In blog posts dated 9 July 2019 and 27 August 2019 I have reported upon statements made about UAP by the US Navy. Recently, US researcher John Greenewald has reported upon further responses given to him by the US Navy, to questions he posed.
On 10 September 2019 Greenewald posted the first of the Naval responses. US Navy spokesperson, Joseph Gradisher, who speaks on behalf of the Deputy Chief of Navy Operations for Information Warfare responded to the following list of questions from Greenewald.
(1) Why the Navy uses the term UAP not UFO?
"The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges."
(2) On the question of whether or not the Navy had released the three videos?
"The Navy has not released the videos to the general public."
(3) Why the words UAP or UFO do not appear on the DD Form 10?
"The Navy has no comment on, nor control over, how civilian individuals or organizations may or may not describe the objects in the referenced videos. The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as 'unidentified aerial phenomenon.' Adding, "You'd have to contact Mr Elizondo on his description. I can't comment or speculate on how/why he referred to them in that way."
(4) Did the Navy sign off to full, unrestricted public release of the videos?
"Neither the cognizant Navy officers nor DOPSR have record of any correspondence responding to a request for unrestricted release of the subject videos in 2017."
On 11 September 2019, John Greenewald revealed further information about the three videos. In response to his queries spokesperson Joseph Gradisher stated:
(1) What do the three videos represent?
"The Navy has not publicly released characteristics or descriptions, nor released any hypothesis or conclusions, in regard to the objects contained in the referred videos." Then added, "The Navy considers the phenomena contained/depicted in those 3 videos as unidentified."
(2) How does the Navy refer to the videos?
"The Navy's official identifiers for the referenced videos do not match the names referenced (FLIR1, Gimbal and GoFast)...the Navy identifies these videos by the reported dates of the observations/sightings."
(3) What dates were the videos taken?
"[The] dates are 14 November 2004 for 'FLIR1' and 21 January 2015 for both 'Gimbal' and 'GoFast.''
(4) Any further details?
"We will not be providing any details on individual reports."
Douglas Dean Johnson
On 12 September 2019, on Twitter, Douglas Dean Johnson advised that Gradisher confirmed to him that "Mr Greenewald did indeed quote me accurately in his recent [Sept 10] article." Gradisher also provided Johnson with the following statement:
"The US Navy designates the objects contained in the 3 range-incursion videos that are currently being referred to in various media as unidentified aerial phenomena. The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges - it's any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified. 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' (UAP) is a term we borrowed from the UK. The Navy has not released these videos to the general public; nor authorised public release. The three videos were/are designated as unidentified."
1. It has long been known that the FLIR1 video was taken on the 14 November 2004, the same day as the Fravor tic-tac encounter.
2. Researchers, including myself, utilised the wind speed and direction mentioned by the pilots in the Gimbal video [120 knots from the west] to determine a possible date for that video of 26 January 2015. Upper atmospheric sounding balloon records for the nearest station showed the wind speed as 112 knots from azimuth 245 degrees.
Now that we know that the date was in fact 21 January 2015 we can revisit the wind data.
At 0700hrs local time 21 January 2015 we have:
At the height of the aircraft, 7620 metres [25,000 feet] the wind was from azimuth 290 degrees, just north of west at 85 knots. It reached 122 knots at a height of 10,425 metres.
Given that the aircraft, at the time was at a location believed to be off the coast, the wind data are not inconsistent.
3. Note that the US Navy statements says that "The three videos were/are designated as unidentified" and "The Navy considers the phenomena contained/depicted in those 3 videos as unidentified."
Many commentators are stressing the point that the Navy are unable to identify the objects in the videos, i.e. they are UFOs. However, it seems logical to me, that in fact none of the videos would have been release [by whomever] if the Navy had been able to identify them. The very fact that we now can see the videos seems, to me, to indicated the objects are unidentified. The latest Navy statements simply confirm the obvious.
Update 16 September 2019
Roger Glassel, in the 16 September 2019 issue of the Swedish magazine UFO -aktuelit carried the following series of questions and answers