Thank you for the links. I was able to find the CSV too by taking a look at the network sources from the webpage. I find that the dataset is messy, with missing data. For example, 65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_153 has a link that doesn't work either in the CSV nor the webpage.

On the other hand, there is no link in the CSV for NASA-UAP-D3A, Gemini 7 Audio Excerpt, 1965 but the link in the webpage does work. It utilizes https://api.dvidshub.net/ to request the content.

Another example are incident dates like with DOW-UAP-PR36, Unresolved UAP Report, Middle East, May 2020 that are N/A in the CSV but have an incorrect one inside the snippet (5/1/20 as opposed to 5/14/20). It also seems like there are duplicate incidents just with different media. By the way, the video in this incident is compelling.

I look forward to dissecting the dataset but it's far from perfect. There is definitely a massive amount of potential here.

Their site has a bad link.

The file for "65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_153" is here:

https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/65_HS1-834228961...

There are also fakes going around. Here's one I came across earlier:

https://imgur.com/a/QTeZjyp

Which people claim was posted at this URL:

https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/memo_jcs_admiral...

(the dates of the ship's movement don't align with its actual movements, and the C/O name is wrong)

There is. They're insecure man-children who played too much Call of Duty.

I'm not unconvinced Hegseth bought wholesale into the book version of Starship Troopers, since Heinlein complaining about calling it the Department of Defense is one of his stand-in character rants. But that is my personal bias since I forced myself to suffer through it recently.

I think it's accurate.

"War" is the application of violence for political ends. "Defense" is only a subset of that.

Yeah, the idea is that we wanted to move focus from might make right to deterrance and international law. It's why the UN charter prohibits agressive war but allow self defense, and why the US renamed its departement of war to department of defense in 1947.

So yeah, sure, in the current attitude and action that are very much "hey let's go back to that great time where we openly agreed war of conquest are a good thing" they have it makes sense.

>I'm pretty sure they renamed it the daprtement of war, for some reason.

Nope. Actually renaming it was too long and complicated a process, so instead they're pretending they renamed it.

So if it was not officially renamed to the Department of War... Do generals have to take orders from a department that does not technically exist?

> Actually renaming it was too long and complicated a process,

Specifically, actually renaming it requires an Act of Congress, since it is specified in law.

Exactly this. Corrupt frauds through and through.

They're weak and ineffective, so they cosplay with letterhead instead.

Polling I saw says only about 18% of Americans are calling it that, with 72% sticking with the actual legal name (Department of Defense). Even a majority of Republicans are still calling it the Department of Defense.

The other name changes by the Trump administration are also not catching on.

70+% also continue to call the Gulf of Mexico "Gulf of Mexico".

A large majority also continue to call Mount Denali "Mount Denali".

A significant majority is still calling the Kennedy Center that instead of "The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts".

Only Congress can rename it.

*sigh* No, it wasn't not renamed, in the same way that a cape-wearing 4-year-old isn't actually changing his legal name to SuperBadguyKillerMan.

I mean, apparently they didn't legally but he did sign an executive order, and they do use war.gov ; so it's a de facto versus de jure situation.

North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but nobody else calls it that. It also claims to control the entire Korean peninsula.

The executive order doesn't purport to rename the department, it explicitly authorizes executive agencies to use a set of additional “secondary titles” for the department and its officials whose legal title includes the legal name of the department.

Umm...when we lived in Colombia, my son decided to re-name himself Martillo Veneno. For those who don't know Spanish, that's Hammer Poison. You have something against that?

It used to be named the Department of War and Palmer Luckey suggested naming it back. People agreed, so they did. It's just another part of changing the posture to match the philosophy that the best defensive is a good offense. It seems to be working pretty well, if you know what we're defending against.

> It used to be named the Department of War

No, it didn't.

For a few years before it was the Department of Defense it was the National Military Establishment (with an initialism with a very unfortunate pronunciation given its function) and before that it didn't exist at all.

Now, before the National Military Establishment was formed to unify the nations military bureaucracy, there were two separate cabinet level departments, the Department of War (which oversaw the Army) and the Department of the Navy (which oversaw the Navy, including the Marine Corps.) When the NME was created, the Army was split into the Army and the Air Force, and the Department of War was likewise split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. Both of these new Departments and the Department of the Navy remained (briefly) cabinet-level departments with their own Secretaries, while the NME was headed by the new Secretary of Defense.

Very quickly, though, further reforms were adopted in law and the NME became the Department of Defense and the service secretaries were formally subordinated to the Secretary of Defense and were now subcabinet positions (which is how the DoD got its unique, within the US executive branch, Department with its own cabinet level Secretary with subordinate Departments headed by a subcabinet level Secretaries organization.)

TLDR: The Department of War was not an earlier name for the Department of Defense, it was the name for the Department of the Army before the Air Force was split out from it.

> Palmer Luckey suggested naming it back. People agreed, so they did.

Well, again, it couldn’t be named back to “Department of War”, because its only previous name was “National Military Establishment.” And while some people obviously agreed that it should be called “Department of War”, they didn’t actually rename it. The name in law of the organization named “The Department of Defense” in 1949 by amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 remains “The Department of Defense”. It hasn’t been renamed. The present executive branch leadership has adopted nicknames for the department and the titles of its officials ("secondary titles” in the language of EO 14347 which formalized the system of nicknames [and also recounts as if true the false history that “Department of War” was previously the name of the Department of Defense].)

There are technicalities around all of this yes, but we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. Now we have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. It's only named by executive order, which in practice is almost indistinguishable outside of some paperwork that few people will ever see. It's largely the spirit of the thing and the shift in communications posture.

> we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it.

No, we didn't. When the Department of War existed, it had exactly one branch under it, the Army. The Navy (including the Marine Corps)—as well as, in time of war only, the Coast Guard—was under the Department of the Navy, which was a separate cabinet level department.

When the US Army Air Forces, which were not a separate branch of the military, was turned into the US Air Force, which was a separate branch—by the National Security Act of 1947—the Department of War was abolished, and replaced with the Department of the Army (which had only the Army under it, just as the old Department of War had) and the Department of the Air Force (which had only the brand new Air Force under it.) There was never was Department of War with more than one branch under it.

This was also the same time that the National Military Establishment, headed by the Secretary of Defense, was created to provide unified structure within which the three military departments (Army, Air Force, and Navy) were embedded (but not, initially, actually subordinated: all three service secretaries were still cabinet-level officers.)

Two years later, amendments were passed to the National Security Act of 1947 which renamed the NME to the Department of Defense, and formally subordinated the service secretaries and their associated departments to the Secretary and Department of Defense, and, but for some minor changes like the creation of the Space Force as a separate branch within the Department of the Air Force, remains the structure in law today.

The only cabinet-level departments that ever had multiple branches of the military under them were the Department of Navy and the Department of Defense. (The Department of the Air Force, as noted in the preceding paragraph, has for the last few years also had multiple branches, but did not in the brief time it was a cabinet level department.) The Department of War, and the Department of the Army that replaced it a (both as cabinet level departments and when the latter was a subcabinet department) have only ever had the Army.

Again, you're missing the spirit. What we would consider today's Air Force and Navy were both under the same Department of War around the founding of the country and we're having the 250th anniversary of the U.S. It's clear that between the anniversary of the country and the threats the country is trying to deter, there is a clear purpose behind these changes and they are rooted in some history. I can get pushing back a little on imprecise language, but whatever LLM you're using is missing the point and wasting time.

You clearly don't.