Estados UnidosUnited States.UAP Science Advisory Council · Loeb (12 jun 2026)UAP Science Advisory Council · Loeb (Jun 12, 2026)

On June 12, 2026 —the same day as the third batch of releases from the PURSUE portal— Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb announced that the White House, the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the FBI, along with other members of the Intelligence Community, had asked him to assemble and chair a new UAP Science Advisory Council. Loeb —who leads the Galileo Project and sits on the Disclosure Foundation's advisory board— presented it on his blog and through the foundation's channels as a body to bring scientific rigor to the study of the phenomenon.

The council is organized around a core data team: Dr. Richard Cloete and Dr. Regina Sarmiento (data analysis and management with AI), Prof. Matthew Szydagis (instrumentation and data collection), Dr. Devesh Nandal (numerical analysis and astrophysics) and Dr. Omer Eldadi (data management, AI and human psychology). Around them, the rosters reported in the press and by Loeb himself include a broader panel of deliberately varied profiles: Stanford immunologist and materials scientist Garry Nolan and retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer Tim Gallaudet —both already associated with phenomenon research— alongside philosopher of science Carol Cleland (anomaly identification), economist and theorist Robin Hanson (statistics and economics), physicist Kevin Knuth (physics and instrumentation) and others (Ben Lamm, Peter Skafish, Ross Howard). Coverage such as Skeptic magazine's also reported the inclusion of declared skeptic Michael Shermer; exact lists vary across sources, but all agree on a mix of skeptics and advocates presented as a signal of methodological neutrality. The council's existence was covered by specialized defense press (DefenseScoop) and general outlets, alongside Loeb's and the Disclosure Foundation's channels.

The stated mandate is to help agencies study the nature of UAP with scientific method, emphasizing the collection and analysis of new, high-quality data rather than relitigating old material that cannot be independently verified. The announcement coincided with the mid-2026 release ecosystem: three batches of UAP files (May 8, May 22 and June 12) and an AARO report dated June 5, 2026 and signed by its director, Dr. Jon Kosloski. However, mid-June coverage flagged a tension at its very origin: the council's scientists reportedly are not cleared to see the classified UAP files held by the same agencies that created it. The council is thus born as a layer of scientific credibility over a body of evidence to which its own panel lacks full access.

Es la primera vez que el gobierno de EE.UU. inserta formalmente un consejo asesor científico —presidido por un defensor público de la búsqueda científica del fenómeno— dentro de la gobernanza UAP, junto a AARO, ODNI y el FBI. Su rasgo más notable es la amplitud ideológica: reunir en el mismo panel a escépticos declarados (Shermer) y a defensores (Nolan, Gallaudet, el propio Loeb) es un gesto de neutralidad metodológica poco común en el campo. Entra al corpus como pieza institucional (categoría document), no como observación UAP: no aporta evidencia sobre la naturaleza del fenómeno, sino que documenta su institucionalización científica, y por eso no lleva contribución bayesiana a ninguna hipótesis. Lo que lo hace relevante es su lectura crítica dentro del patrón de ambigüedad estratégica: crear un órgano científico de cara al público mientras se le retiene el acceso a los archivos clasificados reproduce el molde de PURSUE —un canal de credibilidad sin la pieza de evidencia decisiva—. Es, a la vez, el reconocimiento institucional más fuerte de que el fenómeno merece ciencia rigurosa y un caso de estudio sobre los límites que el aparato de seguridad le impone a esa ciencia.

It is the first time the U.S. government has formally embedded a scientific advisory council —chaired by a public advocate of the scientific search for the phenomenon— within UAP governance, alongside AARO, ODNI and the FBI. Its most notable trait is its ideological breadth: bringing declared skeptics (Shermer) and advocates (Nolan, Gallaudet, Loeb himself) onto the same panel is a gesture of methodological neutrality rarely seen in the field. It enters the corpus as an institutional piece (document category), not as a UAP observation: it brings no evidence about the nature of the phenomenon but documents its scientific institutionalization, which is why it carries no Bayesian contribution to any hypothesis. What makes it relevant is its critical reading within the strategic-ambiguity pattern: creating a public-facing science body while withholding access to the classified files reproduces the PURSUE mold —a credibility channel without the decisive piece of evidence—. It is at once the strongest institutional acknowledgment that the phenomenon merits rigorous science and a case study in the limits the security apparatus imposes on that science.