In light of recent releases from the Pentagon regarding its Advanced Aerial Threat Identification Program, it may well be that what we are looking for out in deep space is already here in our local airspace.
How is SETI interpreting the recent announcements from all the major news sources (BBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, , ABC, NY Times, etc., etc.)) in relation to these Pentagon releases?

Crickets!
My own two cents; if another video(s) is released by the DoD showing clear HD imagery of UAPs, recorded using state-of-the-art equipment, it should be apparent to everybody that the SETI@Home project (and even SETI in its current guise) no longer logically makes sense.

Pat, you feel this way there's always Farmsville to play..

Do you disagree? What's your own thoughts on it? Would it make sense to continue to search the depths of the universe for ET intelligence when it is sitting in our own back yard?

Why do you believe a program that studies claims of unidentified flying objects, not automatically assumed to be of extraterrestrial origin, is proof positive that ETI is here in our back yard?

Some of the details of the UAP reports studied by the AATIP are thought-provoking. Small, well-defined objects were seen at close range. Their speed and maneuverability far surpassed anything of which we are capable. That these objects are evidence of extraterrestrial technology seems a reasonable possibility.

Having said that, SETI still seems a sound approach to receiving communications from extraterrestrial intelligence. Even supposing an extraterrestrial, intelligent source for some UAP, it does not seem to represent an opportunity to receive straightforward, unambiguous information. Whatever intelligence it may represent does not appear to desire to communicate openly with us, at least not so far.

We might still, by conventional SETI practices, happen upon a more communicative race of beings, somewhere in the depths of space.

Some of the details of the UAP reports studied by the AATIP are thought-provoking. Small, well-defined objects were seen at close range. Their speed and maneuverability far surpassed anything of which we are capable. That these objects are evidence of extraterrestrial technology seems a reasonable possibility.

Those might be the claims, but do they have any merit before we draw conclusions?

I believe these UAP accounts have merit. They were treated seriously, and studied in depth by intelligence experts at the Pentagon. Both radar tracking and close-in visual reports were obtained. As it appears, no conventional, mundane explanation could be found. While the phenomenon, has not been conclusively defined, the extraterrestrial hypothesis would seem to be a valid possibility.

Bearing in mind what I wrote in my last post, I can certainly understand how this nearby possibility could seem of greater moment than the chance of one day receiving a valid SETI message from afar.

Where is the independent peer review? If there were any merit to the claims, scientists all over the world would be talking about the findings and looking to learn more.

The decision to release the data for review has apparently been made. It will have to be declassified first. That could be time-consuming, as has been the case where other government matters have been declassified in the past. There is the quite legitimate need to not reveal certain details of methods used to acquire information, lest it harm national security.

Then, at best, it is premature to draw any positive conclusions or correlations to the existence of ETI here on Earth.

It's quite obvious that we are still in the process of considering and testing hypotheses about UAPs. Having considered the evidence as a whole, not merely the AATIP data recently brought to light, it appears to me that the extraterrestrial hypothesis for some UAPs best explains the observations at this time. Others obviously differ in their appraisal of the data and what it may indicate. There is nothing objectionable in this. In science there are often viable competing hypotheses.

Then, at best, it is premature to draw any positive conclusions or correlations to the existence of ETI here on Earth.

Nor to draw any positive conclusions or correlations to the existence of ETs in deep space - but that hasn't stopped SETI spending millions on that project or for you, me and thousands of other dedicating their CPU/GPUs to the search.

For some reason it seems easier to believe that ET is "out there" than to believe that ET is in our own airspace, even though the available information regarding the latter is significantly more overwhelming.

Then, at best, it is premature to draw any positive conclusions or correlations to the existence of ETI here on Earth.

Nor to draw any positive conclusions or correlations to the existence of ETs in deep space - but that hasn't stopped SETI spending millions on that project or for you, me and thousands of other dedicating their CPU/GPUs to the search.

For some reason it seems easier to believe that ET is "out there" than to believe that ET is in our own airspace, even though the available information regarding the latter is significantly more overwhelming.

There's a major difference between searching for evidence of the existence of ETI than it is to say they're already here in our own airspace. And I'm afraid that the evidence for their already being here is nothing more than the modern version of ghost stories. People see things they don't understand and report them. An investigation opens up about the report but remain unresolved. People then see these reports and think there must be something to them and use the information as a self-fulfilling prophecy of a predisposition in believing in tall tales, like the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot.

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in any of these tales, except when stories like these pop up in the news and UFologists come out of the woodwork drawing false correlations and start building a mountain of unverified evidence that threatens the work being done by professional scientists with access to data that can be peer reviewed and is falsifiable.

I argue that it would be more helpful to be a skeptic and try to disprove the evidence at every angle so that when no more doubting can be done, all that remains is the facts.

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in any of these tales, except when stories like these pop up in the news and UFologists come out of the woodwork drawing false correlations and start building a mountain of unverified evidence that threatens the work being done by professional scientists with access to data that can be peer reviewed and is falsifiable.

I argue that it would be more helpful to be a skeptic and try to disprove the evidence at every angle so that when no more doubting can be done, all that remains is the facts.

A little pinch of fantasy and wishful-thinking doesn't hurt. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think any real harm is being done to the professional organizations who hold things to a higher bar.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in any of these tales, except when stories like these pop up in the news and UFologists come out of the woodwork drawing false correlations and start building a mountain of unverified evidence that threatens the work being done by professional scientists with access to data that can be peer reviewed and is falsifiable.

I argue that it would be more helpful to be a skeptic and try to disprove the evidence at every angle so that when no more doubting can be done, all that remains is the facts.

A little pinch of fantasy and wishful-thinking doesn't hurt. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think any real harm is being done to the professional organizations who hold things to a higher bar.

In general, I agree that it doesn't harm much, but as we've seen in the world today, it doesn't take much for false reporting to become "fact". I fear skepticism and critical thinking have given way to personal bias and creative nonfiction.

Let science speak for itself, OzzFan.

...

Let science speak for itself, OzzFan.

I think the arguments found in these articles are (for the moment) all I need to know. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which videos and individuals' testimonies are not. Give unimpeded access to a team of independent, reputed scientists to only one recovered UFO (or its wreckage), and then we can really talk.

What the New York Times UFO Report Actually Reveals (Jeff Wise)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/new-york-times-ufo-report.html (archive)

The Pentagon Ran a Secret Program to Find UFOs. Should We Expect Aliens? (Lou Del Bello & Seth Shostak, Andrew Siemion et al.)
https://futurism.com/pentagon-secret-ufos-program/ (archive)

Uh, So the Pentagon Spent $22 Million on a Mysterious UFO Analysis Program (Tom McKay)
Filed to: I'm not saying it was aliens but it was aliens
https://gizmodo.com/uh-so-the-pentagon-spent-22-million-on-a-mysterious-u-1821359187 (archive)

---

Apr 3, 1999 - May 3, 2020