NASA Holds First Public Meeting on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
On Wednesday, NASA held its first public meeting since it launched a study into unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) a year ago. The team includes 16 scientists and experts.
Facts
- On Wednesday, NASA held its first public meeting since it launched a study into unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) a year ago. The team includes 16 scientists and experts.1
- NASA said the main objective of the four-hour session was to hold “final deliberations” before the panel issues a report in late July.2
- Sean Kirkpatrick, director of NASA’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, described how the organization receives 50-100 reports of sightings each month, but he added that just 2-5% of the database can be characterized as “possibly really anomalous.”3
- Kirkpatrick also said there are steps NASA could take to understand UAPs better, including standardizing the process of collecting reports, using more ground-based instruments to track objects, and exploring the possibility of using satellites to detect objects.4
- There are several groups the US government funds that are studying UAPs in addition to the NASA team. The US Department of Defense started an office to study objects in space, air, and water in 2022.5
Sources: 1Associated Press, 2Reuters, 3BBC News, 4CBS, and 5Space.
Narratives
- Narrative A, as provided by NBC. Data is crucial to properly investigating these sightings, but it’s difficult to accumulate because of the stigma surrounding those who report unusual objects. Even pilots and military service members can face harassment, so instead they remain quiet. Having a public meeting and issuing this report should lead to people being more inclined to report anything unusual.
- Narrative B, as provided by Business Insider. Although NASA and other organizations must accumulate enough data to conclude these unknown objects, it’s somewhat disconcerting that government organizations are considering using individuals’ cell phone data to further this cause. This could lead to a violation of privacy that shouldn’t be part of trying to explain the unexplained. This committee should proceed with public input — but without privacy violations.
