SCU Study Identifies the Evolving Patterns of Activity by Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)
The new paper is the fourth in a series investigating post-World War II UAP activities
'These phenomena are intelligent actors possessing advanced technology.'— Ian M. Porritt
WASHINGTON, DC, UNITED STATES, May 21, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / -- A new, peer-reviewed study by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) activities between 1945 and 1975 shows a shift toward nighttime activities. It suggests possible human behavioral studies by the UAP.
The study, ' UAP Indications Analysis 1945-1975 Military and Public Activities,' supports the conclusion that these phenomena are intelligent actors possessing advanced technology.
Authored by SCU members Larry J. Hancock, Ian M. Porritt, Sean Grosvenor, Larry Cates, and Joshua Pierson, this in-depth analysis examines patterns of UAP behavior, offering valuable insights into potential UAP intentions.
Key findings of the study:
1. Initial Atomic Weapons Focus: UAP activities showed a consistent interest in key developments and deployments in military atomic warfare facilities. They showed early interest in radioactive materials plants, the atomic weapons assembly facilities, and the atomic weapons stockpile sites in the late 1940s. In later years, they showed interest in the Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and other atomic deployment sites. The most notable of these incidents was the 1967 Malmstrom event where a UAP disabled multiple missile silos and a cluster of activity over 24 days during October to November 1975 involving the northern atomic warfare sites of Malmstrom, Minot, Wurtsmith and Loring.
2. Transition in Activities: Early UAP activities (1945-1964) were characterized by high visibility and potential inferential messaging (messaging via their actions rather than through communication), with some limited contact efforts in the late 1950s, followed by a significant shift to nighttime activities involving possible human behavioral studies by the 1970s.
3. Recognition and Contact: During the earliest period, UAP activities were overt and often involved display-type activities with close approaches involving radical flight characteristics and interactive flight (UAP operating in formations). Following this period, display-type activities started to decrease. However, the authors identified a limited number of electronic transmissions by UAP, particularly in 1957, with Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) coded transmissions by UAP, suggesting limited communication efforts.
4. Behavioral Studies: Later years saw a shift in UAP activities towards longer observations by witnesses, close UAP approaches to small groups of observers, and UAP actions that could be interpreted as basic human behavioral studies rather than contact efforts.
5. UAP Activity Progression: UAP activities became more clandestine over time, with an increasingly negative perception by witnesses of their behavior.
Intentions Study team member Ian Porritt notes that pattern analysis provides valuable insights into the behavior of UAPs.
'Based on identification and recognition activities, which could be considered inferential messaging, and the incidents involving IFF signals where UAP responded with coded responses,' co-author Ian M. Porritt said. 'This early period could be considered part of an initial contact protocol.'
However, instead of progressing to overt contact and increased communication attempts as expected with a standard protocol, the study reveals a shift in their behavior from overt recognition activities to clandestine nighttime interactions with the public.
'This insight into the change in UAP behavior will be a crucial part in understanding future interactions, deciphering intentions, and possibly understanding their origins,' Porritt said.
This study is the fourth in a series of examinations of UAP activity in the post-World War II era that provides valuable insights into the evolving intentions of UAP over the three-decade study period.
SCU's first study, UAP Pattern Recognition Study: 1945-1975 US Military Atomic Warfare Complex, revealed bursts of reports of anomalous UAP activity at sites where new capabilities were being developed and deployed, a pattern researchers have not considered in previous government or university studies of UAP reports.
The second study, UAP Indications Analysis 1945-1975, United States Atomic Warfare Complex, examined scenarios related to intention and motive indicated by specific details of reported UAP activity. The study found the best estimate of the situation was a focused survey of atomic weapons/warfighting capability.
The third study, UAP Activity Pattern Study 1945-1975 Military and Public Activities, revealed a change in UAP activities over time. We see a shift from a majority of daytime incidents early on to predominantly nighttime, and a shift from 'display type' activities (interactive flight, and radical flight) in the earlier years to nighttime close approaches to the public later. During this transition period, we see a cluster of electronic transmissions.
Read the study online, or download the paper and associated data, here: https://zenodo.org/records/14647871
About SCU:
SCU promotes and encourages the rigorous scientific examination of UAP, commonly known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). SCU comprises scientists, engineers, members of the high-tech and defense industries, former military, and other professionals, utilizing scientific principles, methodologies, and practices to advance the study of UAP observed and reported around the globe.
The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Contributions to SCU are tax-deductible.
https://www.explorescu.org
###
Kevin A Wright
Solve Advocacy
+1 703-965-3559
email us here
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
X
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
A judge just took Trump to task for his attack on science
In some quarters, science has a bad name. Some children, from their first exposure to courses in biology, chemistry, or physics, are intimidated by their quantitative focus or turned off by what they mistakenly see as its sterility. On college campuses, humanists feel under siege due to the growing popularity of scientific fields among their students. They reject the view of some scholars that because 'science follows the methodology of rational dialogue,' it 'transcends culture.' But, as the Trump administration proceeds to take down the existing infrastructure of scientific research in the U.S., all Americans need to rally to its defense. That is because scientific literacy and research are essential to the well-being of all of us and to the country itself. The administration claims that it does not want to limit or end scientific research, just rid it of the taint of politics. On May 23, President Trump issued an executive order alleging that 'Actions taken by the prior Administration … politicized science, for example, by encouraging agencies to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations into all aspects of science planning, execution, and communication.' The president promised to restore what he called a 'gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful.' But on June 16, Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts exposed that promise as just a pretext for carrying out a war on science. He said that cuts to the National Institutes of Health grants mandated by the president and others in the federal government were blatantly discriminatory and rooted in prejudice. Judge Young ordered the government to restore most of those grants. This is not the first time in American history that the scientific enterprise has been used as a political football. Indeed, as a 2017 article in Scientific American notes, 'The reality is that engaging in scientific research is a social activity and an inherently political one.' Scientific projects, like World War II's Manhattan Project, which led to the atomic bomb, and the massive investment in science after Russia launched the first satellite into space, have been fueled by political goals. Moreover, the work of scientists on subjects like global warming can easily get caught up in partisan contests. Critics worry that the scientific enterprise will be tainted by the political agendas of those who supply funding and help drum up public support for the work scientists do. Those worries reached a fever pitch following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Science skepticism spiked as resentment grew over such polices as universal masking and school closures. Although polls show that trust in science has rebounded, a substantial portion of the population remains doubtful that scientific research is sound and helpful in making public policy decisions. Enter the Trump administration. As The Atlantic's Adam Serwer observes, 'The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself, a war against culture, history, and science.' But it has done so by using a skillful kind of double-speak. The president's executive order puts the administration on the side of 'restoring a gold standard for science,' and guarantees that scientific research is 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful.' At the same time, Trump has cut science funding to 'its lowest level in decades.' The administration has taken a meat ax to research budgets everywhere, including the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to say nothing about what it has done to research funding at universities like Columbia and Harvard. This brings us back to Judge Young's ruling. He found that the administration's efforts to terminate NIH grants 'on topics such as health equity, racial disparities, vaccine hesitancy and maternal health in minority communities' had nothing to do with the president's supposed commitment to 'restoring the gold standard for science.' Instead, Young said they were motivated by prejudice and a political agenda of 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.' Young took note of 'the administration's very public efforts to eliminate any trace of diversity and equity initiatives from the federal government, as well as its attacks on transgender people.' He did not mince words. From the bench, he told the government's lawyers that 'over the course of his career he had 'never seen government racial discrimination like this,'' and that he 'felt duty bound to state his conclusion about the government's intent. 'I would be blind not to call it out.'' Americans should not be blind to why the Trump administration is targeting science and what its consequences will be for all of us. As Serwer puts it, the president and his allies believe that the kind of 'truth-seeking' that goes on in scientific laboratories all over the country 'imperils their hold on power.' But whatever its motivation, the president's assault on science will leave us sicker, less prosperous, and more vulnerable to the ravages of nature. It will leave this country weaker and will undermine its position in the world. Put simply, America loses when science loses. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Boston Globe
For Boston's budding biotechs, an uncertain future amid funding cuts
Early stage startups, operating without much financial cushion, are feeling the impact sooner than better-established companies. Advertisement Dépis, and many entrepreneurs like him, are looking for ways to get their science funded. For example, LabCentral, a biotech startup incubator, has a program that allows big pharmaceutical companies to invest in cutting-edge science without making long-term commitments. Pharma companies cover the costs of lab space for individual scientists for a year, providing an easy exit if the research doesn't prove promising. In its recent five-year strategic plan, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council pitched the idea of a seed fund to support companies that graduate from the trade group's incubator program. Discussions are underway with MassBio's partners such as LabCentral and the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, a quasi-public state agency. Advertisement 'What's happened this year just validated our plans,' said MassBio CEO Kendalle Burlin O'Connell. 'We knew that we needed to support these early stage companies. We really, really feel it's imperative for Massachusetts to be an entrepreneur, founder-centric ecosystem.' Dépis — who is researching techniques to better deliver drugs to treat immune diseases — says such support is sorely needed. Earlier this year, he applied for a federal Small Business Innovation Research grant; then the government employee responsible for his application was laid off. Two weeks later, the employee was reinstated, but Dépis's application remains in limbo. 'I'm in a position where time is critical,' Dépis said. 'For me that translates into a higher chance to not have the funding in time that I need to survive.' And Dépis is not alone. Before the post-COVID biotech slump, companies accepted at LabCentral could typically secure funding and move into the space in a few weeks. Now, startups are taking six months to a year to move in — if they move in at all, said LabCentral CEO Maggie O'Toole. Startups at LabCentral are staying longer, unable to raise the money needed to grow their companies and expand into their own facilities, O'Toole said. The average length of tenancy doubled to about 36 months from 18 months, Some startups, affected by the Trump administration's grant cuts, have had to give up their LabCentral benches because they can't pay the rent. 'It was nothing to do with the promise of their science,' O'Toole said. 'They had received [approval for] funding that never came through.' Advertisement Robert Coughlin, a managing director at the commercial real estate firm JLL and former MassBio CEO, said the biotech industry is going through a downturn reminiscent of the Great Recession of 2008. Layoffs have spread across the sector. Earlier this month, Boston-based Vertex Pharmaceuticals said it would Moderna, the Cambridge biotech that soared with the success of its COVID vaccine, has gone through recent layoffs. In 2024, employment across Massachusetts' life sciences sector stagnated for the first time in more than 10 years, according to a report from the Massachusetts Biotechnology Education Foundation. Boston's commercial real estate sector has been hurt by the biotech slump. The vacancy rate for lab space has reached 32 percent, the highest among major metropolitan areas, according to JLL's most recent US Life Sciences Property Report. While conditions seem dismal, Coughlin said, he noticed a sense of optimism at the BIO conference. The annual convention not only attracted big crowds from established biotech centers, but also representatives from states and countries looking to invest in and build their own life sciences sectors. 'People want to get together,' Coughlin said. 'They want to collaborate, they want to talk about these challenges.' Marin Wolf can be reached at
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
How Commonwealth Fusion Systems is Igniting a Clean Energy Revolution
In the panel discussion 'Fusion is the New F Word,' Kristen Berke, VP of Sales, Entertainment & Branded Content at LA Times Studios moderated a conversation with Joe Paluska, Chief Marketing Officer at Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Jennine Willett, Creative Director at Commonwealth Fusion Systems. The panel talked about how Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), an MIT spin-out, is leading the charge in commercial fusion energy. The company is harnessing the power of the sun and stars through fusion, a clean, unlimited and safe energy source with no byproducts. Unlike fission which splits atoms, fusion combines two hydrogen molecules. While fusion has been around for over a century, recent advancements in material science and AI have made it possible. CFS is building a machine called SPARC and plans to turn it on by 2027. SPARC uses powerful, high-temperature superconducting magnets, a technology first discovered by IBM in the 80s. These magnets are key to containing and controlling the superheated plasma—a state of matter above 100 million degrees Celsius—inside the machine to release massive energy. The company's culture is driven by a sense of mission, with a team of over 1,000 people including top scientists, engineers and skilled tradespeople from NASA and SpaceX. They are working 24/7 to achieve what was once considered the 'holy grail' of energy. CFS believes fusion energy is vital to addressing the global climate crisis, especially as current climate projections indicate humanity will surpass the 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold sooner than anticipated. Their goal is to scale up production of magnets and power plants fast, just like during World War II when we faced an existential threat. Beyond the tech, CFS is committed to making fusion energy understandable and public. Through the #PowerMoves campaign they say fusion is 'humanity's power move'—a big step for the planet. They want to mainstream climate tech and tell more creative and impactful stories to reach a wider audience, including young people, to inspire the next generation of engineers and physicists. CFS envisions a future where compact fusion power plants can be deployed everywhere, and energy can be democratized and resource conflicts resolved.
