Monday, May 06, 2024

AARO Pilot's Sighting Report

In the last few weeks, I seem to have been stuck with reading about what is happening with the various investigations in Washington, and with reports from those agencies telling us, basically, there is nothing alien in what they found. Sean Kirkpatrick later explained that. He also said, as have others, that there are cases that are unresolved, meaning there is no terrestrial explanation for the report, but nothing in those unresolved cases that takes us off-world.

Now, we have something new from AARO, which, given the nature of that investigation, again explained by Kirkpatrick, is not surprising. In the report, released publicly at the end of April, in a case from January 26 of last year, a military pilot reported that while on the Eglin Air Force Base training range, his* on-board radar displayed four unidentified objects flying between 16,000 and 18,000 feet. The pilot only saw one object which he described as rounded and somewhat cone shaped. Not only was there a radar display but what was described as Electro-optical and infrared sensor data suggesting something real outside the cockpit of the jet.

The pilot said the object was gray with a paneled surface and orange-red coloring in the center. It was about 12 feet in diameter and might have been hovering or moving relatively slowly. He said there was a rounded bottom and that there was a cone top, like that on the Apollo Spacecraft. He said there was blurry air underneath that seemed to be some kind of a heat signature.

Pilot's illustration of UFO courtesy of AARO.


As the pilot closed to within 4,000 feet, his radar malfunctioned. Examination by technicians found that a circuit breaker had tripped. I found that interesting, but maintenance records showed that same circuit breaker had tripped three other times. That suggests the problem was not the close approach of the UFO. Other, contradictory information, apparently left out of the report suggested that was not the only electronic failure on the aircraft during the close approach of the UFO.

AARO’s investigation suggested the object was lighter-than-air, possibly a weather balloon (where have we heard that before), a large mylar balloon or a commercial, outdoor helium lighting balloon.

They also concluded that blurry air that suggested a propulsion system could have been, and I stress that, could have been, a visual misperception due to environmental conditions. Or, in other words, it was something in the atmosphere causing the trouble, but nothing emitted by the object.

Both the intelligence assessment and the science and technology assessment in the AARO report reached the same conclusion. They independently identified object being like some form of balloon. Of course, since these were high-level investigations by highly trained and respected experts, we can accept that as being accurate.

Florida Republican Congressional representative, Matt Gaetz, said that he had attempted for months to gather more information about the sighting once he learned about it officially. He pointed out that the radar data showed four objects flying a diamond formation with equidistant separation. He also noted that the sighting took place over the Eglin ranges which are relatively free of airborne clutter. These facts suggest something other than a balloon. I suppose you could say that a cluster of balloons, tethered to one another could hold a relatively stable formation, but I find that difficult to believe.

Gaetz said that not only had the radar failed, but the infrared camera also failed. The pilot took still photographs of the UFO. This was one of those facts left out of the report that took us away from balloons and faulty radar circuits and into a new arena. It also suggests that AARO is engaged in identification even if that identification is somewhat shaky.

As I noted earlier, the object was said to be virtually stationary, but the winds at the altitude of the UFO were blowing at 80 knots. This and other facts suggest the Pentagon has resorted to the decades old policy of offering explanations for mysterious sightings without worrying about the contradictory evidence. I think here of the Levelland sightings of November 1957, which were resolved as ball lightning ignoring the facts that ball lightning is very short-lived and was much smaller than the UFO reported by dozens of witnesses in that case.  These reports including testimony that car engines had stalled, the headlights dimmed and the radios were filled with static. There was also a report of a large, circular burned area on a ranch near Levelland.  The UFO was described as huge and was glowing bright red. For those interested in more information about Levelland, the book is called Levelland in a comprehensive examination of the case.. Or you can take a look at some of the related articles published here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/03/one-of-best-cases-levelland-texas.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2020/10/coast-to-coast-levelland-ufo-landings.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-levelland-sightings-and-condon.html

This provides a good look at Levelland and each of the articles does contain references to other reports about the case if you wish to dive deeper (which is now how we say, “Examine it further.”

One other point that is relevant. Kirkpatrick has said that the mission of AARO  was to determine the nature of UAP and not hunt for aliens. He also said that the craft reported were secret military vehicles, which has been a way to dodge questions by invoking national security. Independent research has not borne this out. In reality, it is just another way to conceal the evidence.

While I approve of seeing one of the AARO reports, and John Greenewald for publishing it on his Black Vault website, I, and many others reject the conclusion that is based on several assumptions, an overlooking of contradictory evidence, and then suggesting a “moderate” rating. While this suggests a solution, the meaning of “moderate” suggests they don’t have much confidence in it. I suppose they hope that no one will make careful examination of the facts.

*I have used the generic pronoun of he, assuming, based on statistics, that the pilot in question was male, realizing there is a chance the pilot was female. The report used the group pronoun “they” which is confusing in a report where there was a single pilot. I wondered, if at some future date, someone interested in UFOs would come across the AARO report and lose time trying to learn the identifies of the other witnesses because common sense has taken hold then and we eventually stopped using group pronouns for single individuals. 

9 comments:

  1. Interesting UFO/UAP sighting, but it has all the same old twists of ufology. Of course everything malfunctioned, the radar & Infared camera (where have we heard of this before?), hence we have no evidence of anything but hearsay. So, the pilot took photos of the UAP? Where are they in this age of transparency? And Matt Gaetz, a far-right conspiracy adherent is going help us out? A recent precious sighting, but unless as ever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That "they" wasn't the current usage for transexuals was it?

    National media (New Yorker mag, NY Times, Washington POST, et al.) use the term accordingly.

    RR

    ReplyDelete
  3. Haven't studied this yet, but watched "Need to Know" with Zabel and Coulthart who discuss the case and AARO's debunking of it: (see starting ~17:20 in)

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgslF1kPo4Kmv4Xrg8EyYmQ

    According to Coulthart, there was not one pilot (as claimed by AARO), but two F-22 pilots, out of two different bases (one from Eglin, another from Tyndall), who independently filed reports. Both reported four objects on radar. Both independently described seeing the same acorn-shaped object. Both described it as having a paneled surface. Neither thought it a balloon and both thought it anomalous. Both said it maneuvered between their two planes. "Balloons", of course, can't do that, certainly not two F-22's.

    Coulthart said the information about the 2nd pilot came from yet another pilot who contacted him, saying other pilots like him were briefed about the incident soon after and warned that they might encounter something similar.

    Although the AARO report said the video failed and there was no video, Coulthart reports that a FOIA request to the AF (name of the applicant not clear) got the reply that there WAS a video, but it was classified and couldn't be released. (As I vaguely recall, Matt Gaetz also claimed there was a video but I don't remember if he said whether he was allowed to see it or not.)

    Coulthart notes that it isn't clear whether AARO was withholding this additional information that casts this incident in a whole different light, or whether the AF withheld the information from AARO.

    (I might note that the given size (about 12') and acorn shape is very similar to the description of the object that allegedly crash-landed at Kecksburg in 1965 and got whisked away by the military in the dead of night.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haven't studied this yet, but watched "Need to Know" with Zabel and Coulthart who discuss the case and AARO's debunking of it: (see starting ~17:20 in)

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgslF1kPo4Kmv4Xrg8EyYmQ

    According to Coulthart, there was not one pilot (as claimed by AARO), but two F-22 pilots, out of two different bases (one from Eglin, another from Tyndall), who independently filed reports. Both reported four objects on radar. Both independently described seeing the same acorn-shaped object. Both described it as having a paneled surface. Neither thought it a balloon and both thought it anomalous. Both said it maneuvered between their two planes. "Balloons", of course, can't do that, certainly not two F-22's.

    Coulthart said the information about the 2nd pilot came from yet another pilot who contacted him, saying other pilots like him were briefed about the incident soon after and warned that they might encounter something similar.

    Although the AARO report said the video failed and there was no video, Coulthart reports that a FOIA request to the AF (name of the applicant not clear) got the reply that there WAS a video, but it was classified and couldn't be released. (As I vaguely recall, Matt Gaetz also claimed there was a video but I don't remember if he said whether he was allowed to see it or not.)

    Coulthart notes that it isn't clear whether AARO was withholding this additional information that casts this incident in a whole different light, or whether the AF withheld the information from AARO.

    (I might note that the given size (about 12') and acorn shape is very similar to the description of the object that allegedly crash-landed at Kecksburg in 1965 and got whisked away by the military in the dead of night.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is some of the FOIA trail (23 pages) concerning Eglin, filed by Abbas Dharamsey:

    https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/usaf/EglinUAP.pdf

    Lacks the original correspondence and statement that a video of incident DOES exist but can't be released because it is classified. This FOIA material apparently is in response to an appeal of the first response denying access to the video, stating again that there is video but not releasable under various classification exemptions, stating:

    "The responsive video you are requesting is not releasable to you in accordance with 5 U.S.C.§ 552 Exemption (b)(1). Exemption (b)(1) protects from disclosure information about “matters specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” and which has in fact been “properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” The deleted information is exempt from automatic declassification in accordance with Executive Order 13526 Section 1.4 para (c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology."

    But AARO report states:(https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf)

    "The pilot could not record video of the event because the aircraft’s video recording equipment was inoperable prior to and during the aircraft’s flight."

    According to AARO, there never was a video, but AF FOIA response contradicts this and says there IS a video but it can't be released. (You know, national security)

    FOIA response also has several pages of mostly alphabet gibberish to me, but includes what seems to be long distribution list of government, intelligence, and military agencies also receiving response or maybe somehow involved, including CIA, DOD's NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), Joint Chiefs, U.S. Secretary of State, Secret Service, Dept. of Homeland Security, AFOSI (Counterintelligence), FAA, and NASIC Wright-Patterson AFB (National Air and Space Intelligence Center).

    Obviously "resolved", obviously nothing but a simple balloon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's more from AF FOIA response (last page):

    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.


    First, where is the original friggin' pilot's report? AARO doesn't provide and neither does FOIA response.

    We learn that the radar detected four objects, with the altitudes of 3 of them given, at least a thousand feet separated from each other. It's hard to explain how there could be only one "balloon" giving four separate radar returns while this widely separated, but somehow still clustered together. How do balloons do that?

    AARO "resolution" dodged dealing with the other detected objects saying pilot only saw one visually and only obtained instrument data on one, so we'll pretend there was only one object instead of multiple objects.

    And what's with the plane's radar? The radar circuit breaker allegedly keeps flipping on this one plane and they never fix it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just a little more...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFk1Fv11xKw

    According to Matt Gaetz at last July's House UFO hearing, when he went to Eglin AFB to investigate the pilot's report of the incident, but was initially rebuffed by the base C/O, he finally got to see the radar sequence, confirming 4 objects in a diamond formation equally spaced from one another. He also got to speak just one member of the "flight crew," the one who took a picture, and asked why they had no video or FLIR data. He was told that when he/they approached one of the objects, BOTH the radar went down and the FLIR system malfunctioned. As a result the IR picture they had was manually taken instead of being done automatically.

    Gaetz mentions one of the pilots going in to take a look, suggesting more than one plane there, but it's a little ambiguous. The F22 Raptor is a one-man plane, so "flight crew", and with permission to speak to only one pilot, suggests at least 2 planes. This would in part corroborate Coulthart's reporting of two planes being involved, but Coulthart also said he was told by a third unidentified party (another pilot briefed about the incident) that there were 2 planes from 2 different bases. Both pilots reported seeing a diamond-shaped formation on their radars.

    Gaetz did not mention what happened to any video or seeing any video. According to the AARO version, the video wasn't working the entire time, contradicted by the FOIA request stating that there WAS a video but it was classified.

    All I can say here with the contradictions is that we still don't seem to be getting a straight story about what happened.

    AARO's attempt to match up the photo, drawing, and pilot testimony with a commercial LTR (Lighter Than Air) balloon lighting system, used in such places as construction sites or outdoor concerts, seems pretty damned strained. What would it being doing up around 16000 feet over the Gulf of Mexico along with 3 other unidentified objects flying in a perfect diamond formation? Also if it was a commercial system, they should be able to find one that matches exactly with the photo, drawing, and eyewitness description, instead of the usual debunking handwaving argument that it was similar to in this way or that, while leaving out the details that don't match, i.e. cherry-picking the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kevin wrote:
    *I have used the generic pronoun of he, assuming, based on statistics, that the pilot in question was male, realizing there is a chance the pilot was female. The report used the group pronoun “they” which is confusing in a report where there was a single pilot. I wondered, if at some future date, someone interested in UFOs would come across the AARO report and lose time trying to learn the identifies of the other witnesses because common sense has taken hold then and we eventually stopped using group pronouns for single individuals.

    "They" would certainly be correct if there was more than one plane and pilot involved, as per Coulthart's reporting of two planes involved, and Matt Gaetz's Congressional hearing comments also suggestive of more than one pilot/plane, saying he was only allowed to talk to one member of the "flight crew" and only one plane went in to take a closer look.

    Also two planes might explain the contradiction between AARO saying the video wasn't functioning the entire time on the one plane, while the FOIA requests twice revealed there WAS a video but it was classified. The second plane might have had a functional video.

    So rather than the use of "they" by AARO being "woke", maybe it was a slip-up indicating there was indeed more than one pilot and plane that wasn't fully acknowledged. There is certainly other evidence pointing that way. Per Coulthart, two pilots in two planes from two different bases both motivated to file independent reports with identical details (such as radar picking up four objects in a diamond formation and both thinking the one viewed object anomalous) gives the case much more credibility. E.g., two radars with identical returns basically eliminates a radar glitch. Hence maybe the reason to try to make it sound like a one witness case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete