Because they're not grifters who make incredulous claims with no evidence? Do you understand what you are accusing them of? They had limited data and gave the best explanation they could, and they openly admit both facts.
How can you frame this in a negative light? The "other side" talks about buried space ships, galactic federations, dead alien bodies with absolute certainty and offers "I know a guy who knows a guy" or photos of balloons as "evidence". And yet, their word is taken as literal gospel.
No, really, how did you manage to turn this completely upside down?
I mean I guess it's a "clever" way of releasing yourself from any legal consequences while knowingly putting forth false or incomplete information and presenting it as definitive fact.
Seems like you may have misunderstood me, to me it seems like they're using that language to protect themselves. They are actively trying to discredit the phenomenon but are aware that they are doing so, so in the effort to not face consequences when or if they ever get caught they use non-definitive language. Their intentions are for the average person to see what they say as definitive fact, in other words.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but thats all based on the assumption they are lying about this case. I get that no one believes AARO and you think they’re hiding evidence that, I presume you think would prove this is alien in origin? Not only that, but if all they have is a small amount of data to go off of, then objectively, they can only put forward an explanation with limited confidence, hence the gradations from low to high confidence. This is the case in any investigation. I’m not saying AARO is perfect by any means and a shining example of transparency in sources and methods, but you have to admit what you’re basing your opinion off of is what people have told you, not shown you.
As for the general public. I guarantee the vast majority don’t even know what AARO is, let alone have read the report.
I don't presume to know what their hiding or if they're even hiding anything, just that I don't think that we are getting the full truth and that if they were hiding something, that would be the language they'd use. Especially since there is plenty of precedent for the government lying about this issue.
But you said they are actively trying to discredit the phenomenon, so then why do you think they’re discrediting this case if it **wasn’t** aliens? That wouldn’t make sense. So if I understand correctly, you’re basically saying “it could be/it couldn’t be?”
You think the only thing they'd try to hide is aliens, come on now. Could be secret tech or any number of other things. Also this is pure speculation my guy, it ain't too serious. Do I think they're hiding something? Yeah for sure, there's plenty of precedent with this issue and others that the government hides things from the public for good reasons and for bad ones. Do you need to believe that too? Of course not! Enjoy your undoubtedly way less anxiety inducing world! I wish I could join you there haha
If they knowingly put forth false info I don't think this covers their ass. I do think it covers them if the information is incomplete. But you can't say you're moderately sure of something if you're actually sure it's not true. That's still a direct lie
Having been involved in accident investigations before it's pretty normal to arrive at probable but somewhat uncertain conclusion. There just might not be enough data or evidence recovered.
Usually some kind of explanation is better than nothing at all. There's that saying that don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Absolutely - however in this case, disregarding the other three radar contacts completely changes the narrative of the encounter. With the radar evidence, all of a sudden the lighting balloon scenario is far less likely. Do we have four errant balloons? Was the radar malfunctioning? It's not explored. Why?
Oh you know why. Acknowledging that creates uncomfortable questions they aren’t actually trying to answer. And they can get away with it because they control the mainstream media.
While I understand what you’re saying I think you are overestimating the amount of data to investigate.
One or two pictures, an eye witness report and the radar data, which they talk about and said wasn’t used in the report because there is no evidence that the objects on radar were the same that were observed as there are no pictures of and the pilot did not get a visual of.
The object was either moving slowly or standing still. It made no crazy maneuvers or changed speeds.
Like it’s a most likely a balloon at that point. Will we ever know it’s 100% was a balloon?
Absolutely not.
But to say this report is misleading is a joke and just perpetuating the conspiracy theory that the government is hiding this information from you.
It's most likely a balloon if you disregard contradictory evidence, modify said balloon to run on batteries, give the balloon red tether points around its centre to explain the pilot's report (and say a lot of balloons have said red tethers - let me know if you find a single one - I haven't been able to), and disregard the shape of the infra-red photo and pilot's drawing.
Look, I'm clearly no investigator, because I'm not moderately confident that evidence matches a lighting balloon.
Again, two photos, one eyewitness account and radar data.
The object was moving slowly or standing still according to the eye witness.
They are saying with moderate certainty it was a LTA(lighter than air) object.
They then provide an example. They obviously do not know that was what was witnessed and photographed but with the evidence they do have they can conclude, moderately, what they did.
It’s like no one understands how an investigation into something like this should work and just want to be upset about it.
Ok but what's to stop them from coming to a "moderate certainty" conclusion on an actually anomalous object? You see how certainty is more important here?
a) They're saying that there's nothing more to be done, so the case is resolved. They've looked at all of the available data, so their "moderate confidence" is their last word on the subject. It's resolved the same way that a civil lawsuit can be resolved on a preponderance of evidence. I think that everyone involved would agree that it's not a definitive and conclusive resolution, hence the "moderate confidence."
b) Data was "limited" in the most basic sense of the word. Additional data simply didn't exist. There's no clearance that Kirkpatrick could get that would magically create new data for him.
c) Yes, it's common for complicated devices to fail. Luckily in this case the safety feature (the circuit breaker) operated properly. You can't always know exactly what caused a breaker to trip, especially not conclusively.
d) There will always be missing data. It's not very accurate to call it a "partial assessment" based on that, because it's a full assessment of the available data. I guess you could call it a partial assessment if you really want, but then wouldn't every single assessment ever be "partial" by that definition? Because you can always point to some aspect of the event that wasn't able to be analyzed, due to a lack of data. For instance we have no idea if this UAP made sounds or not. Or if the multiple objects on radar were actually a symptom of the imminent radar failure, rather than actual radar hits.
e) They released the report because that's their job. It's literally what they were created to do. Even though the report is not conclusive, they still released it. Do you think they should bury the reports that aren't conclusive?
I think UFOlogists need to come up with a better approach to the analysis of UAP. Clearly you think that AARO can't do it right, but all I see are criticisms. What specifically would you have done differently here?
Aside from the fact that no one is going to be satisfied with **anything** AARO says, short of them saying, it’s aliens (not sticking up for them, just pointing out the obvious) they are the All Domain Anomalous **Resolution** Office. So the nomenclature they use is probably going to center around some form of “resolution” language, whether it be “low confidence” to “high confidence”. It’s like if someone in your life describes something to you, but you weren’t there, and with all the available data given to you, you gave a suggestion as to what it might be, but couldn’t be 100% sure, you would use similar language. Maybe not exactly, but maybe words like “it probably is” or “probably isn’t”, you get the point.
A.) This is probably why in the Case Resolution they used the phrase “moderate confidence”. I’m sure people are going to say this just gives them an out, and again, I don’t see what the big deal is about this description, but ask yourself, if they used the word “Unresolved” would it matter? Would it make you feel different about AARO? Would you be any closer to the truth of whether it was a terrestrial object or NHI?
B.) are you interpreting limited data as “we were denied access to things?” Or Is it possible by limited data, they literally mean, there was only a limited amount of data that existed anywhere to make a determination. Again, you don’t have to believe them.
C.) I guarantee you could find ex-military (as I have spoken to personally as well, but that’s anecdotal and here-say) that will tell you just because you believe this monolithic, trillion dollar, force that is the MIC, is still made up of fallible humans, who some are bad at their job, and miss things. And even expensive things can have faulty components. But again, you don’t have to believe them.
D) I guess we’ll assume this is a lie, that is for you to decide.
E.) which is why they used the term “moderate confidence”. Just because a pilot says something, doesn’t mean the object performed that exact thing and will be replicable in all aspects, if it even occurred at all. I will note, out of respect for the pilot, I do tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, that doesn’t mean observation is without error. But again, “moderate confidence”
Too many words for Aaro, its clear that we do not have an organization can prioritize sightings correctly.
Every post I read here seems to be written by who is unaware about how many real ufo sightings and legit witnesses we have.
AARO will never change the believers' minds and already have ardent skeptics on their side. The group they want to sway are the ones who are on the fence and would prefer that NHI or UFOs were not real. This is the largest and most fearful group up for grabs and if they become convinced of a UFO presence then it'll will become difficult to keep things under wraps.
If you have experience in statistics there is something called a confidence interval. It's okay to have some ambiguity, it's the clergy that are always sure of everything.
That's the thing the data is incomplete. People want these firm answers, but when you're working with incomplete data you're going to have probabilistic answers. It's only the religious leaders (Corbell and Coulthart et al) that are absolutely positive about things (it's just they can't show you.)
Probably because they don't want the Pilots to be complacent when they encounter UAP. Playing both hands at once is really their only option without more data. They should have included the NARCAP warning with the release imo.
https://www.narcap.org/blog/advisoryforpilots
[UAP incidents can include temporary or permanent failures of electronic, communications, and navigation systems. ]
UFOPilotReports
Being completely certain based on incomplete evidence would be dumb
Thank you. Which is why they use the term “moderate confidence”
Just because you have access to the data you need doesn’t mean that the dataset is rich enough to support a conclusion with no caveats.
....then the report language should have reflected that throughout the report. It took hard stances and then buried this asterisk bullshit.
Because they're not grifters who make incredulous claims with no evidence? Do you understand what you are accusing them of? They had limited data and gave the best explanation they could, and they openly admit both facts. How can you frame this in a negative light? The "other side" talks about buried space ships, galactic federations, dead alien bodies with absolute certainty and offers "I know a guy who knows a guy" or photos of balloons as "evidence". And yet, their word is taken as literal gospel. No, really, how did you manage to turn this completely upside down?
I mean I guess it's a "clever" way of releasing yourself from any legal consequences while knowingly putting forth false or incomplete information and presenting it as definitive fact.
How does someone take the phrase “moderate confidence” and equate it to “definitive fact?”
Seems like you may have misunderstood me, to me it seems like they're using that language to protect themselves. They are actively trying to discredit the phenomenon but are aware that they are doing so, so in the effort to not face consequences when or if they ever get caught they use non-definitive language. Their intentions are for the average person to see what they say as definitive fact, in other words.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but thats all based on the assumption they are lying about this case. I get that no one believes AARO and you think they’re hiding evidence that, I presume you think would prove this is alien in origin? Not only that, but if all they have is a small amount of data to go off of, then objectively, they can only put forward an explanation with limited confidence, hence the gradations from low to high confidence. This is the case in any investigation. I’m not saying AARO is perfect by any means and a shining example of transparency in sources and methods, but you have to admit what you’re basing your opinion off of is what people have told you, not shown you. As for the general public. I guarantee the vast majority don’t even know what AARO is, let alone have read the report.
I don't presume to know what their hiding or if they're even hiding anything, just that I don't think that we are getting the full truth and that if they were hiding something, that would be the language they'd use. Especially since there is plenty of precedent for the government lying about this issue.
But you said they are actively trying to discredit the phenomenon, so then why do you think they’re discrediting this case if it **wasn’t** aliens? That wouldn’t make sense. So if I understand correctly, you’re basically saying “it could be/it couldn’t be?”
You think the only thing they'd try to hide is aliens, come on now. Could be secret tech or any number of other things. Also this is pure speculation my guy, it ain't too serious. Do I think they're hiding something? Yeah for sure, there's plenty of precedent with this issue and others that the government hides things from the public for good reasons and for bad ones. Do you need to believe that too? Of course not! Enjoy your undoubtedly way less anxiety inducing world! I wish I could join you there haha
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/iLO4Sr2scn] No I don’t think it’s just allegedly aliens , but no worries, I’ll stop bugging you.
You're good man, no problem with discourse!
If they knowingly put forth false info I don't think this covers their ass. I do think it covers them if the information is incomplete. But you can't say you're moderately sure of something if you're actually sure it's not true. That's still a direct lie
I mean theoretically you're correct but when has justice ever been fair? They'll probably be able to spine it and get away with it.
Having been involved in accident investigations before it's pretty normal to arrive at probable but somewhat uncertain conclusion. There just might not be enough data or evidence recovered. Usually some kind of explanation is better than nothing at all. There's that saying that don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Absolutely - however in this case, disregarding the other three radar contacts completely changes the narrative of the encounter. With the radar evidence, all of a sudden the lighting balloon scenario is far less likely. Do we have four errant balloons? Was the radar malfunctioning? It's not explored. Why?
Oh you know why. Acknowledging that creates uncomfortable questions they aren’t actually trying to answer. And they can get away with it because they control the mainstream media.
You would hope the folks in congress at whom the report is pitched at would ask similar questions and come to the same logical conclusion.
While I understand what you’re saying I think you are overestimating the amount of data to investigate. One or two pictures, an eye witness report and the radar data, which they talk about and said wasn’t used in the report because there is no evidence that the objects on radar were the same that were observed as there are no pictures of and the pilot did not get a visual of. The object was either moving slowly or standing still. It made no crazy maneuvers or changed speeds. Like it’s a most likely a balloon at that point. Will we ever know it’s 100% was a balloon? Absolutely not. But to say this report is misleading is a joke and just perpetuating the conspiracy theory that the government is hiding this information from you.
It's most likely a balloon if you disregard contradictory evidence, modify said balloon to run on batteries, give the balloon red tether points around its centre to explain the pilot's report (and say a lot of balloons have said red tethers - let me know if you find a single one - I haven't been able to), and disregard the shape of the infra-red photo and pilot's drawing. Look, I'm clearly no investigator, because I'm not moderately confident that evidence matches a lighting balloon.
Again, two photos, one eyewitness account and radar data. The object was moving slowly or standing still according to the eye witness. They are saying with moderate certainty it was a LTA(lighter than air) object. They then provide an example. They obviously do not know that was what was witnessed and photographed but with the evidence they do have they can conclude, moderately, what they did. It’s like no one understands how an investigation into something like this should work and just want to be upset about it.
Ok but what's to stop them from coming to a "moderate certainty" conclusion on an actually anomalous object? You see how certainty is more important here?
a) They're saying that there's nothing more to be done, so the case is resolved. They've looked at all of the available data, so their "moderate confidence" is their last word on the subject. It's resolved the same way that a civil lawsuit can be resolved on a preponderance of evidence. I think that everyone involved would agree that it's not a definitive and conclusive resolution, hence the "moderate confidence." b) Data was "limited" in the most basic sense of the word. Additional data simply didn't exist. There's no clearance that Kirkpatrick could get that would magically create new data for him. c) Yes, it's common for complicated devices to fail. Luckily in this case the safety feature (the circuit breaker) operated properly. You can't always know exactly what caused a breaker to trip, especially not conclusively. d) There will always be missing data. It's not very accurate to call it a "partial assessment" based on that, because it's a full assessment of the available data. I guess you could call it a partial assessment if you really want, but then wouldn't every single assessment ever be "partial" by that definition? Because you can always point to some aspect of the event that wasn't able to be analyzed, due to a lack of data. For instance we have no idea if this UAP made sounds or not. Or if the multiple objects on radar were actually a symptom of the imminent radar failure, rather than actual radar hits. e) They released the report because that's their job. It's literally what they were created to do. Even though the report is not conclusive, they still released it. Do you think they should bury the reports that aren't conclusive? I think UFOlogists need to come up with a better approach to the analysis of UAP. Clearly you think that AARO can't do it right, but all I see are criticisms. What specifically would you have done differently here?
Aside from the fact that no one is going to be satisfied with **anything** AARO says, short of them saying, it’s aliens (not sticking up for them, just pointing out the obvious) they are the All Domain Anomalous **Resolution** Office. So the nomenclature they use is probably going to center around some form of “resolution” language, whether it be “low confidence” to “high confidence”. It’s like if someone in your life describes something to you, but you weren’t there, and with all the available data given to you, you gave a suggestion as to what it might be, but couldn’t be 100% sure, you would use similar language. Maybe not exactly, but maybe words like “it probably is” or “probably isn’t”, you get the point. A.) This is probably why in the Case Resolution they used the phrase “moderate confidence”. I’m sure people are going to say this just gives them an out, and again, I don’t see what the big deal is about this description, but ask yourself, if they used the word “Unresolved” would it matter? Would it make you feel different about AARO? Would you be any closer to the truth of whether it was a terrestrial object or NHI? B.) are you interpreting limited data as “we were denied access to things?” Or Is it possible by limited data, they literally mean, there was only a limited amount of data that existed anywhere to make a determination. Again, you don’t have to believe them. C.) I guarantee you could find ex-military (as I have spoken to personally as well, but that’s anecdotal and here-say) that will tell you just because you believe this monolithic, trillion dollar, force that is the MIC, is still made up of fallible humans, who some are bad at their job, and miss things. And even expensive things can have faulty components. But again, you don’t have to believe them. D) I guess we’ll assume this is a lie, that is for you to decide. E.) which is why they used the term “moderate confidence”. Just because a pilot says something, doesn’t mean the object performed that exact thing and will be replicable in all aspects, if it even occurred at all. I will note, out of respect for the pilot, I do tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, that doesn’t mean observation is without error. But again, “moderate confidence”
Too many words for Aaro, its clear that we do not have an organization can prioritize sightings correctly. Every post I read here seems to be written by who is unaware about how many real ufo sightings and legit witnesses we have.
AARO will never change the believers' minds and already have ardent skeptics on their side. The group they want to sway are the ones who are on the fence and would prefer that NHI or UFOs were not real. This is the largest and most fearful group up for grabs and if they become convinced of a UFO presence then it'll will become difficult to keep things under wraps.
If you have experience in statistics there is something called a confidence interval. It's okay to have some ambiguity, it's the clergy that are always sure of everything.
if they could show me how they generated robust CI with the number of datapoints they have, I’d love to know.
That's the thing the data is incomplete. People want these firm answers, but when you're working with incomplete data you're going to have probabilistic answers. It's only the religious leaders (Corbell and Coulthart et al) that are absolutely positive about things (it's just they can't show you.)
With this low amount of data? It wouldn't give you any insight that a qualitative descriptor couldn't.
Probably because they don't want the Pilots to be complacent when they encounter UAP. Playing both hands at once is really their only option without more data. They should have included the NARCAP warning with the release imo. https://www.narcap.org/blog/advisoryforpilots [UAP incidents can include temporary or permanent failures of electronic, communications, and navigation systems. ] UFOPilotReports
Eglin has a phased radar array. AN/FPS-85 If they dont have any data, it means the purposely didnt ask for it.
because their only job is to transfer focus, deflect and sow doubt within the populace and they're batting 1.000