On the Pursuit of Transparency and Rigorous UAP Science: A Statement from Dr. Douglas Buettner and the SCU Board of Directors

May 19, 2026

Comments on Reddit and other social media platforms have raised questions about SCU case reviews, prior public and private exchanges with skeptical researchers, and Dr. Douglas Buettner’s role in revisiting the Aguadilla case for the 2026 SCU conference. Because some of those comments present a selective or adversarial account of events, we would like to provide readers with additional context.

First, the SCU welcomes serious skeptical review. Constructive criticism, alternative hypotheses, data challenges, and methodological disagreements are appropriate and essential to any credible scientific process. The SCU does not assume that every unusual report is anomalous, nor do we regard prosaic explanations as something to be avoided. In many cases, careful review leads to a conventional explanation, an unresolved but low-confidence ‘anomalous’ assessment, or a conclusion that more data are needed. That is not a failure of the process. That is the process.

At the same time, there is an important distinction between evidence-based critique and personal or selective framing. Attempts to portray ordinary scientific revision, witness-protection constraints, or a member’s disclosed preliminary case work as evidence of bad faith are not helpful to the public’s understanding of the phenomenon. They also discourage witnesses, pilots, observers, and analysts from participating in a process that depends on trust, care, and professional conduct.

The SCU reviews many cases that are submitted to us through our website or via members that we don’t publicly comment on, and that is not accidental. Some are overwhelmingly likely to have a conventional explanation, or the evidence provided is simply insufficient for any kind of technical assessment. In those circumstances, a case doesn’t warrant a public report or an extended online debate from the SCU. The absence of public discussion should not be mistaken for inaction. All cases we have access to are reviewed and assessed; in addition to misidentifications and insufficient data, other cases are responsibly closed because witnesses request privacy.

A revised assessment from the SCU (or anyone) should not be treated as a scandal or as evidence that the original analysis failed to exercise due diligence. Case analysis often evolves as new data becomes available, timing, location or look direction issues are resolved, outside critiques are considered, or witness information is clarified. That is especially true in a volunteer organization where members are balancing this work with full-time professional and personal responsibilities. Responsible analysis requires both rigor and humility, including the willingness to update a conclusion when the evidence warrants it.

The SCU is aware of our existing lack of visibility into cases determined to likely be prosaic. In response, the SCU Board is considering ways to make the public aware of cases that have been reviewed and found to have likely conventional explanations with the analytical techniques used to make this determination, while still respecting witness privacy, and data limitations. That is an area where we can and will improve. Regrettably, in some of the cases our members support, public release timing is determined by partnering organizations and individuals, due to constraints with protecting the integrity of the witnesses, this can be a lengthy and delayed disclosure process that we do not control.

The SCU aims to publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. For work that typically isn’t suitable for a journal, such as unresolved cases and cases where conventional explanations fit the data, we are working to create a simplified format for our researchers to make information updates more quickly and easily available to the public when these partnering organizations and individuals deem updates are warranted.

Currently, much of this prosaic-resolution work is being done by Dr. Buettner on his own time, and at his own expense, where he has posted some of the case materials and supporting data on his GitHub site after public release is determined to be appropriate by his partnering organizations and individuals. Regrettably, due to constraints with protecting the integrity of the witnesses, this can be a lengthy and delayed disclosure process.

This is also why Sean Grosvenor’s forthcoming presentation on SCU’s developing front-end case-vetting process is important. The SCU is working to improve how cases are assessed earlier in the review cycle, including how likely prosaic explanations are identified, documented, and filtered before cases are elevated for deeper analysis. The goal is not to promote mystery. The goal is to improve rigor, reduce avoidable error, and focus limited analytical resources on cases that genuinely warrant additional study.

Outside researchers have at times identified useful information, including flight data, metadata concerns, viewing-geometry issues, or possible conventional explanations. When that information is provided to the SCU in a professional manner, and it is determined to be relevant, we evaluate it, as was done for the Saugatuck Reservoir CT UAP case. When it changes the assessment, we will say so.

However, we also believe public discourse should remain focused on evidence, methods, and uncertainty—not personal attacks, insinuations about motives, or selective excerpts presented without the full context of the investigative process. Further, we take our responsibility to protect witnesses who come forward in good faith as extremely important. That means we cannot disclose private email exchanges, witness identity, or intermediate steps in a review.

Regarding the Aguadilla case, the purpose of the upcoming SCU presentation is not to defend a predetermined conclusion. The SCU board’s executive leadership requested an internal but independent revisit of the case by scientists who were not part of the original SCU report. The goal is to use new methodologies to reexamine the evidence, assumptions, data products, alternative hypotheses, and uncertainties as rigorously as possible. That includes engaging with prosaic explanations, including the Chinese-lantern hypothesis and other claims made by AARO, Metabunk, and other online commentators.

The Aguadilla presentation at the July 2026 conference will address the case through data, methods, uncertainty analysis, and will provide open-source, reproducible work. Where assumptions are weak, we will say so. Where data supports a conclusion, we will explain why. Where claims remain unresolved, we will not overstate them. That is the standard the SCU is holding itself to, and it is the standard we intend to meet.

We also ask critics and readers to apply a similar standard when evaluating public claims about the SCU or its members. Constructive criticism is welcome. Alternative hypotheses are welcome. Collaboration, publication, and citation are ideal. Short of that, collegiality on social media would go a long way towards building coherent pictures of each interesting case, even if they are never fully resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.  Given the nature of this work, most cases (if not all), are built, not resolved, and often involve multiple people. Publishing a referenceable work is the best way to build a case and get properly cited for it. Selective framing that converts normal investigative uncertainty into allegations of incompetence or bad faith does not advance the understanding of UAP.

The SCU’s position is straightforward, so that the entire UAP research community benefits from our honest attempts at

·      Unbiased examination of cases

·      Consideration of multiple possibilities

·      Professional communications

·      Clearly stated assumptions

·      Published methodologies and negative results

·      Civil, constructive discourse on social media

On behalf of Dr. Buettner and the SCU Board of Directors, we look forward to presenting the Aguadilla revisit in a manner consistent with SCU’s mission.