In March 2021, while serving as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, I hosted a discussion with General Chance Saltzman, now Chief of Space Operations for the United States […]
The post The new space wars: lessons from Ukraine and the Middle East appeared first on SpaceNews.
With Apple shares trading near all-time highs around $326, fresh speculation about a potential stock split has resurfaced. While the company has not announced any plans, the upcoming leadership transition adds a new dimension to the discussion.
Apple announced in April 2026 that Tim Cook will step down as CEO on August 31 and transition to Executive Chairman, with John Ternus (currently Senior Vice President of Hardware Engineering) taking over as CEO effective September 1, 2026. This marks the most significant leadership change at Apple in over 15 years.
Could the CEO Transition Influence a Split?
Analysts and investors are debating whether the smooth handover could accelerate or delay a split:
• Potential catalyst: A new CEO often seeks early wins to build momentum. A stock split would be a low-risk, high-visibility move that signals confidence and appeals to retail investors — especially as Ternus begins his tenure.
• Likely timing: Most observers expect any decision to wait until after the transition settles (late 2026 or 2027), once Ternus has established his priorities around AI, hardware innovation, and Mac refreshes.
• Continuity advantage: With Cook remaining as Executive Chairman, the board is expected to maintain strong oversight, reducing any perceived risk around major shareholder-friendly actions.
Apple has not split its stock since the 4-for-1 in August 2020. With fractional-share trading now widespread, the urgency is lower than in the past, but a split could still broaden accessibility and create psychological tailwinds.
Apple’s stock has performed strongly in 2026, rebounding from a weaker 2025 and recently approaching record levels. Solid services growth, ongoing buybacks, and AI/hardware momentum (including upcoming Mac lineup overhauls) have supported the rally — all without a split.
Historically, Apple splits (1987, 2000, 2005, 2014, 2020) have often coincided with periods of optimism and growth. A future split under Ternus could similarly project confidence in the company’s long-term trajectory.
MacDailyNews Take: The Cook-to-Ternus transition is unlikely to hinder a stock split and could even encourage one as an early signal of confidence under the new leadership. That said, Apple tends to be deliberate, so any move would likely prioritize substance over optics.
While a split (even a modest 2-for-1 or 3-for-1) could project optimism and attract more retail interest, Apple’s fundamentals (robust cash reserves, ongoing innovation, and execution on AI/hardware roadmaps) appear to be driving the stock’s current momentum without one. Splits are cosmetic in terms of intrinsic value but have historically aligned with growth phases. Investors should watch for any board signals or SEC filings, but the lack of a split hasn’t held back the rebound in 2026.
Apple’s split history:
• June 16, 1987: 2-for-1
• June 21, 2000: 2-for-1
• February 28, 2005: 2-for-1
• June 9, 2014: 7-for-1
• August 31, 2020: 4-for-1
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
The post Will Ternus split AAPL? Apple stock split buzz returns near record highs appeared first on MacDailyNews.
History demonstrates military innovation continually rewrites the rules of combat, reshaping warfare and rendering strategies from past conflicts obsolete. The introduction of repeating rifles transformed infantry combat during the 19th […]
The post The strategic competition with China: winning the multi-domain race appeared first on SpaceNews.
SpaceX’s IPO marks the moment the space dream became a mainstream capital markets story. For decades, it has sold a vision of interplanetary civilization on behalf of the wider space […]
The post SpaceX’s only problem is finding more space to work with appeared first on SpaceNews.
Every morning, airline dispatchers, grid operators, and farmers around the world make decisions based on the same thing: a weather forecast.
While these forecasts are something that most people glance at for two seconds, weather predictions influence major strategic decisions in many industries, with real money, livelihoods, and even actual lives at stake. Farmers use them to determine which crop variety to sow, when to fertilize, how much to invest in irrigation infrastructure, and how long livestock should graze. Utilities use them to decide where to build solar and wind farms, as well as how to price wholesale electricity. Predictions are used to warn people about extreme weather and to trigger emergency response measures. More recently, weather predictions have become relevant for an emerging industry: prediction markets, where people bet money on all kinds of real-world events, including the weather.
However, the temptation to manipulate weather data to get an edge in these markets, combined with a collective move toward data-driven AI weather forecasting, is starting to put the accuracy of weather predictions at risk. These risks are relatively manageable for now, but as experts in the field, we can foresee scenarios where they snowball into far bigger, more systemic problems.
To develop weather predictions, we need accurate observations of current conditions. These are collected from several sources, including weather stations at airports, utilities, or transport services. Traditional operational systems like the Weather Research and Forecasting model or the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System combine these observations with numerical approximations in order to estimate future weather patterns.
Sometimes, weather stations have issues because of, for example, instrument failures or upgrades in equipment. These can be caught either in real time (through checking and correction) or retroactively. Traditional forecasting systems also have a built-in safeguard called data assimilation: Every incoming measurement is weighed against what the physical model says should be happening and against readings from nearby stations.
Together, these mechanisms help keep weather observations reliable and predictions robust. However, new threats are putting observational accuracy at risk. Earlier this year, news outlets reported that the weather station at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) had been manipulated to record suspicious temperature spikes on April 6 and April 15, 2026. Authorities speculate that a hand-held hairdryer or lighter might have come into play. Either way, it led to some big payouts for online prediction-market gamblers who had bet it would hit 22 °C (71.6 °F) on days when the actual average was around 18°C (64.4°F). One individual won $20,000.
Fortunately, tampering with a single station like this can usually be caught by human monitoring or current statistical methods. In this case, members of a French climate nonprofit association noticed the anomalies by chance and raised the alarm.
But what if there are no human monitoring systems in place? And what about other types of manipulation? What if, instead of tampering with one station, someone remotely nudged the readings at many stations at once—making each change small enough to look plausible on its own? Existing quality controls struggle to catch this kind of coordinated manipulation. And time works against us; careful checks of data and metadata take hours or days, but forecasts have to go out on schedule, whatever the weather is doing.
The shift toward artificial intelligence in weather prediction raises the stakes. These methods are even more dependent on accurate, reliable weather observations; in fact, they are known as “data-driven models.” For example, researchers at ECMWF are exploring whether high-quality weather forecasts can be produced directly from raw observations, skipping the assimilation step that currently acts as a quality filter. Other researchers are going one step further; combining geospatial data (including weather station data) with large language models and agentic AI to support real-time, autonomous decision-making during extreme events such as storms.
Possible benefits are improvements in accuracy, efficiency, and speed. But removing humans from the equation introduces a vast range of new risks.
At the low end of the risk scale, an individual speculator manipulates a weather station for personal gain—that is the CDG Airport case. One step up: A group of traders could coordinate to bias forecasts of renewable energy output, moving wholesale electricity prices and leaving whoever is on the other side of the trade holding the loss. And at the far end, a state actor or saboteur could manipulate one or many stations to set off an early warning system or even keep one silent when it should sound. Step by step, the risk grows, from fraud to compromised disaster preparedness to a matter of national security.
As long as there are financial (or other) incentives to manipulate observational data, adversaries will search for new opportunities, and it is our task to stay one step ahead. Here are three ways.
1. Watch the stations. Data quality controls should include station security, anomaly detection and correction, and human oversight. Weather stations should be monitored continuously to deter tampering. Data homogenization methods that clean up weather records also need to get faster, with the goal of catching problems in real time. This will become increasingly important as agentic AI systems use these data to deliver real-time decisions. Finally, human oversight is needed to flag questionable data and model outcomes. After all, it was humans who caught the CDG Airport manipulation.
2. Protect the data to safeguard the AI. Data defense mechanisms must be positioned throughout the AI pipeline. AI explainability and adversarial robustness tools can help us understand the underlying data and the AI model outputs, help us identify data- or model-related issues, and potentially make us more resilient to adversarial attacks.
3. Ensure continuous accountability along the chain. Observational data passes through many hands: the operators who run the stations, the national weather services that steward the records, and the forecasting centers that turn them into predictions. No single one of them can protect data integrity alone—each guards its own link, and any anomaly needs to be communicated along the whole chain, from station operators to the people acting on the forecast.
It is fortunate that the situation at CDG Airport was caught, but it should serve as a wake-up call. As the role of observational data grows in weather forecasting, we need to adapt to evolving threats. This means protecting our data and models by strengthening existing oversight and accountability structures, and improving coordination among key partners.
This op-ed was written by:
Sending humans to Mars and returning them safely to Earth would be one of the most complex endeavors that humans have ever carried out. The number of issues that must […]
The post Laying the groundwork for the first human mission to Mars appeared first on SpaceNews.
Development in space is gaining serious momentum. Impressively, NASA recently unveiled plans for a new moon base — the first concrete step toward permanently moving human civilization off Earth. However, as we […]
The post Getting ready for lunar planetary defense appeared first on SpaceNews.
Author(s): Verónica Sanz
AI could make science stronger—but only if we deliberately use it to strengthen the formation of future scientists rather than to reduce their numbers.
[Physics 19, 87] Published Tue Jun 30, 2026
America’s electric grid is entering a period of unprecedented strain. Utilities across the country are scrambling to keep up as power-hungry AI data centers expand at a staggering pace, often […]
The post How space weather could bust the AI boom appeared first on SpaceNews.
If the Trump administration is serious about executing its “America First in Africa” policy and transforming American engagement on the continent, it needs to focus on sectors where it still […]
The post America is about to cede Africa’s space industry to China, and nobody’s talking about it. appeared first on SpaceNews.
To some, space is the final frontier. But the reality is that once you leave Earth’s atmosphere, you’re not entering a single, uniform void. There are several frontiers up there […]
The post The MEO durability crisis: why LEO hardware will fail the new orbital economy appeared first on SpaceNews.
In January 2026 alone, the Federal Communications Commission authorized 15,000 Starlink Gen2 satellites. Starcloud has filed for 88,000 orbital data center satellites. SpaceX has filed for 1 million. There is […]
The post What the satellite servicing economy can borrow from carbon credits appeared first on SpaceNews.
Humans have always gazed up at the moon in wonder. A generation ago, NASA astronauts did the extraordinary and touched down on its surface, planting an American flag and igniting […]
The post America’s next economic frontier is 240,000 miles away appeared first on SpaceNews.
If United States policymakers deride the wider United Nations, they still spend on the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) because it amplifies the commercial reach of U.S. standards. This includes U.S. […]
The post A UN agency that works for US space appeared first on SpaceNews.
For years, space architecture was treated mostly as a question of placement: where to put a spacecraft, and how reliably it could hold position. That framing is now too narrow. […]
The post Sustained maneuver has a propulsion problem appeared first on SpaceNews.
A disc-like object observed producing “beams” while it hovered above an airport in Zimbabwe in 2008, an object resembling a flying “potato” over the Cheyenne Mountains in 2022, and alleged “orbs” observed by U.S. personnel are all among the sightings included in the Pentagon’s latest release of files related to UAP encounters.
The documents, which appeared on the Department of War’s website on Friday, are just the latest in a series of rolling releases by the Pentagon under the Trump Administration.
“As the unprecedented levels of interest in both this topic and the Trump administration’s historic transparency effort continue, WAR.GOV/UFO has received over 1.7 billion hits worldwide since the site’s launch on May 8, 2026,” read a statement provided by Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell that accompanied Friday’s release.
“The Department of War and our agency partners are actively working on the next release of UAP files,” Parnell added.
However, as more videos and documents continue to surface, a fundamental question arises: what, if anything, do they reveal about UAP, and how the United States intelligence community collects and processes information about these objects, whatever their origins may be?
Within the latest batch of files from what the Pentagon characterizes as the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE), a previously unreleased file from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) describes an unusual observation of an object that reportedly hovered above the Harare International Airport in Zimbabwe in 2008.
“Individuals debated if the sighting was an advanced reconnaissance device of a foreign government or of extraterrestrial origins,” a short description provided with the document states. Although no video or other supplemental data is provided, the written account that the document contains, which features partial redactions, states that observers described a “disc-like” object possessing a hollow center and “a series of rotating lights on the underside of the airframe.” As the lighting shifted colors, the object reportedly ascended quickly and was soon out of sight.
“Regardless of the origins,” the document states, the incident reportedly “resulted in the decision to place the Zimbabwe [redacted] on high alert.”
Another series of documents describes an observation of an object shaped like a “potato” that was seen near Colorado Springs in 2024.
Witnesses at the time described seeing “distinct edges” on the object, which “appeared to look painted in a creamy/whitish opalescent color.”
“It was somewhat translucent with a slight shimmer,” the report states. “The object was made up of what can best be described as articulating fish scales or panels that were non-symmetrical, non-overlapping, and irregular shaped. The object itself was perfectly still but each panel on the object shifted in slow waves starting at different points of origin but at the same time.”
According to an assessment of the sighting by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which currently leads the Pentagon’s investigations into UAP, “Analysis possibly indicates that the positioning on the sun in relation to Cheyenne Mountain would allow for backscattering of sunlight reflecting off snow-covered ground.”
“This reflection could illuminate low-level clouds in the vicinity,” according to the assessment, which was produced by one of AARO’s intelligence community (IC) partners, adding that such conditions “might account for the visibility of the object followed by its sudden disappearance.”
The report concedes that the analyst had “low confidence in this assessment” based on limited information made available about witnesses at the time, such as their individual field of view, as well as the level of cloud cover over the area at the time.
Another pair of documents describes what sounds like a very intriguing observation of an “intense bright light” seen hovering below the tree line near the observer’s backyard. Emerging from their vehicle, the witness observed a “strange light” that they estimated to be approximately one meter in diameter. The object was described as a “brilliant and beautiful” reddish color the observer had never seen before, adding that “inside the red sphere, at the center, there appeared to be what [redacted] described as a ‘white plasma sun’ about the size of a basketball.”
In this instance, the written accounts were not alone: a supplemental video indeed shows a pair of objects matching the description provided, which look suspiciously like candle balloons, also known as “sky lanterns,” drifting along with the breeze. Additionally, the footage bears a resemblance to a video released by an aviation safety advocacy group last year (and in fact, it may be the same video), which was also quickly assessed to have been sky lanterns, rather than anomalous UAP “orbs.”
In short, the latest Pentagon releases—as with most other recent releases of government data related to UAP—feature some interesting stories, though the majority of the “new” data remains underwhelming, at least at first glance.
In a posting on his X account, prominent skeptic Mick West noted that in advance of the Pentagon’s second PURSUE release, “ufologists (myself included) were hopeful we’d get some amazing evidence.”
“All 46 videos have been released,” West wrote. “None of them are amazing. Maybe it’s time to consider that this might be the best they have.”
Whether or not the videos we’ve now seen are indeed among the best examples of UAP in the Pentagon’s holdings, West isn’t wrong to point out the obvious: the current examples the Pentagon has provided fail to establish that there is anything truly extraordinary about the objects these videos convey.
West places himself in the commendable position of being among the hopeful “ufologists” that he says are eager to see better data on these phenomena. I can affirm that this author is among those ranks as well, having followed the subject for decades; beyond that, and reporting on the subject for The Debrief, I have also managed an independent UAP sightings reporting website for the last two years, as a self-funded citizen science effort to collect data on possible UAP observations and make it freely available to the public. Unlike a few similar sites and apps that crowd-source data on possible UAP sightings, I also work to assess the data and resolve cases whenever enough information has been provided to make that feasible.
Like West would probably also tell you, I can confirm that the majority of UAP sightings have prosaic explanations, which can often be determined using resources that include weather data, aviation tracking sites, astronomical software, rocket launch data, and other online resources that are generally free to the public. After attempting to resolve UAP sighting reports, there is, however, a residuum of unresolved cases that remain intriguing.
Assessing UAP videos in this way, in order to determine whether they document real anomalous phenomena or simply misidentifications of known objects, often carries a very negative stigma, partially because it has an equally negative term attached to it: “debunking.” The negative association here is unfortunate, since the careful study and interpretation of purported UAP imagery and, when warranted by evidence, its classification as either misidentified known phenomena or genuine unresolved cases, is one of the most beneficial ways we can work toward advancing our understanding of the UAP issue.
Equally unfortunate is the fact that, all too often, what we get instead when it comes to UAP releases is just the opposite: imagery and other data (sometimes including official U.S. government materials released through unauthorized channels) that have undergone virtually no assessment, and which feature scant accompanying details required to help contextualize the sightings.
What we are left with are usually blurry videos and images of objects that end up seeing wide circulation, often with the help of the most ardent promoters of UAP (many of whom also happen to be equally skilled at self-promotion). Beyond making a poor case for the legitimate study of UAP, such instances invite criticism—although not so much from the hopeful, skeptically-minded “ufologists” genuinely interested in viewing quality UAP data. Rather, the most frequent attacks originate from ideological, self-branded “skeptics” whose real focus appears to be aimed at superficially undermining the topic and its proponents using rhetoric heavily dipped in ad hominem, all as a means of driving engagement through their social media accounts.
Who can really blame them? Such high-traffic social media engagement can reportedly be quite profitable these days, and let’s face it: few among the most active voices in the online UAP fracas these days appear to be above engaging in a bit of good old-fashioned grifting—including the ones who often complain the loudest when they see others doing it.
Fundamentally, though, none of this helps to advance our knowledge about UAP. Answers to questions about what these objects are, as well as what they aren’t, and whether any good evidence exists for truly “anomalous” behaviors often associated with these objects by those who witness them, remain void from such contentious prattling—just as it apparently remains absent from the vast majority of the new records released by the Pentagon.
However, that isn’t to say there aren’t at least a few intriguing data points that have emerged from the recent releases.
In the second batch of videos released by the Department of War, one potentially intriguing example of an unidentified flying object seems to have gone mostly overlooked.
The case involves imagery from the holdings of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office that was originally captured on April 12, 2021. Labeled “Spherical UAP [CALLSIGN] 2021/04/12 vid 0,” the footage, according to details provided at the time of its release, “is likely derived from a full-motion video camera and an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform operating within the United States Central Command area of responsibility in 2021. A user uploaded this video to a classified network in June 2024.”
According to a short description provided by the Department of War, “An area of contrast enters the sensor field-of-view from the upper right corner of the frame, exiting in the bottom right corner of the screen. The sensor pans to track the area of contrast, centering it within the sensor field-of-view.”
“The sensor changes modes as the area of contrast becomes indistinct against the background,” the summary concludes.
However, viewing the footage reveals something slightly more intriguing than this description alone conveys. The footage appears to show a small, light-colored object moving above a rugged desert terrain, presumably somewhere in the Middle East. As the object is being filmed using the electro-optical system on board a United States military drone, at one point, the object can be seen as it begins to descend in altitude, an elevation change made apparent by the shadow the object casts against the terrain below it (as can be seen in the still frame from the footage featured below). At this point, the object engages in a sudden change in direction and appears to enter a shadowed area of the landscape, at which time its brightness (seemingly due to reflectivity of its surface) is significantly diminished by the surrounding shadow, and the object becomes indiscernible.
The most intriguing aspect of this behavior is the object’s apparent movement into what we might interpret as a position of concealment. In doing so, the object not only appears to “hide,” but it also demonstrates an obvious change in direction that is suggestive of controlled motion. This is significant for a few reasons: one is that in many purported UAP videos, a phenomenon known as the parallax effect can (and often does) lead to an optical illusion where a slow-moving or even stationary object can have the appearance of moving. This illusion is caused by differences in relative speed between objects closer to the camera and those further distant, causing any closer objects to appear to be moving faster than those in the background (a good explainer on parallax effect and its relationship to UAP sightings can be read here, made available at the website of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office).
In the case of the “Spherical UAP” featured in the video from the second PURSUE release, perhaps some degree of motion parallax cannot be ruled out. However, the object’s descent just before changing direction and entering the rugged portion of terrain cast in shadow appears to clearly demonstrate in this case that the object is engaged in movement, which equally appears to convey intelligent control. Finally, an interpretation that the object may be taking a position of concealment, if correct, may indicate that the object and/or its operators had been aware that it was being observed.
Does anything conveyed in this video offer proof of extraterrestrial technology? Absolutely not. Are there any obvious signs of extraordinary capabilities being demonstrated by this object? No, there aren’t. What this video does demonstrate, however, is footage of an object that appears to be engaged in behaviors that clearly show movement beyond the capabilities of most simple balloons, and one that may fit the general description of objects the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office has characterized as its general “target” description for UAP it investigates (more on that in a moment).
In the case of the DOW-UAP-PR061, “Spherical UAP [CALLSIGN] 2021/04/12 vid 0” footage, the object not only demonstrates changes in its direction of motion, but also appears to conceal itself. Obviously, a better interpretation than “balloon” in this instance might be some kind of unmanned aerial system, although what limited information the footage conveys is simply too indistinct to be able to tell. Altogether, it simply remains “unidentified” in the purest sense: some kind of object engaging in what appears to be controlled flight, while not exhibiting any otherwise extraordinary capabilities.
However, all of this raises another important question about UAP reports: why do we always have to assume that an object must display “otherworldly” or otherwise extraordinary capabilities for it to qualify as a “genuine” UAP?
Another intriguing phenomenon related to the recent release of UAP information by the Pentagon involves the similarity in responses to these releases from both UAP advocates and UAP skeptics.
Some proponents of genuine anomalous UAP have expressed frustration over the Department of War’s release of several dozens of videos, all of which fail to reveal any “classic” UFO shapes like flying saucers or giant black triangles, nor any confirmation of extraterrestrial technologies detailed in the troves of formerly classified documents included with the releases.
Meanwhile, skeptics essentially argue the same thing: so far, these videos show nothing particularly remarkable, and clearly fail to prove that extraterrestrials have visited Earth.
In short, the fundamental premise of most “believers” and “skeptics” appears to be the same: “UAPs either must represent evidence of extraterrestrials, or else they are unimportant.”
This premise fails to acknowledge several important issues, such as 1) that many ideas about how UAP are supposed to look and behave are based on presumptions about how we expect any technologies produced by extraterrestrials advanced enough to traverse interstellar distances would appear to us, 2) that UAP could still represent a genuine mystery, even if they aren’t evidence of extraterrestrial technologies, and 3) that even if most UAP turned out to be technologies of earthly origin, they could still represent a security concern, and hence warrant U.S. government investigation.
Clearly, it should be acknowledged that there is also witness testimony—some of it quite compelling—that describes unusual characteristics associated with UAP, such as extreme acceleration, erratic movement, exceptional agility/maneuverability, environmental effects, and other capabilities which could only be characterized as “anomalous.” Such descriptions are also part of what informs many of our expectations about how UAPs are supposed to behave. However, it is important to recognize that just because such eyewitness descriptions exist, it does not necessarily mean that we can—or should—attribute such capabilities to all UAP observations, and thereby use such presumptions as a gauge for their credibility on a case-by-case basis.
A careful review of resources made available by the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) helps to shed further light on the attributes of what it characterizes as UAP.
A page dedicated to education and resources at AARO’s website lists a small collection of studies detailing current state-of-the-art technologies related to spherical drones, novel propulsion systems, and other technologies, which it says represent “advanced propulsion systems that are consistent with UAP observations.” The obvious implication of providing such resources involves the consideration that at least some UAP appear to operate in ways consistent with known earthly technologies, albeit ones that are still in their emergent stages.
AARO also gives us the following definition of UAP, according to an AARO Mission Brief featured at its website: “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) are sources of anomalous detections in one or more domains (i.e., airborne, seaborne, spaceborne, and/or transmedium) that are not yet attributable to known actors and that demonstrate behaviors that are not readily understood by sensors or observers.”
The brief goes on to define “anomalous detections” as “phenomena appearing to demonstrate capabilities or material properties exceeding the known state-of-the-art,” adding that UAP “may consist of one or more objects and may persist over an extended period,” are mainly “attributable to domain-awareness gaps, and in at least some cases “may represent advanced capabilities operating in domain awareness gaps.”
The AARO Mission Brief also separates the misidentification of known objects such as balloons and drones, as well as developmental or experimental platforms, from “genuine” UAP, which it clearly defines as AARO’s designated mission area.
According to past information produced by AARO under the tenure of its inaugural director, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, typically reported UAP characteristics include appearances of generally round objects roughly 1-4 meters in size, possessing white, silver, or translucent coloration. Performance altitudes, on average, fall within 10,000 to 30,000 feet, and velocities of the objects range from hovering in a stationary position to movement at speeds of up to Mach 2 (1534.54 miles per hour).
Despite such capabilities, no kind of thermal exhaust has been associated with these objects, and their propulsion systems remain unknown. Additional signatures associated with such genuinely anomalous UAP, according to AARO, include “intermittent, X-Band (8-12 GHz)” radar, as well as radio frequency emissions in the 1-3 GHz and 8-12 GHZ ranges. While no thermal exhaust evidencing propulsion is evident, intermittent shortwave infrared and medium-wave infrared thermal signatures are occasionally detectable.
“That’s what we’re looking for and trying to understand what that is,” Kirkpatrick told U.S. Senators during an April 2023 hearing that first revealed the AARO technical data described above.
Given the specificity of such technical information (all of which, as cited above, relates to AARO materials produced in 2023 during its early period in operation), one must wonder how such details could be derived from any of the videos or other materials the Department of War has released under the recent PURSUE initiative.
The obvious implication is that the data described above must have other, better-quality sources, which have not yet been released by AARO or the Department of War.
Of course, AARO also maintains that it has found no evidence of extraterrestrial technologies in its UAP investigations. All this taken together, a few things can be concluded based on the totality of AARO’s findings since its investigations began: 1) some objects appear to be genuinely anomalous, which AARO calls UAP, 2) AARO takes its investigations of these objects seriously, 3) studies involving breakthrough or disruptive technologies available at its website imply that AARO may suspect some UAP of being related to such developments, and are therefore not currently misidentifications of well-known objects or technologies, but possible “breakthrough” technologies whose origins remain unattributed, and 4) specific details about appearance and operational characteristics of AARO’s UAP “target package” strongly suggest the existence of higher quality UAP data that likely remains classified.
If it ends up being true that additional, higher-quality UAP data exists in U.S. government holdings—data from which AARO’s own technical attributes for genuinely “anomalous” UAP are derived—it therefore stands to reason that the recent batches of imagery fall significantly short of being the “best data” that has been obtained about these objects. Still, some of the videos, such as DOW-UAP-PR061 (described earlier in this article), nonetheless appear to match the so-called “target package” for genuine UAP first characterized by Kirkpatrick in 2023, even if they aren’t the most astonishing UAP videos in existence. Again, we should consider the conditioning outlined earlier, which has helped to encourage the public’s never-ending expectation for “extraordinary” revelations, most of which end up falling flat once they do finally come to light.
The bigger questions, for now, are whether such examples of higher-quality UAP data do indeed exist, and if so, whether they will be made public in any future releases.
“We are collecting as much data as possible, following the data where it leads, and sharing our findings whenever possible,” AARO states on its website. “We will not rush to conclusions in our analysis. In many cases, observed phenomena are classified as ‘unidentified’ simply because sensors were not able to collect enough information to make a positive attribution.”
Arguably, if there are better quality UAP materials in AARO’s holdings, there are probably very reasonable considerations for why that information has not yet been released, which may include uncertainty about whether some data could involve potentially sensitive information about experimental U.S. technologies or those of foreign adversaries, the release of which could have implications that, for now, may warrant secrecy.
In conclusion, although most of the videos in the recent Pentagon UAP releases provide too little data to draw any firm conclusions, arguably, some of the most important considerations are made evident by what the recent releases don’t contain—especially when compared to the information AARO uses as the basis for what it calls “genuine” UAP.
To borrow that overused X-Files quip once again, “the truth is out there.” Whether we’ll be seeing the best data that supports that truth any time soon is another question entirely.
Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached at micah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.
Chris Kemp thinks he could be the last person left working at Astra — but not for the reason most people might think. His company rode the SPAC boom five […]
The post All in on AI at Astra appeared first on SpaceNews.
Aerospace executives see AI not as a replacement for workers but as a necessary tool for helping an overstretched industrial base
The post In aerospace, AI isn’t replacing workers. It’s filling a shortage appeared first on SpaceNews.
The recent cancellation of three geostationary satellites is another blow for insurers hoping their legacy cash cows would bring home much-needed income following a bruising run of claims. SES disclosed […]
The post GEO cancellations complicate space insurance recovery appeared first on SpaceNews.
Login