1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The above statement was obtained by Bryan Bender of Politico, who wrote an article about it. Bender also quoted two members of Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars Academy" (TTSA) whose job it is to promote the idea that UFOs are alien spaceships. Neither really did that in the article (Elizondo referring only to "extremely advanced Russian aircraft"), but they have both suggested as much before. And of course, it only takes a whiff of "official" talk about UFOs for people to get excited.

    So there's a rush of media stories about this. The problem is they all seem to be conflating two things:

    A) The statement from the Navy
    B) The spin from TTSA

    And then presenting B (the spin) as if it's something official. It's not. All we have that is official is a very reasonable statement about

    1) Planned (but undescribed) new guidelines for reporting unauthorized and/or unidentified airspace incursions.
    2) Some briefings on the dangers of these incursions by the Navy to some congressmen and/or their staff.

    Note the first thing there: "unauthorized airspace incursions." That basically means a plane flies into a region that it should not be in. The Navy Document OPNAVINST 3770.2L calls it a "spill-in"

    Guidelines for handling incursions are not new. I'm not sure what is current, but here are some rules of Engagement from the 1990s:
    https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/documents/AFD-081204-035.pdf . (page 61)
    Note in this new press release they say: "the Navy and the USAF take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report." So clearly the reports they talk about are not considered "career enders" (as some have suggested). These are reports that are already being made, and are being taken seriously, and investigated. All that seems to be happening now is an improvement to the way in which such incursions can be reported.

    So until the Navy actually makes some statement about these new regulations, I'd suggestion caution in interpreting them as anything other than what they say they are.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    How did you get the actual text of the statement by Gradisher ? I haven't seen it quoted verbatim in any of the articles.
  3. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    The article from the Washington Post (also available for some reason here: https://www.philly.com/news/nation-...s-ufos-navy-document-encounters-20190424.html) says the following.

    So this is basically saying that unidentified aircraft are entering military controlled airspace multiple times per month and the military doesn't know who's doing it or where it's coming from.

    Given that the US military is supposed to be the most capable on earth, that it has spent trillions to have the most advanced weapons systems, it seems rather astonishing that such intrusions could be occurring with the military unable to identify the intruders.
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    its quoted in the link Mick provided (yes, i dont like hyperlinks either)
    The hyper link below the quote leads to

    The Hill also has it quoted verbatim
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It was posted in a UFO discussion group, presumably via email from Genualdi.

    Depends on the nature of the intrusion. Visual sightings of drones near airbases runways can be hard to track if they land quickly. Radar blips of foreign fighter jets testing airspace can also be difficult to pin down, as you've got to fly out there to look at them.
  6. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    I'm not saying the articles don't contain the same words, but they also contain extra text. Maybe verbatim wasn't the right word to have used but it appeared to me that Mick had a different source for the quote, as he has now confirmed.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Which the navy should be able to do. Isn't that what combat air patrols are for ?
  8. Alexandria Nick

    Alexandria Nick New Member

    Part of this is because the United States military has put all those fancy sensor arrays and weapons systems somewhere that is not inside the Continental United States or pointed them in a direction that is not....say....Wichita or Nashville. Generally, they don't look inward or very far from a base. That's one of the reasons there were NATO AWACS deployed to the US after 9/11.
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If the incursion is a fast jet 100km away that flies away, then how are they supposed to identify it? All they are going to see is the IR signature of its engines flaring in the ATFLIR display.
  10. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Still dealing with that kind of incursion has been a core part of the navy's mission since the Cold War. Something must be different about this. They've never complained about not being able to identify and prevent foreign incursions into their airspace before.
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not sure what is current, but here's Rules of Engagement from the 1990s:
    https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/documents/AFD-081204-035.pdf . (page 61)
    and visual identification is not always feasible (like when it's dark, or low visibility, or the object is flying away)
  12. Robert Sheaffer

    Robert Sheaffer New Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2019
  13. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    What Mick actually said was
    I agree with Mick's statement, but I don't agree with yours.

    It seems to me that there are two possibilities here and we don't currently have enough information to claim with a high degree of certainty which is true.

    The first possibility is that the new Navy policy is nothing more than a response to some conventional threat such as foreign aircraft or drones and that UAP proponents have somehow colored the narrative to the point where every single news article about this is calling it a "UFO" policy.

    The second possibility is that the unidentified intrusions the Navy has described have to do with things that have been claimed to be observed accelerating at 1000's of g's with no visible means of propulsion, such as those described in the Nimitz incident and that the association made by the media with anomalous sightings is in fact justified.
  14. itsthematrix

    itsthematrix New Member

    I came here wondering if there would be a thread on this because this story is starting to blow up on other forums I visit, it's more than the usual talk. The response people have is what you would think the response would be, I.e.hinging the word alien onto the abbreviation UFO.

    That's the part that interests me the most. To me sightings are just sightings. I would think a pilot for example would see many things in the sky that they cannot explain for whatever reason and I personally think they would not report it because it could be anything, but some of these stories are the things you listed, impossible speeds, sometimes entire groups of them, "tracking them for weeks" is from one article I read. What I don't get is that a lot of the articles on this story are implying that these occurrences are now occurring on a regular basis.
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    or a third possibility, which is what suspicious me first thought, that the military wants better documentation on personnel who may be having 'stress' issues.
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's never just two possibilities.

    It's also possible that the military is just making some minor administrative change because of requests from UFO fans in congress.

    It's also possible that it's a response to sighting where they don't actually know what is being sighted. Perhaps they want to improve the process for weeding out false-positives.

    I think we should continue to go by what the Navy says, and treat the spin from TTSA with care. Since this has got a lot of media attention, I'd hope there will be more from the military at some point.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think it's important to note that every single news article is basically a paraphrasing of Bryan Bender's article, which he titled: "U.S. Navy drafting new guidelines for reporting UFOs".

    When in fact, as he himself notes in the first paragraph, the guidelines are for reporting "unidentified aircraft."

    If this paraphrasing is not enough he says:
    but the statement says only:

    So he's doing one of several things, one of:
    • Paraphrasing some additional information from the Military
    • Repeating TTSA spin
    • Making an assumption
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Tim Printy

    Tim Printy New Member

    I have to wonder if they are going to accept reports from some E-3 standing topside watch, who reports strange lights or a bright object moving across the sky, etc..... or will it be "officers only"? Who will investigate these reports? Will it be handled by the chain of command (which seems to be the current methodology) or will they form a staff of officers designated for handling such reports. The Navy has to be careful about what they want to identify as "unidentified aircraft". Right now, the media is making it appear that this means UFOs and this is the way junior navy personnel might interpret it.
    Just as an aside, when I was an E-7 on board a submarine, I made my usual 3-4AM tour topside (I was the engineering chief but part of the rules at the time was to make sure all watchstanders on the ship were awake every two hours - the duty chief checked them at 1-2 AM) to check up on people. I ran into an excited E-5, who was the topside watch. He informed me that he had seen a missile launched from across the river towards the Naval base. After asking him a few questions, I figured he must have seen a bright fireball (having been an amateur astronomer since I was 12). There was no explosion on the base or anywhere near the base, the submarine next to ours did not appear to have gone on alert, and all was quiet. I eventually reported this to the OOD at 6AM and he agreed that there seemed to be no reason to get excited about it. The next day the media reported a bright fireball was seen over New England at the time the "missile attack" supposedly happened. I showed this to the E-5, who seemed to still think it was a missile attack.
  19. Gerard

    Gerard Member


    Since you appear to have a Navy background, do you have any idea of what the procedure is for issuing a "message to the fleet". Would this correspond to some type of formal issuance, such as an OPNAV, that may be referenced on Navy websites ?
  20. Tim Printy

    Tim Printy New Member

    It depends on the message. Usually, a message had a list of commands that it was sent to. I recall seeing messages that were basically "all hands" that went throughout the fleet. For instance, the Navy issued a navy wide "safety standdown" in the fall of 1989. That message was sent fleetwide with a general direction of no work/evolutions being conducted while safety training was executed for so many days (I believe it was 2-5 but I don't recall exactly). However, subordinate commands gave additional direction on what they specifically wanted to be accomplished during this period (i.e. focus your training on electrical safety, tagout procedures, etc). Eventually, this evolved into ships performing an annual safety stand down, which probably was directed by an OPNAVINST of some kind. The bottom line is that for an immediate response by commands, a message was sent directing the type of action required. After that, an OPNAV (or some other type of instruction) would be created/modified to include that action. I retired almost twenty years ago so it is hard for me to recall exact details but I believe this was the general sequence of events.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i was listening to the latest vid on the "black vault" you tube channel.. way at the end of the piece he said he asked the navy for the statement and they sent him an "updated statement" [36 min mark] (same message but the first line with the "draft" language was removed.) He then asked if he could see the message, and he says she responded [39:40 min mark]
    "we are unable to share the message with you. Due to the operational and aircraft specific nature of these guidelines security considerations preclude their disclosure"

    Source: https://youtu.be/2Jo-24jtUqI?t=2372

    add edit: the rest of the video he just goes back 60 years to see if "unidentified aircraft" is just semantics for "UFO"..super boring and doesn't answer the question at all, if you want to save yourself 40 mins of your life. Basically "could be" or "could not be" is the answer.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  22. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Yes, but Greenewald has also opined that this may not be the last word on the question. He says that public affairs/media representatives are often less likely to share information that can be obtained from other sources. I hope we don't have to wait a year for a FOIA request to go through but that may well be the case.
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I emailed Genualdi asking for some clarifications, but have not heard anything back.
  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I dont recall him saying anything like that in the video.
  25. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    • Useful Useful x 1
  26. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    In trying to find out exactly what the Navy has said or been quoted as saying about the new reporting guidelines I missed something significant in the original Politico article:

    Reference: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/us-navy-guidelines-reporting-ufos-1375290

    I missed the "service says" at the end of this paragraph implying that this information did come from the DoD and not from the reporter's own inferences.

    That the guidelines are a response to "highly advanced aircraft" would seem to imply that the discussed intrusions are not believed to be ordinary military aircraft or drones but have at least some unusual characteristics.
  27. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    if it was a quote, it would be in quotes.
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It comes from his own inference. Here's my exchange with him on Twitter.

    Metabunk 2019-05-02 21-26-40.

    Then via email:
    He followed up with some other information that was off the record, I replied with:
    He did not reply.
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  29. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    smh. and they wonder why people dont trust the press anymore.
  30. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Then I agree that the article was very misleading.
  31. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    If you say "service says" you should be no more than paraphrasing. In my opinion,you shouldn't be introducing new factual elements that weren't in the original statement, as they did here.
  32. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    sounds like he thinks he was just paraphrasing accurately. That's one of the reasons MB gives everyone a hard time about paraphrasing. It's pretty well documented that 2 people can see the same event, movie, speech etc and describe it later in vastly different ways.
  33. TheAtheistAdmiral

    TheAtheistAdmiral New Member

    Since the author provides no direct evidence for his more specific claims we're questioning here, he wouldn't be inferring anything, but rather assuming or implying.

    I only mention this because it makes discussing the evidence (or lack thereof) confusing, and distinguishing between inferences & implications are particularly important when discussing the validity of fringe or conspiracy theories.