HM05_Me

That's a fairly spot on breakdown. The key thing is that the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's goal is "resolution", so they'll be focusing on cases they can resolve. Some of these cases are "resolved" if they can be partially replicated.

Take for example the Eglin UAP sighting, which AARO was able to replicate "some aspects" of with a commercial lighting balloon. "AARO conducted extensive testing using one of these balloons and found it could replicate some aspects of the pilot’s account." Because of that, the case is marked as "resolved" with "moderate" confidence.

They didn't confirm if any of these lighting balloons had been lost. And, while these balloons are powered by cable, AARO concluded that they could have been adapted to use a battery. Though, that would also limit their time powered and make it easier to pinpoint the source of a lost balloon. But, because some elements could be replicated by making adjustments to a physically similar object they were able to "resolve" the sighting.

Even with that approach to resolution, they still have unexplained anomalous events. And, it's completely understandable that there will be cases they can't explain or can't admit to publicly. However, their attempts to dismiss the truly anomalous events have been disingenuous.

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf

Yes, it's often used as clickbait, but I hope you don't take an adage as fact. Especially when your own source says the adage is wrong.

A 2016 study of a sample of academic journals (not news publications) that set out to test Betteridge's law and Hinchliffe's rule (see below) found that few titles were posed as questions and of those, few were yes/no questions and they were more often answered "yes" in the body of the article rather than "no".

A 2018 study of 2,585 articles in four academic journals in the field of ecology similarly found that very few titles were posed as questions at all, with 1.82 percent being wh-questions and 2.15 percent being yes/no questions. Of the yes/no questions, 44 percent were answered "yes", 34 percent "maybe", and only 22 percent were answered "no".

In 2015, a study of 26,000 articles from 13 news sites on the World Wide Web, conducted by a data scientist and published on his blog, found that the majority (54 percent) were yes/no questions, which divided into 20 percent "yes" answers, 17 percent "no" answers and 16 percent whose answers he could not determine.

There seems to be a common practice of pivoting the conversation to "extraterrestrial". Even with recent questioning of Department of Energy's Secretary Jennifer Granholm she brought up "alien" when trying to dismiss the questions on UAP.

There could be a few reasons behind this. First, there's still a stigma around the idea of extraterrestrials and it twists the conversation into sounding like nothing more than sci-fi.

Secondly, it takes investigation and proof to say with certainty that something is "extraterrestrial". Hypothetically, if the government recovered a craft with a stereotypical grey alien, they can honestly say that there is no evidence it's extraterrestrial. They can't honestly say that it isn't an NHI. It'd be clear at first sight that it's not human and is of advanced intelligence based on the craft operated. But, without investigation, they can't say what the origin is. That's not to say that there hasn't been recoveries and research that determined their origin, but spokespeople like Kirkpatrick can play the fool and not be overtly lying.

Thirdly, it is possible they know that the origin isn't extraterrestrial and is instead terrestrial, interdimensional, etc. Though, I don't recall any direct questioning of spokespeople around the other origins.

There's a reason that the UAP amendments have focused on the term "non-human intelligence"/"NHI". It's important to cast a broad net and avoid semantic games. When groups like AARO/DoD and the DoE are changing the conversation to avoid answering questions, it just goes to show the need for better oversight to understand why.

This covers something that I think about a lot with this topic, which is the vastness of Earth itself and how much goes unobserved. The majority of Earth’s skies and airspace are not being actively observed by human eyes. And, while there is radar, satellite, and other imaging, they may not have the resolution to observe all UAP. The equipment that is able to detect could potentially have filters for “noise” or objects that aren’t actively being sought out.

This was the case leading up to the UAP detected in February 2023. Radar previously had filters for objects not seen as a threat. Certain sizes, speeds, and altitudes could be ruled out from known threats such as planes, so they weren’t being monitored. Adjusting the filters lead to the objects detected and engaged over North America.

The difficulty in monitoring for UAP becomes exponentially harder as you expand to the surrounding solar system, galaxy, and universe. That’s not to say it’s not feasible to do so, just that it can be easy for an object to go undetected. You have to look with the right tools and criteria or luck out to find something.

This may get buried a bit at the moment, though this will be slow news to build. Following last year’s stripped down UAP amendment passed in the NDAA, Senators Rounds and Schumer have continued their efforts to pass a comprehensive law to gather, review, and release UAP records and materials to the public.

Keep in mind, the negotiations on the last NDAA went late into the year and the act didn’t pass until mid December. The UAP amendment in that act primarily focused on telling government groups to provide the National Archives with all documents related to UAP. Those will be due for release this October. However, with the stripped down amendment, there is a lack of oversight to ensure these groups follow through with the mandate.

The timing of the release of documents could at least help sway this year’s NDAA. If either significant documentation is released or there is a clear pushback, then it should warrant passing the amendment in full.

Ryan Graves gives a good breakdown on the current state of both the UAP Disclosure Act and Safe Airspace for Americans Act. While progress is being made, it's still an uphill battle getting some of the key components of the bills passed.

You can always lend your support as suggested by Ryan, noted below. Plenty of people do hear back from their reps on the matter and reaching out does help keep the topic active with them.

"To support these bills:

1. Contact your representatives. UAPCaucus.com provides an easy-to-use guide and contact list.
2. For the UAP Disclosure Act's inclusion in the 2025 NDAA, consider signing the petition created by Lue Elizondo's UAP Disclosure Fund.

Regardless of your beliefs about UAP's nature, these bills promote transparency and safety - principles that benefit everyone. The sheer volume of credible reports and high-level interest suggests there's substance here worth investigating. Supporting these bills will help bring us closer to understanding what's truly happening in our skies."

Yeah, the tilt before taking off seems to be a common theme. Searching NUFORC and MUFON turns up quite a few reports of UAP with that behavior.

Are you suggesting that the sighting was a drone, even though it was described as several hundred feet long? And the article doesn't suggest anyone is conspiring about UFOs. It's just a report of a sighting.

I imagine it's an autocorrect from missing a space in "boy scout trick". The user was responding to a lot of comments, so I think an error or two is fair.

NUFORC Report

Additional reporting from Denver Gazette.

Reddit user Lemonator8976 claims to be the witness that reported the sighting and provided some additional details.

The follow up article explains it, but basically we were working. We were loading semis full of expensive concert equipment and then one guy noticed it and pointed it out. We all looked at it and then one guy shined his flashlight on it. Then the thing tipped, moved slowly to the east and disappeared. By the time we realized what was really happening it was gone. 30 seconds max.

A big misconception is that this thing was way up in the sky. It wasn’t. It was hovering over the hill not very high off the ground. It was just off the horizon, not way up above our heads. An old boycott trick is to hold your hand up to the horizon to see how many hand lengths you have left before the sun sets. This thing was just two fingers above the horizon.

Couldn’t see any other features. It was too far away and it was matte black. Like the blackest black you’ve ever seen. The black blended in with the night sky so well, we probably wouldn’t have seen it if it didn’t have its lights on.

The lights were around the edge rim of the disc. They were evenly spaced apart and you could see them curve around the to backside of the disc.

I was not wearing my glasses and I have an astigmatism, so I could not make out the windows. All I could see was the disc and the lights going around it. It was my a couple of my coworkers who said they could see the windows. They said it was like a grid that was 3 squares high several dozen squares long all the way around the craft. The thing was a couple blocks long, hence why I described it as a “3 story office building in the sky”. It really was that big.

That’s a good possibility. It didn’t quite sound like a hawk, but I’m not too familiar with falcons.

I’ve had some bird of prey around my apartment in Brooklyn that keeps eluding me. I’ll hear it from time to time, but never quite know where it is.

I caught a glimpse of it once out of the corner of my eye. I saw a blur as something swooped down to snag a pigeon off my window sill. It was courteous enough to return half of the bird to my fire escape. That was fun to dispose of.

I saw my share of hawks growing up in Florida, but it’s still cool seeing and hearing them around the city.