Military's UFO-hunting aerial surveillance system detailed in report
twz.com
twz.com
This is OK.
It can probably tell you "that's definitely something we understand". It can count things where it can't, and give you a little data to help you understand if it's something understandable, but rare enough to not be already in your system taxonomy.
It isn't enough to establish what a UAP is, but will give you an idea of the frequency of things you should probably spend more time and money and effort into identifying.
Interesting thing is, if you identify some hot spots of UAP activity through this, you can then start to collect more data, and then perhaps we can figure out what is going on: UAP are real, we know that thanks to the more honest, open and frank disclosures made in recent years. You don't need to believe they're of ET origin to believe they are a potential threat to [inter-]national security infrastructure. It's astonishing to me its taking this long to get this far, to be honest.
I highly recommend Mick West's work on reconstructing the situations in each of the released videos so far: https://www.youtube.com/@MickWest
His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere.
That may explain some of the sightings. That article specifically mentions foo fighters in the context of night flying. Were foo fighters seen during the day too? (I haven't researched them at all)
EDIT: Actually the foo fighters wiki article is pretty even handed I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter?wprov=sfla1
I’m sorry, but West is not convincing. He has a predetermined outcome in mind, namely, that there is nothing but man-made vehicles in the sky, and that there is zero chance for it to be anything else. Ever.
This conclusion does not match the evidence, and symbolizes a tragic incuriosity about the possibilities the universe holds.
Unfortunately eyewitness testimony (even from trained pilots) is notoriously unreliable, and none of the other supposed evidence seems to be available for analysis.
Mick doesn't seem to shy away from looking at any available evidence. It's not his fault that nothing incontrovertible has shown up yet.
People have been using this to imply ETs, even in this comments section, and it seems disingenuous to me to pretend otherwise or act surprised.
Since forever, the rational explanations for Groom Lake phenomena and similar, after filtering the obvious "bunch of liars trying to sell books", has been "top secret military tech" or "meteorological phenomena". Where's the news in that?
However, let me point out that this:
> The news is that the US military is acting very much like they aren’t responsible for recent sightings
... has multiple prosaic interpretations that are also relatively likely. To name a few:
- "The news" is not the US military. You have at least one level of indirection there.
- The US military saying something doesn't make it what they truly believe. Disinformation is a real military thing. Even disinformation aimed at a third party (e.g. rival nations who could believe the US military is asking its own population [things]).
- Inter-agency rivalry is a thing. Top secret projects may not be known to everyone within a military.
- Drones are now widespread, so the US military encouraging the usual UFO believers to be on the lookout may help them spot actual threats. It doesn't have to be anything physics-defying, just true unidentified flying objects.
- Finally, though less likely in my opinion, it could be the US military believes in UAPs of physics-defying or even ET origin, but it's just another case of Men Staring at Goats. I mean, in their history they have believed all sorts of kooky things with zero backing evidence.
Not really. Adversaries have caught up, with stealthy aircraft and drones.
We’re in the “huh, what was that?!” spot the Russians and Chinese and Syrians and whatnot are quite used to being in.
In fact, while evidence of intelligent ET life visiting this planet would be shocking to us a species philosophically, theologically and scientifically, it would in any many ways be better than the hypothesis they are actually trying to prove/disprove:
That an adversary has an advanced aircraft that can outrun allied aircraft with ease, and can embed itself into restricted airspace easily, at will, and we don't know what the intentions are.
This isn't an experiment in finding ET. This is an experiment in defending national and international airspace from an unknown phenomenon that could be a threat.
People hand-waving away the explorations of this stuff has done more harm to national and international security than any other train of thought from the scientific community. We're meant to be interested in learning new things, not just finding things that fit our existing models - especially when that new thing could be a weapon from some unknown adversary.
Consider the madness of a Chinese weather balloon not too long ago - why is this somehow not as important?
In other words, nobody (credible) is claiming that aliens or anything of the sort exist.
And unfortunately, yet more people seem to not understand -- surprisingly, in a forum such as HN -- that "things exist that we cannot yet understand" is completely normal for science and it has been since humans engaged in science as a way of understanding more about the universe.
"We don't understand this sensor data yet" is completely normal for science, it's not some shameful failure that must be covered up, the sure evidence that our models about everything are crumbling and secret 3 letter agencies must become involved to make sure Western civilization doesn't collapse.
Geez.
I do not see anyone, let alone multiple people, making that claim. Can you link to one?
Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160277
And you here, though disguised so you have the easy way out of claiming you were just hypthesizing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160930
Plus, if you are going to claim the two aren't conflated in general, i.e. that most conversations about UFOs are also about ETs, then I'll peg you for a dishonest person and will have nothing further to discuss with you.
And then you call them a liar.
So you can conflate all you like, and will, but that’s your problem. There is no evidence as to the source for UAPs, interplanetary or otherwise.
I do not know what is going on, and make zero claims that I do. The one and only claim I make is that something is going on, but what that exactly is is now.
You, on the other hand, can read minds.
That’s the more fantastical claim.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is similar. They both approach the subject with a very unscientific, bad faith attitude.
I disagree with them both. I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Further, I do not believe that relativity is the end of physics as Tyson or west so strongly imply.
Curiosity in this subject should be encouraged, not ridiculed.
Many people have. I have a friend who credits God for helping her find the perfect pair of shoes for her wedding.
The range of what can be explained by a prosaic explanation is wider than most people like to admit.
Whether you believe or not in god (and that he will busy himself with finding shoes for you), everyone will agree this is firmly outside the realm of science. So if we're writing this kind of assertions in a conversation about UAPs/ETs, what does this say about the latter?
I don't think proponents of UAPs (especially UAPs-as-ETs) want them to be put side by side with "Jesus speaks to me".
>His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere.
West's analysis is a shallow one masquerading as a deep one.From his analysis on the (suggestively named) GIMBAL video, it's clear that the only thing his reconstruction proves is that the rotation ("It's rotating!") and outline is a result of the optics platform. I take no issue with that.
The DoD's claims about extraordinary flight characteristics are not, however, based on the silhouette or the rotation. They have all the flight data from multiple aircraft and ground systems. Their conclusion is based on, at least, additional information from the Situational Awareness display ("There's a whole fleet of them, look on the SA"), the longevity of their flight time (reportedly 12+ hours per Lt. Ryan Graves), and hypersonic flight maneuvers (simultaneously observed both visually and on radar, per Cmdr. David Fravor and SCPO Kevin Day).
Low-information UFO enthusiasts are the ones who got excited about the shape and rotation (which West focuses on), but the DoD never cared about that. Even the name GIMBAL suggests that they were already aware of those confounding effects prior to public release.
Everyone interested in the topic should watch the Mick West videos, but be careful not to make more of his videos than what's actually there (ie the subset of claims he can support with reconstruction data).
In addition, I've found his demonstrations of airplane bodies appearing as wingless tic-tacs in atmosphere due to light scattering, a very similar effect in which jet exhausts infrared blows out the contrast making it difficult to see any detail at distance, demonstrations of bokeh lens flare in several videos, and his speed reconstructions in simulation to be really useful. Particularly several which seemed after analysis to be mylar balloons.
The process he demonstrates for looking up aircraft flight paths, loading them into Google Earth and interpolating through them is also really useful.
I really appreciate the data-driven occams razor approach he takes to analyzing all the available evidence.
For one thing, he makes arguments in bad faith and with poor use of honest analysis. Consequently, many people have done a pretty thorough job of debunking his own debunking efforts (you can easily find some of these through both a YouTube or a Google search).
West takes a very classic debunker approach (not that I don't say skeptic, but debunker specifically) of prima facie deciding that the inexplicable can't possibly be the case and thus guiding all of his arguments, rather dogmatically, to showing how it isn't the case, regardless of the quality or plausibility of what he argues. It's a dishonest and tedious way to view the world, but couched in enough rational sounding discourse to seem solid.
Many people give such arguments more weight than they deserve because, well, nearly any aspect of examining the UFO phenomenon is at least associated (often very unfairly) with the most extreme of quacks and cranks and thus bias tends towards giving more weight to a seemingly skeptical interpretation, regardless of its specific qualities.
I've communicated with West on this subject even and noticed quickly that when questioned on the weaknesses of specific arguments, he simply doubles down on his base statements, but without addressing the precise counter-skepticism being thrown at him. This does not make for honest reasoning and good faith..
* some person in a high-up position is driven by a caricature of a notion of legitimacy conveyed by grandiose Latin mottos;
* this person does not have the diligence or attention to detail to be able to construct such a motto correctly, nor the capability for reflection to anticipate that he would fail to do so;
* either there is not enough of a culture of skepticism or criticism for anyone else to point out the mistakes and pull the emergency brakes, or there are not enough eyeballs even on fundamental materials like the programme's logo.
These are not features you want in a working group that you trust to sift through vague and contentious evidence on a topic marred by wishful thinking and military obscurantism. The group's findings therefore don't seem worth putting much stock in, and the main information that is conveyed by this is that there exist more amateurish and untrustworthy initiatives under the US military's aegis than one would expect.
(The motto itself seems to have come from a misremembered or ineptly modded Marcus Aurelius quote popular in motivational posters: https://ehoreka.myshopify.com/products/mundus-mutatur-vita-n...)
Edit: Godric Gryffindor and the Methods of Google Translate, by the way.
Literally judging an entire book by it's cover.
This is the DoD. There is absolutely guidance and rules already in place for creating, developing and approving new insignia. It's highly likely the people involved in the program had the least to do with it, and it's terribly unreasonable to judge the entire group by it.
Yes, why not? Covers usually convey a lot of information about a book. Of all the books whose covers look like those an action manga, how many do you figure are a good resource for learning Polish? (Yes, in a way I'm acting deliberately obtuse about the proverb you are referring to, but the point is that there is nothing to that rule apart from it being a popular proverb. It is not hard to find proverbs that assert falsehoods.)
I don't know if the hypothetical scenario in which this logo was generated according to formal DoD-wide rules inspires any more confidence, either. It would just cast more suspicion upon other inputs that go into DoD-branded claims - if standard procedure for insignia produces this, what does e.g. standard procedure for documenting the circumstances under which a video was taken do?
I would call it intentionally ignorant. Please try googling for "best book for learning polish" then flip to the image search. Which one is actually the best? Can you tell from here?
> It is not hard to find proverbs that assert falsehoods.
Yet it is easy to find organizations with terrible logos that still do good work.
Manga are a good way to learn Japanese, so the Polish translations are probably an okay way to learn Polish. Not because the translation would be literal, because it won't be, just because the reading level is low.
(Well, the trend in action manga lately is to have incredibly complicated magic powers where the characters just stand around explaining them to each other, so maybe skip JJK.)
This logo isn't very cool, which is more of a surprise to me. But bad Latin is understandable - if your project is secret then you can't ask anyone to proofread it, and who's going to be offended? There aren't any native Latin speakers.
ὁ κόσμος ἀλλοίωσις, ὁ βίος ὑπόληψις. (Aur. Med. 4.3)
I'm pretty skeptical. UFO believers and the Ancient Aliens crowd don't typically adhere to the scientific method, and so news like this doesn't sway me much.
I usually ignore this stuff, but it is pretty wild to see congressional documents talking about "non-human intelligences" intercepting F-22s and forcing them to abort missions. Seems pretty fanciful.
What does HN think about this?
In fact I think the most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox is that we are kept isolated from other civilizations within range.
I do like your idea that we're in a quarantine though.
And for UFOs-as-ETs, these intelligences would have had to spawn pretty near our solar system, and their existence overlap in time with mankind's tiny fraction of existence (truly a blip in the lifespan of the universe), and detect our existence (or at least our system as a worthwhile destination), and develop tech to take them here, and be interested in this undertaking, and have the resources for it, and not wipe themselves out in an accident, ecological disaster or global war, and after all of this choose to just do mysterious flybys and abductions and no formal contact with Earth.
Too many "and"s for me...
Seems very unlikely to me.
Fascinating stuff really.
They're not there, or they're far away in time and space, with a remaining tiny chance that something incredibly unlikely happened.
Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one?
Let me propose a thought experiment. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that humanity has survived 100,000 years into the future. Now, let’s put you in a time machine and fast forward you to that distant future.
Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? Barely remembered artifacts of humanity’s Stupid Ages? That new discoveries were made over those thousand centuries, discoveries that we 21st century humans can only vaguely begin to comprehend?
Because you raised my biggest problem with modern cosmology: it’s arrogant assumption that Einstein is the end. But more importantly, that evidence indicating that relativity is not in fact the end — such as UAPs — is completely disregarded.
And the reason it is disregarded? Because relativity is the end! It’s circular reasoning at its absolute worst.
It doesn't have to be final, it just has to be reasonably descriptive of reality.
Even if we review our understanding, the universe is still a massive place and humanity's existence a mere blip. It becomes more about statistics and probability than physics, but yeah, our understanding of physics also makes ETs visiting Earth very unlikely.
If you mean to say "a major revision of physics would make it more feasible", I don't know. Maybe? Or maybe even less feasible! We have to approach this rationally, and so far reason and evidence both lean to "extremely unlikely".
> Let me propose a thought experiment [...] Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly?
As a thought experiment it's a decent piece of science fiction, but as any sort of serious thought it seems like begging the question to me.
Which it only is if you limit cosmology to spectroscopy and ignore UAP. If you start to examine UAP as a real thing, and ask questions about “how”, then it all falls apart.
Which is exciting.
The "U" just means "unidentified", not "contradicting our understanding of physics" or "extraterrestrial intelligence".
There are many life forms on Earth that remain unidentified by many estimations, and we keep discovering new organisms. "Unidentified" doesn't have to violate our understanding of the universe.
One of the common reported characteristics of some UAP is that they are able to accelerate hypersonic speeds without a sonic boom.
If that is true then there are things to be learned here. You appear to be saying that this obviously cannot be true because it violates what we currently know.
I think that is tragically unscientific.
That's a big "if". If magic exists, then maybe Gandalf is real.
That there are new things to discover there is no doubt. I don't know how it relates to your need to believe in ETs visiting Earth, but rest assured we have plenty of things to discover about the universe. Most things we will never know.
> One of the common reported characteristics of some UAP is that they are able to accelerate hypersonic speeds without a sonic boom.
> I think that is tragically unscientific.
What's tragically unscientific is cherry picking reports (sometimes by people who are not even claiming the final implication you'd like), disregarding the obvious implications (hoax, liars, top secret military tech, etc) and jumping to conclusions.
What's tragically unscientific is not understanding the scientific method and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I have this idea that sedentary agrarian urban civilization was something created by nomadic peoples to farm slaves. Hunter gatherers and pastoral peoples would be very hard to control. But if they took children, and raised them to be sedentary and dependent on agriculture they could have a stable of slaves.
It might depend on the origin of the universe. One theory involves an exponentially expanding spacetime driven by a quantum field. Fluctuations in that field can case a region of that expanding spacetime to greatly slow down its expansion and that region becomes a universe.
If that's how it happened our universe would just be one in a very very large collection of universes. In particular the rate of universe creation would grow exponentially and so the fraction of old universes would be exponentially smaller than the fraction of young universes.
If it takes a few billion years for the first human level intelligence to develop in a given universe and then hundreds of millions more years for the second intelligence to develop then of all the universes with at least one intelligence only a very very very small fraction of them would have more than one intelligence.
> In fact I think the most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox is that we are kept isolated from other civilizations within range.
Another interesting possibility is that civilizations isolate themselves. It seems very unlikely that neighboring civilizations would be at the same level of technological development--there is just too much luck involved in becoming a civilization and in developing technology.
That suggests that first meetings between civilizations are very likely to involve civilizations with vastly different technology levels. They also are likely to have vastly different cultures and vastly different ethics and vastly different philosophies.
Maybe the more advanced will see it as their duty to help the other progress. Or maybe they they will view them like Europeans viewed the occupants of the Americas in the 16th century. Or maybe they will see them as animals and give them about as much consideration as we give the animals on a patch of wilderness that we want to use for something.
You can model how civilizations should behave when they learn of other civilizations using game theory. When a civilization learns of another than hasn't yet learned of them their choices are: (1) try to keep themselves secret from the other, (2) try to contact the other, and (3) try to destroy the other.
(We would not be able to choose #3 because we aren't technologically advanced enough, but we know ways to do #3 that we'll probably be capable of in a few hundred to a couple thousand years from now).
Assuming that a civilization puts much much much more value on its own survival than on the survival of other civilizations #3 is the option with the highest expected value. If you aren't to the point where #3 is possible than #1 gives the highest expected value.
In short, we could be in a galaxy full of civilizations but they are all avoiding doing anything that would let others detect them because they don't want to be the target of someone else's option #3.
A few months ago there was a PBS Space Time episode on this so called "Dark Forest" scenario, which you might enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXYf47euE3U
You can also consider the possibility that the intelligent civilizations of the universe don't even consider us a life form. I think about that a lot. "Maybe god and its creatures are not even aware we're here."
Moist pebble apes might be a short lived fluke. Our civilization has existed for an insignificant amount of time and even primates could be just a flare in the pan.
Maybe the norm is that intelligent life lasts a long time and we just happen to be born in the first tiny fraction of humanity.
But the observational evidence is that even given multicellular life, intelligence is extremely rare, and there is no evidence at all that it is likely to last very long.
What we think we know, says that self replicating systems are possible because we are ourselves an example, and that PV and lasers are possible, and that light imparts momentum.
All of this suggests that it is possible for a civilisation that only doubles in numbers every 30 years to be able to make a Dyson swarm in 30 * log2(mass of mercury/mass of a minimal human colony and support equipment) years, which even in the most pathologically extreme case for lightweight starting colonies isn't going to be more than 2174.5 years.
It appears that with a Dyson swarm, much of the future light cone of the universe can be colonised directly without needing to focus on nearby stars first. But we don't know until we try.
Which is to say, I assume by default it's a hoax. The name alone just seems too on the nose.
But anyone will believe anything they like. If you want to believe it isn't a hoax you have to contend with the typographic and other anomalies that seem to show otherwise.
You can't prove they're real, either, although you might believe they are. On balance however there seems to be more evidence against them than for them.
Disclosing things that the military deemed anomalous reveals a lot about military capabilities. Simple things like where groups were, but… imagine you were an adversary doing a drone exercise and you see the US reporting it as UFOs. That would tell you a lot about limitations in US sensors AND that US drone tech was so far behind that they concluded it wasn’t a drone. The military will always err on the side of not oversharing.
So of course the military isn’t going to disclose. If we want to take this seriously, we need a non-military org that will monitor and report that is designed from the ground up for transparency. Seems like something a scientific agency like NASA could be well suited for
Who? This feels like a straw man argument. I am not aware of anyone who takes such a (ridiculous) position, and I follow this subject fairly closely.
> scientific agency like NASA could be suited for.
That agency was created a couple of years ago. It is called AARO. They just released their FY 2024 report:
https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583603/-1/-1/0/FY2...
Usually when UAP-related news items like this make it to the HN front page they don’t last very long. If this lasts even two hours I’ll be (pleasantly) surprised.
Most HN readers, it seems, feel the subject to be abjectly ridiculous and downvote accordingly.
It's almost as if there's a cadre of actors (not just on HN) who's job it is to quickly jump on any UFO -related topic and ensure they post as much misinformation and nonsensical points to muddle any serious discussion. Hmm...
You would think they would finally give up, given the cat is outta the bag, even the minuscule but legitimate evidence provided by insider govt sources, since at least 2017.
At least the upvoting ratio seems to be good on this thread, let's see how long that last.
The hearing just made me feel like "Independence Day" may have had it right. People in government know but don't tell the president for plausible deniability and non-permanence of the position.
Fortunately we can all talk to millions of strangers around the world in an instant now. Even the kooks can find a community to share to that might be able to coorberate their story.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190348597A1/en
A lot of experts think these patents are BS, but I guess there is the possibility that they're not.
Those patents, if real, would mean more than all other scientific discoveries in the last fifty years.
Quoting an article about him [0]: "every physicist we have spoken to over the better part of two years asserting that the “Pais Effect” has no scientific basis in reality and the patents related to it were filled with pseudo-scientific jargon".
Pais has of course offered no data, no evidence and no mechanism by which any of his so-called inventions would work.
[0] https://www.twz.com/39012/the-navy-finally-speaks-up-about-i...
I really do need to finish writing that novel inspired by all the things wrong with that film.
Turns out climactic battles are much harder to write than I was expecting.
Metallic Orbs Intercept F-22 on CONUS Air Surveillance and Control Mission: While performing aroutine Airspace Surveillance and Control Mission in the Eastern Air Defense Sector, an F-22 fighter observed multiple UAP contacts at mission-altitude. Moving to intercept, the F-22 pilot noted multiple metallic orbs - slightly smaller than a sedan - hovering in place. Upon vectoring towards the UAPs, a smaller formation of the metallic orbs accelerated at rapid speed towards the F-22, which was unable to establish radar locks on the presumed-hostile UAPs. The F-22 broke trajectory and attempted to evade but was intercepted and boxed in by approximately 3-6 UAPs. One UAP maneuvered in proximity (> 12 meters) to the area directly starboard of the cockpit; there the UAP established a rigid spatial relationship with the F-22, maintaining its exact position and orientation parallel with the F-22' s cockpit despite multiple evasive rolls and maneuvers. Surrounded by the presumed-hostile UAPs, the F-22 was forced out of the mission area under the escort of the UAP formation.This never would have happened if the Air Force has chosen the far superior YF-23. (joking!)
I know! The answer is Sasquatch! I'll use my committee powers to start a never-ending congressional investigation into Sasquatch sightings. And I'll bring in Sasquatch experts to testify, combined with selectively leaking tantalizing tidbits of otherwise inane information to the media.
The public's concern over this nebulous Sasquatch menace can be harvested to justify Sasquatch hunting parties and an increases Sasquatch investigation and information harvesting network.
But would people be stupid enough to fall for it?
It used to be that the government was trying to discourage reports. They would explain away everything that did get reported--usually reasonably because most sighting were just ordinary things that were misidentified but there were some that they never publicly had good explanations for.
They encouraged treating people who said they saw UFOs as kooks, and were successful enough that when pilots saw something they could not explain they would usually not report it because that could affect their career.
Lately that has flipped. Now they want reports.
The explanation that best fits the facts is that in the past what the people who weren't just misidentifying some normal thing were seeing were secret government projects that had accidentally been flown where they should not have been.
The government didn't want people to talk about those sightings because if too many people did talk about them it might be possible to piece together details about the program.
Now there are some sightings that don't fit with misidentification of normal things and that the government can't match up with any of their secret projects and they want to know what the heck is going on. They almost certainly don't think it could be extraterrestrials--foreign spies is what they are probably worried about.
They need more data, and so now they want people who see things to report it.
I don't doubt people are skeptical about my opinion, and I don't blame them. But, keep in mind that many of the sightings are from Navy pilots, during planned Navy training missions. Oh, and the Navy has patents on some technologies that would explain some of these UAP sightings (if the technology in the patents works). Here are the patents:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
The chances that a UFO is actually a nefarious drone have gone up a lot over the past 20 years.
- Drone activity is up, and drone overflights of nuclear plants are being detected. One drone crashed and was turned over to cops.
- The most common report (63%) is one of lights in the sky, no additional data. Most unresolved cases are in that category.
- The next biggest category is spherical objects. Most of those turn out to be balloons.
- Starlink satellites generate a fair number of reports.
- MIT Lincoln Labs is apparently integrating the Gremlin system.
What's needed, and what Gremlin is supposed to provide, is telescopic cameras at multiple locations that can be quickly focused on a single target. Lights in the sky seen from one point don't tell you much, but if you have three separated cameras pointed at the thing, you know where it is.
The old GEODSS system, from the 1980s and still operating at a few locations, was similar, but aimed at near-space objects. The Ground-Based Optical Deep Space Surveillance System was a set of about eight telescope pairs worldwide. This was the beginning of automated astronomy. Each station surveilled the whole sky, and checked off all lights against a star map. Anything unknown got looked at. Both telescopes would point to the same object, and the telescopes were far enough apart to triangulate low-orbit satellites. Three sites are still running, and have been upgraded several times.[2] GEODSS was tied into various USAF and NORAD radar systems, so items of interest seen on radar could be looked at, too.
GREMLIN sounds like a mini version of GEODSS. More local, and intended for in-atmosphere objects.
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583603/-1/-1/0/FY2...
[2] https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/2197...