Eglin AFB UAP._

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2024-03-06_11-22-27.jpg
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...t-brought-to-light-by-congressman-matt-gaetz/

DECLASSIFIED SUMMARY:
On 26 Jan 23, an USAF pilot gained radar lock on four separate UAP. Upon approach, the pilot was able to make visual contact and employ sensors to obtain a screen capture of the first of these objects. The remaining three were only detected by radar.

UAP-1 likened to an "Apollo spacecraft" in size and shape, with an "orange-reddish" illuminated rounded bottom and the top section "a three-dimensional cone shape" comprising "gunmetal gray segmented panels."

UAP-1 operated at an altitude of about 16,000 above ground level (AGL). The second and third UAPs were noted at altitudes of 17,000 and 18,000. The fourth was lost from radar and no altitude was noted. Moreover, no airspeeds were noted for any of the UAP in this report.

Of note, upon closing to within 4,000 feet of UAP-1, the radar malfunctioned and remained disabled for the remainder of the event. Post-mission investigation revealed that a circuit breaker had triggered, but that maintenance technicians were unable to conclusively diagnose the fault.
Content from External Source
 

Attachments

  • EglinUAP.pdf
    906.4 KB · Views: 5
If there was no airspeed noted on the object and they managed to make visual contact then surely the object was eventually apprehended and I am guessing shot down? Or did they just lose visual of the object? Which would seem illogical if it was just floating by. There is no mention of the outcome of the mission and it remains a designated UAP so one would assume the latter. I find it hard to believe a pilot got within 4000ft or 1.2km of a balloon and then managed to lose contact.
 
Last edited:
"No Airspeeds" sounds rather balloon-like.

We really need that picture! Wonder if this is the image Gaetz was referring to in the congress hearing last year. Certainly interesting but again, with a lack of data it’s impossible to determine exactly what it was.
 
What does "Burry Air" mean?

Is that supposed to be Blurry?

Be interesting to find out the aircraft type and how often circuits trip on them.
 
We really need that picture! Wonder if this is the image Gaetz was referring to in the congress hearing last year. Certainly interesting but again, with a lack of data it’s impossible to determine exactly what it was.
Yes, it's in the first paragraph of the letter shown below.
2024-03-06_14-18-19.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does "Burry Air" mean?

Is that supposed to be Blurry?

Be interesting to find out the aircraft type and how often circuits trip on them.
I think it was supposed to be "blurry air." Not sure what the pilot meant by that, maybe something like heat haze?

Eglin is the home of the USAF's F-35 "School House" to train pilots and maintainers. So probably F-35s, although there could have been other a/c types there supporting Eglin's munitions test mission.
 
If there was no airspeed noted on the object and they managed to make visual contact then surely the object was eventually apprehended and I am guessing shot down? Or did they just lose visual of the object? Which would seem illogical if it was just floating by. There is no mention of the outcome of the mission and it remains a designated UAP so one would assume the latter. I find it hard to believe a pilot got within 4000ft or 1.2km of a balloon and then managed to lose contact.
If an airplane is flying by and an object is approximately stationary, the plane could zip by it so fast that it would switch its apparent position from in front of the plane to behind the plane with an angular speed that may simply have been too fast to track.
 
If an airplane is flying by and an object is approximately stationary, the plane could zip by it so fast that it would switch its apparent position from in front of the plane to behind the plane with an angular speed that may simply have been too fast to track.

Correct but you are assuming this is the manoever the pilot attempted which I doubt. If I want to keep eyes on an object I would circle it rather than fly straight past it.
 
4000 feet sounds far, how big would the apollo be from that distance?
this size kinda blew my mind:
1709763497985.png
The problem is not knowing what the pilot meant by "Apollo spacecraft." Is he referring to the command module, the combined command and service modules, the lunar module, or all of it as it sat on the launch pad....Saturn 5 and all?

The sketch looks (maybe?) closest to combined service/command modules, minus the large rocket nozzle.

Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg
vs.
2024-03-06_11-22-27.jpg
 
If there was no airspeed noted on the object and they managed to make visual contact then surely the object was eventually apprehended and I am guessing shot down?
It's possible that they weren't carrying anything to shoot it down

Or did they just lose visual of the object? Which would seem illogical if it was just floating by. There is no mention of the outcome of the mission and it remains a designated UAP so one would assume the latter. I find it hard to believe a pilot got within 4000ft or 1.2km of a balloon and then managed to lose contact.
What would be the protocol if the radar malfunctions, does the pilot proceed with the mission or return? If returning is a priority, maybe the pilot just chose to return over maintaining extended contact with the UAP.

The summary also says
the pilot was able to make visual contact and employ sensors to obtain a screen capture of the first of these objects
which I assume means they have a video of this object (it just hasn't been declassified), so it's possible they maintained enough contact to get a decent video and then just left because they couldn't do anything else.
 
What does "Burry Air" mean?

Is that supposed to be Blurry?

Be interesting to find out the aircraft type and how often circuits trip on them.

Blurry Air - The "l" is very short and it partly overlaps/merges with the bottom lobe of the "B". Seems a distinct stroke not part of the B.
 
If I want to keep eyes on an object I would circle it rather than fly straight past it.
That would require that you estimated distance correctly -- That does not always happen (see discussion in whichever if the TicTac/Fravor threads. If you can't find it I'll add a link when not on this tiny-screened phone!)
 
Just throwing ideas out there. But IF
  • It's in "blurry" or hazy air.
  • The object is reported as having "no airspeed" which sounds like stationary, so this is a fly by, but it's visible from maybe 4000' away. That's when the radar stopped working so presumably, he could see it by then?
  • The 3 contacts are reported at 16,000', 17,000' and 18,000' respectively, while the 4th disappears with no altitude given. That sound like a very thought-out pattern or maybe a glitch? The radar did shut down right after this.
  • There was no visual on the other contacts.
  • The pilot "was able to make visual contact and employ sensors to obtain a screen capture". Meaning what? The description of the object is the what the pilot saw? Or a description of the screen capture from the sensors? Is the screen capture in IR?
  • This pilot might be on a training flight and possibly new or newer to the AC and its instruments.
  • The bottom of the object is orange/red and illuminated and the top is dark greyish.
  • This is in the Gulf of Mexico somewhere.
We've already seen gas burning torches on oil rigs mistaken for UFOs in the area before. There are 4 unknown contacts and upon approaching them in "blurry" air only 1 glowing orange red something was seen on a fly-by. Size, distance and speed are always a problem in many of these cases. From the FOIA, we really can't tell what the "apollo" description is about. It could be what the pilot saw visually, or a description of the screen shot that was the result of some kind of sensors, or a combination.
 
The pilot's sketch and the text description don't seem to quite match up:

g.JPG

UAP-1 likened to an "Apollo spacecraft" in size and shape, with an "orange-reddish" illuminated rounded bottom and the top section "a three-dimensional cone shape" comprising "gunmetal gray segmented panels."
Content from External Source
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/usaf/EglinUAP.pdf,
originally posted by Mick West (OP).

To me, it looks like the pilot is indicating that the parallelogram-shaped feature is orange-reddish, the "top" of the object is gunmetal- which might mean gunmetal gray- and the lower half, gray (presumably a lighter shade).

Gunmetal gray is usually taken to be a very dark gray, but there are different technical and artistic specifications. Some sources say it has a blue bias. To confuse matters, the alloy gunmetal has a brassy appearance with a hint of copper;
Wikipedia, Gunmetal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal.

The sketch looks (maybe?) closest to combined service/command modules, minus the large rocket nozzle.
Agreed.
so roughly 25 feet ish?
Yes. (The figures I found are a bit different to the illustration that deirdre posted, but close enough for our purposes I hope).

Command module 3.48 m (11' 5'') tall, 3.91 m (12' 10'') across base.

Service module 4.52 m (14' 10'') tall, 3.91 m (12' 10'') diameter
(main cylinder only)

CM +SM (without rocket nozzle, fuel fill points and heatshield) = 8m (26' 3'')

Service module rocket nozzle, fuel fill points and heatshield add approx. 2.97 m (9' 9''),
to bring total service module length to 7.49 m (24' 7'');

total command module, service module (including rocket nozzle) assembly approx. 10.97 m (36').

(Figures from Wikipedia, Apollo command and service module,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_command_and_service_module. The article also gives a total height of 11m, 36' 2'').

Some size comparisons (and my interpretation of the pilot's sketch), figures very approximately to same scale:

1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Correct but you are assuming this is the manoever the pilot attempted which I doubt. If I want to keep eyes on an object I would circle it rather than fly straight past it.
That would require the pilot to know the distance, which would require the pilot to know the size. He had no way of knowing either of those things.

Edit to add: I see @JMartJr has already posted that. Thanks!
 
That would require the pilot to know the distance, which would require the pilot to know the size. He had no way of knowing either of those things.

Edit to add: I see @JMartJr has already posted that. Thanks!
He would have known the range to the object from his a/c radar. We also don't know how close he got to it after his radar malfunctioned. If he got close enough, say within a couple hundred feet, he could have made a size estimate as a function of its size relative to that of his wingmen in formation flight from approximately the same distance.
 
He would have known the range to the object from his a/c radar
Do we know that? We know, based on testimony, that he acquired a target(s). We have multiple targets at suspiciously even spacing (16, 17 and 18,000 ft) plus a fourth that disappeared! (See post #20 above.) And then the plane's radar failed altogether. If any or all of that is correct, then the radar he was getting does not sound like it was necessarily trustworthy. And if it DID feed him bad info, that could cause rather than mitigate mistakes regarding the size and distance of the object.
 
He would have known the range to the object from his a/c radar. We also don't know how close he got to it after his radar malfunctioned. If he got close enough, say within a couple hundred feet, he could have made a size estimate as a function of its size relative to that of his wingmen in formation flight from approximately the same distance.
so just because the radar malfunctioned doesnt mean the "sensors" he took the screenshot or vid with malfunctioned. meaning the "photos" could have been after the radar malfunctioned. yes?
 
Do we know that? We know, based on testimony, that he acquired a target(s). We have multiple targets at suspiciously even spacing (16, 17 and 18,000 ft) plus a fourth that disappeared! (See post #20 above.) And then the plane's radar failed altogether. If any or all of that is correct, then the radar he was getting does not sound like it was necessarily trustworthy. And if it DID feed him bad info, that could cause rather than mitigate mistakes regarding the size and distance of the object.
To me it sounds like he was tracking the range via targeting radar until it malfunctioned (within) 4000 ft from the object. If the object was stationary, he could have estimated distance traveled over time as a function of his airspeed/closure rate from that (within) 4000 ft range datum point. It's basic dead reckoning, even private pilots are taught the techniques. He also could have been getting range data from ground based radar, or even an AWACS if one was up supporting the mission. Am I right? Don't know.

Keep in mind, we are all working off a very brief summary of what was almost certainly a much more detailed, flight parameter rich report written by the incident pilot. We have no idea who even wrote the summary, could have been a non-flier, maybe (likely?) an intel or public affairs officer. Note the only quotes from the incident pilot are qualitative/descriptive, not quantitative.

If we doubt the altitude and range numbers in the summary, for whatever reason, then all we have to work with are subjective physical descriptions (shape/color(s)/comparative size) of something the incident pilot obviously didn't recognize. Not going to get very far with just that information.
 
Last edited:
Blurry Air - The "l" is very short and it partly overlaps/merges with the bottom lobe of the "B". Seems a distinct stroke not part of the B.
We can deduce that this pilot was not trained in identifying atmospheric phenomena.

"Blurry air" is sometimes used to describe the refraction above a heat source, which is a point in favor of an oil rig gas torch.

It could also mean that there were refraction phenomena such as mirages; possibly a distorted image of a grey-painted jet with orange exhaust?
 
Last edited:
so just because the radar malfunctioned doesnt mean the "sensors" he took the screenshot or vid with malfunctioned. meaning the "photos" could have been after the radar malfunctioned. yes?
Here's what Congressman Gaetz said he saw/was told about that.

Gaetz said from the images he saw of the object, he was “not able to attach to any human capability, either from the United States or from any of our adversaries.”

Gaetz said the pilot told him they were doing a test flight over the Gulf of Mexico on a clear day when four objects were identified on radar flying in a diamond formation.

Gaetz said he’s personally seen the radar data from the incident.

“One of the pilots goes to check out that diamond formation and sees a large floating, what I can only describe as an orb, again, like I said, not have any human capability that I'm aware of,” Gaetz said. “And when he approached, he said that his radar went down. He said that his FLIR (infrared camera) system malfunctioned and that he had to manually take this image from one of the lenses.”
Content from External Source
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/poli...cident-near-eglin-air-force-base/70470761007/
 
We can deduce that this pilot was not trained in identifying atmospheric phenomena.

"Blurry air" is sometimes used to describe the refraction above a heat source, which is a point in favor of an oil rig gas torch.

It could also mean that there were refraction phenomena such as mirages; possibly a distorted image of a grey-painted jet with orange exhaust?
I'm not sure either of the explanations fit the limited data we've got. UAP-1 which is what the image is based on was reported at 16,000ft based on the radar and I can only assume that the pilots own altitude must have matched this at the time of sighting / when the supposed image was taken, so for me that rules out the rig idea. And I can't see how a jet mirage would be possible when taking into account that they were reported as stationary objects on the radar.
 
Is it possible to deduce if the pilot is approaching from below or from above (or at least if the pilot first got radar contact from below or above) based on the fact that they approached the lowest target first?
 
Is it possible to deduce if the pilot is approaching from below or from above (or at least if the pilot first got radar contact from below or above) based on the fact that they approached the lowest target first?
With the information we have, I don't see how since the summary gives no altitude(s) for the incident aircraft. Even the description by Gaetz (post #29 above) simply said the incident pilot "goes to check out that diamond formation...," NOT "climbs," "dives," "turns," "banks," etc. "to check out that diamond formation...."
 
Its like all these cases

There's nothing in the description that rules out something like a balloon. No airspeed indicates something moving with the air mass. Mylar balloons can give radar returns.
The argument against that is likely to be "The US military and top gun pilots would not mistake or not be able to id a balloon."
It's highly unlikely any more data will emerge that allows us to further characterise it, the image mentioned is likely from a classified device such as a targeting pod.
 
I don't see how since the summary gives no altitude(s) for the incident aircraft.

I was thinking of something like perhaps there being a protocol for if there are multiple targets at different heights and you are above all of them then you engage the highest one first to maintain altitude or something (and if that were the case then approaching the lowest one first would imply that the plane was not above them when detecting them)

I realize it's a bit of a stretch and there's not much to learn from it since once approaching then the aircraft could go above the target even if they first tracked it from below, but there's not much information to go around so I was mostly just taking a stab in the dark to see if more can be deduced about the position of the pilot based on which target was engaged.
 
I was thinking of something like perhaps there being a protocol for if there are multiple targets at different heights and you are above all of them then you engage the highest one first to maintain altitude or something (and if that were the case then approaching the lowest one first would imply that the plane was not above them when detecting them)

I realize it's a bit of a stretch and there's not much to learn from it since once approaching then the aircraft could go above the target even if they first tracked it from below, but there's not much information to go around so I was mostly just taking a stab in the dark to see if more can be deduced about the position of the pilot based on which target was engaged.
did Geatz ever give a time of day? the 'grey gunmetal' and 'orange"spot sound like the classic UFO balloons we see on Google image. ie. sun reflecting off something shiny. If we knew where the sun was that might give us a better idea.
 
I was thinking of something like perhaps there being a protocol for if there are multiple targets at different heights and you are above all of them then you engage the highest one first to maintain altitude or something (and if that were the case then approaching the lowest one first would imply that the plane was not above them when detecting them)

I realize it's a bit of a stretch and there's not much to learn from it since once approaching then the aircraft could go above the target even if they first tracked it from below, but there's not much information to go around so I was mostly just taking a stab in the dark to see if more can be deduced about the position of the pilot based on which target was engaged.
No evidence I've seen to indicate the incident pilot attempted to "engage" (military speak for attack or fire on) the UAPs. In fact I think it was you who astutely pointed the incident aircraft may not have been armed. In any event, I'm not qualified to comment on aerial combat tactics/protocols, other than at a very top level.

A more reasonable theory would be the incident pilot was more interested (and likely ordered) in gaining data/information for analysts to document and attempt to identity the UAPs. Foremost in that desired data would probably have been photographs. Since, according to the summary (see post #1 above), the incident pilot was able to visually acquire only UAP-1, it would make sense he focused his attention on it to photograph.
 
Keep in mind, we are all working off a very brief summary of what was almost certainly a much more detailed, flight parameter rich report written by the incident pilot. We have no idea who even wrote the summary, could have been a non-flier, maybe (likely?) an intel or public affairs officer. Note the only quotes from the incident pilot are qualitative/descriptive, not quantitative.
Yes, I agree, we have very little actual information here.


If we doubt the altitude and range numbers in the summary, for whatever reason, then all we have to work with are subjective physical descriptions (shape/color(s)/comparative size) of something the incident pilot obviously didn't recognize. Not going to get very far with just that information.
I agree. And, doubting the altitude and range numbers as I do, I don't think we can get very far analyzing this particular case. At the end of the day, all we have is another witness description, with some numbers of doubtful accuracy (they MAY be exactly correct, Heck if I know, but there is reason to doubt) and a picture we don't have. In this case, I'd rather not go far than to go off in the wrong direction.

Posted with the understanding that it is often useful to poke and prod at these a bit, sometimes interesting things emerge. But I'd urge caution in accepting the purported numbers, and conclusions based on them seem to me to be unavoidably tentative.
 
Yes, I agree, we have very little actual information here.



I agree. And, doubting the altitude and range numbers as I do, I don't think we can get very far analyzing this particular case. At the end of the day, all we have is another witness description, with some numbers of doubtful accuracy (they MAY be exactly correct, Heck if I know, but there is reason to doubt) and a picture we don't have. In this case, I'd rather not go far than to go off in the wrong direction.

Posted with the understanding that it is often useful to poke and prod at these a bit, sometimes interesting things emerge. But I'd urge caution in accepting the purported numbers, and conclusions based on them seem to me to be unavoidably tentative.
I agree with you in the big picture, but again you seem to be talking about accepting radar readings from the incident aircraft. Data from ground based or another airborne radar source is probably also part of the mission data package.

If we accept Gaetz' statement (post #29) the incident a/c was on a "test flight" (as opposed to a routine/training flight) as being factual, flight test personnel would have been monitoring and tracking the flight remotely to acquire whatever data necessary to determine the success or failure of whatever was being tested. I'd also bet the radar data Gaetz claims to have seen was from ground based tracking systems. Might be worth an email to him to ask him to clarify what radar data he saw.
 
The pilot's sketch and the text description don't seem to quite match up:

Possibly because it's not the pilot's sketch. There is no indication in the brief description where the sketch came from. It could be from the pilot's recollection, it could be from someone else based on what the pilot said, it could be from the screen grab or some combination.

This is a good one for UFOlogist, as it contains "eyes on" visuals by a "highly trained top gun observer" confirmed by actual radar tracks of a UAP with Electronic Warfare capabilities, all confirmed by the US government. There is a lot to build a narrative with and yet, very little actual details to gain an understanding of what happened. Almost tailor made for one's favorite History channel UFO show. I can picture the reenactment now.
 
Back
Top