Posted in r/UFOs by u/showmeufos • 111 points and 26 comments
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/ufos by /u/showmeufos on 2024-11-04 16:28:42+00:00.

The U.S. Navy has released (three days ago) several new UAP documents as the result of FOIA requests. Those documents are available here in their FOIA reading room.

A screenshot of the reading room is below:

Direct links to documents:

Those documents were all released three days ago as you can see from the FOIA Reading Room screenshot.

Additionally it appears there were some additional “Range Fouler” reports added to the FOIA site on October 9th that I’m not sure were covered by r/UFOs, so I’m linking to them here:

Personal excerpts/highlights:

They again are redacting the classification level. Why are they doing this? Why would the classification level of the report itself be redacted?

There are some interesting redactions here - such as shapes being redacted. If there’s nothing to see here, seems excessive?

“DDNI Brief Redacted” highlights:

  • Page 1 of the slide has the classification level redacted. We’ve seen this before, but seems interesting to me that they are classifying the classification level. Maybe someone has more familiarity with this than I do and can add thoughts.
  • Page 2 talks about UAP being a “safety of flight” and “national security” concern.
  • Page 3 confirms that DoD has the lead for public affairs on UAP, which we’ve seen (hello Susan Gough)
  • Page 4 highlights that UAPTF refers to UAP as “range foulers.” Definitely should let the FOIA requests fly to every agency with this term.
  • Page 5 somewhat interesting. Mostly blacked out. Says “What is non-traditional or anomalous aerospace technology? Those technologies that are not usually associated with current aircraft design, capabilities, or performance and may include manned or unmanned platforms. Those technologies span a wide range of sophistication, sponsors, and purposes.”
  • Page 6 has examples - fully redacted.
  • Page 7 has radar examples - fully redacted.
  • Page 8 is fully redacted, does not appear to be optical or radar examples due to title blacked out. Wonder what type of sensor this was?
  • Page 9 has an example we all are familiar with, but the caption is redacted for national security. If it was just a plane as Mick West thinks, I doubt that would continue to be redacted.
  • Page 10 has additional examples, fully redacted.
  • Page 11 has interesting language on UAS. Is that a new UAS incident on the left? Caption: “[redacted] observed 3x UNK UAS, seemingly triangular in shape from the observation, hovering approximately [REDACTED]. Two of the UAS are pictured above.” The pictures are NOT REDACTED.
  • Page 11 also has an example I think we’ve seen before of UAS on the right, with the caption (still interesting): “[REDACTED] observed a possible UAS, spherical in shape moving towards the surface of the water and then disappearing. [REDACTED] assessed the object has sunk. Attempts to search the water for wreckage were ineffective.” This is the first I’ve heard of a search for the object?
  • Page 12 looks like more examples, fully redacted including title, no idea what they are.
  • Page 13, 14 looks like analysis – fully redacted.
  • Page 16 has a screenshot of UAPTF partners. Note, as we’ve previously seen, there’s at least one (and looks like more) agencies with their participation redacted. CIA is that you? DOE?
  • Page 17-20 do not seen particularly notable.

"HASC Brief Redacted" highlights:

  • Similar overall document to DDNI brief, but not exactly the same
  • Page 10 under the title “Data Driven Analysis” has a caption “what appears to the human eye to be moving very fast is actually stationary, or moving slowly…” is this the UAPTF acknowledging that this UAP sighting was in fact parallax driven?
  • Page 15 - two of the three next actions (“Formalize Task Force” and “Develop a Security Classification Guide”) are not redacted, but the third action is. Also, “upcoming intelligence product” is redacted.

“UAP Brief USMC Redacted” highlights:

  • Page 1 - another classification level redaction on the title page. This briefing also appears to be entirely different than the prior two.
  • Page 2 - some interesting stuff here. “BLUF [REDACTED]: Any aerial phenomena that cannot be immediately be identified is a UAP. These phenomena occur [redacted] within the US and our operating areas around the world.” Wonder what this BLUF redaction is?
  • Page 2 - Also, “[CLASSIFICATION REDACTED] Congressional directive: ONI leading a joint, interagency task force (OCT 19)” Is this classification redacted just the same classification level redaction? The classification level of the congressional directive is redacted? Anyone able to chime in - this mean this was supposed to be a USAP or something?
  • Page 3 - “Nature, origin and function are still fundamentally unknown.” Generally are "visible to human eye, self-powered (verified by land / naval / airborne collections), RADAR/IR significant. This slide seems to confirm they don’t know where they come from and that these are spotted by multiple sensors as well as humans.
  • Page 4 - Highlights intelligence gaps. “Who owns/produces these UAPs? What are their capabilities/limitations? What is their means of propulsion? What is their purpose?”
  • Page 5 - Sightings trends and examples: Some objects appear to be weather balloons (often with item attached beneath). Some objects appear to be emitting, and IR devices or NVDs will often register a pulse or “blink” from the silhouette (often triangular). Some appear as simple orbs or blimps.
  • Page 6 - fully redacted. Guessing it is examples of sightings based on prior page listing examples with illustrations.
  • Page 7 - “ATFLIR FOOTAGE”
  • Page 8 - Sightings - Trends & Examples: Fully redacted.
  • Page 9 - Triangle ATFLIR image? I’m guessing that they know what this one was given they’re not redacting the image.
  • Page 15 - “Misconceptions & Stigma: ONI’s concerns”: Regular interactions have continued since 2015. ONI task force has revealed that US aircrew are actually encountering UAP daily. Most common on east cost. Not reporting because of stigmas and perceived indifference.
  • Page 16 - Range Foulers are perceived to be highly maneuverable depending on the surrounding environment. (personal note: that does NOT sound like balloons/aerial clutter)

"UAPTF HPSCI Brief Redacted" highlights:

  • This also looks like a different presentation than the prior ones.
  • Page 3 - “Nine organizations on UAPTF; eight additional strong partnership agencies work with UAPTF director plus five full time employees, 12+ maxtrixed employees from across USG”. DoD, Navy, Air Force, USMC, NASA, FAA, FBI, DARPA, [REDACTED], NRO, NGA engaged
  • Page 3 - Multi-sensor detections make up 55% of 144 reports form USG over past 16 years. Not all UAP are of the same origin or purpose. UAP detections are most common around US training and testing areas. Geographic clusters may be explained by aircrew reporting and advanced sensors (ie - “it’s where we’re looking.”)
  • Page 4 - What are UAP? Why does it matter? Safety of flight, possible adversary surveillance [REDACTIONS], potential technological surprise. Airspace increasingly cluttered, sensors increasingly effective = increased UAP encounters.
  • Page 5 - History of UAP encounters. Current dataset begins in 1990s, intentionally limited USG controlled data. (this is interesting, who intentionally limited it and why?)
  • Page 5 - [REDACTED] Often encountered in sensitive US airspace. Multiple shapes, sizes, speeds, altitudes. 2004: USS Nimitz CSG in SOCAL. Over [REDACTED…

Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gjiet9/us_navy_new_uap_documents_released_by_united/