My Impressions of the AARO 2024 Report

Not that I expected much, but what I read left me astounded. I was shocked by the sloppiness, summary and superficiality with which this report has been written, especially knowing it is coming from what should be a competent governmental source. Nevertheless, it deserves some crucial comments.

The price of innovation both in science and as an impact on society has always been very high. It seems humankind learned nothing from past errors, especially when faced with systems of power. Exactly the same pattern repeats itself like a metronome, especially when UAP phenomenology is dealt with.

If one had studied quasars, pulsars, gamma-ray bursts or other astrophysical objects using the same methodology as the way in which the AARO Report was written they would have concluded that their manifestations are due to fireflies passing close to the lens of the telescope. In the same light, dark energy and dark matter would look like delusional dreams. Sarcasm intended.

It is very uncanny to see how the author or authors of this report almost never accept the possibility that UAP – once they cannot be identified as prosaic objects as it is admitted in the report – might be an unknown natural phenomenon, which deserves  strong attention from the physics community.

It seems that the only focused interpretation of UAP if real, must be due to the most popular one: extraterrestrial technological visitation. Therefore as any proof in this sense is lacking UAP are automatically non-existent. ETH versus the Null Hypothesis.

No mention is given to ongoing scientific investigations using measurement instrumentation, such as the Galileo Project. And no mention to the very well known documented testimony of some US Navy pilots and radar operators, by venturing immediately the possibility that they might have been witness to a simple “parallax effect” in order to explain the UAPs fast speed documented by the sensor pod of F-18Es fighters.

I frankly see a lack of respect in this report for the military pilots’ work, competence, and courage in coming out and reporting their experience.

How is it possible to ignore the importance of studying UAP as a phenomenon of physics whatever its origin is?

Even if UAP were extraterrestrial vehicles, the physics goal should be a top priority. And how is it possible to dismiss the fact that not a few physical scientists have tried to study this phenomenon for many years now, sometimes also using measurement instrumentation? How is it possible to ignore that some models of theoretical physics on UAP have been elaborated by emeritus professors? How is it possible to ignore that some serious ufologists and amateur scientists have attempted at their own expense to carry out in-depth investigations of witnessed cases since at least 70 years?

There is no citation of serious published scientific works some of which are peer reviewed, by the scholars mentioned above or studies containing crucial data regarding speed, height, luminosity, color, which were obtained even with a not negligible margin of error, once other physical parameters were determined with some approximation. Bad quality data (they say)… not worth considering.

Instead, it seems that the authors of the AARO report ignore the very low quality of data and the level of uncertainty regarding some extreme astrophysical subjects especially in the cosmological sector: no difference with the quality of data obtained from UAP, so far. Then why did some physicists decide to consider these data and not that of UAP?

UAP phenomena are not predictable and therefore any possible evaluation of physical parameters is inevitably tentative and yet not useless, because it sometimes furnishes some order of magnitude of physical quantities.

In my opinion, these works on UAP phenomena and detailed technical research proposals have been ignored not deliberately, but rather simply due to ignorance a candid ignorance triggered by some apparent laziness and by the hurry to conclude what evidently appeared to be a very boring and uncomfortable job. Is this the reason why the chief of AARO retired soon after publishing Volume 1?

The conclusion of the report says it all: “Although many UAP reports remain unsolved, AARO assesses that if additional, quality data were available, most of these cases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.” How do they know in advance that these cases can be identified? This is really a very arbitrary extrapolation and it goes against the explorative nature of innovative science.

No charts, no calculations, no statistics, the previous schematic report published by AARO last year has strangely disappeared from internet, no science, and as previously mentioned a total ignorance of real scientific studies that were and are being carried out. Only summary pontificating. Bureaucratic language, a mere listing of cases with no in-depth analysis, plus a shrapnel-like listing of past military projects of zero relevance to the study of the UAP problem. Someone should tell me what an F-117 stealth fighter, a high-performance reconnaissance aircraft such as SR-71, a funny experimental craft such as Tacit-Blue, or a prosaic drone such as the Reaper, have to do with UAP sightings.

And using the word “science” as a way of wielding a scepter as per the introductory opinion article of Scientific American published March 6th 2024. I am a scientist and I can say this is a contradictory statement since there is no science contained in this article.

Reading this report in parallel with the main author’s “vent” on Scientific American, some  biased attitudes are emerging very clearly: 1) whoever studies UAP is a crackpot, a dreamer or a conspiracy theorist; 2) there is nothing new to learn for our scientific knowledge. Well, yes, merging ignorance with arrogance is not really a nice cocktail. All this is offensive towards those of us who have invested at a high price a lot of energy in studying these phenomena.

This is almost identical to what happened 55 years ago with the Condon Report and Dr. Condon’s arbitrary conclusions, in spite of the fact that several cases remained totally unexplained. But this can be studied in detail by consulting an almost 1000-pages report edited by Condon himself, where every claim is justified by technical demonstration (pros or cons the existence of a real UAP phenomenon). The same cannot be found at all in the AARO 2024 Report, where really nothing concrete has been offered to prove the claims of the author of the report, apart from a plethora of almost useless footnotes.

History repeats itself; we always lose the memory without learning anything from past errors, and the same mistakes and deceptions are repeated catatonically.

In all honesty, I have never believed that the US Government has ever retrieved an alien spacecraft, back-engineered it and captured its occupants. I have never felt to ask the US Government to “reveal the incredible reality” (“They are Hiding the Truth!”) because I am sure that the only thing they are hiding is just their total lack of capability to understand what sometimes is happening in the Earth’s skies, and, evidently, their impotence towards some potential threat if UAP are really caused by extraterrestrial intelligence. Once more, I stress the fact that these governmental paper passers persist in ignoring the possibility that true UAPs might be a kind of unknown natural phenomenon similar to ball lightning, which would deserve a lot of attention from the physics community due to the enormous energy involved.

Yet, even a solemn governmental report like this, should be more science oriented and less bureaucratically and summarily written. Ignoring the science that is being attempted on possible UAP phenomena (natural or not) only because it comes mostly from private organizations where the sharp presence of Ph.D.’s and scientific competence cease to have a value is reprehensible. Sometimes I wonder if it is more honorable to be a janitor working inside an academic or Intelligence institution than a scientist with solid academic credentials working outside of them.

I remember Galileo’s treatment by the Church some centuries ago and even of the acrobatics of ancient “wise men” 23 centuries ago to demonstrate that the Sun is rotating around Earth and not vice versa. They used the “epicycle theory” to reconfirm the dominant dogma and cover it with an aura of reasonableness, thinking that whatever is mathematical is necessarily realistic. Which it is not, as we well know.

It is always possible to find a so-called logical explanation for everything, but that is not always relevant to the reality of the facts. Skepticism is good only when it is healthy and when it is driven by honesty. Otherwise, it is only a different form of fake.

One year ago, AARO published a minimalistic statistics where some data are correct, many are incomplete and some are simply wrong (“velocity stationary to Mach 2” ???). I was hoping that this March 2024 Report could give technical clarifications that are much more detailed. There was none, unless the promised Vol. 2 of the AARO Report will be better with a detailed analysis.

In spite of it all, I cannot say all is bad from the past chief of AARO and the official report. Some suggestions make sense, when we have to deal with the “noise” part of the signal-to-noise ratio that we are evaluating when coping with the UAP problem.

For instance, one of the cases that was more difficult to explain as a non-human technological phenomenon – the little flying spheres – might be explained by a kind of new tech that do exist as spherical skeletal drones where multiple propellers can move them in all directions. However, that opinion article about advanced drones was much more detailed than an extremely poor and useless governmental Pentagon Report. All this apart from the fact that little flying spheres have been documented also years before the fantastic drones of now. But, it is always good to know any possible source of noise in UAP investigation.

Meanwhile, true scientific research on these phenomena is going on without interruption and from different sides of the world with different groups made of several scientists with strong academic credentials, even if not affiliated with governmental institutions. It will be the peer review process to decide what is worth accepting and what is not: on scientific journals, where only competence and not formal affiliation are judged. Not all that glitters is gold.

In conclusion, I do not think that the Pentagon is hiding any phantom secret about UAPs, and even if it did, I would only be interested in studying technical details, not summary chatters and dogmatic claims. I do not believe at all in the reality of what is fabled by alleged “whistleblowers”, even if some of them might be in good faith. But I certainly believe in the scientific method, and in possible innovations coming from science. I am a strong NATO supporter and I have nothing against the maintenance of military secrets in the interest of national security and telling or denying things from any governmental authority leaves me indifferent. What bothers me is their proclaimed or deliberate indifference towards those who are carrying out efforts to try to understand things that still defy our comprehension in the interest of everyone and for the evolution of the human species.

I believe that the tension towards the scientific truth of whatever UAPs are, is like water inside a dam. Sooner or later the water will overflow or break the dam. This has always happened in the history of science and not just with the UAP topic. Any attempts to silence UAP research using either non verifiable whistleblowers or official Pentagon reports of a dismissive debunking character will need super-cement for that dam. In other words it won’t be able to contain the enthusiasm and desire for real science.

Scientific research will continue onwards and undisturbed.

ESSENTIAL READING and REFERENCES

1. AARO (2024). “Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)” – Volume I : https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Volume_1_2024.pdf
2. Coumbe, D. (2023). Anomaly – A Scientific Exploration of the UFO Phenomenon. Rowman & Littlefield https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374896813_ANOMALY_-_A_Scientific_Exploration_of_the_UFO_Phenomenon#fullTextFileContent
3. Kirkpatrick, S. (2023). “The US Defense Department and The UAP Mission”, Statistical Powerpoint Presentation: Internet link of AARO website disappeared (saved).
4. Kirkpatrick, S. (2024). “We Need to Investigate UFOs. But Without the Distraction of Conspiracy Theories”. Scientific American (Opinion Article): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-need-to-investigate-ufos-but-without-the-distraction-of-conspiracy/
5. Knuth, K. H.; Powell, R. M. & Reali, P. A. (2019). “Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles”. Entropy 21(10), 939. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/
6. Maccabee, B. (1994). “Strong magnetic field detected following a sighting of an unidentified flying object”. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 347-365. https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/8/jse_08_3_maccabee.pdf
7. Maccabee, B. (1999). “Optical power output of an unidentified high altitude light source”. Journal of Scientific Exploration 13(2), 199-211. https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/13/jse_13_2_maccabee.pdf
8. Meessen, A. (2012). “Pulsed EM Propulsion of Unconventional Flying Objects”. In PIERS 2012 Proceedings Moscow, Russia, August 19–23, 2012.
9. Phelan, M. (2024). “Is this another Chinese spy balloon moment? Famous ‘cube in a sphere’ UFO spotted at military bases along the East Coast may have been a high-tech ENEMY drone, says ex-Pentagon UFO investigator dubbed ‘Dr. Evil’”. Mail Online – Science & Tech: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12992321/UFOs-ex-CIA-scientist-dubbed-Dr-Evil-Pentagon-AARO-cube-sphere-UFO-drone.html
10. Rutledge, Harley D. 1982. Project Identification: The First Scientific Field Study of Ufo Phenomena. Prentice Hall Direct.
11. Teodorani, M. (2024). “Investigating UAP Events Using Astronomical Techniques”. Limina – The Journal for UAP Studies, Vol. 1., Issue 1, pp. 40-54: https://limina.scholasticahq.com/article/92684-investigating-uap-events-using-astrophysical-techniques
12. Teodorani, M. (2024). “Scientific Investigations of UAP”. Academic Lectures, Society for UAP Studies: https://www.societyforuapstudies.org/scientificinvestigationofuap
13. Vallee, J. (1998). “Estimates of Optical Power Output in Six Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Defined Luminosity Characteristics”. Journal of Scientific Exploration 12(3), 345-358. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a59ad8d13f2e66af73708ad5d53363804b692609
14. Watters, W. A. et al. 2023. “The Scientific Investigation of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)”. Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation 12, no. 1, 2023, 2340006: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2251171723400068