A timeline for AAWSAP/BAASS, and beyond

Introduction

Given all the information so far obtained about Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) and the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP); the data contained in the 2021 book "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon;" and the recent release of relevant Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents, I thought it was time to attempt to timeline this, for my own understanding. I have not included all of the BAASS products delivered to the Defense Intelligence Agency, as listed in the rear of "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon," as we have not yet received copies of most of these products. Updated material addded 26 June 2022 from Lue Elizondo's complaint to the Inspector General. Marked with an **

** June 2008 - Elizondo approached by Jay Stratton and another person, both associated with AAWSAP.

** July 2008 - Elizondo met with Lacatski

**August 2008 - Elizondo was informed of a specific portfolio area within AAWSAP - collection of military sightings, area called AATIP

* 18 August 2008 - DIA AAWSAP broad area announcement seeking bidders for contract.

* 4 September 2008  - closing date for DIA AAWSAP contract bidders.

Fiscal year 09. 1 October 2008 - 30 September 2009. Year 1. $M10 funding

* 1 October 2008 - the BAASS AAWSAP contract commences.

* 16 December 2008 - Briefing - DIA FOIA released file titled "DI_brief_2008."

* 2 January 2009 - Briefing - "DR_Reid_Mtg_Jan09."

* April 2009 - BAASS/Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) sub-contract commences.

* 4 May 2009 - Briefing - "DR_Reid_Mtg_May09."

* 8 May 2009 - Briefing - "DI-Brief_2009."

* 8 May 2009 - Briefing - "DR_Reid_Brief_May09."

* 24 June 2009 - Senator Reid forwards letter to Department of Defense seeking Special Access Program status for AATIP.

Credit: Edison Boaventura Jr. 

* 24 August 2009 - Technical paper results - "Contract_Studies_24Aug09."

* Circa September 2009 - "Contract_FY10."

* Circa September 2009 - Technical documents review - "U-429-09-DWO-IM."

* Circa September 2009 - FY10 deliverables - "Contract_Status_Briefing."

FY10. 1 October 2009 - 30 September 2010. Year 2. $12M funding

* November 2009 - Meeting "DR-Reid_Mth_Nov09."

* December 2009 - April 2010 - Some Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRDs) delivered and published.

* 11 December 2009 - James T. Lacatski et al, brief Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI.)

* January 2010 - BAASS/MUFON sub-contract terminated by BAASS.

** April 2010 - Elizondo assumes role of both AAWASAP and AATIP Director.

* May - August 2010 - most BAASS AAWSAP contract staff terminated.

FY11. 1 October 2010 - 30 September 2011. Year 3. No funding available

Although no US government funding was available, it has been said, in some sources, that Robert Bigelow self-funded BAASS to continue beyond 30 September 2010. As can be seen below, some BAASS employees stayed on beyond 21 December 2010. 

* 1 October 2010 - BAASS contract extended until 21 December 2010 at no cost to US government (Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.)

* November 2010 - January 2011 - The rest of the DIRDs are received and published.

* January 2011 - BAASS AAWSAP employee, Research analyst/French translator, Daniel Maily ceased work. 

* 7 February 2011 - Lacatski et al, brief Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the AAWSAP program.

* July 2011 - 30 September 2011 -Science and Technology area of DHS works with BAASS on a proposed new BASS-like program but within DHS.

* July 2011 - BAASS AAWSAP employee, Senior Engineer Jason Viggato ceased work. 

* September 2011 - BAASS AAWSAP employee, lead investigator Joel Logan ceased work.

FY12. 1 October 2011 - 30 September 2012. Year 4. Money available but no contract in place

* 1 October 2011 - 31 December 2011 - Science and Technology area of DHS works with BAASS on a proposed new BASS-like program but within DHS.

* May 2012 - BAASS AAWSAP employee, Director of Investigations and Security, Loran Hoffman ceased work.

* 2012 - BAASS AAWSAP employee, Deputy Administrator, Colm Kelleher ceased work. 

* FY12 - no definitive date - "For FY12 DIA leadership had tried to transfer the program within the DOD, but without success." (Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.)

FY13 1 October 2012 - 30 September 2013. Year 5. $M10 available but not taken up by DHS

* June 2013 - BAASS AAWSAP employee, Douglas Kurth ceased work. 

End note

As further DIA released BAASS/AAWSAP papers emerge, I will amend the above timeline. 

** $10M obtained for FYs13 & 14 for AATIP. Money hijacked withion OUSD(I).

Jack Brewer obtains further DIA documentation regarding BAASS' AAWSAP contract

 BAASS

For those of us who have been waiting patiently since 2018, for the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) to process our FOIA requests regarding the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) and Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) documentation, there is now a glimmer of hope.

U.S. researcher Jack Brewer, has just advised of some documentation recently received from the DIA regarding the BAASS contract for AAWSAP. Please take a look at Jack's 21 March 2022 blog post for more details, and to download copies of the actual documents.

The documents

Below is my take on the released documents, with comments as appropriate.

1. File named Contract-FY10 7 pages

Contract No. HMM402-08-C-0072 shows that the successful bidder was indeed BAASS. 

Comment 1: 

As noted by Jack in his post, item 8 shows:

"Payment will be made by NSA Finance and Accounting Office, PO Box 1685 Attn: DF2111, Ft. George E. Meade, MD." 

Now, previous efforts, by myself and others, to locate who the actual AAWSAP contract was awarded to, by searching the "contract awarded to" for 2008, sections of various U.S. government websites, failed to locate any details of a contract awarded for AAWSAP. Here in this document, it is stated that the money will be paid to BAASS by NSA. Given the initials, and the address shown on the document, this is presumably the National Security Agency. There has always been speculation that the money for this program came from a "black budget" source. The document seems to confirm this, as the money did not simply come through the DIA.

Comment 2: 

Section 6 of the document "Solicitation issue date" shows a date of "Sep 01, 2008" and section 9 "Offer due date" has a date of "Sep 10, 2008." These dates are slightly diffferent from the ones shown on the original solicitation issued 18 September 2008; which are 18 Aug 2008 and 5 Sep 2008 respectively.

2. File named Contract status 24 Aug 2009 6 pages

"Aerospace Contract Status" reports that BAASS' performance "...has been excellent...Review of reports has been overwhelmingly positive...12 million for the continuation of this contract by DIA/DI has been submitted in the FY10 defense budget; funding likely to be approved."

Page 3 is titled "Technical Report Review Results" and lists 26 reports (which later became Defense Intelligence Reference Documents.) The "Review Organization" column, has labels "Exchange;" and "Sandia." Under the "Exchange" column, ten papers are rated as "positive." Under "Sandia", one paper is listed as "positive," one as "missing" and one as "Understanding." A fourth is redacted.

Comment 3:

So, some of the listed documents were peer reviewed. However, "Exchange" reviewed only 10 out of the 26; and only four were apparently reviewed by "Sandia."

Page 6 is titled "Program Management Issues" and in part, states "Program will most likely become SAP by June 2010." 

Comment 4:

As we know from other sources, the program never achieved a "Special Access Program" status despite the best efforts of former Senator Harry Reid.

3. File named Contract Status Briefing  8 pages

A briefing for someone, about the program.

Comment 5:

Page 5 is titled "Technical Reports Review Results." Of the 26 listed documents, no actual ratings of them are shown despite a note to the effect "Red -independent review. Green - Sandia National Laboratories."

Comment 6:

Page 7 is titled "Option Year 1 (FY10) deliverables." These deliverables include "`4-6 Classified Technical Reports." As has been subsequently revealed, only one of the total of 38 DIRDs was classified; and even then, an unclassified version was issued as a seperate DIRD.

Comment 7:

Page 8 is titled "Future Program Issues" and includes "If project continues past FY11 [redacted word] recommends that the contract be moved out of DIA."

Comment 8:

Which we now know, never happened. The program within the DIA was terminated, after two years. This was despite the efforts documented in the book "Skinwalkers at The Pentagon" to establish an AAWSAP-like program, within an alternative U.S. government agency.

4. File named SOW Aerospace 7 pages

Comment 9:

This document appears to be a draft of the contents of the AAWSAP solicitation, as it cites the Federal Business Opportunity website, where the solicitation was issued on 18 August 2008. It is noted that due to privacy reasons, the DIA AAWSAP Manager's name is redacted, although we know this to be James T. Lacatski.

6. File named U429.09 DWO IM

Comment 10:

Dated 30 October 2009, this internal DIA memo for [redacted] DIA from [redacted] DIA, has a subject of "Review of Advanced Aerospace Contract Deliverables." It states that [redacted] was asked to "...review the quality and value of the first-year techncial reports." The actual reports reviewed are redacted. All we know, is that "Eight reviews were performed by other authorities listed in the table; five were performed by outside reviewers; including three research staff at Sandia National Laboratories."

Comment 11:

Whowever redacted the names of the authors of the technical reports, missed redacting two of the names. However, via other DIA documents we have learned the names of all the authors of these technical reports.

Overall comment:

Jack Brewer is to be congratulated for his persistence in obtaining these documents which fill in yet another piece of the overall puzzle.

End note

Jack Brewer also submitted a request for one of the more than 100 reports BAASS submitted to the DIA. This one was titled "Utah Ranch Investigation: August 2009 - February 2010." It was listed in the rear of the "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" book, by Lacatski et al, who should know what reports were sent to him at the DIA, where he worked. The DIA response to Jack's request was "...no responsive documents" were found. Which is a puzzle. No doubt we shall learn more as DIA continues to slowly process the rest of the 2018, and subsequent, FOIA requests relating to BAASS and AAWSAP. 

Update 26 March 2022

Jack Brewer has received another 38 pages of BAASS/AAWSAP DIA material. Much is similar to that already discussed above. For the full set of documents click here. 

37 out of those 38 AAWSAP Defense Intelligence Documents released by the DIA

Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP)

During the Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA,) BAASS commisioned 38 technical reports from a range of world class aerospace specialists and academics. These technical reports were turned into Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRDs) by the DIA's James T. Lacatski. Various UAP researchers and others, have obtained and made available a number of these DIRDs; a total so far, of 13 by my count. 

Now thanks to a recent FOIA response by the DIA, to a UAP researcher who wishes to remain anonymous for the moment, we now have copies of 37 out of the 38 DIRDs. The final, unavailable for now, DIRD was a "classified" version of one of the others.

FOIA request

The FOIA response from the DIA, is imaged below:

The documents

In a response to a query directed to the DIA by our anonymous researcher, the DIA wrote:

"...we plan to release all AATIP related documents to the DIA FOIA Reading Room. I don't have the exact number of documents, however I do know it will be more than 37."

Here is a link to the 37 documents. Enjoy. 

Infrared satellite sensors, UAP, and Australia

1RSU

In July 2021 I wrote a blog post, exploring the question of what assets were available to the Australian Department of Defence, which might detect Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP.) One of the assets I discussed, was No. 1 Remote Sensor Unit (1RSU) based at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)  Base Edinburgh, South Australia. Its role is radar surveillance, and space situational awareness. 1RSU accesses a range of sensors, including the following.

1) Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) - a collection of over-the-horizon radar systems covering the 1,000 to 3,000 kilometres range, aimed to the north of Australia.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/surveillance-command-and-control/jindalee-operational-radar-network

2. C - band radar. This commenced operation in 2017, and is based at Exmouth, Western Australia. It is used for the detection and tracking of objects in low earth orbit.

https://raafa.org.au/c-band-radar/

3. The RAAF Space Surveillance Telescope . This became operational in July 2021 and is also based in Exmouth, WA. It is designed to look at any object in earth orbit, up to geosynchronous orbit, which is  36,000 kilometres above the surface of the earth.

https://news.defence.gov.au/capability/keeping-eye-space-traffic

4. Space Based Infrared System. (SBIRS)  In a USAF Peterson Air Force Base fact sheet, I also found reference to the fact that 1RSU is the only operational unit within the Australian Department of Defence, charged with conducting the Australian Defence Force's Space Presence and Space Situational Awareness (SSA.) 

So what is the SBIRS?

"The Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS) is a constellation of integrated satellites in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) and high elliptical orbit (HEO,) and ground based data processing, and command and control centers."

The SBIRS is currently managed by the Remote Sensing System Directorate of the U.S. Space Force's Space Systems Command.

Data from the satellites is downloaded by Relay Ground Stations and sent on to the SBIRS Mission  Control Station at Buckley Space Force Base (SFB), Denver, Colarado; Peterson SFB; Greeley Air National Guard Station,; and to a back up at Schriver, SFB, near Colorado Springs.

The SBIRS can pick up nuclear explosions; satellites reflecting sunlight; after burners on jet aircraft; forest fires; volcanoes; meteors striking the atmosphere; re-entering satellites; plane crashes and explosions.

The forerunner infrared detection satellites to the SBIRS, were the Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites. 

Why is this of interest to UAP researchers?

The UAP literature has, from time to time, discussed infrared satellite sensors in the context of UAP.

Vallee 1988

In his book "Forbidden Science: Volume 3" researcher Jacques Vallee, in a diary entry dated 28 June 1988, wrote:

"Hal [Puthoff - KB] has seen a 2-inch thick file that details UFO obervations by infrared satellites. 'The objects arrive 3,000 miles from the Earth' he told me. 'The satellites pick them up as they come near the surface and go away the same manner as they came in.'"

Regehr April 1994

The front cover of the April 1994 (number 312) issue of the MUFON Journal headlined "Do Spy Satellites See UFOs?" Inside was an article by Ronald S. Regehr. A note at the end of the article stated that:

"Mr. Regehr has worked for 25 years on the Defense Support Program. He wrote the performance/design specifications for each series of sensor systems, the operationmal software specifications and edited the Satellite Performance Reports. He also prepared the SED (Sensor Evolutionary Design) Familiarization Manual, used to introduce the DSP to Air Force personnel new to the program."

The article contends that the DSP satellites "...have detected unidentified flying objects." He refers to US researcher Lee Graham's FOIA search for satellite data which would confirm detection of UFOs. Graham's 200 or so FOIA requests led him to such terms as "Fast Walker." However, Regehr concluded "Repeated efforts have failed to reveal the true meaning of the terms..."

Interestingly, Regehr reported that "Remote viewing" by Ed Dames is said to have confirmed numerous deep space and air space intrusions by UAPs which were DSP detected.

In his article, Regehr provides details of a 5 May 1984 DSP observation which UFO researchers such as Joseph Stefula, cited as probably being a UAP. However Jeffrey T. Richelson in his definitive book "American Space Sentinels" (p.118) suggests it was actually a US signals intelligence satellite.

The article concludes with mathematically modelling which Reghr states "...thus effectively proving that at least one of our spy satellites could detect UFOs."

Stacy and  Huyghe August 1994

Omni magazine ran an article by Dennis Stacy and Patrick Huyghe about the DSP satellites. Citing arguements by Ron Regehr of Aerojet General; and information from Edward Tagliaferri, a physicist at Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo; and Joseph Stefula, they concluded:

"Somewhere, out there, no doubt, is a sensor system that already knows whether we are being visited by UFOs or not, but the owners of those systems aren't talking."

Fish 2015

Perhaps the most famous UAP DSP story comes from the Wikileak email series relating to John Podesta. The email was dated 6 March 2015 and was from one Robert Fish to John Podesta. The subject line was "Leslie Keane book - DSP Program." Fish wrote:

"I had lunch with a few of them in the cafeteria of a highly classified organization in El Segundo, CA. No one could get into the cafeteria without TS/SCI clearance, so this was no "lightweight group of gossipers." One of those times, a member of that group was really excited - said they's just picked up Fastwalker (I assumed that same day.) He described how it entered our atmosphere from 'deep space' (origin actually unknown, of course, but from the backside of the satellite) and zipped by the DSP satellite pretty close on its way to earth. Not only was it going pretty fast but it made a 30 degree course correction (turn) which means it did not have  ballistic (free fall) re-entry trajectory that a meteorite might have. So, it was under some sort of control - although whether it was 'manned' or just 'robotic' there's no way to tell."

This event was in 1991. Australian investigative journalist Ross Coulthart interviewed Robert Fish for his 2021 book "In Plain Sight," via email in February 2020. 

"I wrote to Bob Fish and after a few weeks he kindly responded, confirming everything he told Podesta, and more." (p102.)

Ross added that Fish was:

"A previously very highly security cleared communications intelligence insider, Fish had extensive experience working on classified projects, including President Reagen's "Trust but Verify" nuclear missile disarmament treaty with the Soviets and he assured me that he was happy to be quoted about his strong interest and beliefs in UAPs." (p.103.)

FAST WALKERS

Thus, some researchers have pointed out there is a term "Fast Walker" used in reference to DSP IR detections, which they equate to mean UAP. However, JeffreyT. Richeslon in "American Space Sentinels," on page 118, has this to say about "Fast Walkers."

"According to Air Force Space Command Regulation 55-55 FAST WALKER denotes detection of a space object which includes satellites and their debris, in a DSP satellite's field of view."

In 2019, Air Force Space Command became US Space Force, within the Department of the US Air Force.

The Australian context

The Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory includes equipment which downloads data from SBIRS satellites and transmits this to the SBIRS Mission Control Station at Buckley AFB, in the USA. Some of this data returns to Australia and goes to the following:

1. HMAS Harman, in Canberra.

2. Department of Defence, Russell Hill.

3. HQ Joint Operations Command, Bungendore.

A 2019 publication provides the following detail:

"Australian Space Operations Centre (AUSSpOC). HQJOC is responsible for processing space support requests and does so using the specialist resources of the AUSSpOC, which is established within HQJOC’s Air & Space Operations Centre (AOC), to provide:

a. analysis of satellite vulnerability reports (SATVULREP) for force elements in training or as deployed on operations and exercises. 

b. warning reports of space debris re-entry over areas of interest and liaisons with EMA. 

c. monitoring of the impacts of space weather forecasts on operational space capabilities. 

d. dissemination of space situational awareness advicee. liaison with the US CSpOC."

4. 1RSU Edinburgh, South Australia.

https://defence.gov.au/publications/newspapers/Raaf/editions/5916/5916.pdf

1RSU operates the SBIRS Australian Mission  Processor (AMP.) This AMP was built by Northrop Grumann  The system was ordered in 2013, and became operational in September 2015. An August 2016 article, states that the AMP "...employs the US Air Force-derived space-based infrared satellite data to detect infrared events in Australia's area of interest." The same article stated "Phase III then produced the full operational system, allowing the RAAF to interpret, analyse and disseminate infrared events in real time..." For an interesting look at how "space weather" affects the mission of 1RSU, click here. 

DOD organisation 

In looking where SBIRS data management sits in the Australian DOD organisational structure, I found on their own website, that within the RAAF we find:

"SBIRS Mission Control Station" under "Directorate of Space" under "DG Air Defence & Space - AF" under "Head Air Capability - Air Force."However, this may change as on 19 May 2021 the DOD announced that a "Defence Space Division" would be established in early 2022.

In looking for current DOD doctrine on space, I found the DOD has a 2019 publication titled "Air-Space Integration" in their "Doctrine Note Series," which talks about the "space domain." It spells out that "Chief of Air Force (CAF) is the capability coordinator of Defence Space capabilities." 

The initial head of the newly established "Defence Space Division" was given as Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts, an aerospace engineer. The role was stated as to "coordinate Australia's Space Defence activities." One wonders if this will then  include the Australian end of the SBIRS?

Endnote

So, the question remains as to whether or not, the SBIRS picks up objects that remain unidentified? The short answer to this; is there is no doubt it does. Countries such as Russia and China launch satellites for clandestine purposes which initially are detected and classed as unidentified. However, the real question is, are any of these "unknown space objects" Unidentified Aerial Phenomena as UAP researchers would define them? The Australian Department of Defence via 1RSU's capabilities may well know the answer.

Acknowledgement:

Thank you to Isaac Koi in the U.K. and Melbourne based researcher Paul Dean, for research assistance with this article. I recommend readers take a look at Paul Dean's series of blog articles, "NORAD and the UFO Smokescreen" especially parts eight and nine.

Looking back at some more cases from the MUFON/BAASS contract

MUFON/BAASS

Long term readers of this blog, will be aware that I researched, then published, information about the contract between the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) in the 2009-2010 timeframe.

Others, such as US researcher Curt Collins and Swedish researcher Roger Glassel provided further insight into that contract. In addition, in his book "UFO Investigations: The Age of Disclosure" US researcher and publisher Richard Lang, who was the liaison point between MUFON and BAASS, took a deep dive into the minutia of the contract and the work that he undertook on behalf of MUFON.

As part of my research, I was interested to locate details of the types of cases which were flowing from MUFON to BAASS. Via articles in  the MUFON Journal, by Richard Lang, I was able to collate a spreadsheet of over 60 such cases.

"Para-Urban Detective"

It was therefore with delight that I recently came across a 2021 book, titled "Para-Urban Detective" by former MUFON investigator Norman Gagnon. He was a member of MUFON's STAR (Strike Team for Area Research) Team and a member of the MUFON SIP (Star Team Impact Project.) SIP undertook the actual investigation of cases for MUFON, which were then sent to BAASS. 

One part of his book deals with three high strangeness SIP cases, which all appeared on my spreadsheet, but for which I did not have many details. These were:

SIP cases

1. 16 April 2009. Pasadena, Maryland. MUFON case number 16539. (Shown as 17 April on my spreadsheet sourced from the MUFON Journal.)

At about 3.15am a woman was woken from sleep to hear a loud humming noise. She woke up her partner and he checked out the inside of the house trying to locate the source of the noise. Looking through a house window, he saw a large, triangular shaped object "hovering". It had no external lights, so it was totally black. It had a boomerang shape, and an apparent estimated 300 foot wingspan. It then slowed moved off to the south-east, taking some 17 minutes to disappear from view. A neighbour is also said to have heard the humming sound.

2. 23 August 2009. Manassas, Virginia. MUFON case number 18855.

At about 3.30pm EST two individuals at one address both saw three, silent triangles in the sky. There was no effect on any electronics at all. The objects flew below cloud level and were in the middle of the landing path for Dulles Airport. Duration 2 minutes.

3. 27 November 2009. Richmond, Virginia. MUFON case number 20768. (Shown as 30 November on my spreadsheet.)

At 7.30pm EST a neon green coloured, teardrop shaped object, with a tail which emitted three rapid, white flashing lights, descended behind trees as seen by two people. The trees were 320 feet from the car they were in. The object descended from their right to their left, at about a 45 degree angle. They watched it for 4-5 seconds. It was completely silent. Other local witnesses reportedly saw it. 

Those U.S. Navy "Range Fouler" forms

Range Fouler Debrief Form

One set of documents recently uploaded to the U.S. Navy SecNav FOIA website were titled "Range Fouler Debrief Form." We now know that we have Twitter user @randomisas to thank, for submitting the particular FOIA request in August 2021, that saw this set of forms released. @randomisas' request to the U.S. Navy was:

"It was widely reported in US media that the US Navy has introduced new guidelines/procedures for its personnel to report sightings/encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)/UFOs. I would like to request all encounters/sightings of UAP/UFO reported by any Navy personnel using those new procedures from June 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019."

@randomisas submitted the request on 15 August 2021, but this original request was denied on 5 October 2021. An appeal was submitted that same day, 5 October 2021, and the appeal was granted on 6 January 2021. The end result of this FOIA request was a total of 27 pages of heavily redacted documents. Despite the extensive redaction, there is some interesting data to be noted.

The forms

Here is a form by form guide to what was released, followed by my comments.

Pages 1 - 2. Forms 1 - 2. Apparently the same sighting submitted by a pilot and WSO. It occurred at dusk. Wind direction at their altitude was from 315 degrees, at a speed of 5-10 knots. The one object sighted was tracking 230 degrees true at an estimated speed of 250 knots.

Page 3 - Form 3. A pilot at dusk, possibly in formation with pilot in form 1, reported an object travelling to 200 degress true at 300 knots. Wind direction from 315 degres at 5-10 knots.

Pages 4-9. Forms 4-6. A female pilot and two WSO, so in two different aircraft, reported a nocturnal, three minute observation of multiple objects. Wind from 340 degrees at 15 knots. Form numbes 2019-004 to 2019-006. The female pilot stated that "...she had never seen [redacted] like it." One WSO added "...he's never seen anything like this before."

Page 10 - Form 7. A pilot reported seeing multiple objects during the day. Wind from 270 degrees at 40 knots.

Page 11 - Form 8.  Anothe day time report by a pilot of one 'contact.' Circular in shape. Wind 300 degrees at 70 knots.

Page 12 - Form 9.  A further day time sighting by a pilot of six objects clustered together. Both aircraft in the flight witnessed the object. Wind 250 degrees at 78 knots.

Pages 13-14. Form 10. Form  2019-10. Day time pilot sighting. Contact direction/speed was 180 degrees at 20 knots. "...missed ONI briefing on these platforms."

Pages 15-16. Form 11. Form number 2019-11. Nocturnal observation.

Page 17 - Form 12. Little detail. "...object in video appears over rocky terrain. Need to know the type of platform [redacted.]"

Page 18 - Form 13. One object seen in 2019.

Page 19 - Form 14. A day light report by a WSO. Wind 330 degress speed 17 knots. Contact tracking 140 degres at 40-70 knots. One object.

Pages 20-21. Form 15. Form number 2019-17.Wind 330/17 knots. To the question "Was contact moving?" The answer was "yes." One object.

Pages 22-23. Form 16. Report number 2019-018. Day time. "I noticed an object with flight characteristics unlike anything I had seen in my [redacted] years of [redacted.] One object.

Pages 24-25. Form 17. Form number 2019-019.

Page 26 - Form 18. "...multiple UAPs together over [redacted.]"

Page 27 - Form 19. "...tracked unknown object observed by [redacted.]

My comments

1. So, a total of 19 "Range Fouler debrief forms" indicating incursions, over a seven month period between 1 June - 31 December 2019.

2. There were only four mentions of the speed of an object, namely 20 knots, 40-70 knots, 250 knots and 300 knots. So, no really fast objects.

3. Where the wind direction speed at the altitude of the reporting aircraft was shown, together with the tracking direction/speed of the contact, and there were only two such mentions; one object was going with the wind and another against the wind.

4. Note the instances where witnesses said:

a. "...she had never seen [redacted] like it" - pilot.

b. "...he's never seen anything like this before." - WSO.

c. "I noticed an object with flight characteristics unlike anything I had seen in my [redacted] years of [redacted.]

This, to me, suggests that non-mundane explanations were in the minds of these observers.

5. In some instances there were multiple objects being reported.

6. Page 17 refers to a video.

7. It is frustrating to have so much data redacted. When you read the unredacted portions and look at what words can be read, it is hard to imagine why they redacted the words they did.

8. There are no geographic latitudes/longitudes provided on any of the forms, to give us the localities of these observations. Presumably they were either/both the east and west coast off-shore US military training areas, but all we get are latitude "North" and  longitude "West." on some forms.

9. The forms are headed SECRET/NOFORN meaning SECRET/No distribution to foreign nationals, only to US citizens.

10. So again to sum up, we are given only fragments of data.

11. Obviously, there is a need for further FOIA requests asking for "Range fouler" reports for other time frames; and following up small details mentioned in these documents.

12. Thanks again for twitter user @randomisas for their FOIA request, which have revealed that, at least in 2019, and presumably ongoing, the "new" US Navy system of UAP reporting involves online "Range fouler debrief forms."

US SecNav FOIA website - 15 new documents uploaded

Secretary of the US Navy

The US Department of Defence, Secretary of the Navy's FOIA website has had a number of responses to FOIA requests on it, for quite a while now. However, many researchers, including myself, have had a number of outstanding FOIA requests, with the US Navy, which remain open. I make it a practice of checking the website every day for any new material. One reason for doing so, is that some time ago, the US Navy advised in a final response, that they had found a responsive document to my request for a copy of the Security Classification Guide regarding UAP. It was therefore of great interest that I noted, that yesterday, 15 new documents had been uploaded, including the responsive document which I had been after.

What has been uploaded?

1. A 155 page ship's deck log for the USS America for the period 13-31 July 2019.

2.A 237 page ship's deck log for the USS John Finn for the period 13-31 July 2019.

3. Multi page ship's deck log for the USS Ralph Johnson for the period 13-31 July 2019 (I couldn't get this PDF to load.)

4. A 273 page ship's deck log for the USS Russell for the period 13-31 July 2019.

5. A 147 page ship's deck log for the USS Spruance for the period 13-31 July 2019.

6. A 20 page CIC log for the USS Rafael Peralta for the period 14-16 July 2019.

7. A 27 page CIC log for the USS Spruance for the period 15-19 July 2019.

8. A 50 page ship's deck log for the USS Comstock for the period 29-31 July 2019.

9. A 167 page ship's deck log for the USS Russell for the period 1-16 July 2019.

10. A 214 page ship's deck log for the USS Russell for the period 17-31 July 2019.

Comment:

The above 10 items were no doubt sought by a number of unnamed researchers who have been looking into the July 2019 "drone swarm" incident, involving a number of US ships in training ranges, off the coast of California.

11. A 10 page Security Classification Guide, Naval Intelligence Activity, regarding the subject of UAP. 

Comment:

In December 2021, John Greenewald advised that, in response to an FOIA request, he had received a copy of a Security Classification Guide, Naval Intelligence Activity, on UAP. It would therefore, be of interest to do a close comparison of these two released documents, to determine if they are exactly the same. For background on what a Security Classification Guide is, and a look at why I submitted my FOIA request for a copy of it, click here. 

12. A 2 page PDF labelled "FLIR Photo brief" regarding the 17 July 2019 USS Paul Hamilton's interaction with UAS. 

Comment: 

On 10 February 2022, The Drive's Adam Keyhoe and Marc Cecotti, published an article about the 17 July 2019 incident involving the USS Paul Hamilton, which was illustrated by the same briefing slide. However their copy contained an unredacted "timeline" of the events, whereas the just released PDF has the "timeline" redacted.

13. 27 page PDF labelled "Khan appeal response." 

14. A 1 page document titled "RANGEFOULERDeflatedballoon."

Comment:

13. This document contains a number of what are called "Range Fouler Debrief Forms." Each appears to be a copy of an electronically submit report which describes an encounter with "something." The total number of separate forms is 19. Looking for exactly what a "range fouler" is I found that the term was contained in an October 2020 document titled "Student Guide/MCS Operating Manual" generated by the US Naval Air Training Command. It suggests that a "range fouler" is something which shouldn't be there, and which might cause a problem to aircraft operating in the area. 

I don't recall ever seeing copies of these particular forms before. We have seen the SecNav website upload copies of US Navy "Hazard reports" which researchers discussed at the time of their release, as possible UAP sightings.  However, there are still only eight of these "Hazard reports" on the current SecNav FOIA website. So, it would pay us to give these 20 "Range fouler" forms a close inspection. Although they are heavily redacted, something may be gleaned. 

14. The title suggests that this "range fouler" was a deflated balloon. Observant readers will no doubt recall that the one identified UAP mentioned in the June 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence's "Preliminary Asessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"  was stated as "We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large deflating balloon."

15. 146 pages of emails between various US Navy and other parties pertaining to a range of briefings conducted by the Office of Naval Intelligence for Congress etc. 

Comment:

Again, I don't recall seeing these before, so a close reading of them is in order. 

Updates: 5 March 2022

1. In a 4 March 2022 Tweet, US researcher Dave Beaty advised that he had submitted an FOIA request for "Range Fouler and Whiskey Alert" documents to the US Navy. However, he also advised that "...mine was denied almost fully" and "The one in the Reading Room is from another researcher's request not mine." As the response file title is "Khan appeal response" it seems reasonable to deduce that the other researcher's surname is "Khan."

2. On further investigation of the term "Range Fouler" I came across a mention of it in the 25 June 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence's "Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." On page 8 - under "Definition of key terms - UAP Report" we find:

"UAP Report: Documentation of a UAP event, including verified chains of custody and basic information such as the time, date, location, and description of the UAP. UAP reports include Range Fouler (1) reports and other reporting."

Foot note (1) reads:

"U.S. Navy aviators define a "range fouler" as an activity or object that interrupts pre-planned training or other military actvity in a military operating area or restricted airspace."

3. In a further Tweet Dave Beaty provided details of his 30 March 2021 FOIA request which included the term "range fouler." Dave advised "I was handed 4 pages previously released to @MC05A. No Range Fouler docs were ever released and 90 pages were 'classified exempt.'"

Vallee, Australia, and China

Forbidden Science 

In the last few days I have been re-reading Jacques Vallee's book, "Forbidden Science: Volume 2" and I came across a diary entry dated 25 June 1970. Vallee was in London and met Gordon Creighton of the "Flying Saucer Review" team.

Image courtesy Amazon Books

Vallee advised that Creighton was a former intelligence specialist who had lived in China for a long time; then worked in the USA and later Brazil. This was followed by seven years working in the Joint Intelligence Bureau studying Chinese affairs. Vallee wrote:

"Gordon told us that the Red Chinese were fascinated with the problem. He knows two Australian businessmen who trade in Mainland China.  On every trip they hear of sightings, and Chinese officials often ask them if there are similar reports in the rest of the world, or if the phenomenon is peculiar to China!"

The Kibel family 

Who could these unamed Australian businessmen be? One thought immediately occurred to me, and this was that they were members of the Kibel family of Melbourne. The male members of the family were Mark Alexander Kibel, the father; and sons James Johnson Kibel and Brian Johnson Kibel. All three were directors of Servian Machine Tools Pty. Ltd. of Melbourne. Did they trade with China?

I found the answer on a file in the National Archives of Australia. Originally created by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) the file was file series A6119, control symbol 6501. I found a memo, dated 17 November 1983, which, in part read:

"The Kibel family business, Servian Machine Tools Pty. Ltd. has a long history of trade, initially with East European countries, and from the 1960's with the PRC...had company members regularly visiting China."

James Johnson Kibel is known to have had a long interest in the subject of UAP. Indeed, he was the individual who took the famous Balwyn, Melbourne photograph in April 1966. Click here and here for a comprehensive two part article on this photograph and the Kibel family's multiple UAP observations. 

Mark Alexander Kibel was born in  the United Kingdom, and he and his family made regular return visits to that country, including one in mid 1966. Thus, there was opportunity for male members of the Kibel family to have met with Gordon Creighton at some point. 

Is this 100% conclusive? Perhaps not, but, in my opinion, it is a reasonable proposition.