UFOs will remain mysterious without better data, NASA study team says

a group of people in suits at a table with a nasa logo
(Image credit: NASA TV)

NASA held the first public meeting to discuss the findings of its UAP independent study team Wednesday (May 31).

The group, formed in June 2022, aims to examine data related to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), a new term that encompasses objects or incidents in the sky, underwater or in space that can't be immediately identified. The group, which has $100,000 in funding, includes former astronaut Scott Kelly and 15 other investigators from a wide variety of fields including astronomy, oceanography and even journalism.

During a post-meeting teleconference, astrophysicist David Spergel, chair of the study group and former member of the NASA Advisory Council, compared the study of UAP to fast radio bursts (FRBs), powerful bursts of radio waves from distant galaxies that were originally thought to be anomalies. "Sometimes anomalies are really interesting and point to novel physical phenomenon. And I think there's a number of interesting lessons learned there," Spergel told Space.com. "You have to decide figure out ways in which you can do dedicated observations and optimize your observational strategy to be able to do that. And I think that's, as we think about UAPs, I think we're informed by previous successes and identifying anomalies."

Related: How big a deal is NASA's new UFO study?

During the opening remarks in Wednesday's hearing, team members stressed that the biggest roadblock in terms of understanding these unidentified phenomena is a lack of data. Nevertheless, NASA's Daniel Evans, assistant deputy associate administrator for research within the agency's Science Mission Directorate, noted that, because public interest in UAP is at a seeming all-time high, it is NASA's responsibility to give the topic the "rigorous scientific scrutiny" it deserves. "First and foremost, it provides an opportunity for us to expand our understanding of the world around us," Evans said. "This work is in our DNA."

Evans stressed that the study is first and foremost about gaining a larger understanding of what is in the air and making the skies safer. "It's this nation's obligation to determine whether these phenomena pose any potential risks to airspace safety," Evans said.

Nicki Fox, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, said that the UAP independent study team was commissioned "to create a roadmap on how to use the tools of science to evaluate and categorize the nature of UAPs going forward. This roadmap, of course, will help the federal government obtain usable data to explain the nature of future UAPs."

Fox noted, however, that accessing high-quality data is difficult because the sensor platforms used to capture data are often 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," Fox said. 

She stressed the need for high-quality unclassified data, which "make it possible for our team to communicate openly to advance our understanding of UAP not only with each other, but across the scientific community and to the public."

Spergel echoed that sentiment, adding that the "current data-collection efforts regarding UAPs are unsystematic and fragmented across various agencies, often using instruments uncalibrated for scientific data collection."

Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the Pentagon's All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), agreed, saying that, while most UAP reports the office reviewed are easily explained, some do still remain unresolved "primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases."

One of the more disheartening moments in the opening statements came as both Fox and Evans pointed out that many members of NASA's UAP study group have been subject to harassment as a result of their involvement. 

"A NASA security team is actively addressing this issue," Evans said. "We at NASA are acutely aware of the considerable public interest in UAP. However, it's critical to understand any form of harassment towards our panelists only serves to detract from the scientific process, which requires an environment of respect and openness."

During the post-meeting teleconference, Spergel added that it's vital to remain grounded in the scientific study of UAP based on the available data and without leaping to unfounded conclusions. "To make the claim that we've seen something that is evidence of non-human intelligence, it would require extraordinary evidence," Spergel said. "And we have not seen that. I think that's important to make clear. "

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Brett Tingley
Managing Editor, Space.com

Brett is curious about emerging aerospace technologies, alternative launch concepts, military space developments and uncrewed aircraft systems. Brett's work has appeared on Scientific American, The War Zone, Popular Science, the History Channel, Science Discovery and more. Brett has English degrees from Clemson University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In his free time, Brett enjoys skywatching throughout the dark skies of the Appalachian mountains.

  • Turtle
    If our government keeps the data so very secret maybe NASA should try a few other governments. Make contact. Other governments might be more willing to share.

    It is truly a shame that these fine people are receiving harassment for even studying the UAP subject. The article didn't mention the source of this harassment. In previous years such harassment seemed to be coming from the government it'self. I know that from people I have met that encounters with UFO's and such, pictures and all were confiscated and the two way co-operation between them as witnesses and the Air-force resulted in denial and stonewalling. This happened , as I recall, in Nebraska.

    A few people refuse to report such things to any "authority". I would, and have. Too old to care now. Still, once one has met an alien up close and face to face it tends to remove all doubt from the "controversy"

    One has to review and think of all the crap that Travis Walton went through after his experience, which in it'self was traumatizing, to conclude that reporting anything to any "authority" is a bad idea.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    Witness testimony, images, videos mean nothing. All are easily faked.The only thing that counts is a piece of an extraterrestrial being or craft. This piece could be analyzed and definitively prove or disprove the case.
    Reply
  • Turtle
    Bill, that is most likely the case. I can't argue about what may be called definitive proof. I do however know my own experience. That experience does not require any authority of any kind to validate it, especially from a government that lies to us as an operating parameter.

    No matter what, I would never have cut her arm off to send in as "evidence".

    PS. She was an extremely cute grey Zeta with beautiful very dark brown eyes.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    For any individual, an experience can be sufficient to justify their belief.

    The first person to prove the existence of ET will become rich and famous, a Nobel Prize winner, asked to appear on TV shows, etc thus, unfortunately, there is a serious "conflict of interest" for anyone making the claim.

    Proof can only be through isotopic analysis which requires but a milligram or so of the material in question. A fingernail clipping would do nicely, as would a strand of hair. Keep this in mind if you happen to see the ET again.
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    billslugg said:
    For any individual, an experience can be sufficient to justify their belief.

    The first person to prove the existence of ET will become rich and famous, a Nobel Prize winner, asked to appear on TV shows, etc thus, unfortunately, there is a serious "conflict of interest" for anyone making the claim.

    Proof can only be through isotopic analysis which requires but a milligram or so of the material in question. A fingernail clipping would do nicely, as would a strand of hair. Keep this in mind if you happen to see the ET again.
    Agreed 100%. This is why such a "secret" could never be kept in this day and age.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Never met an extraterrestrial I didn't like. Never met one I did like, either. I've never met any at all.

    That said, if I did meet one, I am not so sure I would tell anybody. Without definitive proof, it would be a reputation killer. And, even with a fingernail or hair sample (assuming extraterrestrials have hair and fingernails, or even fingers, or heads), I am not so sure that turning that over to a government entity would result in them publicly acknowledging that they had confirmed it was of extraterrestrial origin.

    So, the real issue seems to come down to who do you trust/believe?

    Anyway, I am not one that believes we have extraterrestrial beings among us, or even watching us.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    The government would not have a role unless the finder wanted it that way. The sample would need to be divided so pieces could be sent to several laboratories. Many confirmations needed. You could pay for it yourself or maybe talk an academic into taking it on. In any event it would need to be published in a reputable scientific journal.

    There is no ready way to fake an isotopic signature. You would need resources sufficient to build and operate a isotopic separation unit, such as a bank of a thousand or so centrifuges, each costing a milion dollars. It would also take many years as each isotope of each element would need to be separated out. All isotopic percentages would need to be tweaked. This would take tens to hundreds of years, tens to hundreds of billion dollars. I'm not saying it's not possible but its's not possible.

    It is possible aliens exist and are here but I have seen no hard evidence.
    Reply
  • Turtle
    Please remember that I am not asking for any validation. Don't need it. As for NASA they might benefit from what I said but doubt they would ever read this. If they knew me they would believe me, but they don't know me and there are too many people that just plain lie. So they would be stuck in a philosophy of disbelief, with good reason, and I would be stuck in a philosophy of thinking and feeling that it is pointless to try.

    Still, a nice warm body in front of me was very real. By the way Zetas don't have hair or finger and toe nails or teeth. They have a cartilage in place of teeth to chew with. So don't worry, they don't bite hard.

    Bill, I can't think of a much greater nightmare than ending up on television. Even this forum gets a little too close. OH! THE FAME!
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    OK Bill, how is the average Joe supposed to line-up several highly sophisticated labs to do those analyses for free? There would probably have to be some substantial publicity. I would expect the government to involve itself pretty quickly if the claim seemed potentially truthful, and maybe confiscate the sample. After all, the government has no way to know that an extraterrestrial that didn't come through customs and fill out the necessary forms has not created a health hazard by bringing "undeclared biological material" (i.e., itself) into our country? Heck, I once got a green coconut confiscated when I came back to the U.S. from the Bahamas. And, those could actually wash ashore here, naturally.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    The Average Joe is not going to get high priced laboratories to do it for free. None of them work for free. Academics, however, get free access to machines in their universities. That is why I made that suggestion.

    Federal and state laws grant ownership of meteorites to the landowner. A UFO falling from the sky certainly qualifies as meteorite. So it depends where a potential encounter happens, I suppose, as to who owns it.

    This is science, it must be painstakingly documented, as all science must be. You don't have to be a scientist to get published, you simply have to be well documented and in scientific format. Average Joe is not going to be able to do that, so "AJ" is probably out of luck. No TV appearances for AJ!!
    Reply