The Needle in the Haystack: Reflections on the NASA UAP Meeting, May 2023 V.J. Ballester Olmos and Chris Aubeck On May 31, 2023, NASA held a historic meeting, live streamed by its independent study team on categorizing and evaluating data of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). The full meeting, which lasted from 10:30 to 14:30 EDT, was aired on NASA Television and the agencys website. It is now preserved on YouTube. Previously, on May 12, a NASA communiqu titled NASA Provides Coverage of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Meeting had reported: NASA defines UAP as observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena from a scientific perspective. The focus of this public meeting is to hold final deliberations before the agencys independent study team publishes a report this summer. Outlining how to evaluate and study UAP by using data, technology, and the tools of science is a NASA priority. It is not a review or assessment of previous unidentifiable observations. The report will inform NASA on what possible data could be collected in the future to shed light on the nature and origin of UAP. The UAP independent study team is a counsel of 16 community experts across diverse areas on matters relevant to potential methods of study for unidentified anomalous phenomena. NASA commissioned the nine-month study to examine UAP from a scientific perspective and create a road map for how to use data and the tools of science to move our understanding of UAP forward. Right now, the limited high-quality observations of UAP make it impossible to draw scientific conclusions from the data about the nature of such events. [Our emphasis]. Days before the actual session, NASA released the meetings agenda, which was not 100% complete. We watched this session online, which led us to form our observations and form an assessment, comprised of both praise and criticism. Our aim with this article is to provide a quick overview of the meeting, highlight the best ideas, and offer our own remarks and thoughts. The enigma of flying saucers, a problem that has lingered for 76 years since its inception in 1947, is more deeply rooted in people's minds than in technology. A nine-month study cannot resolve such an enduring issue. However, it is true that the stated objective is hps://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-unidenfied-anomalous-phenomena-study-team-members/ hps://science.nasa.gov/uap and hps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM hps://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-provides-coverage-of-unidenfied-anomalous-phenomena-meeng hps://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Public%20Meeng%20Agenda_0.pdf merely to create a road map and provide recommendations for a proper study of UAP. NASAs independent study began on October 24, 2022 and is set to conclude by the end of July 2023. One intriguing question is why NASA would convene a meeting on the last day of May, just two months before the release of their final report. Perhaps they aim to manage high expectations among those who are strongly inclined to believe in UAP. This could explain why NASAs May 12 dispatch already stated that no scientific conclusions could be drawn about the nature of UAP. Its important to note that this isnt a unique phenomenon; rather, as the P in UAP signifies, there are multiple phenomena a variety of coincidental events with as many different characteristics as there are sightings. Understanding UAPs is vital for scientists at NASA, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the various new associations studying this phenomenon around the world. Recognizing that there isn't a single nature or origin for these UAP observations is crucial. Each sighting has its own essence (natural, manmade, or psychological) and, for the point of view of the witness, a motivation (legitimate or spurious). This mix of different types of events wont produce the uniform patterns in a dataset that scientists usually analyze. If these researchers also covered ground level claimstermed close encounters by ufologiststheyd face an unexpected challenge, one that would likely require a greater number of social scientists on the research team than originally planned. At 10:30 sharp, Daniel Evans delivered some opening remarks. Dr. Evans serves in dual roles as the Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Research at NASA and as the designated federal official for the NASA UAP Team. He explained the reason why: In recent years, the subject of unidentified aerial phenomena nowadays termed unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAPs has captured the attention of the public, the scientific community, and the government alike and it's now our collective responsibility to investigate these occurrences with a rigorous scientific scrutiny that they deserve. Despite the USAF Blue Book Project (1947-1969), the University of Colorado UFO Project (1966-1968), and numerous ongoing UFO reports, NASA had not previously felt the need to get involved. Not to mention the rebuff NASA gave to the U.S. Administration in 1977 when it declined to enter the UFO arena. But times have changed. Now, there is an increasing interest and focus on UFOs (UAPs) and, suddenly, NASA feels the obligation to engage with this issue. Certainly owing to the associated media exposure. But thats fine. Every opportunity for science to investigate UFO phenomena is commendable. After all, it can contribute to public education. What is their stated purpose? NASA is an organization dedicated to exploring the unknown. As Evans expresses, this is in our DNA. Furthermore, he affirmed that UAPs could pose any potential risks to airspace safety. Yet this is a recently adopted mantra, an excuse to allocate resources and attention to the UAP problem, despite the number of UFO-related incidents over the decades being near zero. Evans correctly argued that science is built on the foundation of evidence, thrives under scrutiny, and demands the reproducibility of results. However, this typically applies to observable natural phenomena. Sightings of flying saucers cannot be reproduced on demand. Generalities may sound appealing in the absence of practical knowledge of UFO reports. However, when it comes to UFO (or UAP) reporting, these general principles need to be adapted to fit the special circumstances at stake here. We are starting from scratch and, consequently, reinventing the wheel. So far, the intentions seem clear. But, what exactly does NASA intend to do? They do not aim to resolve the UAP issue. They simply aspire to provide a road map to guide us for future analysis. To be fair then, we should not ask for more. Acknowledging the high public interest in this subject and a strong demand for answers, Evans stated that conversations like this one are the first step to reducing the stigma surrounding UAP reporting. The term stigma is a buzzword today in the UAP community. Its either used by those unaware of UFO history or by those seeking to make an emotional argument to rally public support to their agendas. Ever since 1947, when flying saucers culturally burst onto the scene, theyve become firmly ingrained in societies around the world through literature, cinema, television, advertising, and more. Is there V.J. Ballester Olmos, History: UFO Invesgaon at NASA, December 2019, hp://fotocat.blogspot.com/2019_12_18_archive.html (scroll down to blogs entry) Chris Aubeck, Alien Arfacts, 2022, hps://nyurl.com/yfxte36x truly a stigma to report? Considering there are more than 1,000 pilot cases reported around the world, the concept of a stigma seems to be a fallacy. Nobody is generally prevented from reporting flying saucers, UFOs, or UAPs, with perhaps some very particular exceptions. The dissemination of UFO sighting accounts, including the most intense stories featuring landings and associated living creatures, numbers in the thousands worldwide. Dan Evans. Central to Evans speech was his affirmation of NASAs commitment to openness, linking it to the organizations reputation and scientific integrity. We have no doubt that NASA will present its findings with utmost fairness. However, we foresee inevitable clashes with the more extreme elements of the ufological movement when NASA discloses that they havent found evidence of aliens in the events theyve examined. Near the end, Evans poetically asserted that NASA believes that the study of unidentified anomalous phenomena represents an exciting step forward in our quest to uncover the mysteries of the world around us. In years to come, we might look back on this statement Dominique Weinstein, Unidenfied Aerial Phenomena Eighty Years of Pilot Sighngs, hps://stac1.squarespace.com/stac/5cf80ff422b5a90001351e31/t/5d02eb46935aac0001690f62/15604724089 72/narcap_revised_tr-4.pdf Tim Printy, The Weinstein Catalog: Ufological Bullion or Fools Gold?, in V.J. Ballester-Olmos & Richard W. Heiden (eds.), The Reliability of UFO Witness Tesmony, UPIAR, 2023, pp. 180-189, hps://www.academia.edu/101922617/The_Reliability_of_UFO_Witness_Tesmony Jacques Valle, A Century of UFO Landings (1868-1968), in Passport to Magonia, Henry Regnery Co. (Chicago), V.J. Ballester Olmos & J.A. Fernndez Peris, Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS, Plaza & Jans (Barcelona), 1987, hps://www.academia.edu/41625252/ENCICLOPEDIA_DE_LOS_ENCUENTROS_CERCANOS_CON_OVNIS Peter Rogerson, Internaonal Catalogue of Close Encounter and Enty Reports, hp://intcat.blogspot.com/ with amusement, but it resonates well in a virtual address that garnered 195K views over the next three days. Evans concluded his introduction with two significant footnotes, labeled as administrative remarks. Firstly, the UAP Team reports to the NASA Earth Science Advisory Committee, not directly to the Government. Secondly, and more relevant to us as students of UFO phenomena, he addressed the recent change in the National Defense Authorization Act that shifted the A in UAP from aerial to anomalous: [as] the majority of UAP sightings to date have been in the aerial domain...this panel's focus is on the aerial aspect of anomalous ... This is quite logical; however, it avoids addressing a key aspect of UFO narratives that cannot be ignored when making a comprehensive assessment of this phenomenon. This includes accounts of face-to-face encounters with aliens, vehicle interference, ground markings, and damaged vegetation, reported by thousands of people. In our opinion, this is the core of the issue. This is why we are convinced that the study of the credibility of UFO testimony, particularly for non-aerial phenomena, is extremely important. Following Evans was Dr. Nikki Fox, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, who felt disheartened to hear of the harassment that some of the UAPIST panelists have faced online because they're studying UAP. This is due to the exaggerated publicity this issue attracts these days; unlike the past, when scientists investigating even the most critical aspects of UFOs, such as abductions, were able to do so without being bullied (remember Hynek or, more recently, Mack). Nevertheless, we, as UFO researchers, maintain a zero-tolerance policy for any form of harassment towards UFO/UAP investigators. In her presentation, Fox provided further insight into the teams ongoing road map: [it] will help the federal government obtain usable data to explain the nature of future UAPs. She also proposed a relevant categorization of available UAP data: ...right now there is very limited number of high quality observations and data curation of UAP. The existing data available from eyewitness reports are often modeled and cannot provide conclusive evidence that supports UAP recognition and analysis ... This lack of high quality data makes it impossible to draw scientific conclusions on the nature of UAP. Although this group of scientists is new to UFO research, they immediately recognize that the reservoir of UFO data is generally poor, or as it has been described, it exists within a Low Information Zone. And we can predict that their Doubting Thomas stance (that is, V.J. Ballester Olmos, The Pentagon UAP Study 2023, hps://www.academia.edu/99475636/THE_PENTAGON_UAP_STUDY_2023 V.J. Ballester-Olmos & Richard W. Heiden (eds.), The Reliability of UFO Witness Tesmony, UPIAR, 2023, hps://www.academia.edu/101922617/The_Reliability_of_UFO_Witness_Tesmony Mick West, The Grey Birds, hps://mickwest.substack.com/p/the-grey-birds?utm_source=substacck&utm_medoim=email scientific skepticism) will increase as they delve further into the investigation of more UAP Another instructive comment, which conspiracy-minded ufologists should note, occurred when Fox explained the secret behind certain classified UAP sightings: ... it's often the sensor platform that is classified ... if a fighter jet took a picture of the Statue of Liberty then that image would be classified not because of the subject in the picture but because of the sensors on the plane. Next, Dr. David Spergel, President of the Simons Foundation and Director of UAPIST, shared the chairs perspective, and the first idea he put forward was to dissipate doubts about what they are doing: ... our role here is not to resolve the nature of these events but rather to give NASA guidance to provide a road map of how it can contribute in this area. OK, in principle, NASA does not aim to compete with AARO in the UAP study. However, NASA also seeks its own slice of the pie in this area of research, as if it were a talent competition. AARO will benefit from UAPISTs recommendations, but by the time these are proposed, they certainly won't be novel to the DoD UAP Office anymore. Cosmologist Spergel is aware of the unsystematic and fragmented nature of UAP data collection efforts, with various agencies often using instruments uncalibrated for scientific data collection. He continued: When you see something unusual the first thing you have to do is understand how that data was taken and I think this is one of the challenges one faces when you have data taken by uncalibrated instruments. Here, one of the major problems in UAP research emerges, and Spergel, as the scientist he is, promptly recognizes it. He anticipates that a systematic search will detect the core of the unusual phenomena. Therefore they recommend creating specific sensors for this search. However, what they still don't know at this stage is that the objects to be monitored can have different and varied natures and origins, and no unique detecting apparatus can be designed for such a purpose. Today the Navy aircrafts most advanced FLIR system detects a drone; tomorrow, a bird; then, a balloon, a narco plane, a civil airplane, a kite, ball lightning, Elves, etc. It is a beginners mistake to expect uniform data from the reported phenomena. This conception will only be corrected by experience. David Spergel. As a newcomer in UFO research, Dr. Spergel believes UAPs have the potential to reveal groundbreaking discoveries, akin to the Sprites. He expressed this sentiment, stating I think this is one of the fascinating things about the UAP phenomenon if it's something that's anomalous that makes it interesting and worthy of study. If NASA continues its research, it will eventually understand that this isn't a singular, mysterious phenomenon. Instead, there are numerous phenomena at play, all natural yet seemingly distorted through the lens of human perception, a tool that we cannot easily calibrate. Dr. Spergel passed the baton to Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), established in July 2022 at the Pentagon, as an invited contributor to the meeting. Kirkpatrick began by applauding the NASA commission for exploring what data and tools could be leveraged to shed greater light on UAP. For better or worse, he appears to firmly believe in an existing relationship between UAPs and space when noting that NASA is critical to understanding the nature and origin of UAP [as it] brings unique capabilities [as having] access to Earth sensing satellites, radiological sensors, tools for gravitational wave, geomagnetic wave detection, and means for analyzing open source cloud and crowdsource data. But AAROs own database appears to contradict this because, as he indicated further on: I have no space reports and I have no maritime reports. That is notable even though we are looking across all of those domains. Dr. Kirkpatrick suggests that this phenomenon is complex, saying ... the resolution of all UAP cases cannot be accomplished by DoD and the intelligence community alone. AARO's ultimate success will require Partnerships with the interagency industry, Academia, the scientific community, and the public which all bring their own resources, ideas and expertise to the UAP challenge. For us, the key word is expertise. Its the existing know-how of those civilian researchers and analysts in Europe, Latin America, and the United States who hold the clues about what UAPs are not, and how an alien myth developed from UAP observations and claims. Finally, significant hints about the nature of the incoming evidence began to surface. Dr. Kirkpatrick was straightforward when announcing three outstanding inferences: [1] only a very small percentage of UAP reports displays signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous. The majority of unidentified objects reported to AARO and in our holdings demonstrate mundane characteristics of readily explainable sources... while a large number of cases in AAROs holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases...without sufficient data we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific standards we set for resolution... meanwhile for the few objects that do demonstrate potentially anomalous characteristics, AARO is approaching these cases with the highest level of objectivity and analytic rigor. This includes physical testing and employing modeling and simulation to validate our analyses and the underlying theories and then peer-reviewing those results before reaching any conclusions... That is, most phenomena are visual trash. Many other reports do not show strangeness but poor data prevents them from being readily dismissed. Apparently, they have isolated a few truly anomalous cases. We are excited and eager to see the entire documentation of these unidentifiable, anomalous events for independent scrutiny. Sean Kirkpatrick. Following his speech, Kirkpatrick showed a slide which slightly updated his April 2023