Navy spokesman Gradisher's definition of UAP

Getoffthisplanet

Active Member
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"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Active Member
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

New Member
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

Senior Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Getoffthisplanet

Active Member
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

Active Member
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

Administrator
Staff member
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/
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ally-acknowledged-encounters-with-phenomena/#
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ated-circumstances-behind-leaked-ufo-footage/
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.
 
Last edited:

JohnP

New Member
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

Administrator
Staff member
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 "/" 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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Explained: New Navy UFO Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 69
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Getoffthisplanet Flir1, Go Fast, Gimbal - Navy Releases New Information: Official Dates UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 16
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 452
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
MikeG Claim: Secret Navy Electromagnetic Warfare Training Conspiracy Theories 0
TEEJ Contrails during Russian Navy Cruise Missile Strike in Syria, 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Leaked US Navy Map, New Madrid, Submerged US General Discussion 40
Gary Cook Debunked: 'Gun used in Navy Yard shooting was an assault rifle.' General Discussion 8
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Washington Navy Yard Shootings - False Flag Conspiracy Theories? Conspiracy Theories 73
FreiZeitGeist HAARP-Website offline (Navy renegotiating management contract) HAARP 28
dizzle Boston: Navy Seals Boston Marathon Bombings 28
Cairenn US Navy map of US General Discussion 13

Related Articles

Top