Well folks, this one looks like a seismic shift—at least on the surface—in how the powers-that-be want us to think about UFOs, or as the new jargon goes, UAPs—Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. NASA, the shining beacon of American space science, just dropped a 33-page report urging everyone—from the curious night owls in basements to the sharpest scientific minds—to shove aside myth and fear and look at UFOs through the cold, hard, data-driven lens of science.
Now, you might be asking yourself, “Art, is this the big reveal? The long-awaited lifting of the veil?” Or is this just another shiny package to keep the cash flowing into space programs and government coffers? NASA’s Bill Nelson tells us to ditch the conspiracy theories and open our minds—he blames stigma as the biggest roadblock and promises transparency and scientific rigor.
But let’s peel back a layer here. Nelson admits this universe is so staggeringly vast, the odds of life elsewhere aren’t just possible—they’re near certain, talking about at least a trillion Earth-like planets waiting out there. Reasonable, sure. But when it comes to actual evidence of aliens or recovered spacecraft? What does he say? “Show me the evidence.” Classic dodge, wouldn’t you say?
Here’s where it gets spicy: NASA says they don’t actively hunt UAPs but rely on a fleet of Earth-orbiting satellites to analyze the strange stuff. They’re rolling out AI and machine learning like a digital bloodhound to sift through mountains of satellite data, radar, infrared imagery, looking for needles in massive cosmic haystacks. This is cutting-edge, indeed—almost like science fiction.
But wait—why cloak the identity of their new UFO research director? They claim it’s to protect them from harassment, but you and I know that smell of secrecy in government halls. Remember Gary McKinnon, the UK hacker who cracked NASA’s servers and claimed to find “extraterrestrial officers” stashed away in those files? He talked about a shadow “fleet” of alien crafts. McKinnon went to jail for exposing what many say was the suppressed truth.
If NASA’s so sincere now, why hide their own lead investigator’s name? What other secrets are bolted down behind classified vaults? For decades, government outfits have danced the dark waltz, spinning tales and withholding facts. Is NASA’s new posture a genuine thaw, or a savvy move to placate public hunger for answers while quietly keeping funding alive, with hush money funneled through science budgets?
The report admits the data is spotty—most sightings get chalked up to planes, drones, or weather balloons. But what about those craft that perform jaw-dropping maneuvers impossible by our tech standards? NASA sidesteps those with “no definitive explanation.” It’s that old chestnut: “Explain what you can, ignore the rest.”
And while they talk about openness and international cooperation, I can’t help but feel the reigns are just changing hands—that we’re trading one veil for a more transparent curtain while the grand secrecy march goes on.
So, what’s the takeaway? Keep your mind open but your skepticism sharper than ever. Demand real evidence, ask the hard questions, and keep shining your flashlight into the dark corners. Is this NASA’s moment of truth, or just another well-produced act in the cosmic theater of shadows? Time, and courage, will reveal all. But know this—our skies are awakening, and the real story is far richer than the official scripts admit.
Stay tuned, stay curious, and above all, keep watching the skies.
Report Analysis
Setting aside the AI-powered Art Bell impersonation for a moment, the 33-page NASA report (link below), chaired by Dr. David Spergel, does take a practical, down-to-earth scientific approach— including an analysis of the GoFast UAP incident. For those keeping score at home, this might shed some light on the political dynamics shaping what the public hears—and doesn’t hear—about these phenomena. Here is an excerpt from the report:
A well-known UAP event is the “GoFast” video, recorded by navy aviators from the USS Theodore Roosevelt. A still frame from this video is shown in the Figure below, where the infrared camera has locked onto a small object in the center. The video gives an impression of an object skimming above the ocean at a great velocity. But analysis of the numerical information on the display reveals a less extraordinary interpretation.
The circled numbers in the image provide the information needed to estimate the object’s altitude and velocity. This information includes (1) elevation angle of the camera (negative = downward), (2) azimuth angle of the camera, (3) target range in nautical miles, (4) the aircraft’s altitude in feet, (5) time reference in seconds, and (6) indicated air speed in knots. Using items 1, 3, and 4, plus a bit of trigonometry, we calculate that the object is at an altitude of 13,000 feet, and 4.2 miles from the ocean behind it (see middle panel). Given that the aircraft’s groundspeed is about 435 mph, we may conclude that the impression of rapid motion is at least partly due to the high velocity of the sensor, coupled with the parallax effect.
We can use other information from the display to place some limits on the true velocity of the object. This analysis is summarized in the right-hand panel, which depicts an overhead view of the encounter during a 22-second interval. The jet was banking left at about 15° during this time, which corresponds to an approximate turning radius of 16 kilometers. We know the range and bearing of the object at the start (t=0s) and end (t=22s) times. Using the calculated true air speed (TAS) and a bit more trigonometry, we find the object moved about 390 meters during this 22-second interval, which corresponds to an average speed of 40 mph. This is a typical wind speed at 13,000 feet.
Our calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft, and thus there is uncertainty in this result. But the analysis reveals that the object need not be moving at an extraordinary velocity. Note also that the object appears bright against a dark ocean for these display settings. This indicates that the object is colder than the ocean. There is thus no evidence of heat produced by a propulsion system. This further supports the conjecture that the object is most likely drifting with the wind. The availability of additional data would enable a more firm conclusion about the nature of this object.
Original GoFast video, released by the Department of Defense:
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents
These are rocket scientists we’re talking about—analyzing data like this is child’s play for them. Having NASA step into the UFO/UAP arena marks a fascinating and potentially transformative turn of events. At the very least, we should get more high quality unexplained UFO phenomena which are not so easy to discount as something mundane after they have a go at it. I look forward to seeing where this may lead.
Dr. David Spergel, chair of NASA’s UAP study team, advocates a scientific, data-driven approach to UFOs, emphasizing that while many sightings are explainable by conventional causes, some remain unexplained due to limited data quality. He stresses the need for better, higher-quality data and advanced tools like AI for analysis, urging open-minded yet cautious investigation without jumping to extraterrestrial conclusions. Spergel views NASA’s role as bringing scientific rigor and transparency to UAP research, focusing on evidence over sensational claims.
References:
NASA UAP Independent Study Team Final Report
https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uap-independent-study-team-final-report.pdf