently interviewed by USAF OSI officers who warned them against further participation. Are these reports accurate? If so, why has the USAF been interfering with these important information-sharing efforts?
There are reports that USAF personnel obtained the AEGIS radar data from the USS Princeton shortly after a series of UAP contacts in November 2004. Reportedly, the missing USS Princeton radar data was in the possession of USAF personnel at Langley Air Force Base. What knowledge does the USAF have regarding the location or disposition of the USS Princeton radar data from its UAP encounters in 2004? Does the Air Force know the whereabouts of the missing USS Princeton deck logs from November 2004?
The question Avi Loeb would like asked and answered
Avi Loeb, the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science, former chair of Harvard’s Department of Astronomy, and head of The Galileo Project that is focused on the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts, also wrote about his hopes for the upcoming hearing. His full article can be found here:
UFO hearing: Pushing the frontiers of science with government data
Loeb’s primary question he asks is:
Can we get the highest quality UAP data to scientists who will analyze it methodically and quantitatively?