Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

The assessment covers primarily U.S. government UAP reports describing incidents from November 2004 through March 2021.

The dataset described in this report is currently limited primarily to U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021.

ODNI says limited high-quality reporting prevented firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.

The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.

The assessment judges that most reported UAP probably represented physical objects because a majority were registered by multiple kinds of sensors or visual observation.

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.

ODNI cautions that reported unusual flight characteristics could reflect sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require further analysis.

These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.

The assessment organizes possible explanations into five categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, U.S. developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and other.

they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin.

ODNI concludes that UAP clearly pose a flight-safety issue and may present a U.S. national-security challenge.

UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.

Of 144 U.S. government reports reviewed, 80 involved observations made with multiple sensors.

144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors.

The task force identified one reported UAP with high confidence as a large deflating balloon; the remaining cases in the reviewed set were unexplained.

We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others remain unexplained.

The assessment identifies sociocultural stigma and sensor limitations as major obstacles to collecting useful UAP data.

Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations remain obstacles to collecting data on UAP.

ODNI notes that reported UAP clustered around U.S. training and testing grounds but warns that this pattern may result from collection bias.

UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias

Observers reported unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics in 18 incidents represented by 21 reports.

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some reports described UAP as stationary in winds, moving against the wind, maneuvering abruptly, or traveling rapidly without discernible propulsion.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.

The task force says its limited data suggesting acceleration or signature management required rigorous analysis by multiple technical teams.

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts

Except for the deflating balloon case, the assessment says the dataset lacked enough information to assign incidents to specific explanations.

With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.

The task force recorded 11 reports in which pilots described near misses with UAP.

The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.

ODNI says the available data did not indicate that any UAP were part of a foreign collection program or represented a major adversary technological advance.

We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.

The task force planned to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify clusters, similarities, and patterns as the dataset expanded.

The initial focus will be to employ artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms to cluster and recognize similarities and patterns in features of the data points.

The report says most UAP data came from Navy reporting and that efforts were underway to standardize incident reporting across military services and other agencies.

The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting, but efforts are underway to standardize incident reporting across U.S. military services and other government agencies

The task force says it had begun receiving Federal Aviation Administration data and was seeking additional reporting from the Air Force.

The UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and has begun receiving data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The assessment defines UAP as airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable.

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): Airborne objects not immediately identifiable.