LATEST REVEAL: NASA UFO REPORT WAS BUILT ON NOTHING

Show Transcript

NASA told the world the go Fast video was probably nothing, just an object drifting in the wind. Case closed, move on, But internal emails just pride loose through a FOYA request show the panel that made that call, never spoke to the Navy pilots who recorded it, never had the raw censored data, and only closely examined one single case for high velocity. Claims that one case was the Go Fast itself, and one of the NASA members put his concerns in writing, Hey you followers, I'm Christina Gomez and welcome back to this episode of Ufony's Updates. This is a brand new report from the Daily Mail, based on documents pulled by UFO researcher Grant Lavac, and it changes everything we thought we knew about the twenty twenty three NASA UAP report.

If you don't remember that event, I don't blame you, but here's a very quick summary. NASA smart, the public is dumb. Let me explain the basics of space to those with elementary level education. We found nothing, and we need more money to look for UFOs.

That was basically the takeaway, and for almost three years that report has been the single most quoted piece of evidence used to wave off Navy pilot encounters. Skeptics point to it. News anchors quoted, and it became the polite scientific way to say that there is nothing here, and now we're finding out what was actually happening behind that conclusion. Doctor Kevin Kanouth is a physicist professor at the University at Albany and a former NASA research scientist.

He took the same publicly available data the NASA panel used and ran the numbers himself. Here is what he said on the Doctor Mayam Baylick Show. Take a listen. At very least I can estimate speeds and accelerations and get some idea what we're dealing with here.

And that really shocked me. That the speeds and accelerations were crazy, I mean crazy huge. The observers would have to be very, very very wrong for those numbers to be anywhere close to that. So I found that really amazing.

Now compare that to what NASA's own panelist, Josh Semitor wrote inside the agency. Josh directs Boston University's Center for Space Physics, and weeks before the twenty twenty three report drop, he wrote in an email that the panel didn't speak with the aviators. The analysis, in his words, was based purely on information in the publicly released video, the same clip you can just pull off of YouTube right now. The panel also did not have the raw, censored data.

They worked from the numbers visible on the screen, like the camera elevation angle and the aircraft altitude shown in the cockpit display. And here is what nobody told you. In twenty twenty three, Josh himself wrote the analysis, and it didn't determine what the object actually was. He stated, the available data was insufficient to identify its size, its shape, its material, or whether it had a visible flag feature, and his exact own written words, the team couldn't determine whether the object was metallic or whether it had any flight surfaces at all.

He also made clear that even though the math suggested it was not moving an extraordinary velocity, that doesn't mean the go fast had been explained. So we just paid NASA billions of dollars annually for them to tell us and it didn't even do the proper research. Yikes, And that's a very different message from what the public got. Congressman Eric Burlison, who has actually been allowed to view a much larger library of these classified videos describes something that does not match the NASA narrative at all.

Here is what he said at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs that was recorded and published by weaponized But some. Of it is absolutely demonstrating a level of technology that doesn't exist. That we are not aware of. Under today's conventional technology.

So, for example, the instantaneous acceleration video that is you know, that would scramble anybody's brains if you were inside that. Right now, you might be asking why does this matter in twenty twenty sex Because the twenty twenty three NASA report didn't just sit on a shelf. It became the official scientific shield. Anytime a Navy pilot came forward, anytime a congressional hearing brought up a high speed video, anytime a journalist published new analysis, the same line came back.

NASA looked at it, and NASA said it was probably mundane. End of conversation. Three years of public dismissal, three years of pilots being told their eyes deceived them, three years of researchers being treated like they were crazy, and all of it was built on a panel that, according to its own members, never had the data it needed to make that call. If a panel reviewing any other major A aviation events skipped the witnesses and the raw data, which you accept that conclusion, drop your thoughts in the comments below.

David Spergel, president of the Simmons Foundation and a member of NASA's independent UAP Study Program, wrote in an August twenty one, twenty twenty three message at the panel had only closely reviewed a single case where the high velocity claim was brought into question. That single case was again the go fast, and even that review, in his own written words, was not comprehensive.

So David told his colleagues that he didn't believe the panel had reviewed enough cases to justify broad conclusions about multiple high speed UFO events, So he pushed back on the wording of the public report itself, urging colleagues to avoid language suggesting numerous high velocity sightings that have been disproven, and he recommended revising the wording to emphasize that accordingly, determining the distance is essential to understanding anomalist events, rather than implying that many such events have already been explained. A NASA panel member was warning before the report came out that the public language was going to overstate the conclusion, and that is exactly what happened. If you're new here and you want to follow these documents as they keep dropping, hit that subscribe button because I cover the latest UFO news every day.

The second moment from these emails raises questions about NASA's own reporting itself. In February of twenty twenty four, NASA records officials reaching out internally about UAP records, citing new federal requirements under the twenty twenty four National Defense Authorization Act the NDAA that mandates the tracking and management of UAP records. Daniel Evans, assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for the Research at NASA's Science Mission Directorate, wrote on February ninth, twenty twenty four, that the agency was not aware of any UAP records at NASA. Patti Stockman, a man and program analyst for NASA's headquarters, didn't buy it.

She wrote back, asking how that could be true when he had personally conducted the public meeting of the study team on cataloging and evaluating UAP data. So Evans then sent a more formal response saying NASA currently does not hold or manage records classified specifically as UAP documents. He later added in a May tenth, twenty twenty four email that the one incident near a NASA center was actually picked up by the Department of Defense radar, making it their record, not NASAs. So a federal law passes requiring agencies to track UAP records, and NASA's response is to say that they don't hold any while many of its own staff is writing pushback on that.

Huh does that really make any sense? The Internal Exchange confirmed that NASA's UAP study team consisted of external experts rather than agency's staff, describing in those records as an independent scientific review body separate from NASA's own operational decision making. So for three years the public has heard the conclusion described as NASA's official position. The record suggest that framing was already more complicated than the headlines.

And let's just say twenty twenty six has been an eventful year or so far, because President Trump has publicly directed agencies to release UAP files, and then Burlison and Luna are pushing for the releases of forty six classified UAP video files. Burlison has been blunt about why so many of these videos have stayed locked away. Aside from NASA's excuses of oh, they're not our files, Burlison is saying something else that makes sense as to why we're not receiving these videos. The instruments that gathered these videos themselves are classified, and so it's difficult to get to get those those videos declassified.

We now know that the panel did not interview the pilots, the NASA panel didn't have the raw sensor data, and a panel member who admitted in writing that they only closely reviewed one case, a second panel member warning the public language was going to overstate the findings, a NASA staffer challenging her own colleagues over whether the agency even holds you AP records, and a study team that, by NASA's own internal description, was not really a NASA staff at all. I'm Christina Gomez, and is it for today. I will see you again tomorrow at ten AMPST for another UFHONUS updates. Be safe and remember keep your eyes on the sky's