Navy spokesman Gradisher's definition of UAP

[Getoffthisplanet]

"The videos were never officially released to the general public by the DoD and should still be withheld," said Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough to The Black Vault earlier this year. Mr. Gradisher, on behalf of the Navy, confirms the Pentagon's position this week by adding, "The Navy has not released the videos to the general public."

"The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena," said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase "UAP" is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not "UFO," Mr. Gradisher added, "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."

Neither the cognizant Navy offices nor DOPSR have record of any correspondence responding to a request for unrestricted release of the subject videos in 2017," said Mr. Gradisher, thus confirming that no evidence exists that authorized a public release for the three videos in question.

Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...al-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/#

I'm confused about Gradisher's definition of UAP.

While he does specifically say "The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena".

Is it fair to say, "authorized, unidentified aircraft were observed operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges"?

 

[deirdre]

I'm confused about Gradisher's definition of UAP.

While he does specifically say "The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena".

Is it fair to say, "authorized, unidentified aircraft were observed operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges"?

how can they be unidentified if they were authorized?

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

how can they be unidentified if they were authorized?

Does permission absolutely require identification?

I'm probably just over thinking it.

But it is a weird way to frame all of this; unauthorized/unidentified, aircraft/objects, entering/operating and sightings/observations.

 

[deirdre]

Does permission absolutely require identification?

yes it's the military, not a ouija board session.

i agree it's weird to write "unauthorized" unless to the military UAP can also mean "unauthorized aircraft phenomenon". ?? But that sounds doubtful to me that they would use the same term.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

yes it's the military, not a ouija board session.

lol

Not to nitpick on Mr. Gradisher, well, actually to nitpick, if something is an aircraft hasn't it been somewhat identified?

So...the Flir1, Go Fast and Gimbal videos show "unauthorized and unidentified aircraft and objects that are observed and sighted entering and operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges".

Yeesh.

See, it's the /'s that throw me.

If the things are unauthorized and unidentified, then how are they aircraft and objects?

Is he saying one video shows an unauthorized and unidentified aircraft and another shows an unauthorized and unidentified object?

But if something is an aircraft, then it's been identified. And if something is an object then it has not been identified.

 

[jarlrmai]

lol

Not to nitpick on Mr. Gradisher, well, actually to nitpick, if something is an aircraft hasn't it been somewhat identified?

So...the Flir1, Go Fast and Gimbal videos show "unauthorized and unidentified aircraft and objects that are observed and sighted entering and operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges".

Yeesh.

See, it's the /'s that throw me.

If the things are unauthorized and unidentified, then how are they aircraft and objects?

Is he saying one video shows an unauthorized and unidentified aircraft and another shows an unauthorized and unidentified object?

But if something is an aircraft, then it's been identified. And if something is an object then it has not been identified.

It's a context issue, to the US military an aircraft is probably "unidentified" because they don't know make/model/flight number etc the only people that make the leap from unidentified in this context to alien spacecraft or and object not of human origin are people looking for aliens.

 

[Joe_the_Joe]

Authorized and unidentified would perhaps be the designation of an aircraft for training purposes pertaining to unidentified aircraft, and unauthorized and unidentified would be an actual incident? (Assuming a one-layer-deep rabbithole of authorization i.e. not a surprise drill)
Authorized could potentially just mean that the aircraft got permission to enter the airspace first.

 

[Keith Beachy]

how can they be unidentified if they were authorized?

If they are a secret program hypersonic vehicles which have been lost to the sea in Warning Areas along the coast where USAF/Navy/Marine pilots go to play. The Copilot on my crew lost his door panel on the T-38 he was flying at 700 mph in the Warning Area in along the coast in Northern California.

The military/NASA/et al do not always deconflict (or schedule properly) with all agencies authorized, or who think the are authorized to use Military Airspace. Thus a Navy pilot could see a vehicle in the airspace they are playing in, and not have a clue what it is.

My experience with scheduling errors, or thinking they can just use the Military Airspace and stuff that should not happen concern an SR-71 refueling next to Okinawa in a Warning Area. We are in orbit waiting for the SR-71 to takeoff, and I see a F-86 towing a triangular target right in front of us (I kind of sloughed into my seat... ). We are at 27-28,000 feet. We are kind of radio silent, and I look down in a minute or two and see what look like bees (other fighters below us) trying to attack the target the F-86 is towing. Then on Guard (emergency frequency for the Military 243.0, twice the freq of civil emergency), we hear knock it off, 'knock it off', and reference to the Tanker in the area...

Thus it is possible for planes to be where other planes don't expert other planes or experiments to be. The military has a constant turnover, and "new guys" are always taking over positions. I know people don't properly schedule military airspace all the time. I have more war stories as examples.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

The military/NASA/et al do not always deconflict (or schedule properly) with all agencies authorized...Thus it is possible for planes to be where other planes don't expert other planes or experiments to be.

That's what I meant by "authorized, unidentified aircraft were observed operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges", but fell short in elucidating properly.

Awesome story. Thanks for sharing it.

But, as Greenewald stated yesterday:

"training exercises utilizing classified drone or related technology seems like a plausible explanation for these encounters, ...these new statements by the Navy labeling the cases as "unidentified aerial phenomena" are making some second guess that theory."

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

I'm certainly not suggesting that there needs to be any super-advanced technology on display that needs explaining.

I completely agree with you.

But, now I'm wondering, does the Navy labeling something unidentified exclude it being from classified? Would they use "unidentified" to obscure "classified"?

And would NASA or DARPA or whoever have circled back and given a courtesy call up to the Navy saying, "Whoops. Yeah, those were ours. We're not gonna tell you what they are, but they're ours".

Or would they leave the Navy hanging out to dry?

 

[Mick West]

I extracted all the quotes from Grardisher in another thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-just-in-the-low-information-zone.t10921/

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ial-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/

SEPT 10, 2019

• "The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena,"
• "The Navy has not released the videos to the general public."
• "Neither the cognizant Navy offices nor DOPSR have record of any correspondence responding to a request for unrestricted release of the subject videos in 2017,

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ally-acknowledged-encounters-with-phenomena/#

SEPT 11 2019

• "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."
• "The Navy has not publicly released characterizations or descriptions, nor released any hypothesis or conclusions, in regard to the objects contained in the referenced videos."
• "The Navy considers the phenomena contained/depicted in those 3 videos as unidentified"
• "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 respective dates of the observations/sightings,"
• "[The] dates are 14 November 2004 for 'FLIR1' and 21 January 2015 for both 'Gimbal' and 'GoFast.'"
• "We will not be providing any details on individual reports,"

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ated-circumstances-behind-leaked-ufo-footage/

SEPT 17 2019

• "With respect to the 2004 sighting by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68); that video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time. In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web,"
• "In 2009, the online post of the video came to the attention of Navy officials,"
• "…in consultation with Navy law enforcement personnel, [the Navy] decided not to pursue the matter. Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video."
• "With respect to the other 2 videos cited, the Navy has no information on how they were released into general circulation."
• "The Navy will not comment on claims/comments from any outside parties with respect to the videos you've mentioned."

Summary: there's something in some videos that's unidentified that was observed in military airspace and the Navy did not authorize the public release of the videos and are looking into how Gimbal and Go-Fast got out.

It really does not amount to much when you strip away the commentary.

 

[JohnP]

Authorized and unidentified would perhaps be the designation of an aircraft for training purposes pertaining to unidentified aircraft, and unauthorized and unidentified would be an actual incident? (Assuming a one-layer-deep rabbithole of authorization i.e. not a surprise drill)
Authorized could potentially just mean that the aircraft got permission to enter the airspace first.

Maybe eveything is "unauthorized" until it's authorized?

 

[Mick West]

I'm confused about Gradisher's definition of UAP.

While he does specifically say "The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena".

Is it fair to say, "authorized, unidentified aircraft were observed operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges"?

I'm a bit confused as to why you are confused.

"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."

The "/" means "or", so read it as:

"the sightings or observations of unauthorized or unidentified aircraft or objects that have been observed entering or operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges."

It's a non-exclusive or, and in each case could maybe be read as "or, more generally,"

"the sightings (or, more generally, observations) of unauthorized (or, more generally, unidentified) aircraft or, more generally, objects) that have been observed entering (or, more generally, operating) in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges."

Although it's probably a mistake to try to parse too deeply.