The Evolutions of Official Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The three US Navy videos that were publicized in December 2017 are partly an object of fascination because the military (specifically the Navy) refuses to get into any detail about them beyond simple details about when they were taken. More interesting questions almost invariably result in some kind of "no comment" response. Maybe people have tried to get more information, but with mostly small incremental clarifications being the only result, if any. I've tried myself. It's an interesting dance, as the Navy spokespeople are restricted in what they can tell you, but it's also their job to provide information.

I thought it might be useful to collate the various statements from the Navy spokespeople, see how they have changed over time, and try discern what actual information they contain.

[This is a work in progress. ]

There have been two named spokespersons, Joseph Gradisher and Sue Gough.


April 25, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/

May 1, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ef6426-6b82-11e9-9d56-1c0cf2c7ac04_story.html
May 26 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html

MARCH 23, 2020 (Gough no response)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...about-the-air-force-and-recent-ufo-encounters

April 27 2020
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...nse-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

May 18 2020
https://www.blueblurrylines.com/2020/05/pentagon-answers-on-navy-uap.html
Sept 2, 2020
https://www.blueblurrylines.com/2020/09/uap-task-force-pentagon-responds-to.html
My Correspondence, referencing Q 6 and 7 from Glassel
 
Last edited:

banditsat12oclock

New Member
If, after examination, it was determined that a video had a plausible explanation as an aircraft or balloon, then would that classification publically change?

A: The official designation would change if we definitively identify the objects. However, any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected.

These replies are one big middle finger to the interested public. It's Schrödinger's categories: simultaneously both identified and yet unidentified.

Because it'd be oh so difficult for the Pentagon, with its meagre resources, to take the time, effort and colossal risk of saying, "Yeah, after checking it out, the acorn is a Batman balloon." Just imagine the jeopardy to "operational security" and the terrible dangers doing something like that would place American warfighters in...
 

Money4Nothing

New Member
These replies are one big middle finger to the interested public. It's Schrödinger's categories: simultaneously both identified and yet unidentified.

Because it'd be oh so difficult for the Pentagon, with its meagre resources, to take the time, effort and colossal risk of saying, "Yeah, after checking it out, the acorn is a Batman balloon." Just imagine the jeopardy to "operational security" and the terrible dangers doing something like that would place American warfighters in...

I've done work for a military contractor and have access to classified engineering documentation. Looking it at, a lot of it seems pretty trivial and harmless, like a stray current corrosion report for a naval vessel. But I know that if I had a stray current corrosion report for an enemy vessel, or even just an admission that a thruster VFD contributed to stray current on a port bulkhead, I could combine that with other information about the enemy to make a clearer picture about their capabilities and weaknesses. The thing is that we don't always know what an opponent knows or doesn't know, so the military typically errs on the side of caution. Without knowing a lot about specific military avionics, it's conceivable that just letting too much information about the capability of avionics detection could contribute to an opponent deducing information that we might want to keep secret. Maybe admitting that this one time we detected a Batman balloon is not risky on its own, but combined with other information might be released could allow someone to piece together more of a puzzle that we want.
 

banditsat12oclock

New Member
The thing is that we don't always know what an opponent knows or doesn't know, so the military typically errs on the side of caution.
I totally appreciate your point. It's just that one can't really know when erring on the side of caution is officialdom hiding things because of legitimate national security, hiding things to cover up their own malfeasance, attempting to confuse the enemy and deliberately or inadvertantly confusing the public at the same time, or simply hiding things for the sake of it because secrecy and/or dishonesty are standard operating procedures in all respects.

Without knowing a lot about specific military avionics, it's conceivable that just letting too much information about the capability of avionics detection could contribute to an opponent deducing information that we might want to keep secret.
Again, I take your point. As before, though, I still fail to see how a totally limited disclosure, e.g. "It's now an IAP not a UAP, and its origins are mundane, but that's all we're going to say," could conceivably hurt anyone. Utterly, painfully naive, I know, but these are taxpayer-funded organisations with a theoretical level of accountability. Cue mocking laughter.

puzzle2.jpg
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
I still fail to see how a totally limited disclosure, e.g. "It's now an IAP not a UAP, and its origins are mundane, but that's all we're going to say," could conceivably hurt anyone.

I tend to agree, but perhaps that's because I view it from a too-pedantically information-theoretic viewpoint. (Or just a Bayesian one, they're effectively the same.) A simple "it wasn't an alien spaceship" contains *exactly* the same information as "it wasn't Jesus hovering, halo aglow" or "it wasn't Monkey on a cloud", namely zero bits (to more decimal places than your casio calculator watch can cope with).
Best of all - the more times they say that, the less information it leaks, it's only their reticence to say it that has given it any perceived information content.
 
These replies are one big middle finger to the interested public. It's Schrödinger's categories: simultaneously both identified and yet unidentified.

Because it'd be oh so difficult for the Pentagon, with its meagre resources, to take the time, effort and colossal risk of saying, "Yeah, after checking it out, the acorn is a Batman balloon." Just imagine the jeopardy to "operational security" and the terrible dangers doing something like that would place American warfighters in...
Yeah.. What they are saying is: we want you to believe that there are anomalous objects around --take our word for it --because we won't release anything definitive. Especially anything that would prove anything.
I totally appreciate your point. It's just that one can't really know when erring on the side of caution is officialdom hiding things because of legitimate national security, hiding things to cover up their own malfeasance, attempting to confuse the enemy and deliberately or inadvertantly confusing the public at the same time, or simply hiding things for the sake of it because secrecy and/or dishonesty are standard operating procedures in all respects.


Again, I take your point. As before, though, I still fail to see how a totally limited disclosure, e.g. "It's now an IAP not a UAP, and its origins are mundane, but that's all we're going to say," could conceivably hurt anyone. Utterly, painfully naive, I know, but these are taxpayer-funded organisations with a theoretical level of accountability. Cue mocking laughter.

puzzle2.jpg
Right. Why reveal more than you have to when it could cause problems? Better to make statements that get people thinking about things and then provide the worst evidence so that doesn't cause a problem..
I don't think this is being done maliciously; this kind of caution (70 years), ain't much considering the magnitude of the situation.
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Top