Stating that “limited data leaves most UAP unexplained” and that the phenomena which has been known for the better part of 70 years as unidentified flying objects (UFOs) “probably lack a single explanation.” Only one out of the 144 cases examined had analysis been able to arrive at a conclusion.
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the lack of resolution brought to these mysterious aerial sightings left many who had been anxiously awaiting the report for six months feeling deflated.
It can be argued that much of the disappointment felt by persons in the UFO community resulted from lofty expectations that the U.S. government was going to announce the probability that UAP may have otherworldly explanations. Many who have followed the topic for years say there is a wealth of evidence showing the U.S. government allegedly knows more definitively that all UFOs don’t represent misidentifications or domestic and foreign advanced technologies.
Conversely, some critics of the UFO news in the last few years expressed disdain for the report, saying the idea that UFOs represent visiting aliens is utterly ridiculous.
Likewise, the lack of definite conclusions, failure to share or specifically outline data, and carefully parsed language–all of which are incredibly typical of any public intelligence reports–offered a confirmation bias buffet for those who had already determined the UAP Task Force and Intelligence Community were inept.
Here, The Debrief will attempt to provide an objective analysis of the Government’s recent UAP report, highlighting several significant takeaways, in addition to offering predictions about what comes next.
BACKGROUND: CAN YOU INTELLIGENTLY ANALYZE “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”?
Science involves the systematic pursuit of knowledge through observation and description of phenomena by formulating theories, testing hypotheses, and finally, the refutation or confirmation of hypotheses.
No single scientific methodology is claimed to be single-handedly capable of arriving at a fundamental truth. However, for thousands of years, the formal scientific process has demonstrated itself as the most capable means of describing, organizing, and establishing knowledge of the natural world.
The principal strength of science comes in the rigid process that allows validity and reliability of findings to be tested and ensures results are replicable. When a specific conclusion can be universally and independently replicated, the results become accepted scientific facts, laying another brick in the foundation of knowledge.
The idea that the military intelligence gathering process should be viewed as a process involving the scientific method or as a collection of science practices is a matter of debate.
Many formalized intelligence communities prefer to consider intelligence as an art or craft rather than a science. Hence, the term “tradecraft” defines the techniques, methods, and technologies used by those in the intelligence field.
When it comes to arriving at information or knowledge within the Intelligence Community (IC), the process involves the coming together of several separate parts to form what is referred to as the “Intelligence Cycle.”
Step one in the intelligence cycle involves leadership or policymakers expressing their needs or requirements on uncertainty and directing what information needs to be obtained. Step two consists of collecting information and data, which can be arrived at through a wide range of means, including covert and clandestine means. Collected information is then processed or exploited before moving on to subject matter experts for analysis.
After analyzing all available information, analysts will produce an intelligence product to be disseminated to the key stakeholders. At this point, leadership may decide if additional or new information is needed, and the entire intelligence cycle will begin again.
Though intelligence undoubtedly benefits from innumerable scientific practices, the final two stages of the intelligence cycle represent one of the critical distinctions between intelligence and science. Intelligence analysis typically involves forming key “judgments” rather than definite or replicable conclusions in the intelligence product produced.
In forming judgments, analysts will use a host of structured analytic techniques. Yet, it all really boils down to making the best guess on matters of uncertainty based on the available information. At times, this available information can be minimal.
Analysts convey their doubts to decision-makers by rating judgments on an analytic confidence scale. The phrase, “with a high degree of confidence it can be concluded…” represents this analytical confidence scale.
Judgments viewed as having a “high degree of confidence” mean opinions are based on significant or high-quality information. “Moderate confidence” can mean a judgment is based on credible sources and plausible information, but it lacks high-quality corroboration. “Low confidence” generally relates to judgments based on questionable sources or limited and implausible information.
How does all of this relate to the government’s UAP report?
The current UAP Task Force is being run by the Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence, under the cognizant authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Office. The agency providing the June 25th UAP report was the Office of the Director for National Intelligence.
In essence, this generalized overview of the intelligence process is essential because it provides a little basis for the institutional operations of the agencies involved and how the recently released UAP report was arrived at.
Whether the Government’s current UAP endeavors are being spearheaded by the appropriate faculties can be a matter of debate or perspective. Regardless, the recent preliminary assessment on unidentified aerial phenomena was very much a product of the intelligence community.
“Where are the images, videos, or data?” is perhaps a justifiable question given the circumstances. However, what’s being asked for are scientific practices, not the intelligence process.
ANALYSIS: SO WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE Unidentified Aerial Phenomena REPORT?
The Debrief will highlight some of the critical points in the report, offering our own analysis on some of these key areas.
This was a preliminary assessment.
While some may be upset the UAP report didn’t provide more definitive answers, from the report’s very title – Preliminary Assessment – this was always meant to be the first phase in defining the current scope of the UAP issue.
Going back to the intelligence cycle, the preliminary assessment will be used by leadership to help identify what questions remained unanswered and what actions needed to be taken next.
Key Judgments Weren’t Made solely by the UAP Task Force.
There has been the contention that the current UAP Task Force may not have adequate funding, staffing, or the necessary security clearances to form any highly confident judgments on UAP.
Fundamentally, this may be true. However, the UAP Task Force doesn’t appear to have been the only entity involved in producing the report.
17 other U.S. government agencies were listed as offering input on the report: USD(I&S), DIA, FBI, NRO, NGA, Air Force, Army, Navy, Navy/ONI, DARPA, FAA, NOAA, ODNI/NIM-Emerging and Disruptive Technology, ODNI/National Counterintelligence, and Security Center, and ODNI/National Intelligence Council.
Each of these agencies listed would likely have had varying equities in the report and some influence over what was, or wasn’t published.
Three of the agencies listed – the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – are particularly interesting.
Each of these agencies falls under three separate federal parent agencies and not the Department of Defense. The inclusion of the FBI, FAA, and NOAA suggest there has been more interagency cooperation, across different branches of Government than has previously been acknowledged.
The mention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) being involved is also intriguing. As the Department of Defense’s chief research and development agency for emerging military technologies, DARPA could have dispelled the likelihood that any of the examined incidents may have involved advanced developing technologies. Similarly, DARPA could also be offering technical support in reviewing ways to better capture data on UAP incidents.
Notably missing as a contributor to the report is America’s principal foreign spy agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Because the CIA’s activities are primarily bound to operating under Title 50, and outside U.S. soil, any UAP contributions by the spy agency would likely come during covert foreign intelligence collections. An unwillingness to even acknowledge foreign spying on the unclassified version of the UAP report could be one reason why the CIA isn’t listed. Conversely, it could also mean the CIA isn’t involved.
ODNI’s National Intelligence Manager for Aviation is listed as a co-author. Even if the UAP Task Force members didn’t have carte blanche access to all secretive information, the Director of National Intelligence’s office would have had plenty of access to classified intelligence or black-budget programs.
In addition to ODNI being a co-author, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) is listed as providing input. The NIC’s role is to bridge the gap between the U.S. Intelligence Community and U.S. policymakers. In addition to having a wealth of resources within the Intelligence Community at their disposal, the NIC also utilizes experts in academia and the private sector to provide many critical reports, including National Intelligence Estimates and the Global Trends reports for the President of the United States.
How much access or technical resources at the disposal of the UAP Task Force shouldn’t be a key source of contention with this UAP assessment report. Instead, any one of the 17 agencies listed, including the Director of National Intelligence and National Intelligence Council, could have pumped the brakes on anything if they felt it was going to come back to make lawmakers or U.S. leadership look bad.
Finally, it’s ODNI who issued the report, not the UAP Task Force or DoD.
There Are Significantly More Sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Than We Are Aware of.
So far, the public has only been made aware of three UAP incidents looked into by the Pentagon:
The November 2004 USS Nimitz incident.
The 2015 events involving the USS Roosevelt off the Eastern U.S. coast.
Encounters with swarms of “mystery drones” by multiple Navy destroyers off the coast of California in July 2019.
Yet, in the report, ODNI acknowledges there had been 144 reported cases of UAP in the last 16 years.
The report does not provide specifics, such as times or locations. There are, however, several hints suggesting the bulk of the 144 reports examined only came in the last two years. “These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021, with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community,” reads the report.
Parsing through the ambiguous jargon, it would also seem that other branches, notably the Air Force, have been reluctant to formally report UAP sightings. “The UAPTF regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by observers,” the report reads.
Ultimately, the report doesn’t just suggest there have been more UAP sightings than the public is aware of. It also implies there are likely more sightings than the Government realizes due to a lack of reporting by everyone except the Navy.
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Incidents Are An Ongoing Issue
The report explicitly says the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports occurring in 2021, implying that UAP incidents are being continuously reported, suggesting this is an ongoing issue.
The Continuous Nature of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Incidents Calls To Question The Foreign Adversary Theory
This idea that a foreign nation wouldn’t use its most advanced technology for reconnaissance missions near U.S. military assets is a common misnomer.
The well-documented history of the U2 and SR-71 spy planes, and more recently, the 2011 capture of a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel by Iran, demonstrates nations are absolutely willing to fly their most sophisticated airborne reconnaissance technology over denied enemy airspace.
Of these practices, airborne reconnaissance can be broadly lumped into three categories.
Ferreting: Electronic and signals intelligence directed at denied areas of known or suspected active air defense to trigger those defenses into activating search radars, fire control radars, and air defense communications networks.
Capabilities Assessments: Broad photographic and signals collection to accurately assess a potential adversary’s military capabilities.
Pre-Attack Intelligence: Tightly focused photography, radar, and infrared mapping of an enemy’s defensive posture to strategize the most advantageous plan of attack.
That said, one of the critical aspects of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) is being either covert or unexpected. If the enemy knows your spy aircraft are coming, they will not provide an accurate image of their capabilities or posture. In fact, they may use this opportunity to deceive prying eyes and purposefully inject bad data into an intelligence picture.
For their part, the Pentagon has been relatively open in the past year in saying it is investigating UAP incidents. So if indeed some of the reported incidents were Chinese or Russian reconnaissance systems, by all indications, Beijing and Moscow would have to expect they’re not going to get an accurate image of U.S. capabilities or posture. So why risk losing that technology or all the geopolitical consequences associated with getting caught repeatedly probing the continental United States?
In an interview with The Debrief last year, the former Executive Assistant to the Commander of NORAD and Executive Assistant to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Air Force General Bruce McClintock, said it would be far more likely that a foreign adversary would test their advanced technology on American air defenses closer to their own borders, rather than the continental United States.
“It is not outside the realm of the plausible that an adversary would test the ability of the United States to detect some new capability, although it would be more likely they would only do this after testing the capability within or closer to their own territory before trying to penetrate U.S. airspace,” said McClintock.
So while some of the 143 unknown incidents examined by the UAPTF could be foreign airborne surveillance, the fact ODNI is acknowledging UAP is an ongoing issue raises some legitimate doubts that ongoing incidents can be chalked up to foreign adversarial technology.
Limited Data Has Allowed Most UAP Incidents To Go Unexplained
Out of the 144 UAP incidents examined, the UAPTF could only identify one report with a high degree of confidence as being a “large, deflating balloon.” The remaining 143 reports remain unexplained.
The report emphasizes that limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to solving and evaluating unidentified aerial phenomena.
In some of the reasons for limited data, the report highlights socio-cultural stigmas associated with UFOs. “Reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic.”
Additionally, the authors mention some technical challenges associated with accessing UAP reports including, “how to appropriately filter out radar clutter to ensure the safety of flight for military and civilian aircraft.”
This latter challenge plays into what many self-styled “debunkers” or critics have been saying, that UAP is far from mysterious. It’s simply prosaic events that occur in low-data vacuums.
This is likely true in some of the reported UAP incidents, however…
At Least Some Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Incidents May Represent Something Unique.
In one of the more intriguing aspects of the preliminary UAP report, in listing challenges of UAP data collection, authors note, “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”
Deconstructing some of the ambiguity in this statement, what the UAPTF and ODNI seem to be suggesting is that some UAP incidents involve technologies that exceed America’s premier technical intelligence collection capabilities. In essence, U.S. platforms are highly capable of identifying Russian, Chinese, or other foreign systems. However, these same sensor systems aren’t capable of gathering necessary data on some UAP incidents.
The point in limitations of the current U.S. ability to effectively gather data on UAP is stressed, albeit again vaguely, in the following bullet point describing UAP collection changes. “Sensor vantage points and the numbers of sensors concurrently observing an object play substantial roles in distinguishing UAP from known objects and determining whether a UAP demonstrates breakthrough aerospace capabilities,” the report reads.
Authors note that optical sensors can provide insight into objects’ relative size and structure, while radiofrequency can provide more accurate velocity and range information.
Going back to the preceding statement that “sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP,” it would seem that the authors appear to be implying that integrated sensor platforms designed to work concurrently to provide accurate imagery and signals intelligence on foreign and domestic aircraft do not offer the same insights in some UAP incidents.
Some Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Sightings Appear To Be Really Strange
According to the report, 18 incidents or 21 reports demonstrated “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.” The authors went on to describe some of these unusual characteristics as “remaining stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernible means of propulsion.”
Acknowledging that “a handful of UAP appear to demonstrate advanced technology,” the report notes that radio frequency (RF) energy has been detected in a small number of cases. Ultimately, that means in these few cases, the oscillating rate of energy associated with mechanical systems has been detected.
The UAPTF also says it holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrates “a degree of signature management,” meaning the objects engaged in some kind of low-observable countermeasures when detected.
In the executive summary, the authors note that some of these incidents where UAP appear to exhibit unusual flight characteristics, observations could be “the result of sensor error, spoofing or observer misperception.”
Though 21 reports showing unusual flight characteristics may not seem like a whole lot, that represents 15% of the total UAP reports examined. Given that 80 of the analyzed 144 reports involved an observation made by multiple sensor systems, there is nearly an 85% chance that 10 or more of the 21 highly unusual incidents were captured by one or more sensor systems. Needless to say, that’s intriguing.
UAP Probably Lack a Single Explanation, But We Might Need New Science To Understand Some Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Ummm What!?!
Authors say there is no single explanation for all UAP reports. If more data were available, authors suggest UAP can likely be resolved by falling into one of five different categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, U.S. Government industrial development programs, Foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other.”
In arguably the most curious line in the report, in discussing the “other” category, authors note, “we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them.”
Further describing possible unique incidents or “other” incidents, the report reads, “We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them.”
Those who hoped the preliminary UAP report would come out and say, “It’s Aliens!” were likely disappointed in the actual results. However, these lines in the report should offer some consolation.
Basically, the UAPTF and ODNI say they’ve at least got some data, no matter how inconclusive, that has led them to be unable to say with a degree of confidence that some UAP incidents don’t involve something truly “otherworldly” or entirely unique to current understandings.
Now, if those “other” incidents that might require new science to understand are what you’re really interested in, Good news! Because…
The UAP Task Force Wants to Focus on Those Unique “Other” Incidents
“The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management,” the report reads.
Essentially, the UAPTF and ODNI seem to be saying they will not waste their time deeply digging into the incidents that may fall into the categories of airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, U.S. Government industrial development programs, and Foreign adversary systems.
Instead, they’re going after the “weird” stuff or those 21 reports of UAP that demonstrated extraordinary flight characteristics.
Like the rest of the world, The Debrief would love to know what data has been captured that would lead the UAPTF to suggest any UAP incidents might involve something that requires “new scientific advances.”
But They Didn’t Say Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Couldn’t Be Classified U.S. Technology!
Perusing comments on social media after the UAP report was released, some noted that the report didn’t clearly say that these mysterious incidents weren’t the results of classified government programs.
“Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected,” the report reads.
First, because this line came in the section describing the likely categories UAP incidents fall into, it isn’t entirely clear if when authors said, “some UAP observations could be attributable…” they were only referring to the 143 unknown incidents that were examined. It could be inferred authors were also suggesting future UAP events would fall into one of the five mentioned categories, provided better data was available.
Regardless, the phrase most people seemed to latch onto was, “we were unable to confirm….” This is understandable, given that the word “confirm” in the context of government secrecy implicitly summons mental images of “we cannot confirm or deny….”
The sentence formed the linchpin for some people’s arguments that the persons examining these UAP events lack the classified access or technical capability and resources to adequately assess UAP.
In all likelihood, these lines were probably a matter of fierce debate amongst the report authors, ODNI, and various agencies who held equities in the subject. Principally, the U.S. government avoids discussing or mentioning anything classified in public. This includes even disputing whether or not something is or isn’t classified or part of a secret program.
During the 1980s, the former Soviet Union and KGB would exploit America’s resistance to discussing anything secret by leaking actual seized classified documents sprinkled with false disinformation. America’s refusal to dispute disinformation at risk of revealing valid secrets served to the detriment of allowing the public to believe all of the information was real.
Also, during the 1980s, Soviet KGB agents acting under the guise of being UFO enthusiasts used U.S. citizens and UFO groups to try and obtain information on classified and sensitive U.S. weapons development and the vulnerability to U.S. air-defense networks.
Ultimately, the line in the report saying it could not “confirm” that any of the 143 unknown UAP incidents were secret U.S. tech likely pushed it right to the edge of what the Government was comfortable mentioning.
Whether or not the UAPTF had adequate authority to rule out classified programs as responsible for any UAP events, this goes back to the earlier point and all of the different agencies that offered input, including the National Intelligence Council. And again, the report was published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, not the UAPTF.
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is a Flight Safety Issue
In the report, authors note that 11 of the 144 UAP reports examined involved pilots reporting near misses with some unexplained airborne object.
In The Debrief’sinterview with Graves, he described how at least one Navy Aviator in 2015 had a near-miss with an object that resembled a “sphere inside a cube.” Graves also mentioned being aware of another near-miss incident involving UAP that occurred off the coast of Virginia within the past year.
The Debrief also located three Navy Hazard Reports, where pilots described having near misses with unidentified airborne objects from 2004 to 2015.
Ultimately, regardless of one’s feelings on the whole subject of unidentified aerial phenomena or what it represents, the safety concern alone should be enough to support further scrutiny and analysis.
No Indications Unidentified Aerial Phenomena are Foreign Technology
“We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary,” the report reads.
Not a lot more you can say about this other than if indeed UAP represents foreign airborne surveillance, the fact we cannot identify it is a huge problem.
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is Unknown
Much to the chagrin of the greater public, the UAPTF and ODNI’s preliminary report on UAP can be summed up as: “We don’t know!”
This assessment of “we don’t know” leads to rather humorous media headlines like, “Government Doesn’t Find Any Evidence UAP Are Aliens, But Can’t Rule It Out Either.” This is essentially like offering a weather forecast of, “It’s probably not going to rain tomorrow, but it might.”
Now, as frustrating as it may seem to get no conclusion to the topic of UAP or UFOs, in truth, saying “we don’t know” is one of the hallmarks of a good intelligence assessment.
Understandably, this sounds counterintuitive. However, it goes back to the whole intelligence process described earlier. Recognizing what you don’t know can be more valuable than saying what you’re pretty sure you know because it allows the intelligence cycle to reinitiate, now focusing on trying to collect data that’s missing.
Saying you’ve concluded something with a high degree of certainty, when in fact it is a judgment made on limited or unreliable information, is far more damaging. Iraq having weapons of mass destruction being an excellent example of when something is stated with an inflated sense of confidence.
OUTLOOK: SO WHAT COMES NEXT FOR UAP?
The Preliminary Assessment on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena report concludes by offering what will be necessary to adequately determine what UAP represents.
Again, going back to the intelligence cycle process, this is a critical area because it offers decision-makers and leadership with an idea of what direction will need to be taken to provide answers.
The report authors note that one of the first critical areas to improve UAP analysis will require more organized systemic reporting of UAP incidents. The report points out that the military is far from the only customers traveling around the airspace. Authors note that the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for controlling civil airspace, has robust means of providing additional data collection on UAP.
An interesting consideration mentioned by the UAPTF is the proposal of using AI to search through historical radar and air intelligence data as a means to “baseline ‘standard’ UAP activity.”
Ultimately, the report indicates there needs to be increased investment in research and development to solve the UAP mystery. “The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, UAP R&D Technical Roadmap, and a UAP Program Plan,” the report reads.
Shortly after ODNI made the preliminary unidentified aerial phenomena assessment public, Department of Defense Press Secretary John Kirby issued a press release on behalf of the Pentagon. In the release, Kirby shared a directive issued by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks ordering the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security to develop a plan to formalize the current mission being performed by the UAPTF.
In the plan, Hicks directed OUSD(I&S) to establish procedures to synchronize the collection, reporting, and analysis of UAP. Additionally, requirements for establishing and operating new activity, including organizational alignment, resources, and staffing, needed to be identified.
To be developed in coordination with the Principal Staff Assistants, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries of the Military, Combatant Commanders, and ODNI, Hicks said all members of the DoD will utilize these new processes to ensure the UAPTF or its follow-on activity has reports of UAP observations within two weeks of an occurrence.
In addition to the Pentagon, Senators Marco Rubio and Mark Warner, Vice-Chair and Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, each issued press releases on the UAP report. Each of the lawmakers indicated they would be backing more support and resources being designated to the issue of UAP.
“We should approach these questions without preconceptions to encourage a thorough, systematized analysis of the potential national security and flight safety risks posed by unidentified aerial phenomena, whether they are the result of a foreign adversary, atmospheric or other aerial phenomena, space debris, or something else entirely,” reads the statement by Schiff.
On Twitter, Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said, “Today’s @ODNIgov report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) represents a much-needed shift on this issue. We have to take these potential threats to our security more seriously precisely because we can’t fully explain them. I’ll keep working through @HouseIntel to get answers.”
In a later interview with PBS News, Carson said, “This technology seems to be defying our understanding of physics.”
While some may be disappointed because the UAP report didn’t ring in “Disclosure” of alien life or bring about an end to all the talk about UFOs, the report did achieve what former fighter pilot Ryan Graves and former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus recently told The Debrief they felt needed to be done.
“I think they need to also acknowledge there are vehicles in our airspace, and we don’t know what they are or where they come from,” said Graves. Similarly, former Secretary Mabus said, “Admitting you don’t know is a pretty good place to start. Instead of saying we don’t know what this is and we’re not going to let you know either.”
By all indications, rather than nearing a close, news and information about mysterious “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” soaring around the skies is just getting started.
So buckle up. We ultimately could be in for a long and wild ride.