The purpose of this blog is the creation of an open, international, independent and free forum, where every UFO-researcher can publish the results of his/her research. The languagues, used for this blog, are Dutch, English and French.You can find the articles of a collegue by selecting his category. Each author stays resposable for the continue of his articles. As blogmaster I have the right to refuse an addition or an article, when it attacks other collegues or UFO-groupes.
Druk op onderstaande knop om te reageren in mijn forum
Zoeken in blog
Deze blog is opgedragen aan mijn overleden echtgenote Lucienne.
In 2012 verloor ze haar moedige strijd tegen kanker!
In 2011 startte ik deze blog, omdat ik niet mocht stoppen met mijn UFO-onderzoek.
BEDANKT!!!
Een interessant adres?
UFO'S of UAP'S, ASTRONOMIE, RUIMTEVAART, ARCHEOLOGIE, OUDHEIDKUNDE, SF-SNUFJES EN ANDERE ESOTERISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN - DE ALLERLAATSTE NIEUWTJES
UFO's of UAP'S in België en de rest van de wereld In België had je vooral BUFON of het Belgisch UFO-Netwerk, dat zich met UFO's bezighoudt. BEZOEK DUS ZEKER VOOR ALLE OBJECTIEVE INFORMATIE , enkel nog beschikbaar via Facebook en deze blog.
Verder heb je ook het Belgisch-Ufo-meldpunt en Caelestia, die prachtig, doch ZEER kritisch werk leveren, ja soms zelfs héél sceptisch...
Voor Nederland kan je de mooie site www.ufowijzer.nl bezoeken van Paul Harmans. Een mooie site met veel informatie en artikels.
MUFON of het Mutual UFO Network Inc is een Amerikaanse UFO-vereniging met afdelingen in alle USA-staten en diverse landen.
MUFON's mission is the analytical and scientific investigation of the UFO- Phenomenon for the benefit of humanity...
Je kan ook hun site bekijken onder www.mufon.com.
Ze geven een maandelijks tijdschrift uit, namelijk The MUFON UFO-Journal.
Since 02/01/2020 is Pieter ex-president (=voorzitter) of BUFON, but also ex-National Director MUFON / Flanders and the Netherlands. We work together with the French MUFON Reseau MUFON/EUROP.
ER IS EEN NIEUWE GROEPERING DIE ZICH BUFON NOEMT, MAAR DIE HEBBEN NIETS MET ONZE GROEP TE MAKEN. DEZE COLLEGA'S GEBRUIKEN DE NAAM BUFON VOOR HUN SITE... Ik wens hen veel succes met de verdere uitbouw van hun groep. Zij kunnen de naam BUFON wel geregistreerd hebben, maar het rijke verleden van BUFON kunnen ze niet wegnemen...
14-09-2024
The Pentagon’s New UAP Report is Seriously Flawed - part 3
The Pentagon’s New UAP Report is Seriously Flawed - part 3
“Insufficient Data” Does Not Mean “Identified” – It Means Insufficient to Identify a UAP Positively
How often is “insufficient data” actually a result of insufficient investigation? Sweeping investigatory failures under the carpet was a routine practice of AARO’s forerunner, the USAF Project Blue Book of the 1950s-60s. Blue Book’s standard trick as exposed by its own chief scientific consultant, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, was to make it appear the Air Force had disposed of 90-95% of its UFO caseload not with actual data, but by flooding its case files with 60% or more Insufficient Data cases and casually applying convenient but implausible and unsupported explanations. The Air Force has released or leaked to the press bogus UFO “explanations” such as stars that were not visible, moon-as-UFO when the moon had not even risen yet, the pilot was “possibly drunk,” etc (See Clark, “Debunking,” UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 379-400).
This happened time and time again, often leaving witnesses embarrassed or understandably angry. So much so that in one case in 1966, Rep. Gerald Ford blasted the Air Force and sought Congressional hearings after sightings by police of fast high-flying objects in the Dexter, Michigan, area were dismissed by the Air Force as “swamp gas.” A mismatch between proffered Air Force explanations and the data submitted by witnesses was a recurring issue.
It appears that some 60% of Blue Book’s cases were in reality Insufficient Data (not just Blue Book’s understated 20% category labeled “Insufficient Data”) – because there was simply not enough info to go beyond guessing at “possible” or “probable” explanations to achieve certainty. The remaining 40% of Sufficient Data cases broke down into approximately 10%—30%, identified—unidentified. The unidentified were therefore a surprising 70-75% Unexplained Unknowns in the total Sufficient Data cases (30/40 = 75%, all numbers here are rounded).
As indicated above, Blue Book went further and tried to conceal this statistical shell game by carving out a much smaller 20% category they called “Insufficient Data” – a misdirect that obscured the fact that Blue Book did not sufficiently investigate the other 40% of the total cases and that the total Insufficient Data should have been stated as about 60%. These Possible/Probables were treated as fully explained IFOs instead of as Insufficient-Data. (See Hynek UFO Report, 1977, p. 259, etc.)
AARO Tries to Gloss Over Sensor Tracking of UAP
AARO tries to brush aside sensor tracking of UAP on the flimsy grounds of sensor “aberrations” and “artifacts” (AAROR p. 12; media reports call them “glitches”; previous AARO reports call them sensor “errors”). This is untenable if multiple sensors track the same UAP, like infrared and radar such as in the ATFLIR sensor pod videos by the Navy F/A-18s that most everyone concerned with the UAP issue has seen by now (probably at least 50 million video views to date).
In fact, AARO seems to ignore its own data showing they have reduced the problem of “Ambiguous Sensor Contact” with UAP in its caseload from 23% to 9% from April to November 2023 – it’s on AARO’s website but not mentioned in AARO’s report. (The earlier AARO annual report did show a 5% Ambiguous Sensor Contact figure as of Aug. 2022 based mostly on the Navy UAP Task Force’s work, before the April 2023 worsening increase under AARO to 23%.)
That 9% “Ambiguous Sensor Contact” figure means the other 91% of AARO’s current case files of sensor trackings of UAP are good data and are not “ambiguous.” This would appear to undermine attempts at downplaying or dismissing sensor trackings of UAP as must be due to some sort of speculative sensor “artifacts.” Cases involving multiple sensors can overcome sensor error so that any sensor that has an error is corrected by the other sensors that do not. Sensors operating at different frequencies on different bands of the electromagnetic spectrum will not all be fooled by electronic spoofing at the same time.
AARO withholds its multiple-sensor case numbers – unlike its predecessor UAP Task Force that reported it had 56% of all cases as multiple-sensor cases including two or more sensors tracking the same UAP at the same time by “radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation” (UAPTF June 2021, pp. 3-4). No wonder UAPTF had 99.3% Unexplained cases – good data and no terrestrial explanations.
AARO then complains about the lack of data regarding “speed, altitude, and size of reported UAP” (AAROR, p. 27), even though many of its cases have measurement data from multiple sensors (e.g., radar-infrared-optical F/A-18 cases). The complaint harkens back to Air Force Project Blue Book’s similarly unsupported complaint over the alleged lack of measured “speed, altitude, size” data on UFOs (The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, the ex-Blue Book Chief Ruppelt’s 1956 book, pp. 116-7, 149, 201, 212, 224, etc.). Meanwhile, Blue Book buried any mention of tracking data resident in Blue Book files from missile tracking cameras, radar-visual cases, and from an Army UAP tracking network specially set up around the top secret “Site B” nuclear weapons stockpile depot at Killeen Base, Camp Hood, Texas (see section, below, with sample chart illustrating some of the Army UAP tracking).
In AARO’s boasted “thorough” and “complete” reporting of past UAP investigations (AAROR p. 12), there is no mention of the existence of the AF’s special AF-Army-Navy/Marine multiple-sensor UFO tracking networks set up at multiple sites in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War in 1968-70. Declassified military histories reveal over 500 “UFO” trackings on radar, optical, laser-ranging, nightscope, telescope, and infrared sensor systems, with 99% Unexplained (Declassified military histories: “Sensor Networks to Track UFOs in the Vietnam War,” UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 1050-1054).
AARO’s highly selective treatment of the Condon Report also from the AF’s UFO contract study at the University of Colorado, managed to studiously avoid the widely reported criticism that the Condon Report’s negative conclusions were contradicted by the embarrassing unmentioned fact that 34% of its own UAP cases remained Unexplained after investigation – as numerous scientists have pointed out in criticism of the Condon Report’s anti-UFO conclusions. (Someone in effect slipped up and put an easy list of the “Sightings, Unexplained” in the back Index of the published Condon Report, in 1969, where about 26 such Unexplained cases are listed, in addition to listing another 4 radar cases, 1 airglow photometer case, 3 numbered cases missed, and an uncertain number–about two–of the 14 unexplained Prairie Network-confirmed cases not overlapping with the preceding, totaling some 36 out of a grand total of about 106, or about 34%. Different tallies of the obfuscated Condon Report case numbers come up with slightly different numbers. See for example: W. Smith, Journal of UFO Studies, CUFOS, 1996). AARO fails to mention that 14 of the Condon study’s Unexplained UFO cases were backed up by photos taken by the astronomical meteor-tracking cameras of the Smithsonian’s Prairie Network system, an unprecedented scientific development.
There is also no mention of Dr. Condon’s obvious, non-scientific bias, which may have been the reason he was selected by the Air Force to chair the eponymous Commission. In late January 1967, while the Condon Committee’s investigation was ongoing, Dr. Condon tipped his hand, telling an audience at a lecture that UFOs are “nonsense” but “I’m not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year.” Once again, serious issues well-known to any UAP researcher are not included in the AARO report.
Likewise, AARO seems unaware of the new Over the Horizon – Forward Scatter (OTH-FS) radars turned over to NORAD for operational duty in March 1968 which immediately began tracking UAP. This was revealed in the House Science & Astronautics UFO Symposium hearings on July 29, 1968, and published, but despite being open source history it never made it into AARO’s “complete” and “thorough” history (“NORAD” in Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, p. 811b).
No Mention of the Scientist Sightings of UAP or Instrumentation Cases
No mention is made by AARO that many scientists, including government scientists, astronomers, physicists, and others have personally seen UFOs, some obtaining instrument data and photos. AARO never mentions unclassified instrument tracking of UAP in the Blue Book files and other Air Force declassified records (AARO can’t claim that released sensor data is “classified”).
No mention that 14 Unexplained UFO cases in the hostile Air Force University of Colorado “scientific study of UFOs” were photographed and confirmed by the Smithsonian Prairie Network scientific meteor-tracking cameras (another 6 caught on meteor cameras were IFOs). The Colorado study tried to bury it in its infamous Condon Report, but it’s identifiable if one looks at and studies the summary data table with skewed and misleading definitions.
It appears AARO didn’t look. Another scientist UAP instrument detection by airglow scanning photometer is also an Unexplained UFO in the Condon Report, which concealed the fact that an embarrassing 34% of its cases ended up Unexplained (as mentioned above).
The Air Force set up UAP tracking networks in South Vietnam with multiple sensor systems during the war in 1968-70, as revealed in many declassified military histories (mentioned before). But AARO seems ignorant of it.
Army UAP Tracking Network Record AARO Missed Finding in the Blue Book Files, March 6-8, 1949 (Site B Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Killeen Base, Camp Hood, Texas). Later cases included triangulations of speed, size, and altitude data on UAP.
Does AARO Admit Some “Non-Empirical” Evidence of Extraterrestrials?
AARO’s two key conclusions, as presented at the top of its report’s Executive Summary, state:
AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology.
…
AARO has found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology.
(AAROR Exec Summary p. 7, underlining added.)
If there is not a blanket AARO denial saying “no evidence” of extraterrestrial UAP sightings, but only a more limited, qualified denial stating “no empirical evidence” (physical evidence) of reverse-engineering extraterrestrial tech, then what non-empirical evidence does AARO have? Empirical means physical evidence and reality of objects and events, not human records of such, which records are presumably non-empirical evidence.
Is this an innocent ambiguity or an inadvertent admission that AARO hasnon-empirical evidence, such as documentary records or witness testimony, of reverse-engineering efforts on recovered extraterrestrial technology?
Interestingly, AARO claims to have “conducted approximately 30 interviews” of “approximately 30 people” (pp. 6, 11), and quite specifically “As of September 17, 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals” who claimed knowledge of hidden government extraterrestrial technology and evidence (AAROR, p. 28). Don’t they know exactly how many people they interviewed, was it 30 or not?
AARO is quick to stress that “It is important to note that none of the interviewees had firsthand knowledge of these programs” (p. 9).
But this seems to be contradicted later when AARO explains that “Priority is given to those interviewees who claimed first-hand knowledge… Interviewees relaying second or third-hand knowledge are lower in priority, but AARO has and will continue to schedule interviews with them, nonetheless.” (AAROR, p. 28) AARO thus makes it seem they are reluctant to “continue to schedule interviews” with “secondhand or thirdhand” witnesses because they are so occupied with high-priority firsthand witnesses.
AARO Fails to Define What Evidence it Would Accept for Extraterrestrial UAP
AARO also fails to define what evidence is required to establish extraterrestrial intelligence visiting Earth. Would multiple sensors tracking an object from high altitude or space that stops and starts with accelerations of >1000 g’s be at least a starting definition of evidence for non-human or extraterrestrial intelligence? (See Robert Powell/SCU critique of AAROR.) Likewise, AARO complains more broadly that it needs “Sufficient Data” in UAP cases, then never explains exactly what is considered “sufficient” (AARO Cons Report Oct 2023, p. 8).
Does it require direct communication with extraterrestrial intelligence to satisfy AARO’s unstated but seemingly shifting definition of “evidence” (see below)? What if the ETs simply refuse to communicate; do we just pretend to ignore them until they do? Is that a responsible operational defense posture or intelligence collection and analysis policy?
What radio signals have been received from UAP in the reports AARO has collected? AARO’s briefing slides to Congress and on its website state that it has cases of UAP-transmitted radio signals in the 1-3 and 8-12 GHz frequency bands (completely separate and different from UAP radar beams at 1-8 GHz, also listed). This has been briefed to Congress and listed in AARO Reporting Trends slides of “Typically-Reported UAP Characteristics” – but is never mentioned in the AARO Report.
Are these UAP Radio Signals a communication? What analysis of these signals has been undertaken? Has Congress been informed of the findings? The AARO Report also ignores a long history back to 1950 of UAP transmitting radio signals and radar beams and even replying to IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) interrogation signals transmitted to the UAP by ground-based US radar stations (see “UFO IFF” and “NORAD National Alert” articles in Clark’s UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 814-824, 1155-6).
Does extraterrestrial evidence require beyond-terrestrial technological capabilities (the “extra” in “extraterrestrial”)? Does sensor data suffice or must physical samples be obtained? What about AARO’s October 2023 Consolidated Annual UAP Report which mentions “some cases” of UAP with “high-speed travel and unusual maneuverability” (p.2), and “very small percentage” with “high-speed travel and unusual morphologies” (p. 8), none of which are mentioned in AARO’s current historical report (unless it’s in the classified version).
The earlier UAP Task Force reported that 15% of its reports were of “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics” including “demonstrating UAP acceleration or a degree of signature management” (the latter meaning the UAP’s apparent use of electromagnetic signature reduction as a means of “camouflage” for purposes of lowering detectability, effectively a form of stealth) in mid-flight. Taken together, these terms evidently convey, at minimum, the UAP’s ability to “remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion” (UAPTF June 2021, p. 5).
In October 2023 the AARO then-director Sean Kirkpatrick told CNN that about 2% to 4% of his cases were “truly anomalous” – possibly referring to his just-released report’s reference to “unknown morphologies” (meaning “unknown shapes”) and “interesting signatures” not otherwise defined in the report.
These are tantalizing and provocative admissions by AARO and its predecessor, but what do they mean in terms of meeting AARO’s unspoken requirements for “evidence”?
AARO’s report displays a constant shifting of ill-defined goalposts for what it deems to be “evidence,” etc. First, there is plain “evidence” then “empirical evidence,” then there is “convincing evidence” (is “empirical evidence” not quite “convincing”?). AARO refers to “verifiable information” as if to contrast it with “empirical evidence” (AAROR, p. 35) thus raising the question, is “empirical evidence” not empirically “verifiable information” by itself? And AARO speaks of “actionable data” as conveniently undefined and not distinguished from other types of data or “evidence.” And beyond that, there are “actionable, researchable data.”
The common denominator in these shifting vague pseudo-definitions of what is required for UAP evidence is that they seem intended to ensure genuine anomalies are minimized in favor of prosaic explanations, no matter how implausible.
Nothing by AARO on the Government “Stigma” Put on the UAP Subject; No Discussion, No History, Despite its Critical Importance
AARO does not even mention the word “stigma” anywhere in this report, except buried in a passing reference to the UAP Task Force helping “destigmatize” reporting of UAP though not the subject of UAP (AAROR, p. 24).
This is despite the historical importance of the “stigma” deliberately attached to the UFO subject by the US government – principally by the Air Force – that is widely cited by the media and witnesses testifying before Congress. The critical importance of stigma and the problems it has created in hampering and crippling UAP research and investigation are undeniable.
As AARO’s predecessor UAP Task Force stated in its “Preliminary Report to Congress” submitted in June of 2021 (p. 4):
“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…. [T]hese stigmas have … reputational risk [that] may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the [UAP] topic.”
The “stigma” attached to the UFO topic as applied by the government appears to have included abuses that AARO was legally required to investigate in its Historical Report – but did not. Specifically, the Historical Report was required to:
“(ii) include a compilation and itemization of the key historical record of the involvement of the intelligence community with unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP], including— …
“(III) any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP] or related activities.” [NDAA FY23 Sec. 6802(j)(1)(B); 50 U.S. Code § 3373(j)(1)(B)]
As mentioned above, AARO failed to compile, itemize, and report on US intelligence agency abuses of UAP witnesses and others. The one tiny item dismissive of vague public perceptions of the Air Force’s UFO “debunker” abuse (AAROR, p. 38) does not document its long history as was required by law in NDAA FY23 and 50 U.S. Code § 3373 cited above.
AARO made no effort to compile the history of the Intelligence Community’s efforts to “obfuscate” or “hide” UAP information through excessive secrecy, as noted before.
Air Force Intelligence “efforts to … obfuscate [and] manipulate public opinion” on UFOs since the 1950s are primarily what caused the harsh stigma attached to the entire UFO subject in society. But this anti-UFO stigma is not investigated or historically documented by AARO – or even mentioned – contrary to its legal obligation.
This is despite the public admission by former USAF OSI officer Richard Doty that his official assignments included spying on US civilian UAP researchers and breaking into a private home, spreading disinformation about UAP, misinforming two US Senators, and spreading fake UFO documents including some so-called “MJ-12” documents that turned out to be a hoax (Doty radio interview Feb. 27, 2005; see Rojas, “Open Letter,” posting May 6, 2014, OpenMinds). Much more evidence could be cited of similar stigma-inducing covert government actions besides the public debunking and shaming of innocent UAP witnesses and civilian investigators (see “Debunking and Debunkery,” Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 379-400).
AARO’s Non-Disclosure of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)
The AARO report states that it asked DoD and IC organizations to review their files for any NDAs related to UAP and none were reported (AAROR, pp. 7, 30). Had AARO actually reviewed AFOSI NDAs themselves, rather than delegating the task, they might have reached a different conclusion.
For example, I was informed by a former member of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Investigation Program (AATIP / AAWSAP) that when he requested the opportunity to interview the two F-16 pilots involved in the famous Stephenville, TX, 2008 UAP case, both pilots replied that they could not discuss the matter because they had signed USAF NDAs. It ought to be possible to run this to the ground either by contacting the pilots or searching AFOSI records.
In another instance, a former USAF Air Traffic controller told me she and her colleagues signed OSI NDAs after reporting a black triangular UAP hovering over a nuclear weapons storage facility at Barksdale AFB. Subsequently, AFOSI officers asked them to sign NDAs, explaining that they had seen a highly classified US weapons system they were not cleared for (the secret weapons program ruse again). The witnesses assumed that was a cover story, as they could not imagine a test aircraft being sent to hover over a nuclear weapons storage facility, but they felt compelled to sign the NDAs for fear of retaliation if they did not. This case also suggests that in searching for pertinent USAF NDAs, it may be necessary to review NDAs of the type alleging uncleared military personnel had been exposed to US advanced technology programs outside their clearance level or access authorization and not merely search for some sort of “UAP NDA.”
In the Bentwaters, Rendlesham Forest, UK, case in December 1980-January 1981, there are indications that secondary witnesses and civilian investigators were pressured to sign secrecy agreements (see Col. Charles Halt’s 2016 book, pp, 400, 439).
Is AARO a Science Project or an Intelligence Organization?
Why is AARO, a component of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense (DoD), suddenly changing the rules of the game and importing purely academic, scientific standards for the interpretation of intelligence data? Is it because this allows the government to ignore important and valid but inconvenient information?
ARO claims its “methodology applies both the scientific method and intelligence analysis tradecraft” (AAROR, p. 6). But it seems the scientific methodology is set off against the intelligence methodology to discredit any observation of UAP that exceeds present-day scientific understanding, on the tacit grounds that observations by military personnel on this issue, and seemingly this issue alone, are not credible. Meanwhile, the intelligence tradecraft that would investigate a foreign adversary’s possible futuristic development of science seems to be shunted aside. Thus AARO uses a limited academic form of today’s science to deny as “not credible” the observed and measured UAP performance that may represent an advanced technology, possibly extraterrestrial, although we know 21st century science will inevitably be followed by a 31st century science. Neither the law enforcement nor intelligence communities have the luxury of limiting themselves to dismissing human reporting in favor of purely scientific standards of evidence.
It sometimes feels as though AARO is approaching the old unscientific Air Force Project Blue Book policy, long ago exposed by Blue Book scientific consultant Dr. Hynek, of declaring “It Can’t Be: Therefore it Isn’t” when dealing with tough unexplainable UFO cases (The Hynek UFO Report, 1977, ch. 3).
Hence, AARO’s Dr. Kirkpatrick claims there is no “credible” information of craft demonstrating capabilities that defy our current scientific understanding: “AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics” (DoD News Briefing, Apr. 19, 2023). This, despite the testimony of Navy squadron Cmdr. Dave Fravor and his colleagues were involved in the Nimitz incident, backed by dramatic radar-infrared-electro-optical data recordings. AARO does not even mention the Nimitz case or its investigation anywhere in its “complete”, “thorough”, and “accurate” Historical UAP Report.
Cmdr. Fravor and his wingman and their crew all saw and reported the same wingless white “Tic Tac” shaped craft in conditions of ideal visibility and their accounts of its mind-boggling capabilities were corroborated by radar operators serving on two different platforms
Later that day another F/A-18 witnessed and filmed the UAP, yet it seems as if AARO is denying this undeniable event, suggesting it did not even happen just because it exceeds today’s academic scientific understanding. Multiple accounts by all three pilots and their weapons systems operators, and multiple radar operators and technicians agree that craft they observed demonstrated almost-instantaneous high g acceleration; achieved hypersonic speed without a sonic boom; showed no evidence of friction or plasma or obvious propulsion, despite the extreme velocities it achieved (estimated peak 90,000 mph in 12 miles going from 0 to 90,000 mph to 0, all in 0.78 seconds, at 5,000 g’s acceleration). The estimated 47-foot wingless white “Tic Tac” shaped craft also thus seemed to survive g forces far greater than any aircraft, rocket, or missile of that size built by man. The tough Navy squadron commander of the Black Aces could not find a terrestrial explanation for what he and his colleagues observed and he has made that clear in sworn testimony to Congress. Is this not relevant?
What aspect of this case should be thrown out as “not credible” and why? Why are we even bothering to ask pilots to report UAP if we do not deem them credible? Why is this case not viewed as compelling, albeit not absolutely conclusive, evidence of the presence in Earth’s atmosphere of vehicles that are so far advanced we cannot understand or replicate their performance? What evidence would AARO accept – and is AARO going to employ an unspoken rule of today’s academic science that does not see a science of tomorrow, and therefore arbitrarily says it must not have happened, because we don’t understand what was reported?
Aside from not liking the implications, is there any reason to doubt the fully consistent account of so many accomplished aviators and sailors operating with high-tech sensors? Our military could not function as effectively as it does if its personnel were not competent and reliable. When assessing the UAP issue, senior policymakers deserve candid views of intelligence and military personnel, not views limited by unrealistically high scientific standards imported from Academia. After all, AARO is a joint IC/DoD operation, not a science project.
Conclusion
As documented above, AARO has not complied with statutory orders from Congress for a detailed history of UAP sightings as recorded in USG’s historical records, instead providing a limited history of flawed US Government investigations of UAP.
There was no examination of the impact of “stigma” on the UFO subject, witnesses, and persons interested in it, aggressively implemented by the Air Force and supported by the AF-instigated CIA Robertson Panel, despite the legal requirement for AARO to document the history of intelligence agency manipulation of public opinion and other abuses.
Yet, as AARO itself acknowledged in its first report to Congress the “stigma” surrounding this topic has been a central problem in terms of getting government personnel or scientists to report or study UAP. (AARO Jan. 2023, p. 2) To summarize:
The AARO report is beset with basic errors of fact and science (for instance, despite AARO insinuations, Apollo moon landings cannot be seen by the naked eye from Earth, Manhattan Project buildings cannot fly in the air as UFOs, etc.).
The report makes unsupported claims about secret government projects causing civilian UAP sightings while ignoring the military’s own sightings of UAP that the military knew were not our own.
AARO never defines what evidence they would accept for extraterrestrial visitation or even UAP existence, to help avoid repeating past failures of UAP investigations. It seems AARO’s unstated definition of “evidence” is a fluid goalpost.
There are massive gaps in AARO’s review of important US government documents, records, and programs, and patterns of excessive UAP secrecy. The report focuses on prior government UAP investigations without even acknowledging they were more of an effort to delegitimize the topic than investigate it.
The powerful effects of the stigma that resulted are never discussed, despite universal recognition of the primary role stigma has played in preventing objective government or scientific UAP research. By failing to do so, this AARO report is more likely to reinforce this dangerous and dysfunctional stigma rather than mitigate it.
As skeptic journalist Tyler Rogoway said, and bears repeating (emphasis added): “The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding Unexplained Aerial Phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence.”
Finally, AARO has unaccountably imported the limited approaches to evidence used in academia that are not an appropriate basis for intelligence assessments of national security issues. Why ask pilots to report UAP if we are going to then discard these reports because they do not meet some strict but narrow-visioned academic and scientific standards? Why is it that the human mind and intellect can contribute to intelligence assessments of any other topic but UAP?
What about future scientific developments and the scientifically unpredictable intentions of foreign adversaries? In sum, this limited approach to analysis, uniquely applied to the subject of UAP within the Intelligence Community, deprives policymakers of judgments based on information that is important, valid and compelling, even if it is not at present scientifically conclusive.
I hope this report will help Congress, the press, and the public understand just how far short AARO’s historical UAP report is from being “thorough”, “accurate” and “complete.” I also hope AARO will find some of these observations helpful in preparing Volume 2. There is no reason this taxpayer-funded organization cannot be more clear, transparent, and accurate regarding its UAP analysis and reporting.
Acknowledgments: This article was only possible due to the diligent research and extraordinary contributions of quite a few UAP experts and researchers, who shall remain nameless here but who freely contributed their time and expertise. Their astute analysis and expertise form the backbone of this article. It took substantial effort on their part, but I know they will be satisfied if this helps Congress and the public understand how much work remains to be done to create a “complete” and “accurate” history of UAP and the US government.
Christopher Mellon spent nearly 20 years in the U.S. Intelligence Community, including serving as the Minority Staff Director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. He actively participates in Harvard’s Galileo Project and, in his free time, works to raise awareness regarding the UAP issue and its implications for national security. Follow him online at his official website and on X: @ChrisKMellon.
Editor’s Note: This article was updated on April 15, 2024, with additions to further illustrate the issues presented by AARO’s claim that U-2 reconnaissance aircraft could account for numerous early UAP observations, further commentary regarding incorrect details in AARO’s report involving the CIA Special Group that convened in the 1950s, and the inclusion of an additional table and commentary regarding the U.S. Air Force IFO cases provided to the CIA’s Robertson Panel.
Note: The author does not necessarily endorse every point expressed in the resources linked below.
Robert Powell/SCU (Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies), “AARO Report: Flawed, Unresponsive, Clueless, and Knavish,” March 9, 2024, X/Twitter (See below):
AARO Claims Early Spy Planes Caused UAP Reports – Yet Can’t Cite a Single Report
There is not a single known sighting of a U-2 reconnaissance plane reported as a UAP or extraterrestrial spaceship by some “unknowing” outside civilian supposedly dazzled by classified “new technology.” Nothing in the Blue Book files (except a few obscure, unproven possible exceptions not even close to ET descriptions and not by bedazzled outside non-government civilians). No one in AARO and before can even cite a date for one such purported U-2 sighted and reported as a UAP spaceship, let alone the implausible notion that U-2s accounted for “more than half ” of all UAP reports.
Under the U-2 Aquatone “secret project” entry, AARO claims “More than half of the UFO reports investigated in the 1950s and 1960s were assessed to be U.S. reconnaissance flights” and “that UFO reports would spike when the U-2 was in flight” (AAROR, p. 41).
More than “half” would mean conservatively over 5,000 U-2s mistakenly misidentified as UFOs or alien spacecraft! No such “spikes” in numbers of purported U-2 “UFO” sightings were reported either, let alone even a single sighting. A few possible isolated exceptions might lurk in the Blue Book files, though examples so far fall flat: One sighting of a possible “USAF” recon plane but not called a “U-2” (U-2s were CIA anyway, not USAF) by an AF fighter pilot was not described in any way as that of an extraordinary or extraterrestrial spacecraft. Another report several years later by a government atomic energy meteorologist also did not depict anything alien or extraterrestrial or even amazingly high-performance. Neither case was confirmed by any U-2 flight records by Blue Book’s (non)investigation. Even granting those two would still leave 4,998+ more purported UAP sightings of misidentified “U-2s” still left to be found in the Blue Book files. Where might they be AARO?
Are we to believe over 5,000 of the 10,000 UFO reports then in Air Force Blue Book files were U-2s? That should be easy to find in the Blue Book files if that was the case. (Were there ever that many U-2s anyway, flying say, daily, instead of just one every few months? U-2 historical flight schedules have been released, nothing supports AARO’s claims.)
If so, they should be able to come up with at least one U-2 “UFO” misidentification out of the purported 5,000+ U-2 “UFO” reports, one sighting by date. The earliest unfounded AF-planted rumor of a U-2 “UFO” can be documented in 1964 (see below) but in all this time since they can’t at least find one U-2 “UFO”? (An undated hearsay claim that U-2s could sometimes be seen at sunset is not a “misidentification” – no one said it was an alien spaceship or UFO or the like – and it is not a UAP report that was made by anybody to any official agency, not even to Project Blue Book which has nothing on file about that.)
In fact, it is on record that Air Force Project Blue Book Chief Capt. (later Lt Col) Hector Quintanilla first planted the whole false notion of a U-2 “UFO” sighting on Blue Book’s chief scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek and his then-grad student assistant Jacques Vallee on January 16, 1964, when he visited Chicago and briefed them (see Vallee’s published diaries for 1957-1969, p. 101). Quintanilla claimed a U-2 was sighted and “It was reported as a UFO” in 1951, purportedly observed as the U-2 was “on its way to the Soviet Union” – when in fact the U-2 had not even been invented yet in 1951 let alone flown yet (invented and designed in 1953, first flown in 1955, none flown to the Soviet Union until 1956, as anyone can look up).
In tracing the origins of this phony story, it was later in 1964 when the Air Force Foreign Technology Division (FTD), which ran Project Blue Book, planted this bogus U-2 spy plane “UFO” nonsense on the CIA (where one CIA reconnaissance official, James Cunningham, admitted FTD/Blue Book was in frequent contact with them). Air Force FTD apparently tried to suggest to the CIA that the secret U-2 flights accounted for many UAP sightings and, because of the need for secrecy, the public could not be told the U-2 explanation. CIA may have run with it because it boosted the importance and prestige of their U-2 in the aftermath of the humiliating CIA Bay of Pigs disaster – and by about this time, the mind-boggling story was embellished that “more than half” of all UAP reports were due to the U-2, not even weather balloons, Venus, or swamp gas, Blue Book’s usual attempted explanations?
(Knowing how Blue Book and its chief operated back then, from civilian researchers combing through 130,000 pages of Blue Book files and studying badly botched cases, it is very possible that on one date Blue Book happened to receive, say, five supposed “UFO” reports of which, say, three they thought mightbe of a giant Skyhook balloon, possibly from a classified high-altitude reconnaissance project of some sort. Then someone heard this but got their wires crossed and told someone else down the line of the classic hearsay chain that they thought it was three sightings of a reconnaissance spy “project,” maybe “like” a U-2 spy plane, thus confusing balloons with aircraft, and from there the myth was born. Over “half” – or three out of the five “UFO” reports that day – would have been a balloon; maybe a spy balloon, maybe not, involving perhaps nothing more than a sighting of an ordinary large weather or research balloon. But the “half” statistic for one day would be misheard and massively embellished as half of all 10,000 UAP reports for the decade and beyond. This is sheer speculation but based on the very real, typically careless way Blue Book operated. We may never know the full story.)
AARO Seems Unaware that Air Force Consultant Hynek Laid Foundations of UAP Scientific Investigation
Air Force Project Blue Book’s dirty little secret was that Insufficient Data often really just meant Insufficient Investigation which, if admitted, of course would reflect badly on Blue Book’s performance. Thus the usual tendency in Blue Book’s self-serving strategy was to blame the witness for any failings in investigating their own sighting – as if the witness is expected to be a top-notch PhD scientist. When the typically non-PhD witness failed to provide unequivocal PhD-level data, Blue Book would often triumphantly dismiss the case and claim it as one of their purported “successes.”
Civilian witnesses rarely even claim what they saw was a “UFO” or use the term “UFO,” much less an “alien spacecraft” (most will not even have heard the new term UAP). Most witnesses simply felt a civic duty to notify authorities about a “light” or “object” that was puzzling to them (as Blue Book consultant Hynek would say). That is the objective scientific approach which witnesses weren’t given credit for – reporting what they saw, not presuming to make PhD-level scientific interpretations or judgments of what it was. Military witnesses especially would grasp that the matter might have possible national security or scientific implications. It was inappropriate for the Air Force to insult the intelligence and goodwill of these citizens by dismissing their reports with improbable explanations that often made the witness look foolish. This high-handed and dismissive approach naturally had the effect of reinforcing the stigma and deterring others from coming forward.
The Air Force’s longtime scientific consultant on UAP, Astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek, taught that the “UFO” label not be given to a report until after a scientific investigation determines that it has no conventional IFO (Identified Flying Object) or other explanation. But because there is no recognized term for the initial report, the “UFO” label (and now “UAP”) is applied right at the outset for simplicity, and a seemingly redundant qualifier has to be added for cases that pass the Hynek Scientific UFO Screening process to be a “real” UFO, such as the redundant “Unidentified UFO” (Unidentified Unidentified-Flying-Object) or “UFO Unknown.” The process is not followed logically or consistently and the Hynek Screening is treated almost as an afterthought if at all. These issues are not discussed in the AARO report. Most civilian research groups’ UAP reports appear to be “Insufficient Data” mainly because they do not have the resources to investigate them all and so no Hynek Screening is applied.
AARO’s historical account barely mentions the leading role Dr. Hynek played in researching UAP for the Air Force and attempting to implement a meaningful investigative methodology. In the lone paragraph in the section on “Perceived Deception,” Dr. Hynek is referred to merely as an investigator, not as the Air Force’s chief scientific consultant on UAP. Also, the first sentence of the paragraph only refers to public suspicions of “recovered alien craft” and “extraterrestrial beings,” not the government’s overall handling of the UAP issue. It then merely mentions that the Air Force expected him to serve as a “debunker” in a sentence that also briefly mentions that Captain Ruppelt said he was expected to “explain away every report” and align press stories with the Air Force’s public position. Yet in its discussion of Project Blue Book, AARO simply states that the Air Force “determined” that there was “there was no threat to national security, no evidence of extraterrestrial vehicles and “..no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the USAF that sightings represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.” These conclusions are boldly stated as though there was nothing irregular or controversial about these conclusions. The same is true of AAROs account of the highly controversial Condon report (further details below).
Among other things, Hynek blew the whistle on the Air Force and its Project Blue Book for the “insufficient data” trick, forthrightly insisting that insufficient data cases, including the sneaky “possible/probable” IFO categories, are neither IFO nor proper UFO cases and must be excluded from statistical scorecards as they are insufficient in data (The Hynek UFO Report, 1977, p. 259). The same principle applies to modern UAP cases (“UAP” merely being the new label for UFO). Among other things, AARO should be required to clarify the distinction between Insufficient Data reports and “Insufficient Investigation” (more on Insufficient Data in sections below).
AARO also doesn’t seem to know about Hynek’s classic subdivision of UFO cases into Close Encounters (of three kinds or more), Daylight Discs, Nocturnal Lights, and Radar-Visual cases. AARO’s “complete” history of UAP investigations by the US government seems incomplete without it. There was even a Spielberg movie involving Hynek’s work, called Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
AARO also makes no mention of probably the greatest scientific investigator of UAP of all time, atmospheric physicist Dr James E. McDonald of the University of Arizona. McDonald’s name, along with Hynek’s, is all over the Blue Book records that AARO brags about “completely” reviewing (though AARO seems to have overlooked half of Blue Book’s records).
The prestigious author and scientist Dr. Jacques Vallee was a colleague of Dr. Hynek’s who lived through this period and could have helped AARO enormously, but he was not contacted. Nor was he contacted for comment by the New York Times, Washington Post, or other outlets after AARO’s historical report was released. AARO also does not seem to follow Dr. Hynek’s and Dr. Vallee’s UAP scientific methodology established in the 1960s.
Alleged “40-Year Gap” in Official Investigations of UAP is Due to AARO’s Failure to Properly Document their History from 1969-2009 – Not Even a Mention of the Pivotal 2004 Nimitz Case
The allegedly “complete”, “thorough”, and “accurate” AARO historical report (p. 12) wrongly claims there is “about a 40-year gap in UAP investigation programs since the termination of Project BLUE BOOK in 1969 [sic]”– in other words a 40-year alleged “gap” from 1969 to 2009 (p. 10). (Actually, Blue Book terminated in January 1970, not 1969, another historical error by AARO.)
In reality, the only “40-year gap” is in AARO’s failure to record the history, not a 40-year gap in the existence of US Government investigations and reports of UAP from 1969 to 2009. Somehow AARO managed to slip around the 2004 USS Nimitz incidents, and others that are widespread public knowledge and were investigated by the military (hence AARO can’t use the “it’s classified” excuse to withhold).
AARO certainly knows about the 2004 Nimitz UAP incidents, which were the primary events that led to the current sea change in attitude to UFOs and UAP, leading to the establishment of AARO itself. AARO just inexplicably and unbelievably chooses not to mention the Nimitz anywhere in its Historical Report.
There are numerous USG investigations of UAP easily documented in declassified records, and many published during that purported “40-year gap.” These are only a few representative examples – one can hardly match the AARO manpower of 40+ personnel and multi-million-dollar budget to do the research AARO should have done in the first place.
During the Fall 1973 UAP wave, there were several US military investigations of UAP. These included those conducted by the Navy and Coast Guard involving an underwater UFO or USO (Unidentified Submarine or Submerged Object) near the location of the highly publicized alleged UFO abduction case a month earlier at Pascagoula, Mississippi. Coast Guard personnel sighted the underwater UAP and Navy oceanographer Dr. and Lt Cdr (later RADM) Craig Dorman investigated. (UPI dispatch, Nov. 8, 1973, etc.) This is close to an important recent UAP sighting that occurred over the Gulf of Mexico, which came to Congress’ attention only as a result of a “protected disclosure.” Even then, all but one member of Congress visiting the base for the express purpose of a briefing on this case was denied access to the aircraft’s sensor data.
In October-November 1975 there was a wave of Northern Tier UAP incidents at restricted areas of military bases at Loring AFB, Maine, Malmstrom AFB and Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, Minot AFB, North Dakota, etc., which were investigated by the Air Force and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), as documented in declassified and FOIA-released electronic teletype messages (so the “it’s classified” excuse again can’t be used). Entire open-source books have been written about this (e.g., the Fawcett & Greenwood classic, Clear Intent, 1984).
A key intelligence focal point of investigations on the Northern Tier incident messages was the teletype address “AFINZ,” which turned out to be the Aerospace Intelligence Division of the Air Force Intelligence Service at the Pentagon (not Dayton, Ohio, by the way).
Likewise, NORAD Intelligence and NORAD J3 Aerospace Operations Division and predecessors have been involved with directing UAP investigations throughout the years in the alleged “40-year gap” and from before, back to the 1950s-1960s Blue Book years, and right up to the present (see “NORAD” in Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 801-824).
Also, a former Director of USAF Intelligence informed me that in the 1980’s the Air Force undertook a classified UAP collection program in the vicinity of Area 51 in an attempt to ascertain the origin of UAP violating the famous base’s restricted airspace. How come that program was not uncovered by AARO? How many other secret USAF programs related to UAP were not uncovered? Where are those UAP reports and how many others are there from other locations?
There is also no mention by AARO of the successor to Air Force Project Blue Book’s parent organization FTD (Foreign Technology Division), now called NASIC, National Air & Space Intelligence Center. Since NASIC is the Defense Dept.’s primary and central agency for intelligence on air and space threats, NASIC obviously must be involved with UAP today and its UFO / UAP history should be traceable back to FTD / Blue Book in the 1960s.
But AARO does not breathe a word about either the Foreign Technology Division FTD or NASIC in its “complete” and “thorough” history of UAP investigations (even though AAROR mentions the subject of “foreign technology” and “foreign technological threats”, pp. 15, 27).
In 1976 US-equipped Iranian jets chased UAP over Iran, with one UAP reportedly disabling the onboard radar, avionics, and the air-to-air intercept missile of an F-4. This is a famous case, with declassified official US DIA documentation released (so again the “it’s classified” excuse can’t be used), so it seems incomprehensible that AARO would not know about it.
In fact, AARO seems to be unaware of what it wrote in its own report because the “40-year gap” in government UAP investigations from 1969 to 2009 it claimed on Page 10 seems to be contradicted on Page 30, by AARO’s own admission that a nuclear weapons depot UAP case occurred in 1977 (apparently at Loring AFB, Maine) and obviously would have been investigated, and is currently taken seriously by AARO.
AARO also contradicts itself on the purported “40-year gap” in UAP investigations on Pages 21-22 where it reports that the famous Roswell incident was under various Air Force, GAO, Congressional, White House, and other investigations from 1992 to 2001 right in the middle of the alleged “gap” of 1969-2009.
(The claim on AAROR Page 40 that the Roswell incident, as “assessed” by AARO, was due to crash debris of a lost Project Mogul intelligence balloon appears to be another significant factual error by AARO since the alleged Mogul balloon launch on June 4, 1947, had been canceled according to Mogul project scientist records and the balloon equipment cannibalized for a later launch that never got lost but was followed and recovered.)
In 1980 the USAF nuclear weapons storage depot at RAF Bentwaters, England, was probed by a UAP with laser-like beams according to documents and the deputy base commander Col. Charles Halt, who was a personal eyewitness and led the field investigation team. Entire books have been openly published on the highly publicized so-called Rendlesham Forest case including by Col Halt himself. But AARO seems mystifyingly oblivious to the 1980 incidents, instead pushing its narrative of a purported “40-year gap” in UAP investigations from 1969 to 2009.
Also, the report’s claims regarding the lack of impact of AAWSAP and AATIP are clearly belied by their investigation of the Nimitz case, which proved so critical to helping change the views of Congress and the American people regarding UAP.
AARO’s Laundry List of Mostly Irrelevant and Actually Non-Secret “Secret” Projects
AARO tries to dismiss much of the UAP phenomenon with an implausibly expansive secret-project laundry list, including some projects like the Apollo moon landings, which were never secret in the first place.
As noted above, AARO claims that many “UAP sightings were the result of misidentifications of new technologies that observers would have understandably reported as UFOs. Observers unknowingly witnessed and reported as UFOs classified and sensitive programs that AARO assesses most likely were the cause of many UAP reports” (smoothed quote correcting AARO grammar errors etc.: See AAROR, p. 39).
Then AARO lists the Apollo program as one of 28 alleged examples (pp. 40-45). (See previous comments on Apollo.)
In none of these 28 supposed secret classified programs does AARO cite a single UAP report by date or location (the claims regarding early U-2 spy planes are unsupported by evidence, see above).
Besides the surprising and unsubstantiated AARO claim that the first US satellite in 1958, the open and public Explorer 1, somehow caused UAP sightings, there are the bizarre listings of purported “UAP sighting misidentifications” of secret spy satellites belonging to these programs:
CIA TK/CORONA
Navy TATTLETALE / GRAB
Navy POPPY
NRO’s GAMBIT
NRO’s HEXAGON
but again AARO does not cite an example of a single UAP sighting reported by people misidentifying any of these spy satellites as UAP. So why are they even listed?
Similarly, AARO lists as causing UAP sightings the various stealth and drone aircraft of:
HAVE BLUE / F-117
B-2 Bomber
GNAT 750 drones
Predator drones
Reaper drones
Yet again, AARO fails to cite an example of a single UAP sighting reported by people misidentifying any of these aircraft and drones as UAP. There are surely some valid examples, but to assert that these programs were a primary source of UAP sightings is unwarranted. Civilian UAP sightings come from all areas of the US, rural, suburban, and urban, not just in the vicinity of US military ranges and bases.
The remaining “secret” projects on AARO’s list are too tedious to go over and include the highly publicized – not “classified and sensitive” – Mercury and Gemini programs that put the first US astronauts into space, and like the Apollo moon landings never caused reported UAP sightings of their space capsules.
AARO makes a point of ostentatiously exposing and knocking down easy strawman claims throughout the report, such as going back to the Blue Book era on the sensational alleged “Navy jet” (no one saw this jet) shooting off a one-pound “metal piece” (no such metal) of a UFO (no one saw) over the Washington, DC, area in July 1952. (AAROR, pp. 20, 26; the one-pound magnesium orthosilicate stone actually found was a rare type of aubrite-enstatite magnesium meteorite, although AARO did not do the research to figure that out.)
Another easy strawman that AARO revels in demolishing is the infamous and long discredited “MJ-12” documents evidently hoaxed by Air Force’s own Office of Special Investigations personnel in the 1980s and 1990s (that Air Force role not mentioned by AARO of course) which appears to be an unlawful covert effort to manipulate US citizens and US public opinion.
Without mentioning the MJ-12 reference in the so-called “1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate” (one of several MJ-12 docs), which would have been a clear tipoff, AARO goes through a showy display of ticking off point after point how badly the document was faked:
AARO found that “the document lacked IC [Intelligence Community] tradecraft standards” and had “significant inconsistencies with SNIE’s … of the [1961] time period,” including “incorrect formatting, inconsistent branding, lack of a dissemination block and coordination language, loose narrative style, convoluted logic, imprecise and casual language, and … [strangely] superficial treatment of globally significant [1961] issues” had it really been written in 1961 instead of being faked in the 1990s. (See AAROR, p. 31, plus added MJ-12 hoax background here not mentioned by AARO.) Does this suggest poor USAF OSI tradecraft?
AARO’s Strained Effort to Deny Early Internal CIA Conclusions of Extraterrestrial UFOs
The AAROR’s representation of CIA involvement seems strained and contrived. Because this is one of only two official government conclusions of extraterrestrial origin of UFOs that AARO claims to find (and then dispute and reject), they go to some effort to try to invent something to explain away and wiggle out from CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence director Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell’s obvious and logically deducible extraterrestrial conclusion, given to CIA Director Gen. Walter B. Smith by classified memo on December 2, 1952 (see quote farther down, right out of AAROR, p. 17).
A third governmental extraterrestrial conclusion completely overlooked by AARO – by Air Force Intelligence, namely the intelligent UFO motions study by Major Dewey Fournet and presented to the CIA Robertson Panel – was missed by AARO despite its widespread reporting in declassified CIA documents and published UAP literature (see “Robertson Panel,” in Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, p. 1015).
AARO can only speculate that it is just “possible” Chadwell meant only “Soviet” (a 6-letter word Chadwell could easily have written if he meant that and easy for Chadwell’s secretary Mary Jane Carder to have typed). But Soviet threats were the CIA’s job to track, so why leave that word out? “Possible” means it does not rise to the level of “probable” or “certain” and therefore the opposite alternative (ET) of the “possible” (Soviet) is what is very probably true.
In other words, even AARO has to tacitly admit that it is likely CIA scientist Chadwell did mean extraterrestrial.
In case there is any doubt, Chadwell and his deputy Ralph Clark both confirmed in published interviews many years ago that they, the CIA OSI, did briefly conclude that UFOs were extraterrestrial but that the Robertson Panel effectively “overturned” Chadwell’s conclusions (as he put it). They did not know the Air Force had planted on the CIA a stack of Explained IFO cases disguised as the “Best” Unexplained UFO cases (see Table below) so that the CIA Robertson Panel of scientists naturally would find them all explained and thus not even close to being considered extraterrestrial, but worthy of “debunking” to the public instead (see Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, p. 1013a.)
As quoted by AARO (p. 17), Dr. Chadwell told the CIA Director he was convinced that “something was going on that must have immediate attention,” and that “sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles.” In other words, not Natural, not known (human) Terrestrial aerial vehicles, so what does that obviously leave but Extraterrestrial? Clearly, these were not classified US aircraft programs.
AARO’s handling of the CIA Special Study Group of (August) 1952 is perhaps the most error-ridden in the entire AARO Report (pp. 16-17), as it appears just about everything is completely wrong, even the dates and the names of CIA personnel and Group members, and omission of bombshell facts. AAROR implies that the Group continued from summer until December 1952 when in fact it was in operation less than one month in order to brief the CIA Director on August 20, 1952.
This was so that the CIA Director in turn could brief the President on UAP on August 22, 1952, a fact of stunning importance. It was the President who ordered the CIA investigation of the Air Force mishandling of UAP in the first place on July 28 after two weekends of worldwide bad publicity showing the Air Force unable to control the skies from invading UAP flying over Washington, DC, Air Force jets unable to stop the UAP — a highly relevant and dramatic fact utterly omitted by AARO. (See “Robertson Panel,” UFO Encyclopedia, 2018.)
AARO is flat wrong not only about the date of the CIA Special Study Group but even gets the names of all the CIA personnel wrong. Omitting all mention of the President and the CIA Director, AARO insinuates the Group was created solely on the initiative of the CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) Robert Amory Jr. but got the name or person wrong since in 1952 the DDI was Loftus E. Becker (Amory became DDI in 1953). Contrary to AARO, this Special Study Group on UAP was not formed and tasked under the Physics & Electronics Division of the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) but under the secretive OSI Operations Staff.
The Physics & Electronics Division’s USAF Maj. A. Ray Gordon was not the “lead” or any part of the Ops Staff’s Special Study Group. In fact, it was only two weeks after the Special Study Group was already in operation and had visited Blue Book, that the P&E Division was clued in on the subject and Maj. Gordon was first assigned by P&E Division to be the point person or “project officer” on UAP within the Division — hence the apparent source of AARO’s confusion of the two separate OSI groups dealing with UAP.
The Robertson Panel Minutes clearly identify the Group as consisting of “Strong, Eng, Durant” (not Maj. Gordon) two of whom have been interviewed by researchers over the years and who confirmed the obvious facts also found of course in declassified CIA documents AARO missed — the Group was formed within the OSI Operations Staff headed by Brig.Gen. Philip G. Strong, USMCR.
Somehow AARO managed to entirely miss the CIA Special Group’s finding that the Air Force UAP intelligence effort at Project Blue Book was a complete failure. The Group’s expert in the intelligence process, Ransom L. Eng, as part of the Group, personally visited Blue Book and its parent organization ATIC at Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio. Eng found that the Air Force’s Project Blue Book UAP effort failed all 4 stages of the intelligence process — Failed at Intelligence Collection, Failed at Analysis, Failed at Production, Failed at Dissemination.
The Special Study Group and Eng told CIA Director Walter B. Smith, Gen., USA, on August 20, 1952, at a CIA-wide briefing, that the “entire Air Force” had a “world-wide reporting system and [jet] interception program” against UAP but which generates a “flood of reports on unidentified flying objects” that comes to an inadequate “small group” with “low level of support … on a minimal basis” of only 5 personnel at Blue Book who clearly could not deal with the huge volume of UAP reports. The UAP reports were made from a 10-question report form that was “inadequate even for the limited case-history approach.” That’s the Intelligence Collection failure.
Then Eng said the all-important Analysis phase was of “extremely limited scope” where the Air Force used a laborious one-by-one “individual case” or “case history” system of handling, using no computer punch cards or “other standard method of processing data” to speed the process of explaining and identifying the Explained (or IFO) cases and the Unexplained cases. But once that was done, Eng pointed out the Air Force did no trend studies, no pattern analysis nor any other of “a number accepted research techniques … in any effort to gain a sound understanding of these phenomena.”
But Eng noted ominously that Blue Book had “laboriously” plotted the Unexplained UAP cases by hand on a map and the “plots show a high incidence of reported [UAP] cases near atomic installations and Strategic Air Command [SAC] bases” but Blue Book tried to downplay it. The Air Force failed to mention to the CIA Group that the new incoming Air Force Director of Intelligence Maj. Gen. John Samford himself was shown the Unexplained UAP map in December 1951 displaying UAP concentrated around nuclear bases and SAC bases. Gen. Samford was so disturbed he ordered a major investigation of the mapped UAP nuclear/SAC concentrations using computers at the AF’s Battelle Memorial Institute contractor codenamed Project Stork (which AARO botched as to its name, wrongly calling it “Project BEAR”). Here was a potential national security threat from UAP and the Air Force was misleading the CIA about it.
Eng concluded that the Air Force failed the Analysis phase and thus all phases of the intelligence process by failing to carry out the essential “well planned and properly guided research program” to solve the mystery of what the UAPs were and help prevent any national security threat. Once Blue Book failed with Analysis it automatically failed with subsequent Production of reports of failed analysis and Dissemination of those reports of failed analysis to intelligence consumers and policymakers, thus total failure on all 4 phases of the intelligence cycle. (The CIA team was never told by the Air Force that the AF ran a more competent UAP intelligence analysis and investigation operation at its Directorate of Intelligence at the Pentagon, not at Dayton, and that Blue Book in Dayton was being reduced from an intelligence activity to a mere Public Relations front over the next six months, by orders of Gen. Samford, AF Director of Intelligence at the Pentagon, on July 28, 1952.)
Eng and the Special Group thus urged the establishment by the CIA of a major ongoing, permanent scientific UAP research program conducted by MIT at its Project Lincoln radar air defense laboratory, which the CIA continued to work towards — until the AF derailed CIA with the now-infamous Robertson Panel. The AF forced the rush-to-judgment, hurried merely 4-day Panel of scientists on the CIA OSI in the weeks leading up to January 1953, which OSI repeatedly tried to stop, stall, and postpone, but got overruled via AF pressure on the CIA Director. The AF even manipulated the evidence by falsely submitting Explained IFO cases dressed up as Best Unexplained cases so they would fall apart in front of the Panel. None of this salient history was mentioned by AARO (see “Robertson Panel,” UFO Encyclopedia, 2018).
Surprisingly, Most AARO Cases are Unexplained, 62% as of Aug. 30, 2022
It appears that the latest AARO figures for unexplained UAP cases work out to 62%, as of August 30, 2022, since the current AARO historical report of February 2024 gives no figures.
These statistics are actually a worse failure to “resolve” UAP than the debunking “scientific” Air Force Condon Report study which tried to hide its approximately 34% Unexplained rate (see later below), and much much worse than AARO’s forerunner AF Project Blue Book whose final numbers in 1970 were 6% Unidentified, which the AF considered a success in “getting rid” of the UFO (as AF chief Blue Book scientist consultant Hynek put it).
AARO’s 2022 Annual Report reported 510 total UAP cases, of which 171 of the 366 new post-Task Force cases were “uncharacterized and unattributed” (p. 5). This seems to be a brand new name for “unidentified” (see the UAP Reporting Directive May 2023 para. 3.B.6) though the Annual Report tries to suggest it is a more preliminary “initial” category than either “positively resolved” or “unidentified.” Unfortunately, it does not define these terms in the AARO Report.
However, AARO’s UAP Reporting Directive of May 2023 belies their effort to minimize this new “unattributed” category label, by defining in paragraph 3.B.6 that “UAP ATTRIBUTION is the assessed natural or artificial source of the phenomenon and includes solar, weather, tidal events; US government, scientific, industry, and private activities; and foreign (allied or adversary) government, scientific, industry, and private activities.” That seems to indicate that “attribution” is not some “initial” cursory impression but a thorough “assessment,” hence like the identification process that would lead to “identified” or “unidentified.”
The AARO Annual Report seems to conveniently fail to mention that when these new 171 unidentified UAP reports are added to the previous UAP Task Force’s 143 unidentified, the grand total of 314 unidentified out of 510 represents a formidable 62% unexplained/unidentified.
AARO makes no mention at all of this statistic of 62% unexplained. The reader would be required to know the AARO predecessor’s UAP Task Force stats, add the numbers, and do the calculations of percentage – which almost no one will even realize needs to be done.
AARO admits its January 2023 Annual report (for 2022) had revealed that “some” of the (171) unidentified UAP “demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities.” (AAROR p. 26, omits the “171” number given in the AARO Jan 2023 report, p. 5, and neither report says how many were “some.”)
This is the core element of any basic definition of a truly Unexplained UFO or UAP: unusual flight characteristics/performance along with unconventional shape (the definition can be traced as far back as Air Force UFO reporting directives in 1948-49). AARO does not single this out for much attention nor give exact statistics.
The 2024 AARO report avoids all mention of its predecessor UAP Task Force’s remarkable pro-UAP statistics of 99.3% Unidentified, including at least 56% involving multiple sensor systems which would eliminate sensor errors and conventional IFO explanations (stats all omitted in AAROR p. 24).
No AARO mention is made of either the 99.3% unidentified or the succeeding 62% unidentified number, the latest exact percentage (by calculation) deducible from exact AARO case numbers (see next section trying to numerically pin down AARO’s subsequent vague “majority” wording). The total caseload percentage of unexplained does not seem to be dropping much further if at all, given that AARO continues in 2023 and 2024 to repeatedly use the same vague “majority” term for the explained case fraction, conveniently without numbers. Presumably, if it had dropped significantly AARO would likely have highlighted this or at least set the record straight.
Disentangling AARO’s Obscure Statistics Reveals an Annual Near Doubling of Total Unexplained UAP (from 143 to 314 to ca. 600 Cumulative Total Reports)!
As mentioned above, AARO’s predecessor UAP Task Force had a total of 143 Unexplained UAP cases as of March 2021. This was more than doubled to a cumulative total of 314 unexplained in the first AARO Annual Report as of August 2022. Now it appears that the number may nearly double again to about 600 unexplained in 2024 (see table below). Unfortunately, due to a lack of clarity or transparency, we are forced to analyze and disentangle AARO’s obfuscated UAP statistics in order to deduce this.
Interestingly, the October 2023 AARO “Consolidated Annual Report” (or “AARO Cons” for short) to Congress on UAP, makes the Blue Book-style prediction that:
“Based on the ability to resolve cases to date, with an increase in the quality of data secured, the unidentified and purported anomalous nature of most UAP will likely resolve to ordinary phenomena and significantly reduce the amount of UAP case submissions [i.e., apparently discourage making of UAP reports].”
But each year or so, the total cumulative number of unidentified anomalous UAP reports increased from 143 to 314 to 600. That suggests that each year or so the added new reports with supposedly better “quality of data” were more unexplainable not more resolved with the better data. A later obscure statement in the AARO Cons report admits that AARO has not been able to explain away its UAP case backlog (the excuse being a “lack of data,” but perhaps really a lack of investigation?) hence the new cases with better data are not helping AARO, they’re still highly unexplainable (AARO Cons., Oct. 2023, p. 8).
Once again, history repeats itself. During Project Blue Book the Air Force repeatedly suggested that the primary problem in identifying and explaining UAP was lack of quality data, when often the reverse was true. When Blue Book sorted UAP cases into categories based on the quality of data, its ability to find conventional explanations steadily decreased as the quality of the witnesses and data increased (see table below from data in Blue Book Special Report 14).
Because there is no mention in the 2024 AARO report of even its alleged current 2024 caseload of 1,200 UAP cases – a number shared by AARO Acting Director Tim Phillips with CNN on March 6, 2024 – the next most recent stats with any kind of hint at an explained/unexplained breakdown we can find are in the previous AARO Annual Reports: the October 2023 AARO Report and the belated 2022 Annual UAP Report to Congress of January 2023 (a confusing array of dates and reports).
The January 2023 report gives the breakdown of only the new cases, with the numbers if one adds them up, 195-to-171 explained-to-unexplained or 53-47% (of the new, not of the total caseload), calling it “more than half,” language that subsequent AARO reports have blurred into the more vague single word “majority.” Both the October 2023 and 2024 AARO reports thus have similar language stating that an apparently bare “majority” of the UAP reports were explained, and some of the remaining “anomalous.”
Then the 2024 AARO report in effect adopts the bare “majority” language as the current UAP status, implying a roughly 51-49% type breakdown (possibly even the same 53-47% ratio as the previous new cases, in view of the vagueness). By implication, AARO seems to broadly apply the older reports’ fuzzy breakdown to the final UAP 2024 situational wrap-up in this current 2024 AARO report. AARO thus admits in subdued non-numerical language the surprising fact that nearly half of its UAP caseload is still unexplained today or does not “have an ordinary explanation” – thus seeming to undermine its position. (AAROR pp. 25-26; similar statement in AARO Cons., Oct 2023, p. 8) It would be helpful in the future if AARO would clarify the data and present the actual numbers.
Presumably, the current 2024 numbers are close to this implied 51-49% split of Explained-Unexplained, or AARO would have said differently and given us the exact figures in the AARO report. (The AARO official website does not help, it gives UAP Reporting Trends from cases 1996 to November 20, 2023, including percentages of shapes (“morphology”) of UAP but for some reason gives no numbers of total cases or percentages of cases resolved or explained – much more important numbers insofar as rating AARO’s mission performance and assessing the level of UAP activity being encountered by DoD and the IC.)
In any case, if applied to the current UAP total then there may be close to 600 Unexplained in the 1,200 UAP reports total in March 2024 (and this does not account for AARO sweeping away Insufficient Data cases as if fully explained as Blue Book did in the past, which might push the 600 Unexplained still higher depending on the definition of Insufficient Data being applied consistently). If so, then this represents almost a doubling of the 314 unexplained cases from August 2022 (a figure AARO also omits). And that 314 unexplained was a more-than doubling from the previous 143 unexplained.
If the stats were much better than this from AARO’s viewpoint, they would likely have said so. AARO had plenty of room – and months of time remaining before the report was due to Congress – to provide explicit numbers in its historical report.
Why are we forced to resort to guessing games on nuances of AARO’s language? Why doesn’t AARO release the statistics openly and transparently?
In still another revealing statistical admission worded in non-numerical language, AARO admits, as mentioned above, that “A small percentage of cases have potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics.” (AAROR p. 26)
What exactly is that “small percentage” numerically, what exactly do they mean by “small” and are they understating and minimizing it in various ways? What is a “concerning” characteristic? A national security threat? A danger to air safety?
Is this “small percentage” the same category for which AARO then-Director Kirkpatrick gave CNN some UAP stats in October 2023 not found in the formal AARO Cons Annual Report just then released? Kirkpatrick said that 2-4% of the cases are “truly anomalous and require further investigation” (he had also previously given that same ambiguous figure to the media). Why the uncertainty of 2% or 4%? That is a double-factor uncertainty. Is there a “moderately” anomalous category below “truly anomalous” at AARO and what percentage of Unexplained or Total UAP cases might fall into that category?
The AARO 2022 Annual Report uses an interesting new term, “unknown morphologies” (= unknown shapes?), and says such “interesting signatures” are found “only in a very small percentage” of cases – as if stressing the “very small” number makes it better, as in old Air Force Project Blue Book debunker fashion that it was just a little ways to go to be completely explained away (AARO Jan 2023, p.8). How can a shape be “unknown”? Either one sees a shape or not.
It all adds up to a profound mystery that AARO seems to be deliberately obscuring if not obfuscating.
AARO is Playing the Same Games with Data as Old UFO Project Blue Book – Flooding its Files with Insufficient Data Cases
It appears that AARO has adopted the old Air Force Project Blue Book’s strategy of flooding their case files with Insufficient Data cases wrongly claimed to be explained. But if there are insufficient data to explain a UFO case or cases, then they are by definition unexplained. However, as Hynek taught, these don’t rate as “officially” Unexplained either, because that requires fully Sufficient Data and must go through IFO screening investigation. “Insufficient Data” does not identify an object or its cause, it says there is not enough data to do so. This AARO policy of caseload dilution with Insufficient Data reverses its predecessor UAP Task Force’s smart approach of selecting higher quality “focused” UAP cases with an emphasis on multi-sensor incidents (80 of the initial 144 UAPTF cases or 56%) which yielded only one IFO out of 144.
And unlike Blue Book, AARO does not even bother to give a breakdown of the status of the current 1,200 UAP cases on file that AARO’s new Acting Director Tim Phillips told the media about but strangely are not mentioned in AARO’s Historical Report. Perhaps AARO doesn’t want anyone to focus on numbers – specific numbers involving the alleged “assessed” UAP identifications instead of vague generalities.
Where are the UAP cases with data so that scientists can independently verify AARO’s conclusions, which is the core of the scientific process?
If the government favors transparency as it claims, why is it that not even redacted UAP case files are being released? Why is it that after the Navy Go Fast, FLIR, and Gimbal videos were confirmed to be unclassified other videos of precisely the same kind, obtained over US training ranges, are still being withheld? I know this to be the case because I’ve seen one of the unreleased videos and raised this issue directly with DoD. I initially got a polite reply and an assurance the matter would be reviewed, but months have passed and I’ve heard nothing further. Unsurprisingly, nothing further has occurred. And why is it that Customs and Border Patrol official IR videos can be released without damage to national security, but not similar DoD videos? I’m confident that with over 1,000 new cases there must be others like “Gimbal”, “Flir” and “Go Fast” that have not been released.
AARO appears to be the “New Blue Book,” trying to “get rid” of UAP just like the old Air Force Project Blue Book in its heyday of the 1960s strived to “get rid” of UFOs by every trick in the (blue) book (Hynek UFO Report, ch. 3). In sum, with great irony, AARO seems to repeat some of the same methodological errors and mistakes that undermined the credibility of the historical UAP investigation it is reporting. These appear to include:
misuse or obfuscation of objective statistics;
mislabeling or treating Insufficient Data cases as fully solved (when by definition “insufficient” means insufficient data to positively solve);
floating bogus stories of UFO witness mistakes to distract from the real issues;
flooding case files with poor data + insufficient data + Identified “IFO” cases to drown out and conceal the genuine Unexplained UFO cases, etc.
AARO’s methodology for UAP case handling is murky (confusing and inconsistent use of language, undefined terminology, etc), making it necessary to piece together hints from across multiple AARO reports, rather than just the latest 63-page report. No copies of formal AARO Analytic Division UAP case handling procedure and methodology documents have been released either; perhaps because there aren’t any.
Last month the U.S. government’s new UAP investigation office, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), submitted a report to Congress entitled, “Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena” (UAP, the new term for UFO). This new report is itself anomalous for several reasons.
First, who ever heard of a government report being submitted months before it was due? Especially one so rife with embarrassing errors in desperate need of additional fact-checking and revision? Was AARO Director Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick rushing to get the report out the door before departing, perhaps to ensure that his successor could not revise or reverse some of the report’s conclusions?
Second, this appears to be the first AARO report submitted to Congress that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) did not sign off on. I don’t know why, but Avril Haines and her Office were quite right not to in this case, having spared themselves considerable embarrassment in the process.
Third, this is the most error-ridden and unsatisfactory government report I can recall reading during or after decades of government service. We all make mistakes, but this report is an outlier in terms of inaccuracies and errors. Were I reviewing this as a graduate student’s thesis it would receive a failing grade for failing to understand the assignment, sloppy and inadequate research, and flawed interpretation of the data. Hopefully, long before it was submitted, the author would have consulted his or her professor and received some guidance and course correction to prevent such an unfortunate outcome.
Another irregularity worth noting is the fact that before its release, Department of Defense (DoD) Public Affairs sponsored a closed-door pre-brief on the report’s findings for a select group of press outlets on an invitation-only basis. Outlets like TheDebrief, which closely follow the UAP issue, were excluded. Following the report’s release, most of the news agencies that had participated in the pre-brief went on to publish articles that uncritically parroted the report’s findings. Moreover, they seem to have done so without consulting any of the scholars or experts who have studied and written extensively on this topic as would normally be the case in another field.
What about consulting the famous scientist, author, venture capitalist, and UAP expert Dr. Jacques Vallee, who worked with Air Force astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek on Project Blue Book and lived much of the history this UAP report purports to cover? Neither AARO nor the press bothered to speak with him. How about Robert Powell, Director of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies and author of the outstanding new book UFOs: A Scientist Explains What We Know (and Don’t Know)? Or professor Alexander Wendt at the Ohio State University? I’m sure these and many other authors and scholars would have been happy to assist AARO or the press, had they been contacted.
That America’s leading press outlets missed the problems and issues identified below and failed to present an alternative perspective, is itself typical of the stigmatized history of UAP press coverage since WWII. Those interested in the role of the press on the UAP topic may want to read Terry Hansen’s provocative book, The Missing Times.
The disappointing lack of critical press coverage of this important report prompted me to begin compiling the insights of UAP scholars and experts who have studied the history of UAP and the US government. I hope the observations below will prove helpful to members of Congress and the public seeking to understand the history of the US government’s involvement with UAP. Perhaps, when AARO publishes Volume II of its report, some effort will be made by the mainstream press to consult UAP subject-matter experts before rushing their articles into print.
One of the other concerns I have about press coverage of this report is the tendency to conflate the UAP topic generally with allegations the government has recovered off-world technology. The UAP issue is distinct and critically important regardless of the truth about allegations of recovered extraterrestrial, nonhuman technology. Asking AARO to investigate that allegation was unfortunate since a subordinate DoD or IC office finding its superiors innocent was never going to satisfy the critics anyway.
Moreover, a disruptive secret of that colossal magnitude affecting every person on the planet would never be revealed in a report to Congress from a mid-level official or organization. Only the President, or an independent Congressional investigation, could reasonably be expected to reveal such a profound and transformative issue. If Congress wants to be confident it knows the truth, it needs to conduct its own independent investigation.
In the meantime, Congress and the public deserve a great deal more transparency and clarity regarding US government data on the UAP issue. Too many well-documented incidents are occurring at too many locations, a problem greatly exacerbated by the rise of sophisticated drone technologies. If you don’t think this is a serious issue, consider that just a few months ago fighter aircraft were transferred from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana after weeks of intrusions by unidentified drone-like craft. The Air Force seemed powerless to capture or deter these intruders and has still not been able to identify them. Similar incidents have been afflicting Navy warships and other bases around the country.
If the Air Force can’t defend its own bases, how can it defend the rest of the country? Don’t we need to get on top of this sooner rather than later? As journalist Tyler Rogoway (incidentally a skeptic of ET theories) said in one of his many superb articles at The War Zone (emphasis added here and elsewhere below): “The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding Unexplained Aerial Phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence.”
In sum, the number of UAP reports and the number of intrusions into US military airspace are both increasing, so we need to embrace the full range of UAP and drone issues and pursue them vigorously, rather than trying to diminish or trivialize the topic the way AARO’s historical report seeks to do.
Hopefully, Volume II of AARO’s history of UAP will be far more accurate and informative, and will also garner more serious, informed, and independent press coverage.
Missing the Target
The new UAP investigative agency of the U.S. Government is currently called the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). It reports jointly to the leaders of DoD and the Intelligence Community (IC). AARO recently sent the classified version of its first historical report, Vol. I, to Congress. Ostensibly, it covers the period from 1945 to October 31, 2023. The administrative cover date is February 2024. Volume II is due on about June 15, 2024.
The Congressional legal mandate, meaning by statutory law, required that this AARO historical report present the detailed history of UAP as recorded in US Government records. However, AARO instead presented a summary history of the records of flawed USG investigations of UAP, rather than what was actually mandated: thehistory of UAP and “relating to” UAP, meaning the history of UAP sightings and investigations (and to be completed using USG records and other official information).
The law required a “written report detailing the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena,” and the word “investigations” nowhere appears – the phrase does not say it is to be a historical report solely “relating to” investigations of “unidentified anomalous phenomena.” (NDAA FY2023 Sec. 6802(j)(1)(A), codified statute 50 U.S. Code § 3373(j)(1)(A), as amended.)
In another breach of the explicit terms of the law, AARO failed to compile, itemize, and report on US intelligence agency abuses on UAP (per 50 U.S.C. § 3373, below). The AARO Historical Report was required to:
“(ii) include a compilation and itemization of the key historical record of the involvement of the intelligence community with unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP], including— …
“(III) any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP] or related activities.” [NDAA FY23 Sec. 6802(j)(1)(B); 50 U.S. Code § 3373(j)(1)(B)]
Contrary to Congressional direction, AARO completely omits entire agencies – NORAD, NSA, DIA (prior to 2009), CBP, etc. – agencies with known investigations or activities relating to UAP, and also omits any discussion of “any efforts to obfuscate, [or]… hide … unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP] or related activities.” AARO omits these agencies even when there are unclassified documents available on those agencies’ records and investigations of UAP (for example, see the approximate 100 pages of CBP Customs & Border Protection agency internal memos of Records on UAP, plus 10 videos, released in August, 2023, but unmentioned by AARO; Also see McMillan, Hanks, Plain, “Incursions at the Border,” The Debrief, May 27, 2022).
Excessive Secrecy
In the past, extreme and excessive secrecy has been displayed in efforts to “hide … unclassified or classified” UAP-related information, illustrated by the AARO predecessor’s UAP Security Classification Guide, first distributed internally on April 16, 2020 (see graphic below) which is itself heavily redacted, removing most indications of the type of UAP report content requiring classification. This is a binding secrecy regulation – don’t be fooled by the word “guide,” it is absolutely mandatory. The secrecy regulation specifically states that only a general statement of an increase in UAP sightings can be released to the public, and “without [releasing] any further information regarding when [or] where” a UAP “sighting [has] been reported” as that is classified. Additionally, the “times and places” of UAP detections are classified and are required to be “unspecified” and can’t be released; it is not “U” (Unclassified) (p. 6, subparagraphs. 4.1b-c).
The internal Pentagon talking points on the UAP subject are a gag order that specifically forbids DoD officials from even revealing to the media and the public the fact that “virtually everything” about UAP is unreleasable, citing the above UAP Security Classification regulation (produced by AARO’s predecessor, the UAP Task Force). Specifically, it states: “Except for its existence, and the mission/purpose, virtually everythingelse about the UAPTF [UAP Task Force] is classified, per the signed Security Classification Guide.”
Similar UAP security regulations no doubt are applied throughout the US Government. There is not one single item of government information about a UAP sighting that is not classified according to this secrecy regulation. Why is that? How can the US Government be transparent about UAP sighting incidents if nothing will be released? (See John Greenewald of The Black Vault, in “What’s NOT in AARO’s recent “Historical Record” UAP Report?” from his X/Twitter post on March 31, 2024).
How can this be, when DoD itself confirmed, prior to the creation of this (excessive) classification guide, that the three famous Navy UAP videos I provided the New York Times and Washington Post were unclassified, and their release would not damage national security? In fact, by bringing a major intelligence failure occurring in US airspace to the attention of policymakers, the public release of those videos clearly advancednational security. The bureaucratic fiasco of this classification guide occurred despite a broad consensus in government, including among our military and intelligence officials and members of Congress, that over-classification is a major problem that needs to be addressed. As Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) said in a letter to Congress in 2022, “Over-classification of government secrets both undermines national security by blocking the intelligence community’s ability to share critical information and erodes the basic trust that our citizens have in their government.”
Air Force intelligence agency “efforts to … manipulate public opinion” on UAP since the 1950s are what caused the harsh stigma attached to the entire UFO subject in society. But this powerful anti-UAP stigma is not investigated or historically documented by AARO – or even mentioned – contrary to its legal obligation (more on this below). In addition to the AF-instigated Robertson Panel of 1953, and all that followed after it, there are even admissions by a retired USAF OSI officer of allegedly spying on civilian UFO researchers and spreading disinformation on behalf of the Air Force.
The unclassified version of the historical AARO Report (AAROR) was released on March 8, 2024. But prior to that, AARO quietly released the report 2 days in advance to several friendly media outlets to cultivate favorable media coverage. These outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, faithfully carried the government’s message forward, apparently without consulting any of the scholars and researchers who could have helped them understand the report’s numerous errors, omissions, and shortcomings to provide a more balanced assessment. More objective reporting would have uncovered numerous major problems and serious errors in the AARO Report.
What follows are only a select few of the many issues and questions raised by the AARO Historical Report.
The AARO Report is Filled with Hundreds of Errors
The AARO report (AAROR) is pervaded by hundreds of unfortunate errors and absurdities involving the history, science, and facts presented in its 63 pages, with dozens–or more–errors on some pages (see graphic below of 14 errors alone just on the first page of the Table of Contents).
The report is replete with so many mistakes and misunderstandings that, page for page, it appears to be the greatest single repository of UAP errors, arguably surpassing even the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. Call AARO the New Blue Book. Speaking of which, the report utterly fails to convey any of the fundamental flaws or national controversies that dogged Project Blue Book, including the admission by its own chief scientist that Blue Book was a deeply flawed Air Force public relations effort to dispel public and Congressional concerns, rather than an objective inquiry.
To begin with, AARO asserts the Kenneth Arnold sighting that launched the whole UAP era occurred on June 23, 1947 (AAROR, p. 14).
Simple Googling would have gotten the correct June 24 date and the correct shape (it wasn’t actually “circular,” and neither was the Flying Flapjack which they call the “Flying Pancake” to erroneously emphasize its circularity even more). Arnold insisted the press’s label “flying saucers” for his sighting was a misnomer. Significantly, it is the important watershed event that launched the entire modern age of UAP. It’s not a typo in a minor detail that can just be brushed off.
There are unbelievable statements and insinuations in the AARO report such as the peculiar claim that the Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bomb somehow caused “sightings” and “erroneous UAP reporting” (AAROR pp. 4, 39-40) and did so even after it terminated on December 31, 1946 (a date they omit because it would not explain the sightings that began the modern UAP era in June 1947). That is a bit like saying trailer parks cause tornadoes. Since the Manhattan Project did not launch special aerial vehicles of any kind that could be “misidentified” as UAP, did the Project’s buildings fly up in the air and cause “sightings” and “erroneous UAP reporting”? This incredible claim is not explained by AARO.
Indeed, the truth is precisely the opposite of what AARO suggests. Not only is there no evidence of outside civilians mistaking the Manhattan Project and successor operations for UAP, but we know that personnel working inside the US nuclear weapons program were sighting UAP, reporting them, and thereafter collecting hundreds of their own authentic UAP reports. The senior AFOSI (Air Force Office of Special Investigations) officer responsible for Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory compiled a detailed catalog of 209 recent “Unknown Aerial Phenomena” sightings and instrument tracking incidents in the Los Alamos area and surrounding regions (see sample p. 38 below). He sent the catalog with a classified memo to his superior, the agency director in Washington DC, General Joseph P. Carroll, on May 25, 1950, stating that security officials agreed:
“… the frequency of unexplained aerial phenomenon in the New Mexico area was such that an organized plan of reporting these observations should be undertaken…”
Other documents explain this “organized plan” included instrumented UFO / UAP tracking stations and networks that were set up by scientists and security officials in the Los Alamos Lab, Sandia Lab, Kirtland AFB, and Holloman AFB–White Sands areas, and put on base-wide alert, consisting of missile-tracking telescopic cameras, radars, nuclear radiation detectors, radio communication networks, aircraft for interception, etc. Yet, no AARO discussion of this.
“The observers of these phenomena include scientists, Special Agents of the Office of Special Investigations (IG), USAF, airline pilots, military pilots, Los Alamos Security Inspectors, military personnel, and many other persons of various occupations whose reliability is not questioned.”
Many of the UAPs reported by scientists and military personnel were described as either “green fireball phenomena” or flying “disks” (or “variation”). AARO has completely misrepresented the situation: The Manhattan Project and subsequent nuclear weapons activities were not causing spurious UAP sightings by civilians awed by “new technologies” they did not understand – the government scientists and military personnel themselves were actually seeing UAP and recording hundreds of UAP in authentic and well-documented reports.
These sightings officially reported by US Government personnel were consistent with what the external “unknowing” civilians (as AARO calls them) were reporting at the time – sometimes the government personnel and civilians sighted the same UAP at the same time, confirming each other.
Seemingly AARO is confusing secrecy-bred lurid rumors of aliens with a careful sighting of a UAP, up in the air, at an exact date, time, and location, having unexplainable motions and appearance, and backed up with scientifically valuable directional data involving speed, size, altitude, sensor data, radar tracking, etc. Yet AARO suggests that many of these documented sightings are just rumors or mistaken reports based on unwitting civilian observations of “new technologies” in classified US military activities.
AARO claims the first US satellite, Explorer 1 in 1958, and even the Apollo moon landings (pp. 41-42) caused UAP sighting misidentifications and were “formerly classified and sensitive … national security programs” (AAROR, pp. 39-40) – which they were not, and Apollo was just civilian NASA. AARO insinuates that the Apollo missions were “classified and sensitive”, and yet, apart from a limited number of contingency missions later revealed to have had classified components, the vast majority of NASA’s objectives with the missions were fully known to the public, with the moon landing broadcast to the entire planet on live television.
AARO states (pp. 10-11, 36):
“AARO assesses that some portion of [UAP] sightings since the 1940s have represented misidentification of never-before-seen experimental and operational space, rocket, and air systems… From the 1940s to the 1960s especially, the United States witnessed a boom in experimental technologies… Many of these technologies fit the description of a stereotypical Unidentified Flying Object (UFO). It is understandable how observers unfamiliar with these programs could mistakesightings of these new technologies as something extraordinary, even other-worldly.”
“AARO assesses that the incidents of UAP sightings reported to USG organizations … most likely are the result of a range of cultural, political, and technological factors. AARO bases this conclusion on the aggregate findings of all USG investigations to date [and] the misinterpretation of all reported named sensitive programs…”
What “new technology” let alone “many” was ever flown that “fit the description of a stereotypical … UFO” (e.g., a flying saucer)? Yet just before “naming” the Manhattan Project and Apollo as supposed “examples,” AARO reiterates the unsubstantiated point, claiming that many:
“…UAP sightings … were the result of misidentifications … of new technologies that [civilian] observers would have understandably reported as UFOs…. [O]bservers unknowingly … witnessed … and report[ed] as UFOs … classified and sensitive programs that involved … rocket launches … which AARO assess [sic] most likely were the cause of many UAP reports. AARO assesses that this common and understandable occurrence—the misidentification of new technologies for UAP— is present today [and] are reported as UAP.” (AAROR, p. 39)
Subsequently, AARO lists the Apollo program as one of 28 alleged examples (pp. 40, 42).
But no such UAP or “stereotypical UFO” sightings of a “misidentified” Apollo are known or cited by AARO and frankly, it is baffling to suggest anyone on Earth could see the Apollo moon landings with their eyes from 240,000 miles away or Apollo anywhere along the flight trajectory. AARO makes a point of stating that there were in the Apollo program “12 astronauts walking on the moon” without explaining how that is relevant or giving a single UAP sighting they seem to insinuate was caused by that. Are there any actual, serious UAP sightings misidentifying Apollo launches to the moon as UAP?
Scientific errors by AARO thus abound in its secret-project-inflated report, including those pointed out above regarding the miraculous feats of human vision sighting Apollo moon landings and Explorer 1 from outer space – besides insinuating apparent errors of logic and physics and injecting a non-issue of misleading irrelevancies (non-secret “secret” projects that did not and could not actually cause UAP sightings).
Did AARO Miss 64,000 Pages of Air Force Blue Book UAP Files?
AARO may have “partnered” with the National Archives in retrieving old Air Force Project Blue Book files but AARO seems to think there are only 65,778 pages of Blue Book files (within some 7,000 larger digital files), instead of the actual total of some 130,000 pages.
Is AARO aware there are 130,000 pages of Air Force UAP files on microfilm at the National Archives (and some additional files that were never microfilmed)?
All that anyone has to do is check the Fold3 Ancestry.com website, available on the Internet since 2007, to find its total Blue Book page count of 129,658 pages (round off to 130,000) that Fold3’s predecessor digitized from Blue Book microfilm at NARA (see Fold3 internet screenshot below). (Page count includes about 6,000 AFOSI pages, some duplicative of the files and released with Blue Book.) And again it is documented that many records and files are missing from Blue Book, many with exact file numbers that determined investigators such as Jan Aldrich have documented over the years.
Did AARO somehow miss half of Blue Book’s files–some 64,000 pages–in its supposedly “thorough”, “complete”, and “accurate” history (AAROR, p. 12)? Did someone lose 64,000 pages of Blue Book UFO files? Did AARO investigate where these apparently missing Blue Book files disappeared or how the accounting error arose if it is just that?
Even aside from missing half of Blue Book’s files, which therefore could not be reviewed for history, AARO’s review of Air Force Blue Book history is so cursory that AARO seems to merely rehash old Blue Book press releases (see AAROR, pp. 18-19).
AARO claims it established 6 Lines of Effort (“LOEs” they call them) to prepare a “complete” and “accurate” history of the UAP “record” of government investigations (just not of UAP sightings as Congress also wanted): (1) open source, (2) classified, (3) personal interviewing, (4) National Archives, (5) private companies, and (6) intelligence/nat sec agencies (AAROR, pp. 22-13).
But obviously, AARO’s Six Lines of Effort were unmindful of 64,000 missing pages of Blue Book UFO files that only they at AARO were missing – while the rest of the world has, and has had, access to the pages through the Fold3 website since 2007 or by going to the microfilms at the National Archives or buying copies (all available since 1976). Additionally, as will be explained further below, AARO seems completely unaware of the existence of numerous important US government UAP investigation programs, activities, sightings, and radar/sensor-tracking incidents.
Martian ‘spiders’ are small, dark, spider-shaped features up to 1 km (0.6 miles) across. The leading theory is that they form when spring sunshine falls on layers of carbon dioxide deposited over the dark winter months. Thanks to new experiments, a team of scientists at NASA has, for the first time, re-created those formation processes in simulated Martian temperatures and air pressure.
Examples of the ‘Kieffer zoo’ features proposed to be formed by seasonal carbon dioxide sublimation dynamics on Mars: (a) ‘thin’ spiders within the south polar layered deposits; (b) dark spots on top of a layer of translucent carbon dioxide slab ice covering a cluster of ‘fat’ spiders at Martian ‘Inca City;’ (c) ‘fried eggs’ showing rings of dark dust surrounded by bright halos; (d) patterned ground within the high south polar latitudes with dark oriented fans indicative of wind direction and some bright, white fans; (e) bright halos surrounding Swiss cheese depressions; (f) ‘lace terrain,’ a type of patterned ground suggested to be polygonally patterned ground later scoured and eroded by surface-flowing carbon dioxide gas from the Kieffer model.
Image credit: HiRISE / NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory / University of Arizona.
Present-day Mars is a dynamic planet, rich with surface change despite its tenuous atmosphere and cold climate.
In winter, a significant portion of Mars’ primarily carbon dioxide-atmosphere accumulates onto the surface as frost.
In the spring, it sublimes, revealing some morphologies that are unlike anything seen on Earth.
These include dark dalmatian spots and oriented fans, ‘fried eggs,’ gullies sometimes accompanied by dark digitate flows and bright ‘halos’ in spring, dendritic ‘spiders’, sand furrows on active dunes, and growing dendritic troughs.
These features have been detected on loose material around the south pole and on interdune material toward the south polar midlatitudes. However, some minor phenomena have been detected in the north.
Araneiform features on the surface of Mars, as imaged by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009.
Many of these features compose the so-called ‘Kieffer zoo,’ a collection of surface expressions first described in 2003 and proposed to be created by the solid-state greenhouse effect.
“In the Kieffer model, sunlight penetrates translucent slab ice in spring and thermal-wavelength radiation gets trapped, heating the regolith beneath the ice and causing the impermeable ice slab to sublimate from its base,” explained Dr. Lauren Mc Keown of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and colleagues.
“Through this process, spiders are proposed to be eroded via high-velocity gas scouring the sub-slab regolith, while fans and variations of spots are strewn on the ice surface, deposited by a plume of dust and gas.”
The study authors were able to create the full cycle of the Kieffer model in a lab and confirm the formation of several types of Kieffer zoo features.
“The hardest part of conducting the experiments was re-creating conditions found on the Martian polar surface: extremely low air pressure and temperatures as low as minus 185 degrees Celsius (minus 301 degrees Fahrenheit),” they said.
Araneiforms imaged on the surface of Mars by the Trace Gas Orbiter. (ESA/TGO/CaSSIS)"The spiders are strange, beautiful geologic features in their own right,"
“To do that, we used a liquid-nitrogen-cooled test chamber: the Dirty Under-vacuum Simulation Testbed for Icy Environments (DUSTIE).”
“For the experiments, we chilled Martian soil simulant in a container submerged within a liquid nitrogen bath.”
“We placed it in the DUSTIE chamber, where the air pressure was reduced to be similar to that of Mars’ southern hemisphere.”
“Carbon dioxide gas then flowed into the chamber and condensed from gas to ice over the course of three to five hours.”
“It took many tries before we found just the right conditions for the ice to become thick and translucent enough for the experiments to work.”
“Once we got ice with the right properties, we placed a heater inside the chamber below the simulant to warm it up and crack the ice.”
“We were ecstatic when we finally saw a plume of carbon dioxide gas erupting from within the powdery simulant.”
Inside the DUSTIE chamber. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)The researchers took a simulant of the Martian regolith – a mixture of minerals in size and composition to replicate the dirt on Mars – and cooled it in liquid nitrogen before placing it in the chamber, which had been tuned to the pressure and temperature conditions of Martian winter.
Crack formations similar to the Martian araneiforms that appeared in the DUSTIE experiment. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)Sure enough, the conditions in the chamber had produced, in miniature, the same spider-like shape seen at the south pole of Mars. The gas had streamed out, carrying dust with it, creating the tendrilled form on the surface. But there was a surprise.
A paper describing these experiments appears in the Planetary Science Journal.
Lauren E. Mc Keown et al. 2024. A Lab-scale Investigation of the Mars Kieffer Model. Planet. Sci. J 5, 195; doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad67c8
VIDEOS
NASA reveals how spiders growing on Mars | Oneindia News
New NASA Image Shows Spiders Crawling Over Mars Surface | TIME
NASA reveals how spiders growing on Mars | Oneindia News
NASA’s Webb Reveals Distorted Galaxy Forming Cosmic Question Mark
NASA’s Webb Reveals Distorted Galaxy Forming Cosmic Question Mark
The galaxy cluster MACS-J0417.5-1154. Full image below.
Credits: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, V. Estrada-Carpenter (Saint Mary's University).
It’s 7 billion years ago, and the universe’s heyday of star formation is beginning to slow. What might our Milky Way galaxy have looked like at that time? Astronomers using NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope have found clues in the form of a cosmic question mark, the result of a rare alignment across light-years of space.
“We know of only three or four occurrences of similar gravitational lens configurations in the observable universe, which makes this find exciting, as it demonstrates the power of Webb and suggests maybe now we will find more of these,” said astronomer Guillaume Desprez of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, a member of the team presenting the Webb results.
Image A: Lensed Question Mark (NIRCam)
The galaxy cluster MACS-J0417.5-1154 is so massive it is warping the fabric of space-time and distorting the appearance of galaxies behind it, an effect known as gravitational lensing. This natural phenomenon magnifies distant galaxies and can also make them appear in an image multiple times, as NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope saw here. Two distant, interacting galaxies — a face-on spiral and a dusty red galaxy seen from the side — appear multiple times, tracing a familiar shape across the sky. Active star formation, and the face-on galaxy’s remarkably intact spiral shape, indicate that these galaxies’ interaction is just beginning.
NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, V. Estrada-Carpenter (Saint Mary's University).
While this region has been observed previously with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, the dusty red galaxy that forms the intriguing question-mark shape only came into view with Webb. This is a result of the wavelengths of light that Hubble detects getting trapped in cosmic dust, while longer wavelengths of infrared light are able to pass through and be detected by Webb’s instruments.
Astronomers used both telescopes to observe the galaxy cluster MACS-J0417.5-1154, which acts like a magnifying glass because the cluster is so massive it warps the fabric of space-time. This allows astronomers to see enhanced detail in much more distant galaxies behind the cluster. However, the same gravitational effects that magnify the galaxies also cause distortion, resulting in galaxies that appear smeared across the sky in arcs and even appear multiple times. These optical illusions in space are called gravitational lensing.
The red galaxy revealed by Webb, along with a spiral galaxy it is interacting with that was previously detected by Hubble, are being magnified and distorted in an unusual way, which requires a particular, rare alignment between the distant galaxies, the lens, and the observer — something astronomers call a hyperbolic umbilic gravitational lens. This accounts for the five images of the galaxy pair seen in Webb’s image, four of which trace the top of the question mark. The dot of the question mark is an unrelated galaxy that happens to be in the right place and space-time, from our perspective.
Image B: Hubble and Webb Side by Side
In addition to producing a case study of the Webb NIRISS (Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph) instrument’s ability to detect star formation locations within a galaxy billions of light-years away, the research team also couldn’t resist highlighting the question mark shape. “This is just cool looking. Amazing images like this are why I got into astronomy when I was young,” said astronomer Marcin Sawicki of Saint Mary’s University, one of the lead researchers on the team.
“Knowing when, where, and how star formation occurs within galaxies is crucial to understanding how galaxies have evolved over the history of the universe,” said astronomer Vicente Estrada-Carpenter of Saint Mary’s University, who used both Hubble’s ultraviolet and Webb’s infrared data to show where new stars are forming in the galaxies. The results show that star formation is widespread in both. The spectral data also confirmed that the newfound dusty galaxy is located at the same distance as the face-on spiral galaxy, and they are likely beginning to interact.
“Both galaxies in the Question Mark Pair show active star formation in several compact regions, likely a result of gas from the two galaxies colliding,” said Estrada-Carpenter. “However, neither galaxy’s shape appears too disrupted, so we are probably seeing the beginning of their interaction with each other.”
“These galaxies, seen billions of years ago when star formation was at its peak, are similar to the mass that the Milky Way galaxy would have been at that time. Webb is allowing us to study what the teenage years of our own galaxy would have been like,” said Sawicki.
Image C: Wide Field - Lensed Question Mark (NIRCam)
Wide Field View: The galaxy cluster MACS-J0417.5-1154 is so massive it is warping the fabric of space-time and distorting the appearance of galaxies behind it, an effect known as gravitational lensing. This natural phenomenon magnifies distant galaxies and can also make them appear in an image multiple times, as NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope saw here. Two distant, interacting galaxies — a face-on spiral and a dusty red galaxy seen from the side — appear multiple times, tracing a familiar shape across the sky. Active star formation, and the face-on galaxy’s remarkably intact spiral shape, indicate that these galaxies’ interaction is just beginning.
NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, V. Estrada-Carpenter (Saint Mary's University).
The James Webb Space Telescope is the world’s premier space science observatory. Webb is solving mysteries in our solar system, looking beyond to distant worlds around other stars, and probing the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. Webb is an international program led by NASA with its partners, ESA (European Space Agency) and CSA (Canadian Space Agency).
Downloads
Right click any image to save it or open a larger version in a new tab/window via the browser's popup menu.
Vergeleken met een paar decennia geleden weten we nu veel meer over het heelal en zijn samenstelling, geschiedenis en toekomst. Maar ondanks de antwoorden die zijn gevonden dankzij de voortdurende ontdekkingen van wetenschappers en de beelden van telescopen, blijven er nog veel vraagtekens bestaan. Letterlijk, soms. In feite is de ontdekking van een vraagteken in de ruimte, gefotografeerd door de James Webb Space Telescope, recent. Wat is het precies? En probeert het universum ons echt iets te vertellen? Laten we het samen ontdekken!
Een ongelooflijke zwaartekrachtlens
Als je naar de foto kijkt die door de JWST is gemaakt, lijkt het echt op een enorm vraagteken in de ruimte. Probeert het universum ook met ons te communiceren? Nou, ja en nee, want het vraagteken dat we zien is in werkelijkheid een geval van pareidolia, dat wil zeggen een illusie die ons ertoe brengt bekende objecten in willekeurige vormen te zien. En in feite bestaat het vreemde kosmische object uit drie sterrenstelsels die dit visuele effect bieden dankzij een zwaartekrachtlens.
Een zwaartekrachtlens, een effect dat al door Einstein werd voorspeld, is een verschijnsel dat optreedt wanneer het pad van licht van een object dat ver van ons vandaan is, wordt vervormd als gevolg van de vervorming van de ruimtetijd. Als licht een enorme massa passeert, buigt de ruimtetijd en dus ook het licht, waardoor gekromde sterrenstelsels, vreemde visuele effecten... en vraagtekens in de ruimte ontstaan.
Drie sterrenstelsels voor een vraag
NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, V. Estrada-Carpenter (Saint Mary's University)
De foto die is gemaakt door de James Webb Space Telescope laat drie sterrenstelsels zien die in onze ogen een vraagteken in de ruimte vormen. Twee daarvan vormen de bovenkant van het bijzondere symbool: de eerste zit vol kosmisch stof en is rood van kleur, terwijl de tweede een wit spiraalvormig sterrenstelsel is. Tot slot is er de stip die wordt gevormd door een derde sterrenstelsel dat perfect is uitgelijnd met de telescoop. Jaren geleden had zelfs de Hubble dezelfde scène gefotografeerd, maar het detailniveau daarvan was veel lager dan dat van de JWST, waardoor het sommige details die we nu kunnen zien, niet kon vastleggen.
Bovendien zijn de eerste twee sterrenstelsels ongeveer 7 miljard lichtjaar van ons verwijderd, dus wat wij zien is wat er ongeveer 7 miljard jaar geleden is gebeurd. Het is heel goed mogelijk dat die twee sterrenstelsels vandaag zijn gefuseerd of al ver weg zijn, maar dat kunnen we niet weten. Nog niet, tenminste.
Voorbij het kosmische vraagteken
De ontdekking van een vraagteken in de ruimte is, afgezien van simpele humor of een subtiele metafoor, buitengewoon. Allereerst laat het opnieuw dat ongelooflijke instrument zien dat de JWST is, zelfs vergeleken met de Hubble-telescoop die ook de hemel blijft afspeuren. Ten tweede is het observeren van een zwaartekrachtlens altijd een kans voor astronomen en astrofysici, omdat het hen in staat stelt verder te kijken dan onoverkomelijke sterrenstelsels en te bestuderen wat daarachter ligt.
Kortom, deze ontdekking lijkt misschien eenvoudig en banaal: het was tenslotte gewoon een kwestie van het analyseren en inkleuren van enkele beelden verkregen op het infraroodspectrum, en het bekijken van de verschillende delen. Maar in werkelijkheid is de reikwijdte ervan veel breder: het toont opnieuw aan dat het vandaag de dag mogelijk is om het universum als nooit tevoren te zien en misschien enkele van de meest ondoorgrondelijke mysteries ervan te beantwoorden. Beginnend met de juiste vraagtekens.
Mysterious UFO Encounter: Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson’s Unforgettable Experience
Mysterious UFO Encounter: Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson’s Unforgettable Experience
On August 27, 1979, a seemingly routine night for Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson of Marshall County, Minnesota, turned into one of the most puzzling and widely discussed UFO encounters in history. What began as a standard patrol near the town of Stephen took a mysterious turn when Johnson experienced an inexplicable encounter with a bright beam of light. This incident has remained one of the most credible and well-documented UFO cases, leaving both investigators and skeptics baffled.
The Mysterious Encounter
In the early hours of the morning, Johnson was patrolling a rural road in northern Minnesota when he noticed an unusual light shining down on the highway ahead of him. Initially, he thought it might be a plane or possibly smugglers dropping cargo, as drug trafficking was not uncommon in the area at the time. But as Johnson drove closer, the beam of light suddenly grew brighter and engulfed his vehicle, blinding him.
At that moment, Johnson lost consciousness. When he regained awareness, he found his patrol car had skidded off the road. His windshield was cracked, his car’s antenna was bent, and both the dashboard clock and his wristwatch were running 14 minutes behind. Johnson also sustained physical injuries, including eye damage resembling welder’s burns—a condition often associated with exposure to intense light.
Investigating the Aftermath
Once Johnson called for help, local authorities quickly arrived at the scene. His injuries and the damage to his patrol car sparked an immediate investigation. The cracks on the windshield and the bent antenna were analyzed by forensic experts and engineers, but no conclusive explanation could be provided for the damage. Moreover, the fact that both his wristwatch and the car’s clock were exactly 14 minutes behind pointed to an electromagnetic anomaly, as UFOs are often linked to disruptions in electronic devices.
This time discrepancy became one of the most puzzling aspects of the case, leading some investigators to speculate that Johnson may have experienced a form of time distortion—a phenomenon sometimes reported in UFO encounters. The detailed physical evidence, combined with the deputy’s injuries, elevated this case to national attention and made it difficult to dismiss as a mere fabrication or hallucination.
Theories and Explanations
Over the years, several theories have been proposed to explain what happened to Val Johnson that night. Some believe Johnson may have collided with a low-flying aircraft, despite there being no evidence of debris or other signs of such an impact. Others have suggested that he may have been struck by lightning, though no storms were reported in the area at the time.
UFO skeptics have tried to rationalize the incident as a misinterpretation of natural phenomena, but these explanations fall short due to the lack of weather anomalies and the unique nature of Johnson’s injuries and the clock discrepancies.
A Credible Witness
One of the key reasons why the Val Johnson UFO encounter has been taken so seriously is the credibility of the witness. As a deputy sheriff, Johnson was a respected figure in the community and known for his professionalism and reliability. His account of the incident remained consistent throughout the investigation, and he showed no signs of trying to gain publicity or financial benefit from the story.
Moreover, Johnson’s injuries were real and documented by medical professionals. His eyes showed symptoms consistent with exposure to a high-intensity light source, and he exhibited signs of physical trauma, including bruising and a concussion. These details make it harder to dismiss his account as a simple hallucination or misjudgment.
The Case That Still Baffles
Despite the extensive investigation into the Val Johnson encounter, no definitive explanation has ever been found. The case remains one of the most perplexing UFO incidents, largely due to the physical evidence and the credible testimony of a law enforcement officer. While some theories have been floated, none adequately account for all the strange phenomena that occurred that night.
Today, the Val Johnson incident stands as one of the most credible and well-documented UFO encounters in history. It is a case that continues to intrigue researchers, UFO enthusiasts, and skeptics alike, as it raises profound questions about what Johnson encountered that night on the lonely rural roads of Minnesota.
VIDEO:
Shocking UFO Encounter: Deputy Sheriff Speaks Out | Close Encounters 104
The Val Johnson UFO encounter is a prime example of how some UFO sightings and experiences defy logical explanations. The combination of physical evidence, personal injuries, and a credible witness makes this case stand out in the long history of unexplained aerial phenomena. Even after decades of investigation, the encounter remains shrouded in mystery, reminding us of the complexities and unknowns that still exist in our world.
While no answers have been definitively provided, the incident continues to fuel discussions about the potential existence of extraterrestrial life and unexplained aerial encounters, making it a cornerstone in the annals of UFO research.
Deputy Fired Over UFO Investigation | News First 5
Minnesota’s most notorious UFO sighting remains a mystery four decades later
Ocean Explorers Discovered a Massive Underwater Mountain That's Taller Than Mt. Olympus
Ocean Explorers Discovered a Massive Underwater Mountain That's Taller Than Mt. Olympus
Story by Connor Lagore
Courtesy of the Schmidt Ocean Institute
Oceanographers explored an area around the Pacific Ocean’s Nazca Ridge and found a massive underwater mountain.
Using a sonar system, the researchers digitally mapped the seafloor of the area and observed the rare and largely unknown species of wildlife that make their homes on the underwater mountains’s ridges.
Of the 71 percent of the Earth’s surface that is ocean floor, only 26 percent of it has been mapped with the level of resolution used on this expedition by the institute.
Summiting Greece’s towering Mount Olympus is an impressive feet for the 1-million-plus people who have accomplished the climb. But it would be even more impressive if they could do it underwater.
That’s impossible—for now. But oceanographers led by the Schmidt Ocean Institute exploring the depths of the Pacific Ocean just discovered a massive underwater mountain that at least presents the opportunity.
Regardless of climb-ability, the 3,109-meter seamount is a massive find. It’s one of many made during the oceanographers’ 28-day late-summer exploration in the research vessel Falkor (too), whimsically named for the famous luckdragon from The Neverending Story.
The team discovered the mountain along the Nazca Ridge, which is located about 900 miles west of the Chilean coast—a region that itself contains a chain of underwater mountains. But this particular peak was towering above the rest. The submerged mountain is about 200 meters taller from base to peak than Mount Olympus, and roughly four times the size of the tallest building in the world (Dubai’s Burj Khalifa), according to a press release from the institut
Related video:
Oceanographers Discover Massive Seamount in Southeast Pacific (Newsweek)
The Falkor (too) crew mapped the mountain and the surrounding area using a sonar system on the bottom of the vessel’s hull. “Sound waves go down and they bounce back off the surface, and we measure the time it takes to come back and get measured. From that we get a really good idea (of the seabed topography),” Jyotika Virmani, the institute’s executive director, told CNN.
The area plotted by the expedition is a drop in the ocean (pun intended), but every drop counts. Just under three-quarters of the Earth’s surface (about 71 percent) is ocean floor, but of that expanse, we’ve only mapped about 26 percent in high resolution—including this recent Nazca Ridge mission. The oceanographers also studied nine other features of the area, including a smaller, neighboring mountain’s sprawling coral garden that stretches the size of three tennis courts.
The rocky slopes on the Nazca Ridge mountains, and other mountains like them across the ocean, are perfect homes for ancient coral and sponge gardens in which some sea life can live largely undisturbed. In addition to mapping the mountains, the researchers used a robot to explore the region and made some pretty major wildlife discoveries. This includes the thePromachoteuthis squid, which is so rare that everything we previously knew about it came from the small handful of specimens that were collected as long ago as the late 1800s.
The Promachoteuthis squid, an extremely rare genus of squid known only from a few collected specimens that have been found as long ago as the late 1800s.
“The seamounts of the Southeastern Pacific host remarkable biological diversity,” Alex David Rogers, Science Director of Ocean Census, said in a press release from the Schmidt Ocean Institute.
The researchers also spotted a Caspar octopus—the first confirmed appearance of the cephalopod in the southern Pacific Ocean—and Bathyphysa siphonophores, which are more commonly and ridiculously known as “flying spaghetti monsters” (an apt description).
The Bathyphysa siphonophore, which is more commonly and ridiculously known as “flying spaghetti monsters.”
This was the institute’s third expedition of the year to that region of the ocean floor. During the previous two, researchers documented over 150 previously unknown species.
Scientists hope the results of these Nazca Ridge expeditions will help push forward policies to safeguard these areas of the natural world that—despite the fact that we don’t often see them—are no less worth protecting than what we can see.
“We’ve explored around 25 seamounts on the Nazca and Salas y Gómez Ridges,” Co-Chief Scientist and Schmidt Ocean Institute Marine Technician Tomer Ketter said in the press release. “Our findings highlight the remarkable diversity of theseecosystems, while simultaneously revealing the gaps in our understanding of how the seamount ecosystems are interconnected. We hope the data gathered from these expeditions will help inform future policies, safeguarding these pristine environments for future generations.”
VIDEOS
Rare species caught on camera in underwater mountain range
The Hidden World of Seamounts
Stunning Display of Biodiversity on Un-surveyed Seamount | Nautilus Live
SpaceX Drains Air From Spacecraft While Astronauts Are Inside
SpaceX Drains Air From Spacecraft While Astronauts Are Inside
Story by Victor Tangermann
SpaceX Drains Air From Spacecraft While Astronauts Are Inside
One Small Step
SpaceX's all-civilian Polaris Dawn mission has pulled off an incredible feat: the first-ever commercial spacewalk.
After fully depressurizing their entire spacecraft, billionaire and mission commander Jared Isaacman and crewmate Sarah Gillis carefully clambered outside their Crew Dragon capsule early Thursday morning to have a once-in-a-lifetime peek at the Earth below.
Footage shows Isaacman standing up and stretching his arms while holding onto the spacecraft's "Skywalker" platform, a pool ladder-like structure to ensure he and Gillis could keep in constant contact with the capsule.
The stunt was performed at an altitude of 458 miles, almost twice the height of the International Space Station's usual orbit.
"SpaceX, back at home we have a lot of work to do, but from here it looks like a perfect world," Isaacman told mission control while getting an unparalleled view of Australia.
Giant Private Leap
Another video of the stunt shows a first-person perspective of Isaacman climbing out as SpaceX employees cheered him on at the company's headquarters. In total, Isaacman and Gillis spent roughly eight minutes outside the capsule.
Prior to venturing outside, the crew began slowly lowering the pressure inside the spacecraft to become accustomed to the thin air. Hours into their journey, the cabin pressure was lowered to 8.6 psi, which is just above the conditions at the base camp of Mount Everest. They also began to breathe pure oxygen through the connections of their spacesuits.
Related video:
SpaceX Completes 1st-Ever Spacewalk By A Commercial Company As Part Of Polaris Dawn Mission (Dailymotion)
SpaceX to launch Polaris Dawn mission featuring 1st commercial spacewalk
By the time Isaacman and Gillis ventured outside, the pressure inside their suits was a mere 5 psi, just below the summit of Mount Everest.
But even with SpaceX's newfangled extravehicular activities (EVA) suit, Isaacman and Gillis were still fully connected to their Dragon spacecraft via an umbilical, providing them with a steady supply of oxygen and thermal controls.
The mission isn't just historic as the first commercial spacewalk. Just hours into their mission, the Polaris Dawn crew reached an apogee of 869 miles — roughly three times the altitude of the space station — marking the farthest from Earth that any human has ventured since NASA's Apollo missions half a century ago.
The spacewalk is yet another major achievement for the Elon Musk-led SpaceX, setting the stage for similar missions to come.
And NASA is absolutely thrilled as well.
"Today’s success represents a giant leap forward for the commercial space industry and NASA's long-term goal to build a vibrant U.S. space economy," said NASA administrator Bill Nelson in a statement.
Japans ruimtevaartbedrijf ispace wil maanlanding herdefiniëren met Hakuto-R Missie 2
Japans ruimtevaartbedrijf ispace wil maanlanding herdefiniëren met Hakuto-R Missie 2
Artikel door businessam.be
apans ruimtevaartbedrijf ispace wil maanlanding herdefiniëren met Hakuto-R Missie 2
Key takeaways
Tweede maanlandingsmissie, “Hakuto-R Missie 2”, voorlopig gepland voor december.
Het ruimtevaartuig zal worden afgeleverd via een SpaceX Falcon 9 raket vanuit Florida en zal proberen de maan te raken na ongeveer vier tot vijf maanden ruimtevlucht.
Het doel van de missie is om het goed te maken na de mislukte eerste poging in april 2023 door een misrekening van de hoogte.
Het Japanse ruimteverkenningsbedrijf ispace heeft plannen aangekondigd voor een tweede maanlandingsmissie, voorlopig gepland voor december. De “Hakuto-R Missie 2” zal bestaan uit het afleveren van een ruimtevaartuig via een SpaceX Falcon 9 raket vanuit Florida en een maanlanding proberen te maken na een ruimtevlucht van ongeveer vier tot vijf maanden.
Na de mislukte eerste poging in april 2023 als gevolg van een misrekening met de hoogte, is ispace erop gebrand om zichzelf te verlossen. Het bedrijf is gemotiveerd door het succes van Intuitive Machines, dat in februari ’s werelds eerste particuliere maanlanding realiseerde.
Achtergrond en motivatie
Ispace, opgericht in 2010, heeft ongeveer 300 mensen in dienst in Japan, de Verenigde Staten en Luxemburg. Net als andere landen onderzoekt Japan de maan op zoek naar water, brandstof en andere bronnen die het menselijk leven in de toekomst kunnen ondersteunen.
In de afgelopen jaren zijn verschillende landen, waaronder India, Japan en China, met succes op de maan geland. De Verenigde Staten plannen hun eerste maanlanding met astronauten sinds 1972 als onderdeel van het Artemis-programma, gepland voor 2026.
ispace HAKUTO-R Mission 1: Landing Live Stream
Why Japan's Moon Lander Crashed Due to An Unbelievable Computer Bug
An unidentified object that was traveling under the ocean at a speed greater than the speed of sound came dangerously close to a nuclear submarine. This claim was made by a researcher who was working on a classified operation aboard the USS Hampton when he made the statement. For many years, Bob McGwier worked in clandestine intelligence. He disclosed two incidents about underwater UFOs or USOs, that he saw while performing covert operations. This claim was made several months after a video had been made public by the United States military, in which it appeared to show an unidentified flying object moving from the sky into the water in the year 2019.
UFO researcher and former fighter pilot Chris Lehto heard the story from Bob McGwire, who said that the submarine passed at incredible speed while “going deep and fast” in the late 1990s. McGwire stated that this encounter was corroborated by a member of the crew who was surprised by the speed of the Unidentified Submerged Object, also known as the USO. (Source)
“We were underway and all of a sudden I hear the sound it was really strange… it was moving so fast. I just cannot believe it because this submarine is limited in the speed it can go by the incompressibility of the water in front of it and this thing blew by us like we were standing still. I’m not going to throw anybody else under the bus here but I guarantee you the following happened: a person with knowledge of onboard systems came out and said ‘oh my God’ this goddamn thing is going faster than the speed of sound underwater but that’s faster than the speed of sound in air.”
Robert G. McGwier is the founder and Technical Advisor at Hawkeye 360. He serves as Technical Director of Federated Wireless, Inc. Dr. McGwier is the Director of Research for the Ted and Karyn Hume Center for National Security and Technology, and Research Professor in the Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Virginia Tech. At Virginia Tech, he leads the overall execution of the Center’s research mission and leads the university’s program development efforts in national security applications of wireless and space systems. His area of expertise is in radio frequency communications and digital signal processing.
UFO researcher Chris Lehto with Scientist Bob McGwier: Image credit: YouTube screencap
McGwire had another USO encounter that took place onboard the USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) in 2008 while it was in a violent Typhoon. “I wanted to look outside and see what I could see and I was on the bridge so I was right up there underneath the American flag looking out the windows. When I noticed that even though we were in a typhoon and it was raining like mad there was no rain hitting the ship and I’m going what the heck and I looked out the window and looked up and I could see a glow above us in the sky. It was not very bright but I could see it and whatever it was blocking off the rain from the entire ship stem to stern.”
McGwire continued: “I believe I was on the port side and the reason I say that is because I took a peek outside and I could do that because I was Leeward in other words the winds were from behind me and the bulkhead of the ship were blocking the winds. So, I could look up easily so anyway it suddenly grew brighter and took off straight up and the rain returned.”
Similar to McGwire’s second encounter, in 1991, USS Kirk FF108 USO Encounter took place off the west coast of South America. The witness stated that at that time, he was a Chief of Operations and Intelligence serving aboard the Knox-class escort destroyer USS Kirk FF1087 and that they were part of a drug interdiction force consisting of the USS Kirk and three other Navy ships. Their main task was to patrol using a network of radars to track and then intercept drug planes flying out of Colombia, Panama and Guatemala, as well as to seize any smuggling ships that they could find. (Source)
USS Kirk (FF-1087). Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
The witness said that his primary position was at the CIC Combat Information Center, which he and 22 other specialists maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, rotating in two shifts of 11 people.
At 2 a.m. on December 16, he was on duty at CIC. The night was calm and nothing unusual happened. He said he used the break to go up to the bridge. At this time, the entire ship was in a status called “darkened ship,” when all external lights were turned off, as well as on the bridge, that is, everything around was dimly lit only by instrument panels. His friend was on deck duty that night, and they chatted when they had some free time. And suddenly, everything around was lit up in the red color:
“All of a sudden and out of nowhere, like a huge flash from a camera, emanating from the starboard bow sea level upward was a huge flash of red glowing light, which lit up our entire ship. It only lit up our ship, not the surrounding ocean, just our ship. It happened so fast, that the OOD, the navigator and I were speechless for about 5 seconds, at which time I looked at the OOD and asked him if he just saw that light. He stated yes in a sullen voice.
I then asked the navigator and he replied yes. I then took the navigator’s sound powered headset, and asked the forward and aft look outs, if they had just seen the same red flash, to which the forward look out stated, “YES! WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?”
After lookout said yes as well. I then immediately contacted CIC, and asked the CIC officer if we had any aircraft or surface ships in our vicinity, to which he replied clear as a whistle. I asked if we had any submarine activity in the area, to which he replied, no. At this point I looked at the OOD and asked him if we should wake up the captain or as we would call him, The Old Man. The OOD sat there stunned for a minute, as did I and everyone else.
What had just happened did not make any sense. The flash emanated from the sea, directly off of our starboard bow (like it was touching our bow), and ascended upwardly so rapidly, creating the effect of the bright red flash. The other weird aspect of this event was that only our ship was lit up within the red flash, not the surrounding sea, but our vessel only. The OOD elected not to wake the captain, and the entire incident was logged in our ship’s log as an unexplained phenomenon.
Up until this event, I did not believe in UFOss or USOss. I have no doubt that our ship, steaming along at 12 knots, came right up on a submerged unidentifiable aircraft. I don’t think the aircraft or USO had any idea we were sailing up to them. I think whatever it was, took off in a very unplanned and fast manner, and wanted to quickly identify us, thus the flash.”
In the end, after much deliberation, they decided not to wake the captain up, but simply to register it in the ship’s log as an “unexplained phenomenon.”
Many members of the United States Navy have reported fascinating sightings, and video showing UFOs entering water has even been made public. A video that was shot by the sailors of the USS Omaha in July 2019 off the coast of San Diego is one of the pieces of evidence that are being put up to support this claim. A spherical object is seen soaring over the ship and then plunging into the ocean in a video that was shared by UFO researcher and investigative director Jeremy Corbell. During this time, a member of the crew can be heard saying, “Wow, it splashed!”
The video generated considerable interest online, and when Corbell revealed that a Navy submarine had been dispatched to look for the object without success, things got even more intriguing. It is interesting to note that at around the same time, American submarines also spotted other mysterious anomalous objects that defied the laws of physics in the water nearby. The Navy has verified the authenticity of the video but claims to have no explanation for its existence.
More specifically, Luis Elizondo, a former director of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, said:
“Imagine a technology that can do 6-700 g-forces, which can fly at 13,000 miles per hour, which can evade radar and which can fly through air and water and eventually. in the space. And oh, by the way, has no obvious signs of propulsion, no wings, no control surfaces and yet can still defy the natural effects of Earth’s gravity. This is precisely what we are seeing.” (Source)
The experimental fusion reactor sustained temperatures of 180 million degrees Fahrenheit for a record-breaking 48 seconds.
The inside of a tokamak fusion reactor.
(Image credit: Monty Rakusen/Getty Images)
South Korea's "artificial sun" has set a new fusion record after superheating aplasma loop to 180 million degrees Fahrenheit (100 million degrees Celsius) for 48 seconds, scientists have announced.
The Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (KSTAR) reactor broke the previous world record of 31 seconds, which was set by the same reactor in 2021.The breakthrough is a small but impressive step on the long road to a source of near-unlimited clean energy.
Scientists have been trying to harness the power of nuclear fusion — the process by which stars burn — for more than 70 years. By fusing hydrogen atoms to make helium under extremely high pressures and temperatures, so-called main-sequence stars convert matter into light and heat, generating enormous amounts of energy without producing greenhouse gases or long-lasting radioactive waste.
But replicating the conditions found inside the hearts of stars is no simple task. The most common design for fusion reactors — the tokamak — works by superheating plasma (one of the four states of matter, consisting of positive ions and negatively charged free electrons) and trapping it inside a donut-shaped reactor chamber with powerful magnetic fields.
Keeping the turbulent and superheated coils of plasma in place long enough for nuclear fusion to happen, however, has been a painstaking process. Soviet scientist Natan Yavlinsky designed the first tokamak in 1958, but no one has ever managed to create a reactor that is able to put out more energy than it takes in.
One of the main stumbling blocks has been how to handle a plasma that's hot enough to fuse. Fusion reactors require very high temperatures — many times hotter than the sun — because they have to operate at much lower pressures than where fusion naturally takes place inside the cores of stars. The core of the actual sun, for example, reaches temperatures of around 27 million F (15 million C) but has pressures roughly equal to 340 billion times the air pressure at sea level on Earth.
A photo of South Korea's KSTAR nuclear fusion reactor. (Image credit: Korea Institute of Fusion Energy (KFE))
Cooking plasma to these temperatures is the relatively easy part, but finding a way to corral it so that it doesn't burn through the reactor without also ruining the fusion process is technically tricky. This is usually done either with lasers or magnetic fields.
To extend their plasma's burning time from the previous record-breaking run, the scientists tweaked aspects of their reactor's design, including replacing carbon with tungsten to improve the efficiency of the tokamak’s "divertors," which extract heat and ash from the reactor.
"Despite being the first experiment run in the environment of the new tungsten divertors, thorough hardware testing and campaign preparation enabled us to achieve results surpassing those of previous KSTAR records in a short period," Si-Woo Yoon, the director of the KSTAR Research Center, said in a statement.
KSTAR scientists are aiming to push the reactor to sustain temperatures of 180 million F for 300 seconds by 2026.
The record joins others made by competing fusion reactors around the world, including one by the U.S. government-funded National Ignition Facility (NIF), which sparked headlines after the reactor core briefly put out more energy than was put into it.
Just two years before his death, William M. Tompkins had written “Selected by Extraterrestrials,” which induced sudden chaos in the UFO community with his incredible testimony about the US Navy’s secret development of space battle groups with the assistance of major aerospace companies beginning with Douglas Aircraft. He can be considered one of the most incredible whistleblowers to step forward and disclose the Secret Space Programs, E.T. Agendas, and hidden governments. He claimed to be part of an operation involving US Navy spies who stole UFO plans and antigravity technological secrets from the Nazis during World War II.
In July 2017, at a press conference, Tompkins made an unprecedented statement. He worked for the Douglas Aircraft Company alongside extraterrestrials (Nordic alien women). It had been 4-7 years before NASA appeared. He claimed about it in his book (mentioned above) that was published in 2015.
William Tompkins of Oceanside, CA displays one of the 307 ships in his fleet. A modeler since age 9, he started in earnest in his teens and built an entire fleet that illustrates naval history throughout America’s history. Image Credit: Craftsmanshipmuseum.com/Tompkins
Additionally, he revealed that the Nazis had already had operational UFOs during the war, and because of the information that the US spies were able to obtain, the US later developed its fleet of UFOs – which then got siphoned off into the black military sphere under the control of Majestic 12, the ultra-secretive group that controlled and managed the UFO/alien issue in the 1940s.
During the time of World War, there were secret societies such as the Thule Society and the Vril Society. Famous British historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clark wrote a whole chapter about Maria Orsic in his book “Black Sun” published in 2001, where he connected her with Vril society.
The author mentioned that Orsic could communicate with alien civilizations and one of them was from the planet Aldebaran, which is located in the Taurus system.
According to Tompkins, the Nazis were in contact with Extraterrestrial Reptilians at the same time
According to Tompkins, Hitler allowed Orsic (and the Nordics with whom she was working) to continue to work on their UFO program because the Nazis were already in contact with the Reptilians, and because Hitler knew he could always take over Orsic’s project at any time.
Robert Wood, who was interviewed alongside William Tompkins by Search4TruthReality (source), claimed that the Nazis’ technology rapidly advanced due to their relationship with the Reptilians so that they got to the far side of the moon before the end of WW2.
William Tompkins and Dr. Robert Wood during an interview in 2016.
Dr. Wood worked in research and development management in Douglas Aircraft and McDonnell Douglas from 1956 to 1993. Later he became a Board member of MUFON. He was given $500,000 to disseminate UFO documents and $250,000 to make a UFO documentary. Later, Robert and his son Ryan scanned hundreds of MJ-12 documents and made them available on their website MajesticDocuments.com.
According to William Tompkins, he was recruited at a young age by the Navy due to his precocious ability to build highly accurate model ships. After working at North American Aviation and Northrop, he was hired by Douglas Aircraft Company in 1950.
In interviews such as with Project Camelot and in his book “Selected by Extraterrestrials,” Tompkins revealed much of his story. He explained that MJ-12 began in 1942 with the senior Douglas (the man who started the company).
Tompkins stated that right after the Battle of LA in 1942, to handle the implications of UFOs openly showing themselves in the skies, Douglas pulled some key men into a group (or think tank) that later became MJ-12.
Seventeen-year-old Bill Tompkins points out the detail on his models to naval Captain H. C. Gearing, commandant of the 11th Naval District in San Diego. Bill was soon inducted into the navy and is shown in the second photo in his uniform holding one of his aircraft carriers. He went on to help design com on the real ships. Image Credit: Craftsmanshipmuseum.com/Tompkins
Dr. Wood stated that MJ-12 is mostly associated with the Air Force, not other branches of the US military. He explained that the US Navy started back-engineering Nazi UFO crafts in 1942 before MJ-12 came into existence. It took the Navy around a decade to produce functional UFO craft, but they did so eventually.
Tompkins stated that when the first astronauts went to the moon, they were shocked to discover it had already been occupied by Draco Reptilians. He said that the Reptilians, over 9 feet tall, were standing next to their advanced craft.
Bill Tompkins: They were parked around the side of the crater. Okay. They were not parked on it. They were floating above it. So there were hundreds of these nine-foot reptilian guys standing with their legs. Yeah. They were all the way across underneath their vehicles, standing on the crater.
Interviewer: And what do they look like?
Bill Tompkins: They’re ugly-looking lizard, alligator-type people. They got the same skin as the lizards got. Okay. And terrible-looking faces. But then they have the ability to shift and look like a human. All of them do. Okay.
Interviewer. Do you think Von Braun was a reptilian?
Bill Tompkins: No. Your president. Yes.
Interviewer: Oh, which one?
Bill Tompkins: [George Bush senior] And Bill Clinton and this guy you just got rid. Yeah. They all were. Right. Okay. And they all have this ability to make themselves look like real good-looking people.
Interviewer: And you’re saying Trump isn’t one?
Bill Tompkins: No, he’s not. That’s a relief. And he knows more about this subject than people realize. But trying to get back to your earlier question, these groups of extraterrestrials who work together but are at war with other extraterrestrials, okay, have these vehicles that look like a planet, like our moon is a vehicle. It’s a command center for this arm. The easiest way to look at this is to put your arm out like this, and you be the center of the galaxy. (Source)
According to both Tompkins and Dr. Wood, the Reptilians had already made a deal with the Nazis. Amazingly, Tompkins himself claimed he saw ancient structures on the far side of the moon and that he saw a floating building – 1.5 miles above the lunar surface.
According to Tompkins, many ET species are interacting with humanity currently, including Dracos/Reptilians and Nordics which have a great influence on the world.
In his Project Camelot interview, Tompkins prevented himself from disclosing more information about Reptilians as it was harmful to his credibility. Tompkins also described the US Military’s concerns about UFOs and alien beings and the Military’s rush to create advanced space-based weapons, which could be used to defend the planet Earth against an ET threat to our civilization.
He revealed US Navy has Battle Groups operating outside the Earth. He designed five spaceships and thirty support ships. Using the latest technology, he designed different spaceships for Northrop Aviation Company. Northrop started building the huge craft underground in Utah.
Tompkins claimed we are now building even better Battle Groups. The Apollo moon landings were also designed to build a base on the moon. We have had bases on the moon along with bases on Mars and Jupiter’s moons.
A month after the shocking conference, Tompkins passed away unexpectedly on August 21, 2017, in San Diego, California, at the age of 94.
If humans are ever going to become a spacefaring species then we need to figure out a few more efficient ways to traverse the cosmos. That’s why NASA’s latest futuristic solar sail tech should be raising eyebrows.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Public Domain
More reality than fiction
Solar sails may seem more science fiction than reality, but just four months after a new NASA solar sail project hitched a ride into space, it spread out its sails and proved that the concept could be a viable option for space travel.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By Andrzej Mirecki, Own Work, CC BY-SA 3.0
It won’t be taking us to Mars anytime soon Obviously, solar sails will not be able to take humans to other planets quite yet, but the technology could be used for a wide variety of missions in space. But how exactly does a sail work in the vacuum of space (a place with no wind)?
Not like the sails back on Earth Solar sails aren’t exactly like the sails on a boat here on Earth but the concept is quite similar according to Space.com. Just like how wind can guide a sailboat, solar energy (photons) can be harnessed to help guide vessels through space.
How does a solar sail work? “It only takes a slight amount of sunlight to guide solar sails through space,” Space.com noted, adding that although “photons don't have mass, they can force momentum when they hit an object,” which is how solar sails can move objects in space.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By Scott Andrews, Public Domain
Launched into space in April 2024 On April 24th, the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3) headed up to space with Rocket Lab's Electron vehicle, and on August 29th, the ACS3 spread its solar sails in space for the first time, and it was captured by cameras fixed to its sails.
Photo Credit: NASA
The solar sails are fully deployed NASA published the first image from the ACS3’s sail deployment on September 5th, and it was a sight to see—even if its orientation was a bit confusing, something that NASA noted in its press release alongside the image.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By NASA Ames Research Center / NASA/Aero Animation/Ben Schweighart
The mission’s success is pretty awesome “The success so far of this mission is pretty awesome because solar sail technology is an incredibly impressive concept both in practice and in theory,” reported Live Science’s Monisha Ravisetti. But now the real work has begun for NASA's ACS3 team.
Photo Credit: NASA/Aero Animation/Ben Schweighart
The ACS3 will be put to the test NASA’s new solar sail system will be put to the test over the next few weeks according to Space.com’s Meredith Garofalo, who reported that the maneuverability of the system will be observed so that more can be learned about how to improve the system.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By NASA, Public Domain
Valuable information will be gathered Raising and lowering the orbit of the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System spacecraft will provide valuable information that may help guide future concepts of operations and designs for solar sail-equipped science and exploration missions,” NASA noted.
Half the size of a tennis court
The ACS3 spacecraft orbits the Earth at nearly double the altitude of the International Space Station according to NASA, which also pointed out its sails span roughly 860 square feet or about 80 square meters (half the size of a tennis court for reference).
Photo Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls
Visible with the naked eye “Now, with the sail fully extended, the Solar Sail System may be visible to some keen skywatchers on Earth who look up at the right time,” a NASA press release noted. So be sure to try and spot the spacecraft the next time you’re gazing up at the stars! It looks like a diamond according to NASA.
If humans are ever going to become a spacefaring species then we need to figure out a few more efficient ways to traverse the cosmos. That’s why NASA’s latest futuristic solar sail tech should be raising eyebrows.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Public Domain
More reality than fiction
Solar sails may seem more science fiction than reality, but just four months after a new NASA solar sail project hitched a ride into space, it spread out its sails and proved that the concept could be a viable option for space travel.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By Andrzej Mirecki, Own Work, CC BY-SA 3.0
It won’t be taking us to Mars anytime soon Obviously, solar sails will not be able to take humans to other planets quite yet, but the technology could be used for a wide variety of missions in space. But how exactly does a sail work in the vacuum of space (a place with no wind)?
Not like the sails back on Earth Solar sails aren’t exactly like the sails on a boat here on Earth but the concept is quite similar according to Space.com. Just like how wind can guide a sailboat, solar energy (photons) can be harnessed to help guide vessels through space.
How does a solar sail work? “It only takes a slight amount of sunlight to guide solar sails through space,” Space.com noted, adding that although “photons don't have mass, they can force momentum when they hit an object,” which is how solar sails can move objects in space.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By Scott Andrews, Public Domain
Launched into space in April 2024 On April 24th, the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3) headed up to space with Rocket Lab's Electron vehicle, and on August 29th, the ACS3 spread its solar sails in space for the first time, and it was captured by cameras fixed to its sails.
Photo Credit: NASA
The solar sails are fully deployed NASA published the first image from the ACS3’s sail deployment on September 5th, and it was a sight to see—even if its orientation was a bit confusing, something that NASA noted in its press release alongside the image.
Photo Credit: Wiki Commons By NASA Ames Research Center / NASA/Aero Animation/Ben Schweighart
The mission’s success is pretty awesome “The success so far of this mission is pretty awesome because solar sail technology is an incredibly impressive concept both in practice and in theory,” reported Live Science’s Monisha Ravisetti. But now the real work has begun for NASA's ACS3 team.
SpaceX-Polaris crew exits capsule for first private spacewalk
SpaceX-Polaris crew exits capsule for first private spacewalk
Story by Joey Roulette
FILE PHOTO: Anna Menon, Scott Poteet, commander Jared Isaacman and Sarah Gillis, crew members of Polaris Dawn, a private human spaceflight mission, attend a press conference at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, U.S. August 19, 2024.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A crew of four aboard a SpaceX capsule embarked on the world's first private spacewalk on Thursday, as an astronaut eased out of the Crew Dragon spacecraft on a tether into the vacuum of space, hundreds of miles from Earth.
Billionaire Jared Isaacman, 41, exited first about 6:52 a.m. ET (1052 GMT). After he returned a few minutes later, SpaceX engineer Sarah Gillis, 30, was scheduled to take her turn in space, all their maneuvers streaming live on the company's website.
"Back at home we all have a lot of work to do, but from here, Earth sure looks like a perfect world," Isaacman said after emerging from the spacecraft, the planet glittering in half shadow below him.
Before the spacewalk began, the capsule was completely depressurized, with the whole crew relying on their slim, SpaceX-developed spacesuits for oxygen, provided via an umbilical connection to Crew Dragon.
The spacewalk was scheduled to last only about 30 minutes, but the procedures to prepare for it and to finish it safely last about two hours. It was meant to test the new spacesuit designs and procedures for the capsule, among other things.
Related video:
SpaceX Polaris Dawn crew set to begin first private spacewalk (France 24)
A still image from the video of the SpaceX Polaris Dawn mission shows crew member Jared Isaacman outside the capsule during the first-ever private spacewalk on September 12, 2024.
Isaacman, Gillis, Scott Poteet, 50, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, and SpaceX engineer Anna Menon, 38, had been orbiting Earth aboard Crew Dragon since Tuesday's pre-dawn launch from Florida of the Polaris Dawn mission. Menon and Poteet remained inside the spacecraft during the spacewalk.
It is the Elon Musk-led company's latest and riskiest bid to push the boundaries of commercial spaceflight.
Isaacman, a pilot and the billionaire founder of electronic payments company Shift4, is bankrolling the Polaris mission, as he did his Inspiration4 flight with SpaceX in 2021.
He has declined to say how much he is paying, but the missions are likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, based on Crew Dragon's price of roughly $55 million a seat for other flights.
FARTHEST SINCE APOLLO
Throughout Wednesday, the craft circled Earth at least six times in an oval orbit as shallow as 190 km (118 miles) and stretching out as far as 1,400 km (870 miles), the farthest in space that humans have traveled since the last U.S. Apollo mission in 1972.
The gumdrop-shaped spacecraft then began to lower its orbit into a peak 700-km (435-mile) position and adjust cabin pressure to ready for the spacewalk, formally called Extravehicular Activity (EVA), the Polaris program said on social media on Wednesday.
"The crew also spent a few hours demonstrating the suit’s pressurized mobility, verifying positions and accessibility in microgravity along with preparing the cabin for the EVA," it said.
Only government astronauts with several years of training have done spacewalks in the past.
There have been roughly 270 on the International Space Station (ISS) since it was set up in 2000, and 16 by Chinese astronauts on Beijing's Tiangong space station.
The Polaris crew has spent 2-1/2 years training with SpaceX mission simulations and "experiential learning" in challenging, uncomfortable environments, said Poteet.
A record 19 astronauts are now in orbit, after Russia's Soyuz MS-26 mission ferried two cosmonauts and a U.S. astronaut to the International Space Station on Wednesday, taking its headcount to 12.
Three Chinese astronauts are aboard the Tiangong space station.
The first U.S. spacewalk in 1965, aboard a Gemini capsule, used a similar procedure to the one planned for Polaris Dawn: the capsule was depressurized, the hatch opened, and a spacesuited astronaut ventured outside on a tether.
Since 2001, Crew Dragon, the only U.S. vehicle capable of reliably putting humans in orbit and returning them to Earth, has flown more than a dozen astronaut missions, mainly for NASA.
The agency seeded development of the capsule under a program meant to establish commercial, privately-built U.S. vehicles capable of ferrying astronauts with the ISS.
Also developed under that program was Boeing's Starliner capsule, but it is farther behind.
Starliner launched its first astronauts to the ISS in June in a troubled test mission that ended this month with the capsule returning empty, leaving its crew on the space station for a Crew Dragon capsule to fetch next year.
(Reporting by Joey Roulette and Gerry Doyle; Editing by Jamie Freed and Clarence Fernandez)
"Spacewalk is now complete": Eerste ruimtewandeling ooit door niet-professionele astronauten succesvol afgerond
"Spacewalk is now complete": Eerste ruimtewandeling ooit door niet-professionele astronauten succesvol afgerond
De eerste ruimtewandeling door 2 niet-professionele astronauten is succesvol afgerond. Zowel Jared Isaacman als Sarah Gillis verlieten het ruimteschip langs een luik en waren ongeveer 10 minuten in de ruimte. Ze deden dat in compleet nieuwe ruimtepakken, die nog nooit in de ruimte getest waren. Bij SpaceX kunnen ze nu gerust ademhalen, want dit was het gevaarlijkste en spannendste moment van de Polaris Dawn-missie, die dinsdag werd gelanceerd.
Giel Bosmans, Wim De Maeseneer
Voor de eerste keer ooit hebben 2 "gewone" mensen een ruimtewandeling kunnen maken. Ze deden dat door op zo'n 700 kilometer boven de aarde hun ruimteschip te verlaten, terwijl ze met 26.000 kilometer per uur door de ruimte vlogen. Het risicovolle onderdeel van de ruimtemissie verliep zoals gepland.
De Amerikaanse zakenman en miljardair Jared Isaacman was als gezagvoerder (en geldschieter) de eerste die het ruimteschip verliet. Daarna maakte ook de 30-jarige Amerikaanse ingenieur Sarah Gillis een ruimtewandeling.
Bekijk: "Het was een groot risico, maar het is belangrijk dat de pakken getest werden", ruimtevaartjournalist Wim De Maeseneer
Isaacman en Gillis gingen elk om de beurt ongeveer 10 minuten naar buiten. Met het openen en opnieuw sluiten van het luik en het regelen van de luchtdruk in de capsule nam alles in totaal zo'n 2 uur in beslag.
Gillis staat bij SpaceX aan het hoofd van het trainingsprogramma voor de astronauten. Zelf ging ze nog nooit de ruimte in, net als de 2 andere astronauten Scott Poteet en Anna Menon. Enkel Isaacman maakte in 2021 al eens een ruimtevlucht.
Anders dan bij de ruimtewandelingen door professionele astronauten, zweefden de astronauten niet echt door de ruimte. Ze bleven de hele tijd fysiek contact houden met het ruimteschip en gingen niet verder dan net buiten het luik. Ze bleven ook de hele tijd verbonden via een kabel die hen onder meer voorzag van zuurstof. Toch zijn ruimtewandelingen, ook onder die omstandigheden, uiterst gevaarlijk.
Veel risico
Wat deze ruimtewandeling extra risicovol maakte, is dat de gloednieuwe ruimtepakken die de astronauten droegen nog nooit getest waren in de ruimte. Het ruimteschip heeft ook geen luchtsluis, waardoor het hele ruimteschip werd blootgesteld aan het vacuüm van de ruimte. Ook de 2 astronauten die binnen bleven zitten en de wandeling begeleidden, liepen dus risico.
"Ik ga met een bang hartje kijken, ik ben er niet gerust op", vertelde ruimtevaartexpert Nancy Vermeulen op voorhand. "Het is de eerste keer dat niet-professionele, onervaren astronauten een ruimtewandeling doen. Er kan echt van alles misgaan."
"Het zijn eigenlijk 4 beginners", zei de Nederlandse astronaut André Kuipers in de podcast 'Space Cowboys'. "Ze gaan allemaal nieuwe dingen tegelijk doen. Dat is absoluut niet zonder gevaar. Normaal wordt een ruimtewandeling ook nooit zo vroeg in een ruimtevlucht gedaan, omdat je de eerste dagen ruimteziek kan worden."
Grensverleggende ruimtevlucht
De ruimtewandeling maakt deel uit van de Polaris Dawn-missie: een commerciële ruimtevlucht van SpaceX, het ruimtebedrijf van Elon Musk. De 4 zitjes aan boord zijn gekocht door de Amerikaanse zakenman en miljardair Jared Isaacman. Samen met 3 andere ruimtevaarders vliegt hij sinds dinsdag rond de aarde in een Dragon-capsule van SpaceX.
Polaris Dawn vloog op de 2e dag van de missie tot op 1.400 kilometer hoog. Het was al van de laatste maanvlucht in 1972 geleden dat een bemande ruimtemissie zo ver weg van de aarde reisde. Het was ook de eerste keer dat vrouwelijke astronauten zo ver in de ruimte zijn geweest.
Polaris Dawn and Dragon at 1,400 km above Earth – the farthest humans have traveled since the Apollo program over 50 years agopic.twitter.com/rRDeD1dY1e
Hier staat ingevoegde content uit een social media netwerk (𝕏) dat cookies wil schrijven of uitlezen. U heeft hiervoor geen toestemming gegeven.Klik hier om 𝕏 alsnog toe te laten.
Nieuwe ruimtepakken
De pakken zijn ontworpen door SpaceX, het ruimtebedrijf van de Amerikaanse zakenman Elon Musk. Zijn uiteindelijke doel is om de mensheid ooit op Mars te laten wonen. Om daar ooit te geraken, zijn er eerst nog vele ruimtereizen nodig, ter voorbereiding. En dus ook veel ruimtepakken.
De ruimtewandeling van Polaris Dawn dient vooral als eerste test voor de nieuwe pakken: zijn de pakken soepel genoeg en werkt alle apparatuur binnenin zoals het hoort? Daarnaast is het ook belangrijk om te bekijken of de pakken genoeg beschermen tegen de kosmische straling en extreme temperaturen.
"Het idee is om zoveel mogelijk over het pak te leren als we kunnen en dit terug te geven aan de ingenieurs zodat ze het pak in de toekomst verder kunnen ontwerpen", zei Isaacman eerder in een interview.
Wie zijn de astronauten aan boord van Polaris Dawn-missie?
Gezagvoerder van de missie is Jared Isaacman(41), een Amerikaanse miljardair en CEO van Shift4-payments, een betalingsdienst. Hij is ook de grote geldschieter van het hele project. Isaacman nam in 2021 al deel aan de 'Inspiration4', de eerste volledig commerciële bemande ruimtevlucht.
Scott "Kidd" Poteet (50), een gepensioneerde luitenant-kolonel van de Amerikaanse luchtmacht, is de piloot van de missie. Poteet en Isaacman zijn goede vrienden en kennen elkaar al jaren.
Sarah Gillis (30) is een Amerikaanse ingenieur en werkt voor SpaceX. Bij het bedrijf leidt ze het trainingsprogramma voor de astronauten. Zo trainde ze ook Isaacman en de andere ruimtetoeristen van de 'Inspiration4'. Gillis zal samen met Isaacman een ruimtewandeling maken tijdens deze missie.
Ook Anna Menon (38) is een Amerikaanse ingenieur die voor SpaceX werkt. Daarvoor werkte Menon al bij de NASA voor het ISS, het internationaal ruimtestation. Tijdens de Polaris Dawn-missie zal Menon dienen als de medisch officier van het team.
De eerste ruimtewandeling ooit was door de Russische kosmonaut Aleksej Leonov op 18 maart 1965. En bijna ging het mis. Leonov raakte met moeite terug in zijn ruimteschip. Zijn pak was in het vacuüm van de ruimte helemaal opgeblazen waardoor hij bijna niet meer kon bewegen. Door wat lucht uit zijn pak te laten lopen, kon hij uiteindelijk terug naar binnen. Hij nam daardoor wel een groot risico.
Minder dan 3 maanden later volgde de Amerikaanse astronaut Edward White. Sindsdien maakten al zo'n 260 astronauten uit 12 landen een ruimtewandeling. De eerste ruimtewandeling door een vrouw gebeurde pas in 1984. In totaal hebben nog maar 16 vrouwen een ruimtewandeling gemaakt.
Van links naar rechts: Scott Poteet, Anna Menon, Sarah Gillis en Jared Isaacman
Megatsunami van 200 meter hoog blijkt oorzaak van dagenlange wereldwijde aardtrillingen, ontdekken Belgische onderzoekers
Foto: Soren Rysgaar
Megatsunami van 200 meter hoog blijkt oorzaak van dagenlange wereldwijde aardtrillingen, ontdekken Belgische onderzoekers
Belgische wetenschappers hebben de oorzaak ontdekt van mysterieuze trillingen in de aarde, die vorig jaar 9 dagen lang en wereldwijd meetbaar waren. De oorzaak bleek een megatsunami van 200 meter hoog, die heen en weer bleef klotsen in een fjord in Groenland. Een bergtop en gletsjer waren neergestort in het water.
Artikel door Wim De Maeseneer
Het is 16 september 2023 wanneer seismologen van over de hele wereld plots een mysterieus signaal zien op hun uiterst gevoelige meettoestellen. Het signaal lijkt tot hun verbazing helemaal niet op een aardbeving en houdt maar liefst 9 dagen aan.
De trillingen gaan de wereld rond en worden gedetecteerd in Engeland, de Verenigde Staten, Japan, West-Australië en van de Noord- tot de Zuidpool. En dus ook in België.
"We hebben een oproep gedaan aan seismologen over de hele wereld en kregen al snel de reactie dat ook zij allemaal hetzelfde signaal hadden gedetecteerd", zegt seismoloog Koen Van Noten van de Koninklijke Sterrenwacht van België. "We hebben dan kunnen achterhalen dat de trillingen waarschijnlijk uit Oost-Groenland afkomstig waren, maar we hadden geen flauw idee wat de oorzaak kon zijn."
Overview of seismic stations on Greenland (black triangles), the location of the tsunami (red circle) and the nearest seismic station (red triangle), whose filtered signals are shown.Credit: Angela Carillo Ponce et al.
Op hetzelfde moment krijgen onderzoekers van het Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee (VLIZ) bericht dat er een grote tsunami is waargenomen vlak bij een van hun meetstations waar ze onderzoek doen naar de klimaatverandering.
"Onze metingen en berekeningen bevestigden dat er inderdaad een grote tsunami moet zijn geweest", zegt onderzoeker Wieter Boone van het VLIZ. "We zijn dan meteen op satellietbeelden gaan zoeken wat en waar er iets gebeurd zou kunnen zijn."
On 16 September 2023, a massive landslide in Greenland triggered a megatsunami, creating a standing wave that oscillated in Dickson Fjord for over a week, observed worldwide through seismic stations. This unusual long-duration signal from the standing wave offers new insights into megatsunami dynamics, with implications for understanding climate change impacts on glacier retreat and landslide frequency.
(Artist’s concept).
Megatsunami
Op die beelden, en op foto's die enkele dagen later door het Deense leger zijn gemaakt, was duidelijk te zien dat een van de hoge bergtoppen langs de Dicksonfjord volledig was ingestort. "Door die massa rotsen en de grote snelheid waarmee ze naar beneden zijn gekomen, is ook de gletsjer eronder afgebroken en in de fjord terechtgekomen", zegt Boone.
"In totaal moet zo'n 25 miljoen kubieke meter rotsen en ijs in de smalle kloof zijn gevallen. Dat komt overeen met de inhoud van 10.000 Olympische zwembaden of 27 van de grootste containerschepen."
"Dat heeft een tsunami veroorzaakt tot wel 200 meter hoog. En omdat de fjord een bocht van bijna 90 graden heeft, zat de golf gevangen en is het water heen en weer blijven klotsen, zoals in een bad, 9 dagen lang. De trillingen die dat heeft veroorzaakt zijn de wereld rondgegaan."
Foto voor en na het instorten van de bergtop en gletsjer
Foto: Soren Rysgaard
Klimaatverandering
Volgens de onderzoekers gaan er door de klimaatopwarming nog meer grote landverschuivingen voorkomen. "Typisch in Noordoost-Groenland is dat er steile bergen en hoge gletsjer zijn, die aan elkaar zijn gevroren tot een geheel. Maar door de klimaatopwarming smelten ze van elkaar los en worden ze instabiel. Daardoor zien we nu al meer landverschuivingen in die regio", zegt Boone.
Gelukkig waren er die dag geen schepen in de buurt. Anders waren de gevolgen van de enorme tsunami niet te overzien geweest
"Onze instrumenten hebben de tsunami gelukkig overleefd. Maar 72 kilometer verder, op Ella Island, hadden ze minder geluk. Daar is wel een onderzoeksbasis vernield, door de deining van de tsunami die nog steeds 4 meter hoge golven veroorzaakte."
De Diksonfjord is ook populair bij toeristen die de Groenlandse fjorden per cruiseschip bezoeken. "Gelukkig waren er die dag geen schepen in de buurt. Anders waren de gevolgen van de enorme tsunami niet te overzien geweest", zeggen de onderzoekers. "Het zal belangrijk zijn om deze gebieden goed te monitoren."
Depending on the frequency range filtered out, the rockfall triggering the tsunami can be seen as a single peak (top), the standing wave sloshing back and forth as an undulating pattern in the recordings (middle, with several hours depicted) or the overall signal of the rockfall and the tsunami over the course of a week with strongly decreasing intensity of the oscillations (bottom).
Credit: Angela Carillo Ponce et al.
Het onderzoek van onder meer de Koninklijke Sterrenwacht van België, het VLIZ en de Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) is gepubliceerd in het wetenschappelijk tijdschrift Science.
What Did We Learn From Manufacturing the ACS3 Solar Sail Mission?
We recently reported on the successful deployment of the solar sail of the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3) technology demonstration mission. That huge achievement advances one of the most important technologies available to CubeSats – a different form of propulsion. But getting there wasn’t easy, and back in May, a team of engineers from NASA’s Langley Research Center who worked on ACS3 published a paper detailing the trials and tribulations they went through to prepare the mission for prime time. Let’s take a look at what they learned.
ACS3 was only a technology demonstration mission—it had no science payload to deal with. And that’s a good thing, too, because fitting the solar sail into the housing of a CubeSat was a challenge even without any scientific equipment.
The technology demonstrated was the deployable boom system that created an 81 square meter surface of solar sail to catch the photon particles used to propel the mission forward. That sounds much easier than it was, as is evident from the descriptions of the problems the team had to overcome.
Fraser describes how useful solar sails are.
Eventually, the mission launched in a 12U CubeSat configuration, weighing about 16 kg (36 lbs) in total mass. However, the mission was initially prototyped to fit into a 6U configuration—about half the size and weight of the 12U. With the amount of deployable material and the necessary motors to drive their deployment, the engineers couldn’t fit other essential components, like reaction wheels, to steady the CubeSat’s orientation.
However, the 12U design “came with several technical challenges,” according to the paper. One was whether to use four independent spools of material, each tied to an independent boom or one central hub spool with all four booms coiled around a central axis. As was the case with almost all engineering projects, the team’s decision wasn’t based on what was technically best. They decided to use the four independent spools since that required the least modification from the original 6U design.
Another lesson described in the paper was the timing of the launch coordination. Both the “dispenser” (i.e., the system that sends the CubeSats out into space after a successful launch) and the launch contract weren’t submitted until ACS3 was already in testing. By then, modifications had been made to the design, which made it difficult to integrate into an existing dispenser, as the team had modified the edges of the satellite to fit the sails better. But doing so messed up one of the critical touchpoints for standard CubeSat dispensers.
Here’s Fraser’s overview of what a solar sail is.
To make matters worse, without a known launch date and inclination, the team had to overengineer many of the CubeSat systems. They had to meet a much wider range of temperatures and shock/vibration environments. But when they finally got their launch date of April 23rd on an Electron rocket from New Zealand, the system had been engineered for an environment much harsher than what it was subjected to, causing increased cost and delays in the delivery.
To meet these challenges, the team took the approach of rapidly prototyping, including developing several different 3D-printed prototypes before finally making the full system out of metal. At one point, a management decision was made not to replace any insert fasteners that were never intended to be used on the final flight but ended up being included anyway because of the cost of replacing them.
Again, these kinds of management decisions are commonplace to anyone involved in an engineering project. However, it’s nice to see that, in this case, it didn’t affect the project’s overall success. Despite some indications that it might be either tumbling or wobbling, ACS3 undoubtedly achieved its primary objective of deploying its solar sail. So, after all the effort and compromises that the team at Langley and elsewhere at NASA put into it, now you just need to look up into the night sky, and you might see the fruits of their labor streaking across it.
The discovery of numerous exoplanets, some seemingly habitable, and rumors and claims about UFOs have piqued public interest in the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life. In this article, I will discuss four questions: (1) How likely is it that intelligent ETs exist? (2) How likely is it that they have ever visited earth or that humans will ever encounter them? (3) Would the existence of intelligent ETs conflict with Catholic belief? And (4) how might such beings be redeemed, if indeed they exist and stand in need of redemption?
How Likely is it That Intelligent ETs Exist?
The answer to this question is that no one knows. We cannot assert that it is likely, nor can we assert that it is unlikely. There is simply no way to estimate the probability. It depends on two unknown factors: (a) the number of habitable planets, and (b) the probability that on a typical habitable planet intelligent life would evolve. About the first factor, one can only give a lower bound, because we only have information about the part of the universe that is within our cosmic “horizon,” i.e. the part from which light has had time to reach us since the Big Bang. Within this so-called “observable universe,” which is tens of billions of light-years across, there are roughly 1022 stars; and it is thought that a substantial fraction of them have habitable planets, based on what recent exoplanet research has shown. But there are very strong theoretical reasons to believe that the entire universe is exponentially larger than the observable part. (This would explain the remarkable “flatness” of the spatial geometry of the observable part. An analogy is that the Earth’s surface appears flat if you can only see a small part of it.) In fact, in the standard Big Bang theory, the universe can be of infinite spatial volume, and nothing we know at present proves that it is not. Therefore, all we can say, and probably ever will be able to say, is that the number of habitable planets is at least 1022, probably exponentially larger than that, and possibly infinite.
As far as the second factor, the probability of highly intelligent life evolving on a typical habitable planet, we only know that it is not zero, because we exist. It could be, however, exponentially small. For example, there could be some hurdles on the road to intelligent life that it is very difficult for evolution to surmount. One such hurdle might be the formation of the first living and self-reproducing one-celled organism. A second might be the making of eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei) from simpler prokaryotic cells. A third might be making multicellular organisms—on Earth that step took several billion years. Another might be developing high intelligence. Suppose (using round numbers for the sake of illustration) that there were five such high hurdles and that the chance of evolution surmounting each of them on a typical habitable planet was one in a thousand. Then the chance of surmounting all of them would be (1/1000) raised to the fifth power or 10-15. Because the probabilities of getting over multiple hurdles get multiplied, one sees that the chances of highly intelligent life evolving on a typical habitable planet could be exponentially small—though it might not be.
So the statistically “expected” number of planets in the universe with highly intelligent life is some exponentially large number times some number which could be exponentially small, where the exponent in each case is unknown to us. The answer, therefore, could be anything. If it is very small compared to one, it would mean that our existence is an amazing statistical fluke, and that we are almost certainly alone in the universe. If it is very large compared to one, then almost certainly there are a vast number of intelligent species scattered throughout the universe. Could the answer come out in between, say a number like 2 or 3? That would be very strange, as it would require that the large number of habitable planets and the small probability per habitable planet closely counterbalance each other, which they have no reason to do. In short, if there are intelligent extraterrestrials at all, it seems most likely that a vast number of planets have them rather than just a few. And, as we will see, that has some bearing on some theological questions.
Have We Been Confusing the Pleiadians as Angels?
How Likely is it That Humans and Rational ETs Have Met or Will Ever Meet?
There has been a lot of hoopla in the press recently about UFOs (or UAPs as they have been rebranded). Whatever UFOs are, it seems extremely unlikely from a scientific standpoint that ETs have ever visited us humans or ever will. There are two reasons for this. The first is that faster-than-light (or FTL) travel is almost certainly impossible in light of what is presently known about fundamental physics. It is easily shown on the basis of Special Relativity that if FTL travel were possible then time travel would also be, and that would lead to bizarre “temporal paradoxes” (such as the famous “grandfather paradox,” in which a person travels back in time and prevents his own parents from being born). While the equations of General Relativity seem to allow the hypothetical possibility of “traversable wormholes” in spacetime, which would permit both time travel and FTL travel, the formation of such wormholes would require the existence of negative-energy matter that does not exist in the real world. The impossibility of FTL travel means that any ETs who wanted to make a round trip to Earth would have to be from a planet very close to us. And the number of habitable planets within, say, forty light years of Earth is only in the tens, not hundreds, let alone 1022.
The second reason that alien visitations are extremely unlikely is that even if an intelligent species were to evolve on a planet of a nearby star the probability that they would exist at the same time as humans do in the history of the cosmos would seem to be utterly negligible. Our species has been around for about 200,000 years, which sounds like a lot but is a blink of an eye in comparison to the 14 billion years of cosmic history. It is vastly more likely that we and any given species of intelligent ETs would miss each other by hundreds of millions of years than that we would overlap in time. So, the idea that any humans have encountered ETs or ever will is quite far-fetched, even if theoretically possible.
However, even though the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials will probably always remain in the realm of pure speculation, it is important to reflect on it theologically. For, given what we know, intelligent ETs might well exist, and surveys indicate that a large fraction of the general public believes that they do. Therefore, it is a pastorally important question whether the existence of such beings would be consistent with the Catholic faith.
Face-to-Face Encounters with the Greys
Would the Existence of Intelligent Alien Species be Contrary to the Catholic Faith?
It is important to clarify that what is at issue here is not “intelligence” in the sense that one might talk about a dog or dolphin being intelligent. Many terrestrial creatures have intelligence of that sort, and no one has ever imagined this to be theologically problematic. Rather, one is talking about what in Catholic tradition is called “intellect” or “rationality,” which is conceived of as a spiritual power. Even in this regard one must remember that angels are traditionally taught to be purely intellectual, spiritual beings, and their existence is not only unproblematic theologically, but an article of faith. What is specifically at issue, then, is the existence elsewhere in the physical universe of other embodied creatures who possess rationality—and thus also free will—and who would therefore possess “immortal spiritual souls” and be made in the “image of God.” For clarity, let us call such hypothetical creatures “rational extraterrestrials.” Of course, by Catholic teaching, if such beings do exist, they are not purely the result of an evolutionary process, since their rational souls would be “directly” created by God.
Now, certainly it is the case that the existence of such rational extraterrestrial species is nowhere mentioned in Scripture and does not seem even to have been contemplated by any of the scriptural writers. Therefore, it would be out of place to read into scriptural verses answers to questions about ET life that their authors did not ask themselves. That would be to commit what one theologian (in another context) has aptly called “the fallacy of the unasked question.” For example, when St. Paul says in Philippians 2:10-11 that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,” he doubtless was thinking of the blessed in heaven rather than space aliens.
The question naturally arises whether one would expect Scripture to mention ETs, if they do exist. It is hard to see why one would. There are many aspects of the universe that Scripture is silent about, including the very existence of planets outside the solar system, the vast size of the universe, and its immense age. It is also silent about the existence of many kinds of terrestrial life, including dinosaurs. Even on many matters that are important in a practical sense, Scripture tells us nothing, whether it be electricity, or agriculture, or medicine. God has left it to human reason, effort, and responsibility to learn about this world and how to make our way in it. Scripture is not about Nature and its secrets, but about God and mankind’s relationship to him, as well as our relationship to each other. For reasons mentioned in the previous section, the human race is extremely unlikely ever to encounter rational extraterrestrials, and so they are not a part of the story of mankind and its redemption. Nor would we humans be part of their story or their “salvation history.”
Even though there is no obvious reason why God would reveal anything to us about rational extraterrestrials, there also is no obvious reason why he would not create them, and some reasons to think he might. Generally, a composer does not create just one work, a novelist just one novel, or a poet just one poem. And God is not stingy with his love. After all, the human race itself comprises many tens of billions of individuals, and God does not love any of them any less for that.
In fact, Christians have been speculating for centuries about life elsewhere in the universe, and the prevailing view seems to have been that it is more in accord with God’s generosity and munificence to have created life all throughout the universe. Some even suggested a “principle of plenitude,” according to which the universe should be as full of life as possible. There is nothing in Christian tradition or teaching that militates against the possibility that rational ET life exists and perhaps in great abundance. Where things get trickier is with the question of how such beings would be saved.
Did God Create Aliens?
How Would Rational ETs be Saved?
The first question to consider is whether ETs, if they exist, stand in need of redemption. Perhaps all rational ETs species are unfallen, as are those in C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy. However, if the number of rational species in the universe is exponentially large—which is the most likely case if ETs exist at all—it would be an astonishing coincidence if only we humans were fallen. The problem lies not in the notion that only one rational species has fallen, but rather with the idea that we would happen to be that one. So if rational ET species exist, it seems most likely that many of them, if not all, are fallen and stand in need of redemption. The question is how God would save them.
There are two theories. One is that all rational embodied creatures throughout the universe would be saved through the unique and unrepeatable sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth on a cross on Calvary two thousand years ago. The other is that God the Son would have multiple Incarnations, taking the forms (or in the traditional terminology “assuming the natures”) of every kind of rational embodied species in the universe, or at least those that had fallen. (Though here one must note that some of the Church Fathers as well as later theologians held that God would have become incarnate as a man even had humanity not fallen.)
Of course, we do not know which of these theories is correct (if there are rational ETs), as God has not revealed anything about it, and consequently there is no Catholic teaching on the matter. One is in the realm of free speculation. That has not stopped theologians from having strong opinions. (I vividly recall the vehement negative reaction of a friend of mine, who was a Jesuit theologian of considerable reputation, when I broached the topic of multiple Incarnations to him some years ago.) Opinion, however, is divided among Catholic theologians who have considered the question.
There seem to be three main arguments given by proponents of the single-Incarnation theory. First, if the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary can be the means of salvation for human beings who lived before the time of Christ and for those who have lived since but have never heard of Christ, why could it not also be the means by which ETs are saved? Second, there are a number of scriptural verses that suggest a cosmic scope to Christ’s salvific work and others that state that there is just a single mediator of salvation; though, as we will see, these do not necessarily prove the single-Incarnation theory. And, third, the very notion of multiple Incarnations seems problematic and even scandalous to some, as for example the Jesuit friend I referred to.
The first argument is quite logical, but its plausibility would be diminished in two ways if the number of planets with rational ET life is exponentially large. For while it might not be surprising that an Incarnation would happen on only one planet, it would be surprising if that one just happened to be ours. Moreover, it would be making the exception into the rule. It is true that there have existed many human beings—tens of billions, in fact—who never heard of Christ; but it is likely that by the end of human history a majority of all humans who will have ever lived will have heard of him, assuming that the human race carries on for at least a few more centuries and the gospel continues to be preached. So, one can regard those human beings who never heard of Christ but were nonetheless saved as exceptions to the rule. But if there are, say, trillions of rational ET species throughout the universe, and there is only the one Incarnation here on Earth, then the embodied rational beings who will never have heard of Christ would vastly outnumber those who will have. In that case, being saved by hearing “Christ crucified” preached would not be the rule, but rather the very rare exception. That would be analogous to the salvation of the human race being accomplished through an Incarnation that happened on some remote South Sea island with a population of only a few people, who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God and were then wiped out by a tsunami, leaving the rest of humanity completely unaware that the Incarnation had ever happened. That would be a strange “plan of salvation,” especially as it seems that Christ wanted the human race to learn of his mission, given that he commanded his disciples to “baptize all nations.”
Having looked at the single-Incarnation theory, let us see what can be said for and against the alternative.
Evidence a Race of GIANTS Once Inhabited Earth
Multiple Incarnations?
For many people, no doubt, the idea of multiple Incarnations is so strange as to seem absurd or even impious. However, so great a theologian as St. Thomas Aquinas did not regard it as such. Of course, he was not thinking of extraterrestrials, but of multiple human Incarnations of the Son of God. He posed the question, in Summa Theologiae, part III, question 3, article 7, “Whether One Divine Person Can Assume Two Human Natures.” His answer was yes. In fact, St. Thomas argued that the Son of God is able in principle to assume numerous distinct human natures, in the sense that it would be neither logically nor metaphysically impossible for him to do so. And, if that is the case, then it would seem also to be possible for the Son of God to assume the natures of a multiplicity of different rational species.
I will return in the last section to the question of whether and how this makes metaphysical sense. But first let us examine the question why multiple Incarnations might make sense as a means of saving extraterrestrials, if they exist. There are at least three interconnected reasons why it would.
The first reason has to do with the connection between the Incarnation of Christ and the Fall of Man. Christ, the “last Adam” or “second Adam” (1 Cor 15: 45-47), came to undo what had been done by the “first Adam.” By Catholic teaching, the first human beings had enjoyed a friendship with God and certain graces and “preternatural gifts,” which by turning away from God they forfeited for themselves and their descendants—that is, for the human race. And only the human race, not any ET races that there might be; for the effects of that primordial Fall, according to the Council of Trent, are passed on “by propagation.” If the work of the “second Adam,” Christ, is to repair the damage done by the first, it would seem that it is to spiritually heal the human race, and only the human race, and restore it to friendship with God.
This leads us directly to the second reason, which is a theological principle enunciated by many of the Fathers of the Early Church, namely that “what has not been assumed cannot be healed.” Human nature, which had been wounded by the transgression of our “first parents,” can only be healed if that nature is “assumed” by the Son of God, i.e. taken up into himself in the Incarnation. This principle was used to answer those in the early centuries of Christianity who argued that Christ was not fully human—that he lacked, for example, a truly human body or a human soul. It was answered that if he did not possess humanity fully then humanity would not be redeemed fully. That is why, in the words of the Letter to the Hebrews, Christ had to be a “man like us in all things but sin.” But if we generalize this principle it would appear that the nature of a rational ET species, if wounded by sin, could not be healed unless that ET nature were assumed into the Son of God as well. Their redeemer must be like them in all things but sin. In 1 Timothy 2:5, one reads, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” Here again we see it emphasized that the mediator shares the nature of those whose relationship to God he mediates.
And this brings us to a third and most fundamental point. Some who discuss the Incarnation seem to conceive of it as merely a means to an end, salvation. However, it is not just the means to salvation, but the very substance of salvation. Salvation is not merely the avoidance of punishment or perdition, nor is it merely traveling to Heaven conceived of as a place; rather it is total union with God. God desired to unite humanity to himself in an intimate and indeed “nuptial” union. This nuptial union is both spiritual and corporeal. It began in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, who in himself unites the divine and human; but others were to be brought into this union by becoming joined to Christ as members of his Body, the Church, which is Christ’s body in a quite literal sense (though not a “biological” sense). Thus, being members of this Body as it will be in its glorified state, and intimately united thereby with God and with each other, is the substance of being “in Heaven.” The Body of Christ, when it reaches its ultimate completion on the “last Day” will be the “whole Christ” (or “totus Christus”), in which God and Man achieve that definitive union. That is what Heaven is. That is why Joseph Ratzinger in his book Eschatology wrote,
The perfecting of the Lord’s body in the pleroma of the “whole Christ” brings heaven to its true cosmic completion. Let us say it once more before we end: the individual’s salvation is whole and entire only when the salvation of the cosmos and all the elect has come to full fruition. For the redeemed are not simply adjacent to each other in heaven. Rather, in their being together as the one Christ, they are heaven.
When one recognizes this, one sees that Incarnation is not just one good way among others for God to save his creatures, it is the very substance of the salvation and the life he offers. Indeed, this is why some of the early Church Fathers said that God would have become Incarnate as a man even if man had not sinned.
Incidentally, this perspective sheds light on what some regard as a “hard saying” of the Church’s tradition, namely that “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (“outside the Church there is no salvation”). The Church has explained that this does not mean that all human beings who never heard of Christ in this life or who never received baptism cannot be saved. But it does mean that those of them who are saved and end up in heaven, also by definition end up in the “totus Christus,” the Body of Christ, the “Church Triumphant.” So, in the end, they will not be “extra ecclesiam.”
So, applying all this to other rational species that might exist elsewhere in the universe, it suggests that if any such species is to be redeemed it would be through an Incarnation by which that species, its nature, and its members collectively and as individuals are united to the Son of God.
Now, if this is true, it would lead to some corollaries. More than one Incarnation would imply more than one Body of Christ—as many as there are rational species whose natures God assumed. And perhaps one should also say, therefore, as many “Heavens.” The human race had an original unity with itself and with God that was shattered by sin. In the human Body of Christ, when it achieves completion, that unity will be restored. But there was no original unity of the human race with ET rational species (if they exist), except, of course, that all rational species have their origin in God. So, while all rational creatures in this universe who are redeemed will be united to God in his Son, we do not know whether they will be united in a single Body with those of other rational species.
And finally we come to an absolutely vital point. Even if, hypothetically, there were multiple Incarnations of the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, they would all be Incarnations of one and the same divine Person. While, as St. Paul wrote, our knees must bend “at the name of Jesus,” it may be that those in other parts of the universe bend their knees (or make whatever the analogous bodily gesture would be) at a different-sounding name, but not the name of a different Person. It would be the name of the same Son of God as he came among them and “dwelt among them” as one like them “in all things but sin.” And if the Son of God undergoes rejection, suffering, and death on multiple planets, it would be the same divine Person undergoing them in every case. It would be one and the same eternal decision on the part of that divine Person to humble himself and offer himself for all his children. It is that eternal decision of the Son of God that is referred to in Revelation 13:8, which speaks of the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Similarly, 1 Peter 1:19-20 refers to “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” That one and only Lamb was manifest for us humans as Jesus Christ, but perhaps could be manifest in a different form for other rational species. Therefore, it can be argued that scriptural passages that emphasize a single sacrifice and a single mediator and passages that imply a cosmic dimension to Christ’s sacrifice do not have to be interpreted to exclude multiple Incarnations.
Are Interdimensional Beings Contacting Us?
Would Multiple Incarnations Make Metaphysical Sense?
Before getting to that question, one must review how it is that the human Incarnation of the Son of God makes metaphysical sense. It raises some very puzzling questions that were much debated in the early Church. At first it seems like a contradiction in terms. How can the same Christ be both God and man, if God is infinite and man is finite? If Jesus of Nazareth is human, then as a human his thoughts, emotions, and sensations would change from moment to moment and his memory would have finite capacity. He would be capable of forgetting and of learning. Hebrews 5:8 tells us he “learned obedience by what he suffered.” Luke 2:52 says that “he grew in wisdom.” On the other hand, if Jesus of Nazareth is God, then as God his mind is infinite and unchanging, and he knows all things in one timeless act of understanding. To resolve the puzzle, some denied his full humanity, saying that it was swallowed up in his divinity, or that he only appeared human. Others denied that he was fully God, saying that he was only an exalted creature, or that while on earth he laid aside his divinity. But all of these were false solutions and dead ends. They were contrary to both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition and were condemned by a series of Ecumenical Councils. The Church resolved the apparent contradiction in a different way that accorded with both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, by teaching that Christ, though “one Person,” has “two natures,” a divine nature and a human nature, and therefore must have two minds and two wills. He has both a divine intellect and a human intellect; he has both a divine will and a human will; and so on. (Those who denied that Christ had two wills were called “monothelites,” or one-willers, and monothelitism was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-1 AD.)
This resolves the apparent contradiction, but not, of course, the mystery. How can one person have two minds? We, who have only a human nature, obviously cannot imagine it. But perhaps we can make the mystery seem a bit less strange by an analogy, taken from the Athanasian Creed, a doctrinal statement dating to about the late fifth century. That creed makes an analogy between the union of the divine and human natures in Christ and the union within a human being of the spiritual soul and the body: “For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ.”
Let us push this analogy further. The “one Christ” is both God and Man, and so he has two ways of knowing, through his divine Intellect and through his human intellect. In a human being, there is both the “rational soul” and “flesh,” and, correspondingly, a human being has two ways of knowing: namely through rational intellectual knowledge and through the bodily senses. And so even we who are just human, experience having two quite disparate modes of knowledge. In fact, the analogy can be pushed further still. Ordinarily, what I know through the bodily senses I also know rationally; but I know many things rationally that my senses cannot. Thus, for example, my reason knows that I am feeling pain or having the sensation of warmth or seeing the color red. But my senses cannot know most truths that are grasped by my reason, such as, for example, moral truths and mathematical truths. By analogy, Christ’s divine Intellect knows all things, including what his human mind knows; but his human mind, being finite, cannot know everything grasped by his divine Intellect. Of course, any analogy between created things and God must be extremely inadequate. We should not push them too far, but they can be useful.
As the foregoing analogy can help us see how the Incarnation of the Son of God as a man does not involve a contradiction, it can also help us understand how multiple Incarnations might also be consistent. A human being does not just have two modes of knowing, the rational and the sensory, but many: namely the rational and several bodily senses. Moreover, while what is known by the reason encompasses (generally) what is known by all the senses, each sense is ignorant of most of what the reason knows as well as what is known by all the other senses. My sense of sight does not know sounds, nor my sense of hearing know smells, for instance. The analogy would be that the Son of God would know in his divine Intellect all that is known through his many assumed natures, but each assumed nature would be ignorant of most of what the divine Intellect knew as well as what all the other assumed natures knew (unless by supernaturally “infused knowledge”).
Of course, all this is at the extreme limit of speculation. And the analogy made in the Athanasian Creed is, like all analogies, imperfect. Nevertheless, it may help at least to make the idea of multiple Incarnations seem less problematic.
How Would Religion React to Proof of Intelligent Alien Life? | Unveiled
Conclusion
We do not know whether rational ETs exist or have existed or will exist. We do not even know enough to say whether their existence is probable or improbable, scientifically speaking. In any case, it is highly unlikely that we will ever encounter them. Nevertheless, their possible existence raises theological questions that many wonder about. There seems to be no conflict between the existence of such beings and anything Christianity teaches. Indeed, many Catholics and other Christians have argued over the centuries that if the universe can harbor such life one might expect such life to exist in abundance, because of God’s boundless creativity and generosity. We do not know whether such beings, if they exist, would require redemption, or how God would choose to redeem them. But there seem to be good reasons to suppose that it would be by God dwelling among them as one like them, as he “dwelt among us” as “one like us.” But as the Church has taught nothing about all these possibilities, one is at present free to weigh the evidence and arguments and form one’s own conclusions.
Are the Gods and Angels of the Bible REALLY Extraterrestrial Beings?
EDITORIAL NOTE: This article is part of a collaboration with the Society of Catholic Scientists (click here to read about becoming a member). You can ask questions and join a wider discussion of this essay at the bottom of this page where the original version of it is linked, which includes extensive notes.
Beste bezoeker, Heb je zelf al ooit een vreemde waarneming gedaan, laat dit dan even weten via email aan Frederick Delaere opwww.ufomeldpunt.be. Deze onderzoekers behandelen jouw melding in volledige anonimiteit en met alle respect voor jouw privacy. Ze zijn kritisch, objectief maar open minded aangelegd en zullen jou steeds een verklaring geven voor jouw waarneming! DUS AARZEL NIET, ALS JE EEN ANTWOORD OP JOUW VRAGEN WENST, CONTACTEER FREDERICK. BIJ VOORBAAT DANK...
Druk op onderstaande knop om je bestand , jouw artikel naar mij te verzenden. INDIEN HET DE MOEITE WAARD IS, PLAATS IK HET OP DE BLOG ONDER DIVERSEN MET JOUW NAAM...
Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek
Alvast bedankt voor al jouw bezoekjes en jouw reacties. Nog een prettige dag verder!!!
Over mijzelf
Ik ben Pieter, en gebruik soms ook wel de schuilnaam Peter2011.
Ik ben een man en woon in Linter (België) en mijn beroep is Ik ben op rust..
Ik ben geboren op 18/10/1950 en ben nu dus 74 jaar jong.
Mijn hobby's zijn: Ufologie en andere esoterische onderwerpen.
Op deze blog vind je onder artikels, werk van mezelf. Mijn dank gaat ook naar André, Ingrid, Oliver, Paul, Vincent, Georges Filer en MUFON voor de bijdragen voor de verschillende categorieën...
Veel leesplezier en geef je mening over deze blog.
