These are always occasions of anticipation and even celebration for the tinfoil hatters and those keen to spot the internal plot, the thriving fifth column and anything that could risk being seen as ordinary. The human mind is obsessed by the need for a rounded explanation. In place of that arises a form of mysticism, even superstition. What cannot be explained must be otherworldly. Few better tests for this proposition can be found in the discussion about unidentified objects of aeronautical import.
May saw the release of two tranches of records (May 8 and May 22) on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs), a distinctly more cautious term for what is known in the popular vernacular as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). This was done at the insistence of President Donald Trump, who claimed on Truth Social in February that “tremendous interest” had been shown in the matter, undisguised code for revealing his own keenness in the matter.
The quotidian, the banal, the prosaic – these are terms no UAP pundit or card-carrying follower wants to know. But the reality remains that the files, as with previous declassified material, can often be put down to the explicable, even if a shade of doubt exists over sightings, photography and film. The Pentagon states that the archived materials document “unresolved cases, meaning the government is unable to make a definitive determination on the nature of the observed phenomena.”
The best some commentators can do about the unusual material is to suggest that “something” is taking place, which is as non-committal as you can get. What is interesting in these file drops is the signal change of heart in the Pentagon about UAPs. James Hibberd, writing in The Hollywood Reporter, suggests that the US government wants a share of a genre made famous by the entertainment industry. “The Pentagon has gone from denying UFOs are a thing to dumping documents, photos and video concerning ‘anomalous’ phenomena.” But Hibberd was not impressed by the Pentagon’s efforts. The “premier” was distinctly substandard, “vague, grainy, redacted mess.”
As for the scientific cognoscenti, the archives have been matters of qualified interest. Theoretical physicist Avi Loeb of Harvard University admitted in an interview with Al Arabiya English (AAE) to feeling “like a kid in a candy store” at the release of the material, focusing his attention on, among other things, “a black sphere that was moving through the clouds.” Not a drone, it might have been a balloon. But here, as with other assessments, not much can be made of it, and most certainly nothing about the speed “because we don’t know the distance to it.” The same could be said of another “object that accelerated very quickly, much faster than you expect from a drone.” Again, any evaluation regarding speed was impaired by not knowing the distance.
Loeb usefully describes the yawning gap between what is witnessed by the imperfect, often muddled eye and what is scientifically measured. A report by a senior intelligence officer from 2025 reporting a “swarm of orbs and other unusual phenomena” during a helicopter-piloted mission merely provided “a testimony not data from instruments. The question is whether he was looking at human-made drones, perhaps by adversarial nations.”
Typical releases include a report from the Central Intelligence Agency in December 1973, documenting intelligence gathering in the Soviet Union. The intelligence information report (IIR) notes the content of the report as informational and not evaluative. Be that as it may, an incident in the summer of that year features: an observation of an airborne, luminous, bright green, unidentified object. Concentric circles had formed around the observed phenomenon over a period lasting several minutes before dissipation. No opinion was offered by the witness on the phenomenon, and no further details on the incident were provided. Not exactly elucidating.
Military correspondence on the sighting of “flying discs” in 1947 serve as matters of curiosity rather than revelation. In a December memorandum from the Department of the Air Force to the Commanding General of the Fourth Air Force at Hamilton Field, California, a dismissive note is evident about submitted photographs purporting to show flying objects. “The marks appearing on the photographs inclosed in basic letter are believed to be defects in the film, paper, or camera and not pictures of ‘flying discs’.”
Photographs forwarded to headquarters of the Fourth Air Force taken by one Mary L. Herren of Portland, Oregon demonstrate the intrinsic vagueness and questionable value evident in such images. “She advises,” says the relevant memorandum by Lt. Colonel Donald J. Springer of the USAF to the Chief of Staff of the USAF in Washington on December 5, 1947, “these photographs were taken some time between November 5th and 12th, 1946, in the vicinity of Jefferson, Oregon, and points out the formation in the photographs as being objects she did not recall seeing herself but she thought might possibly be flying discs.” The assessment afforded the photos is dismissive: “The objects referred to appear in the sky area of each accompanying photograph. The uniformity of the markings would tend to indicate that the camera or film used to take these pictures was possibly defective.” There had been no “incidents of flying discs” reported in that area over the dates mentioned. How unfortunate for Mary Herren.
The pregnant question marks hovering over large swathes of these archives has stirred the relevant question: Have the intelligence and security agencies overseeing such matters been appropriately attentive? The sheer volume of “unresolved” cases is bound to niggle the more security minded sorts. Professor Loeb could not resist a caustic observation on that score; such poorly assessed sightings “imply that the US intelligence agencies are not doing a perfect job. They cannot identify objects that are potentially human-made, and that’s a serious national security concern.” If any such objects were, however, to be from beyond Earth, “of course, it’s the biggest discovery ever made by humanity.” Best not wait up regarding the latter.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
