Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 199

Thread: Pentagon UFO Report

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726

    Pentagon UFO Report

    Do you think the upcoming Pentagon report will disclose enough information to answer some questions on the credibility of what appear to be genuine UFO's, or rather UAP's (unidentified ariel phenomenon) as it is now commonly termed by the authorities?

    It seems there is a growing trend towards acceptance of some UFO sightings as pretty credible, especially when these sightings are witnessed and recorded by the armed forces. The "tic-tac" event for example, where the military monitoring systems back up the tesimony of the pilots to appear very authentic.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    I think yes that if you have visual sightings that are also seen on radar, it does give a lot of credibility to the fact that people saw something real (rather than an optical phenomenon of some sort). But the problem is, it will probably give very little insight into the actual nature of what was seen (because if military analysts were unable to give a clear identification of the objects, what is the chance that people without access to the raw data and testimony, etc., would be able to determine that?)
    As above, so below

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    So would be safe to say the report is likely going to be rather dull, other than documenting the fact that creditable sightings have been confirmed, but the objects remain unidentified. No insight into what they believe them to be, or where they might have originated from?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    So would be safe to say the report is likely going to be rather dull, other than documenting the fact that creditable sightings have been confirmed, but the objects remain unidentified. No insight into what they believe them to be, or where they might have originated from?
    I have no special knowledge, but I would bet they won’t make the alien visitation fans happy. They might well discuss some types of events likely to be captured by certain instruments (like IR sensors) or may actually have detailed information in certain cases, but if they do I expect the causes will be mundane. But who knows? If they found, say, foreign (conventional) spy drones were a real issue that would seem to me to be important and eventful, just again not fun for the people looking for ETs and magic space drives.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    I think unless they come straight out and reveal that the UFO's are believed to be of ET origin then the report will just spark further conspiracy theories anyway. I suspect the report, will as you said (Van Rijn), be mundane.
    I'm still rather intrigued to see what they have to say, even though I think it won't be anything mind blowing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    No insight into what they believe them to be, or where they might have originated from?
    Probably, but that’s probably because they don’t have insights into where they might have originated from. If they don’t have such insights, then isn’t that the honest thing to admit?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I think unless they come straight out and reveal that the UFO's are believed to be of ET origin then the report will just spark further conspiracy theories anyway.
    But there’s no reason to think that they believe that. They may simply not understand what the sightings represent. If they don’t, isn’t the best way to say, we don’t understand what this is?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    No matter what the Pentagon says it will be interesting. They have a few choices to fall back on, from telling us what they really know to making up a report to ease concerns.
    Such as :
    - This matter needs further study before they can come to any conclusion (my favorite).
    - These UAPs might be another country harmlessly testing our defenses.
    - These UAPs could be one of our own top secret projects of which we cannot comment.
    - These the origin of these UAPs are totally unknown to us.
    - These UAPs represent strange visitors of unknown origin.
    - or they could just repackage the Condon Report of 69' which basically concluded they they pose no threat to national security.

    So in summary....
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	unnamed (2).png 
Views:	30 
Size:	630.1 KB 
ID:	26217

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    No matter what the Pentagon says it will be interesting. They have a few choices to fall back on, from telling us what they really know to making up a report to ease concerns.
    Such as :
    - This matter needs further study before they can come to any conclusion (my favorite).
    - These UAPs might be another country harmlessly testing our defenses.
    - These UAPs could be one of our own top secret projects of which we cannot comment.
    - These the origin of these UAPs are totally unknown to us.
    - These UAPs represent strange visitors of unknown origin.
    - or they could just repackage the Condon Report of 69' which basically concluded they they pose no threat to national security.
    I haven't seen the report, but I can't imagine that it could be anything other than a combination of those.
    -The origin is unknown and requires further study (based on future sightings). Our analysis of the current sightings has given us understanding of what the origin is.

    For the others, it just seems problematic to me:
    -If they suspect it is a foreign government's technology, they would not want to release it because it would be giving away the fact that they don't understand.
    -If it is US technology they wouldn't want to release it because it would be giving away secret information.
    -There is no way to know it is "strange visitors," whatever that means.

    To me, the fact that they are releasing it seems to indicate that they don't think it's something that needs to be kept secret.
    As above, so below

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I haven't seen the report, but I can't imagine that it could be anything other than a combination of those.
    -The origin is unknown and requires further study (based on future sightings). Our analysis of the current sightings has given us understanding of what the origin is.

    For the others, it just seems problematic to me:
    -If they suspect it is a foreign government's technology, they would not want to release it because it would be giving away the fact that they don't understand.
    -If it is US technology they wouldn't want to release it because it would be giving away secret information.
    -There is no way to know it is "strange visitors," whatever that means.

    To me, the fact that they are releasing it seems to indicate that they don't think it's something that needs to be kept secret.
    What do you think of the possibility that at least some of the incidents are the result of civilians (albeit with considerable resources) "pranking" the military with conventional but expensive non-military technologies, as this Skeptoid article suggests for one such incident? I can see how "we got buzzed by some rich yahoo" would reveal vulnerabilities in security as well as be rather embarassing.

    (I admit this theory has stuck in my head not necessarily because it's the most plausible but because it seems like the funniest.)
    Last edited by KaiYeves; 2021-Jun-01 at 05:24 AM.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    What do you think of the possibility that at least some of the incidents are the result of civilians (albeit with considerable resources) "pranking" the military with conventional but expensive non-military technologies, as this Skeptoid article suggests for one such incident? I can see how "we got buzzed by some rich yahoo" would reveal vulnerabilities in security as well as be rather embarassing.
    I've never really thought of that, but I definitely wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.
    As above, so below

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    If they admit that the UAP's are real then they have to state something to satisfy the report. The best stance would be to state that they don't know what they are and requires further investigation. Anything else would be admitting advanced technology that originates from 1 of 4 possible sources:

    1. They are advanced technological craft developed by the government or agencies
    2. They are advanced technological craft developed by foreign government or agencies
    3. They are advanced technological craft that could be E.T
    4. They are an elaborate prank, that has fooled many intelligent agencies.

    Any one of these options is a concern to either the public or the government. So as you said Jens, if they are willing to release a honest report then they must feel there is nothing in there of any possible threat or concern.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    If they admit that the UAP's are real then they have to state something to satisfy the report.
    To be honest, I don't really see why. A report isn't a scientific paper where you lay out a hypothesis and try to show the mechanism behind something. A report is a report. So you can say, "we have these sightings that we can't explain. This is what they are." And just explain in detail what you saw. Also, I don't think your four possibilities are the other ones. Just being extreme, they could be manifestations of a god or something, or some physical phenomenon that we don't understand, or the detectors being hacked in some way. You can't really just say that it has to be one of these, because otherwise you are closing your mind to other possibilities.
    As above, so below

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    If they admit that the UAP's are real then they have to state something to satisfy the report.
    I’m trying to think how they could avoid being real, that is, to not qualify as unidentified aerial phenomena. Maybe if it is all some kind of ghost image in an instrument not caused by any external phenomena? Otherwise they would be UAPs, therefore “real UAPs.” “Real UFO” or “Real UAP” means very little. It’s something unidentified. That’s it. For some reason many people try to read more into the phrase than is actually there.

    The best stance would be to state that they don't know what they are and requires further investigation. Anything else would be admitting advanced technology that originates from 1 of 4 possible sources:

    1. They are advanced technological craft developed by the government or agencies
    2. They are advanced technological craft developed by foreign government or agencies
    3. They are advanced technological craft that could be E.T
    4. They are an elaborate prank, that has fooled many intelligent agencies.
    Sorry, I don’t see how that follows at all. For instance, an IR image in some circumstances might be from a heat bloom from a conventional aircraft’s engines, in another case a flare. Other types of observations could have different causes. Some recorded UAPs might be reflections as seen through a camera. There are lots of things they could be, there have been plenty of mundane causes for prior eventually identified UAP/UFO claims. It depends on the particular circumstances of each case. To conclude advanced technology aircraft are involved, or an elaborate prank, they would need strong evidence specifically pointing to that.

    They might well be able to point to mundane causes for a number of cases and might be willing to describe them. No doubt the ET visitation fans would call that a cover-up (they have done the same thing before) but it would be a valid thing to report, assuming the evidence pointed that way.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    417
    I read the book written by the lead investigator assigned to project blue book. From what he wrote, it appears that they did take the phenomenon seriously but were completely unable to establish any hard evidence for any of the sightings. They could in some cases assign tentative explanations for some of the events, weather phenomenon, pilot error, etc, but nothing concrete due to the temporary nature of the sightings. In most cases, they had to conclude that the only description they could give was that the cause of the event was unknown.

    That seemed pretty honest to be fair. Sure, the "believers" didn't like that, but that's why they're believers. I see no reason why this report should be any different. If they really had any hard evidence of ET craft, they probably wouldn't release it anyway on grounds of national security.

    People in general, especially the media, tend to jump to the most complicated explanation. A recent report in a local newspaper showed a photo of a ship that appeared to be floating above the horizon. The "analysts" quoted ascribed the phenomenon to complex temperature inversions in the atmosphere. But to me it looked like a relatively common occurrence. At times, especially in the morning, there's a layer of sea mist which makes the surface of the sea invisible. Accordingly, any vessels further away than the mist look as if they are above the horizon. I've watched as the mist has dissipated and the apparent horizon has advanced to meet the true horizon. A simple thing but without a prolonged viewing, it can appear far more mysterious.

    Similarly, I watched a train of star link satellites one night. To the uninitiated it could have looked like an invasion of ET craft. After I realised what they were it became mundane. As Jens said, a report is simply that, a description of the circumstances. It is not a scientific document and promises no resolution.
    Last edited by headrush; 2021-Jun-01 at 11:22 AM. Reason: Damn auto correct

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    To be honest, I don't really see why. A report isn't a scientific paper where you lay out a hypothesis and try to show the mechanism behind something. A report is a report. So you can say, "we have these sightings that we can't explain. This is what they are." And just explain in detail what you saw. Also, I don't think your four possibilities are the other ones. Just being extreme, they could be manifestations of a god or something, or some physical phenomenon that we don't understand, or the detectors being hacked in some way. You can't really just say that it has to be one of these, because otherwise you are closing your mind to other possibilities.
    Sorry, I was being specific to the "tic-tac" sighting but forgot to mention this in my post.

    Of course, anything that remains unidentified will always be open to all possibilities.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I’m trying to think how they could avoid being real, that is, to not qualify as unidentified aerial phenomena. Maybe if it is all some kind of ghost image in an instrument not caused by any external phenomena? Otherwise they would be UAPs, therefore “real UAPs.” “Real UFO” or “Real UAP” means very little. It’s something unidentified. That’s it. For some reason many people try to read more into the phrase than is actually there.



    Sorry, I don’t see how that follows at all. For instance, an IR image in some circumstances might be from a heat bloom from a conventional aircraft’s engines, in another case a flare. Other types of observations could have different causes. Some recorded UAPs might be reflections as seen through a camera. There are lots of things they could be, there have been plenty of mundane causes for prior eventually identified UAP/UFO claims. It depends on the particular circumstances of each case. To conclude advanced technology aircraft are involved, or an elaborate prank, they would need strong evidence specifically pointing to that.

    They might well be able to point to mundane causes for a number of cases and might be willing to describe them. No doubt the ET visitation fans would call that a cover-up (they have done the same thing before) but it would be a valid thing to report, assuming the evidence pointed that way.
    Again, as I stated to Jens, I was thinking in the context of the "tic-tac" sightings where radar and other monitoring systems back up the visual reports from the witness's. So when I stated "real" I meant in this context. Where the UAP appears to be a physical craft, therefore real in a physical solid/construct sense. Rather than a glitch/ghost, atmospheric condition or something that could be explained as naturally occurring.

    I think most people will only be interested in these sort of sightings. The ones that look very credible and have some good evidence to back them up. My OP was to consider what the report might state/speculate deny/omit on such sightings and evidence.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,219
    One of the problems with "radar backed up the witnesses" or "witnesses backed up the radar" is that these modalities are generally not independent of each other--pilots are scrambled in order to see something reported by radar. Radar is directed in order to track something reported by pilots. The priming of expectation in this way is a powerful method of getting people to misinterpret what they're seeing.

    Look at the second Tonkin Gulf incident, for instance. Primed by a previous North Vietnamese attack, the second incident involved radar, sonar, radio and visual contacts with multiple "North Vietnamese vessels" that didn't actually exist. Every modality was feeding off the others, producing an (understandable) increasing level of anxiety and excitement, and a corresponding heightened readiness to find evidence of the thing that other people were finding evidence of.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Again, as I stated to Jens, I was thinking in the context of the "tic-tac" sightings where radar and other monitoring systems back up the visual reports from the witness's. So when I stated "real" I meant in this context. Where the UAP appears to be a physical craft, therefore real in a physical solid/construct sense. Rather than a glitch/ghost, atmospheric condition or something that could be explained as naturally occurring.

    I think most people will only be interested in these sort of sightings. The ones that look very credible and have some good evidence to back them up. My OP was to consider what the report might state/speculate deny/omit on such sightings and evidence.
    I’ve read some discussion on possible explanations for that, and it isn’t at all clear to me that an “advanced technological craft” would need to be involved.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Thread moved from Life in Space to CT.

    Until it is mainstream science that such sightings are extraterrestrial visitors, we'll continue such discussions here in CT.

    Please carry on.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    One of the problems with "radar backed up the witnesses" or "witnesses backed up the radar" is that these modalities are generally not independent of each other--pilots are scrambled in order to see something reported by radar. Radar is directed in order to track something reported by pilots. The priming of expectation in this way is a powerful method of getting people to misinterpret what they're seeing.

    Look at the second Tonkin Gulf incident, for instance. Primed by a previous North Vietnamese attack, the second incident involved radar, sonar, radio and visual contacts with multiple "North Vietnamese vessels" that didn't actually exist. Every modality was feeding off the others, producing an (understandable) increasing level of anxiety and excitement, and a corresponding heightened readiness to find evidence of the thing that other people were finding evidence of.

    Grant Hutchison
    A good point, maybe, dependent on the level and depth of the report this might offer an explanation for some of the sightings.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I’ve read some discussion on possible explanations for that, and it isn’t at all clear to me that an “advanced technological craft” would need to be involved.
    Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that the UAP are anything specific. I prefer to keep an open mind to all possibilities even though I'm a sceptic regarding claims of ET visitations! I'm just intrigued what might be/not be revealed in the report.

    The only thing I will comment on in response to your post, is that the tic-tac sightings appear to be quite credible in that they were witnessed numerous times over a period of months by multiple military persons and monitoring systems who claimed them to be some sort of craft due to the way they appeared to manoeuvre. As sceptical as I am, if I was to accept any story on UFO's / UAP's as quite credible then this would be one of them.

    So going back to my OP, what do you think we should realistically expect from the report?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    One of the problems with "radar backed up the witnesses" or "witnesses backed up the radar" is that these modalities are generally not independent of each other--pilots are scrambled in order to see something reported by radar. Radar is directed in order to track something reported by pilots. The priming of expectation in this way is a powerful method of getting people to misinterpret what they're seeing.

    Look at the second Tonkin Gulf incident, for instance. Primed by a previous North Vietnamese attack, the second incident involved radar, sonar, radio and visual contacts with multiple "North Vietnamese vessels" that didn't actually exist. Every modality was feeding off the others, producing an (understandable) increasing level of anxiety and excitement, and a corresponding heightened readiness to find evidence of the thing that other people were finding evidence of.

    Grant Hutchison
    In these more recent cases, besides the radar and pilot visual confirmation there is the 3rd factor of actual videos of the objects.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that the UAP are anything specific. I prefer to keep an open mind to all possibilities even though I'm a sceptic regarding claims of ET visitations! I'm just intrigued what might be/not be revealed in the report.

    The only thing I will comment on in response to your post, is that the tic-tac sightings appear to be quite credible in that they were witnessed numerous times over a period of months by multiple military persons and monitoring systems who claimed them to be some sort of craft due to the way they appeared to manoeuvre. As sceptical as I am, if I was to accept any story on UFO's / UAP's as quite credible then this would be one of them.

    So going back to my OP, what do you think we should realistically expect from the report?
    As I understand it the "report" is to be presented to a congressional committee, if this is the case then congress may classify it from the light of day.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    In these more recent cases, besides the radar and pilot visual confirmation there is the 3rd factor of actual videos of the objects.
    Which is again open to expectation bias, just as much as someone staring at a radar screen or straining to hear a sonar signal. Once you're told that it's a blurry video of a large object far away, or a blurry video of a distant object moving at hypersonic velocity, or a blurry video of a rotating object, than that's what you're very likely to see.
    But we've seen over and over again with these videos that what they're claimed to be is not necessarily what they are.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    So going back to my OP, what do you think we should realistically expect from the report?
    I really can’t think of much more to add to my comments in post four:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...30#post2539430

    I can imagine some things they might discuss, but I would be astonished if they had any real evidence that would make the ET visitation fans happy. And not because of a cover-up, I just expect that if there was evidence to be had it would be impossible to keep it hidden and wouldn’t be up to them in the first place.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    As I understand it the "report" is to be presented to a congressional committee, if this is the case then congress may classify it from the light of day.
    It’s supposed to be an unclassified report. I can imagine they might keep some details that would point to the specific capabilities and limitations of some of their instruments, but I would be surprised if there was much they needed to classify.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    CNN has an article about some people talking about what’s in the report, here’s a link:

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/03/polit...ers/index.html

    As I predicted, it won’t make the alien visitation fans happy. Basically they are saying that they have no evidence pointing to ET, but they can’t rule out ET either, because, shockingly, they haven’t been able to identify everything they’ve seen.

    They have been able to identify some things but not everything. Again, just truly shocking, and in no way an obvious and predictable result.

    I liked this bit:

    The US government has long been reluctant to disclose any information related to numerous reported sightings of unidentified flying objects encountered by military pilots in restricted airspace.

    It couldn’t possibly be because they know it turns into a circus, just as this did, and it is something they would prefer to avoid, could it? Honestly, I think we would be better off if it didn’t automatically turn into a circus, and could be discussed rationally. I have no problem with investigation just in case there is a real security issue of some sort, but when people start jumping to assumptions about inertialess drives from looking at blurry images of something, it gets silly real fast.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post

    They have been able to identify some things but not everything. Again, just truly shocking, and in no way an obvious and predictable result.
    I think actually what might be really interesting is what the things they have identified are. It would be quite interesting to hear that they have identified some of the sightings as drones or whatever.

    Incidentally, I would guess that a big focus of the hearings (and report) will be about two things other than exactly what they are.

    -Do they pose a national security threat?
    -What can be done to better coordinate information gathering about such sightings?
    As above, so below

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    <snip>
    I liked this bit:

    The US government has long been reluctant to disclose any information related to numerous reported sightings of unidentified flying objects encountered by military pilots in restricted airspace.

    It couldn’t possibly be because they know it turns into a circus, just as this did, and it is something they would prefer to avoid, could it?
    I also suspect another reason they've been reluctant to disclose information is that such disclosure may reveal information about operations and capabilities (or lack of capabilities) that they do not wish adversaries to know about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think actually what might be really interesting is what the things they have identified are. It would be quite interesting to hear that they have identified some of the sightings as drones or whatever.

    Incidentally, I would guess that a big focus of the hearings (and report) will be about two things other than exactly what they are.

    -Do they pose a national security threat?
    -What can be done to better coordinate information gathering about such sightings?
    Agree on both of those things. I am curious to see what they have been able to identify. And yes, both the DOD and Congress will be mostly interested in this from the point of view of threat assessment (except for a few likely politicians who will use the opportunity to get attention and votes).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •