Data Canister: X-INV Final Report - Revision history

Hobbes at 17:53, 4 October 2009

2009-10-04T17:53:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 4 October 2009
Line 86:		Line 86:
	[[User:Hobbes\|Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]		[[User:Hobbes\|Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]
	[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]		[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]
			[[Category: Fiction]]

Hobbes: /* Nature of the UACs */

2009-07-01T18:50:25Z

Nature of the UACs

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 1 July 2009
Line 48:		Line 48:
	*e) Physical evidence left after landings. In several cases there were traces of radiation detected after a landing, although its origin and nature are undetermined. There were also 'burn marks' observed in trees and on the ground, and in some cases on steel and rock, which did not correspond to the effects of any known physical processes.		*e) Physical evidence left after landings. In several cases there were traces of radiation detected after a landing, although its origin and nature are undetermined. There were also 'burn marks' observed in trees and on the ground, and in some cases on steel and rock, which did not correspond to the effects of any known physical processes.

	*All of those remarks do not necessarily point towards a non-human origin of the UACs: it is well possible that they are merely the result of a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's major nations, although if it existed it would a project so huge and massively funded that it would be surprising that it was not detected until now.		All of those remarks do not necessarily point towards a non-human origin of the UACs: it is well possible that they are merely the result of a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's major nations, although if it existed it would a project so huge and massively funded that it would be surprising that it was not detected until now.

	However, if hypothesis III is accepted, which INV considers being the most logical explanation, then it raises several new questions. Although they are mere conjectures, INV has tried to address them all on the next section.		However, if hypothesis III is accepted, which INV considers being the most logical explanation, then it raises several new questions. Although they are mere conjectures, INV has tried to address them all on the next section.

Hobbes: /* Nature of the UACs */

2009-07-01T18:49:03Z

Nature of the UACs

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 1 July 2009
Line 32:		Line 32:
	From this point on, the following sections of this document will present an analysis based on the cases reported. Unlike the investigations performed to confirmed the previous reports, INV has failed to confirm several of the hypothesis mentioned, with the exception of those regarding natural phenomena. However, the fact that the nature of most UACs cannot be proven does not mean that those hypotheses are wrong, merely that there wasn't enough data to present proven conclusions.		From this point on, the following sections of this document will present an analysis based on the cases reported. Unlike the investigations performed to confirmed the previous reports, INV has failed to confirm several of the hypothesis mentioned, with the exception of those regarding natural phenomena. However, the fact that the nature of most UACs cannot be proven does not mean that those hypotheses are wrong, merely that there wasn't enough data to present proven conclusions.

	*I) '''Natural origin'''. In some reports it has been determined that natural objects were the cause of sightings, namely astral bodies and other physical objects. However, this explanation was found to only apply to type 1 reports, with very few exceptions.		I) '''Natural origin'''. In some reports it has been determined that natural objects were the cause of sightings, namely astral bodies and other physical objects. However, this explanation was found to only apply to type 1 reports, with very few exceptions.

	*II) '''Artificial (Earth-made) origin'''. The lack of proper answers to the majority of the reports observed led to the advancement of the hypothesis that the UACs are a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's nations or groups. If confirmed, this proposition would explain most sightings as testing/deployment of such craft. However, it is nearly impossible to confirm this hypothesis due to the fact that no nation or a group has so far claimed ownership of the UACs, plus INV doesn't have the resources or mandate to gather intelligence into such top secret projects. Furthermore, the participation and collaboration on INV of the countries capable of mounting such an operation would not seem logic.		II) '''Artificial (Earth-made) origin'''. The lack of proper answers to the majority of the reports observed led to the advancement of the hypothesis that the UACs are a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's nations or groups. If confirmed, this proposition would explain most sightings as testing/deployment of such craft. However, it is nearly impossible to confirm this hypothesis due to the fact that no nation or a group has so far claimed ownership of the UACs, plus INV doesn't have the resources or mandate to gather intelligence into such top secret projects. Furthermore, the participation and collaboration on INV of the countries capable of mounting such an operation would not seem logic.

	III) '''Artificial (non-Earth) origin'''. This is the most unorthodox explanation for the UACs but INV considers it to be the most logic, although it must be mentioned that there is no direct confirmation. There are several facts to consider regarding this hypothesis:		III) '''Artificial (non-Earth) origin'''. This is the most unorthodox explanation for the UACs but INV considers it to be the most logic, although it must be mentioned that there is no direct confirmation. There are several facts to consider regarding this hypothesis:

Hobbes: /* Nature of the UACs */ editing

2009-07-01T18:48:44Z

Nature of the UACs: editing

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 1 July 2009
Line 32:		Line 32:
	From this point on, the following sections of this document will present an analysis based on the cases reported. Unlike the investigations performed to confirmed the previous reports, INV has failed to confirm several of the hypothesis mentioned, with the exception of those regarding natural phenomena. However, the fact that the nature of most UACs cannot be proven does not mean that those hypotheses are wrong, merely that there wasn't enough data to present proven conclusions.		From this point on, the following sections of this document will present an analysis based on the cases reported. Unlike the investigations performed to confirmed the previous reports, INV has failed to confirm several of the hypothesis mentioned, with the exception of those regarding natural phenomena. However, the fact that the nature of most UACs cannot be proven does not mean that those hypotheses are wrong, merely that there wasn't enough data to present proven conclusions.

	I) Natural origin. In some reports it has been determined that natural objects were the cause of sightings, namely astral bodies and other physical objects. However, this explanation was found to only apply to type 1 reports, with very few exceptions.		*I) '''Natural origin'''. In some reports it has been determined that natural objects were the cause of sightings, namely astral bodies and other physical objects. However, this explanation was found to only apply to type 1 reports, with very few exceptions.

	II) Artificial (Earth-made) origin. The lack of proper answers to the majority of the reports observed led to the advancement of the hypothesis that the UACs are a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's nations or groups. If confirmed, this proposition would explain most sightings as testing/deployment of such craft. However, it is nearly impossible to confirm this hypothesis due to the fact that no nation or a group has so far claimed ownership of the UACs, plus INV doesn't have the resources or mandate to gather intelligence into such top secret projects. Furthermore, the participation and collaboration on INV of the countries capable of mounting such an operation would not seem logic.		*II) '''Artificial (Earth-made) origin'''. The lack of proper answers to the majority of the reports observed led to the advancement of the hypothesis that the UACs are a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's nations or groups. If confirmed, this proposition would explain most sightings as testing/deployment of such craft. However, it is nearly impossible to confirm this hypothesis due to the fact that no nation or a group has so far claimed ownership of the UACs, plus INV doesn't have the resources or mandate to gather intelligence into such top secret projects. Furthermore, the participation and collaboration on INV of the countries capable of mounting such an operation would not seem logic.

	III) Artificial (non-Earth) origin. This is the most unorthodox explanation for the UACs but INV considers it to be the most logic, although it must be mentioned that there is no direct confirmation. There are several facts to consider regarding this hypothesis:		III) '''Artificial (non-Earth) origin'''. This is the most unorthodox explanation for the UACs but INV considers it to be the most logic, although it must be mentioned that there is no direct confirmation. There are several facts to consider regarding this hypothesis:

	a) Recorded capabilities of the UACs, which have the ability to move from the surface to Earth's orbit and vice-versa, using velocities and maneuvering capabilities impossible to our current air and space craft. This implies a technological level in the areas of propulsion, aerodynamics and materials that would represent an engineering feat for any of Earth's nations.		*a) Recorded capabilities of the UACs, which have the ability to move from the surface to Earth's orbit and vice-versa, using velocities and maneuvering capabilities impossible to our current air and space craft. This implies a technological level in the areas of propulsion, aerodynamics and materials that would represent an engineering feat for any of Earth's nations.

	b) Locations of the reports. If the source of the UACs was a single country it could be expected for it to follow a pattern, either by concentrating on a single area, or by pointing to a possible base of operations. Instead, UAC activity has been detected throughout the globe.		*b) Locations of the reports. If the source of the UACs was a single country it could be expected for it to follow a pattern, either by concentrating on a single area, or by pointing to a possible base of operations. Instead, UAC activity has been detected throughout the globe.

	c) UAC activity. Again, if the nature of the UACs was military (as expected if a country developed such a system), its activities would follow traditional military missions. However, while it can be inducted that some of their missions might concern observation and surveillance, several others have a nature clearly different, namely the confirmed abductions of humans.		*c) UAC activity. Again, if the nature of the UACs was military (as expected if a country developed such a system), its activities would follow traditional military missions. However, while it can be inducted that some of their missions might concern observation and surveillance, several others have a nature clearly different, namely the confirmed abductions of humans.

	d) Descriptions of its occupants. Here there are several conflicting reports: in some cases witnesses describe clearly human shape figures while on others the descriptions largely vary, reporting 'entities' unlike anything seen on Earth. Also, all of the interviews conducted regard long range observation, with no cases of witnesses seeing the occupants at close sight.		*d) Descriptions of its occupants. Here there are several conflicting reports: in some cases witnesses describe clearly human shape figures while on others the descriptions largely vary, reporting 'entities' unlike anything seen on Earth. Also, all of the interviews conducted regard long range observation, with no cases of witnesses seeing the occupants at close sight.

	e) Physical evidence left after landings. In several cases there were traces of radiation detected after a landing, although its origin and nature are undetermined. There were also 'burn marks' observed in trees and on the ground, and in some cases on steel and rock, which did not correspond to the effects of any known physical processes.		*e) Physical evidence left after landings. In several cases there were traces of radiation detected after a landing, although its origin and nature are undetermined. There were also 'burn marks' observed in trees and on the ground, and in some cases on steel and rock, which did not correspond to the effects of any known physical processes.

	All of those remarks do not necessarily point towards a non-human origin of the UACs: it is well possible that they are merely the result of a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's major nations, although if it existed it would a project so huge and massively funded that it would be surprising that it was not detected until now.		*All of those remarks do not necessarily point towards a non-human origin of the UACs: it is well possible that they are merely the result of a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's major nations, although if it existed it would a project so huge and massively funded that it would be surprising that it was not detected until now.

	However, if hypothesis III is accepted, which INV considers being the most logical explanation, then it raises several new questions. Although they are mere conjectures, INV has tried to address them all on the next section.		However, if hypothesis III is accepted, which INV considers being the most logical explanation, then it raises several new questions. Although they are mere conjectures, INV has tried to address them all on the next section.

	==Prospectives==		==Prospectives==

Hobbes: /* Types of incidents */

2009-07-01T18:45:34Z

Types of incidents

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 1 July 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Our data retrieval operations implied a variety of sources:		Our data retrieval operations implied a variety of sources:
	- Open source methods (news and other media reports).		* Open source methods (news and other media reports).
	- ELINT (electronic intelligence), namely radar, IR, optical and other types of sensors.		* ELINT (electronic intelligence), namely data collected by radar, IR, optical and other types of sensors.
	~~- Interviews~~ with witnesses of UAC phenomena.		* Personal interviews with witnesses of UAC phenomena.
	- Physical evidence retrieved from UAC sites.		* Physical evidence retrieved from UAC sites.
	- Attempts to achieve communication with the UACs, by radio, light and other means.		* Attempts to achieve communication with the UACs, by radio, light and other means.

	Where possible these methods were crossed to achieve confirmation of reports by several independent sources. Afterwards this allowed to classify the types of incidents into 4 main categories:		Where possible these methods were crossed to achieve confirmation of reports by several independent sources. Afterwards this allowed to classify the types of incidents into 4 main categories:
Line 26:		Line 26:
	4) Landing of UACs with sighting and interaction of its occupants with witnesses. Those type of incidents represent the smallest minority of all cases investigated, but they are also the ones where there is more confirmation by several independent sources.		4) Landing of UACs with sighting and interaction of its occupants with witnesses. Those type of incidents represent the smallest minority of all cases investigated, but they are also the ones where there is more confirmation by several independent sources.

	One particular notice regarding this classification: although it follows the pattern regularly used by 'UFO literature' to classify 'encounters', this was not the original intention at the beginning of the research but at the end it was adopted because the reports clearly fitted this logical classification.		One particular notice regarding this classification: although it follows the pattern regularly used by 'UFO literature' to classify 'encounters', this was not the original intention at the beginning of the research but at the end it was adopted because the reports clearly fitted this logical classification.

	==Nature of the UACs==		==Nature of the UACs==

Arrow Quivershaft: /* Recommendations */ Link correction

2007-10-07T03:06:39Z

Recommendations: Link correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:06, 7 October 2007
Line 84:		Line 84:
	INV Steering Group		INV Steering Group

	[[User:Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]		[[User:Hobbes\|Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]
	[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]		[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]

Arrow Quivershaft: /* Recommendations */ Link correction

2007-10-07T03:05:14Z

Recommendations: Link correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 7 October 2007
Line 84:		Line 84:
	INV Steering Group		INV Steering Group

	[[Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]		[[User:Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]
	[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]		[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]

JellyfishGreen at 15:55, 24 July 2006

2006-07-24T15:55:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 24 July 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Data Canister 390, X-COM Archives, INV's final report on the nature of the 'Unknown Aerial Crafts'/'Unidentified Flying Objects'~~, dated~~ 11/27/1998		'''Data Canister 390<br> X-COM Archives<br> INV's final report on the nature of the 'Unknown Aerial Crafts'/'Unidentified Flying Objects'<br> Dated 11/27/1998'''

	==Introduction==		==Introduction==

JellyfishGreen at 15:50, 24 July 2006

2006-07-24T15:50:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:50, 24 July 2006
Line 85:		Line 85:

	[[Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]		[[Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]
	[[Category: Data Canisters]]		[[Category: Data Canisters\|X-INV Final Report]]

JellyfishGreen: & a weblink

2006-07-24T15:33:08Z

& a weblink

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 24 July 2006
Line 84:		Line 84:
	INV Steering Group		INV Steering Group

	[[Hobbes]]		[[Hobbes]] @ [http://area51.xcomufo.com/ Area 51]
	[[Category: Data Canisters]]		[[Category: Data Canisters]]