UFO/UAP study released by NASA

One of the first things that stands out is that the proliferation of small cameras is not necessarily helpful, see page 16:

Observations of UAP to date are inconsistent and do not adhere to similar characteristics. As a consequence, it is difficult to put physical constraints on them at present, which provides a strong motivation for the rigorous, evidence-based framework articulated in this report. The strongest physical constraints are not on the anomalous events but on the conventional events: we know the range of velocities and accelerations that can be achieved by state-of-the art platforms, drones, balloons and planes. Deviations from this behavior, such as any well-characterized observation of velocities and accelerations outside of that range, are scientifically interesting for UAP assessment and analysis. The panel emphasizes that clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events, a fact borne out by AARO’s findings that the vast majority of UAP have prosaic explanations.​

This is actually part of a Response to the Statement of Task. The highlighted Finding, "The panel regards placing physical constraints on UAP, together with the suite of plausible natures and origins, as being within reach" (17), is about as bland and unimpressive as can be, considering the implications if such values escape scientific assessment.

But think about a really mundane sentence in the Response: "The panel emphasizes that clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events, a fact borne out by AARO’s findings that the vast majority of UAP have prosaic explanations."

Okay, that should be a mundane sentence. A shorter form, to emphasize: "The panel emphasizes that clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events."

In case I need to be more direct: "Clearly determining distances is key to understanding and corroborating any claimed anomalous high-velocity and high-acceleration events."

An inexpensive security camera is not sufficient. A mobile phone camera is not sufficient. This is easy enough to observe; see South Asian Object (pp. 12, 18) "The cavitation is likely a sensor artifact resulting from video compression." And we will encounter a question of reliability with nearly any digital image. The image comes with a standard disclaimer about "the appearance of U.S. Department of Defense visual information"; compared to unidentified objects and uncertain legends of pop-culture murmur and buzz, even the part that the military must take these encounters seriously will find the discussion perpetually trying to account for data compression in digital systems. And, no, not every unidentified aerial phenomenon DoD recorded was locked-on with a targeting system, so, no, they won't necessarily have sufficient distance information in the recorded data.

Comparatively, no, the footage or images recorded on a phone camera will not necessarily be useful, and a perpetually growing heap of alleged mysterious phenomena that cannot be usefully analyzed is just noise of approximately detrimental value. In considering the types of scientific data available, for instance, the study acknowledges, "for a particular UAP event, we will need to be fortunate to obtain high-resolution observations from space". One reliable data set from an Earth-observing satellite would prove more useful than pretty much all the low-res, earthbound images captured by smaller imaging devices such as security, dashboard, and mobile phone cams. "Robust data calibration", and "standardization of collected information", are essential (13).

†​

There is nothing truly groundbreaking in the NASA report; it's just not that kind of paper. But a discussion of the famous "go fast" UAP describes how available data is used to understand what an object is. Spoiler alert: "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." It's not precise; the "calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft", so there is some uncertainty in thsoe numbers, but coupled with the apparent lack of propulsion heat, "the object is most likely drifting with the wind".

Where we have the data, we will see a lot of these mundane explanations, and in its way we might suggest we won't see anything spectacular until we do. And something about the language suggests NASA is aware of why they're bothering to put out a report explaining the obvious: "UAP data are rarely, if ever, collected in a concerted effort to understand the phenomenon," the report reminds (28), "they are usually coincidental observations … As a result, existing observations are neither optimized for studying UAP nor are they suited for a systematic scientific analysis". And their discussion of scientific principle (29-30) isn't simply written for believers, but for reads as if it was penned in response to armchair pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists:

As a general principle, the data should support measurement that can rule out specific explanations or interpretations, leaving us with no choice but to embrace its opposite. In the case of UAP, the hypothesis we seek to reject (or “null hypothesis”) is that the UAP have phenomenology consistent with known natural or technological causes. Eye-witness reports should be considered along with corroborating sensor data in the study of UAP as reports may reveal patterns (for example, clusters in time or location). Yet, without calibrated sensor data to accompany it, no report can provide conclusive evidence on the nature of UAP or enable a study into the details of what was witnessed. While witnesses may be inherently credible, reports are not repeatable by others, and they do not allow a complete investigation into possible cognitive biases and errors (such as accuracy in perception, or misperception caused by environmental factors, errors in the recording device, judgment or misjudgment of distance or speed, for example). Therefore, the reports do not alone constitute data that can support a repeatable, reproducible analysis, and the hypothesis that what was witnessed was a manifestation of known natural or technological phenomena cannot be falsified.​

That is to say, they describe the difference between science and superstitious histrionics. And, really, that might be the whole reason for the report, which often reads like a sort of bland, traditional political paper; the highlighted, left-column findings, for instance, are the pabulum of bureaucratic responses to political oversight. The one page given to Overall Conclusions and Recommendations isn't even a sales pitch, but the kind of thing you send a junior staffer to recite to Congressional aides so everyone can say the politicians were briefed.
____________________

Notes:

Spergel, David, et al. NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team Report. 2023. Science.NASA.gov. 14 September 2023. https://go.nasa.gov/3PED0qv

 

Metadata will be important in those cases. Per the Executive Summary, "analysis of UAP data is hampered by poor sensor calibration, the lack of multiple measurements, the lack of sensor metadata, and the lack of baseline data" (3); also, "The panel sees several advantages to augmenting data collection efforts using modern crowdsourcing techniques, including open-source smartphone-based apps that simultaneously gather imaging data and other smartphone sensor metadata from multiple citizen observers worldwide" (4). Response 1, "UAP data often consist of observations initially acquired for other purposes, which often lack adequate metadata and are not optimized for systematic scientific analysis" (11-12). Highlighted Finding, p. 13, "The standardization of collected information via well-crafted calibration will make it possible to carry out a rigorous scientific investigation into UAP"; Response 2, "metadata, which provides contextual information such as sensor type, manufacturer details, noise characteristics and time of acquisition, must simultaneously be present for an accurate characterization of both a potential UAP as well as the sensor itself"; also, "several apparent UAP have been demonstrated to be sensor artifacts once appropriate calibration and metadata scrutiny were applied" (13). And it keeps coming up, such as the Overall Conclusions and Recommendations, "At present, the detection of UAP is often serendipitous, captured by sensors that were not designed or calibrated for this purpose, and which lack comprehensive metadata" (21).

It seems they're really trying to make a point about metadata.

In a weird way, I think the underlying message there runs, approximately, 「There needs to be an app for that.」

But it's NASA, so the meta-analytical joke is that so many people would explicitly authorize the U.S. government to directly track their phones. Short of that, it will be like herding Schroedinger's cats, trying to get the crowdsource to standardize its data presentation.