We have a lot of reporting and op-eds about the US Navy’s interactions with UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena). There was that time the military denied to Congress that it had any knowledge about UFOs, but two years prior, the Navy had admitted UFOs existed by showing a high-profile video of what we now know was a drone swarm over navy ships off California, We also covered the incident of the Navy trying to intercept another UFO over the USS Nimitz over six days.
Not everything called a UAP or UFO suggests extraterrestrial origins. Most often, there just isn’t enough information to conclusively identify what it is. Some of the videos the navy has released already portray objects with shapes and the flight characteristics of no known aircraft used by human beings. Two items of particular interest, the objects don’t give off any heat or flame suggesting a traditional type of jet propulsion, but they do emit signal energy. The navy has not given the frequency range of this emitted energy so we can’t know whether the energy represents radio communication with another craft, sensors like radar, or guidance signals from a control ship.
You've reached your daily free article limit.
Subscribe and support our veteran writing staff to continue reading.
We have a lot of reporting and op-eds about the US Navy’s interactions with UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena). There was that time the military denied to Congress that it had any knowledge about UFOs, but two years prior, the Navy had admitted UFOs existed by showing a high-profile video of what we now know was a drone swarm over navy ships off California, We also covered the incident of the Navy trying to intercept another UFO over the USS Nimitz over six days.
Not everything called a UAP or UFO suggests extraterrestrial origins. Most often, there just isn’t enough information to conclusively identify what it is. Some of the videos the navy has released already portray objects with shapes and the flight characteristics of no known aircraft used by human beings. Two items of particular interest, the objects don’t give off any heat or flame suggesting a traditional type of jet propulsion, but they do emit signal energy. The navy has not given the frequency range of this emitted energy so we can’t know whether the energy represents radio communication with another craft, sensors like radar, or guidance signals from a control ship.
John Greenewald, Jr., the person who runs The Black Vault, reached out to the Navy, citing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requesting for the release of videos around UFOs or unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) as the government calls these objects in the public forum.
However, the request was denied since they would potentially “harm national security.”
“The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities. No portions of the videos can be segregated for release,” said Gregory Cason, deputy director of the Navy’s FOIA office, in a written response.
The letter came after two years of writing the request. The Navy also clarified why they released three UAP videos before, but not the one The Black Vault was asking for.
“While three UAP videos were released in the past, the facts specific to those three videos are unique in that those videos were initially released via unofficial channels before official release,” according to the Navy’s report.
“Those events were discussed extensively in the public domain; in fact, major news outlets conducted specials on these events. Given the amount of information in the public domain regarding these encounters, it was possible to release the files without further damage to national security.”
Speaking with SOFREP in 2019, Greenewald said he did not expect the Navy to confirm that the objects were UFOs.
“I truly thought the official word on these videos would be ‘drones’ or something similar; but explainable.”
“We have official documents that have surfaced through FOIA that state just that. However, for the Navy to contradict that, and say that this ‘phenomena’ represents something ‘unidentified’ – that’s pretty amazing to me and proves yet again why we can’t lock ourselves into any one way of thinking or assume anything.”
Last month, we also covered the Department of Defense’s new pivot towards its UFO project. The office, originally called Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), has been given an expanded scope and name. They are now called “All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office” or AARO.
The expansion was reportedly due to surmounting evidence around UAPs and the need, for national defense purposes, to investigate these objects further. The AARO will become the central command for all coordinated efforts (including the Navy’s) around UAP/UFO investigation. The office will also cover submerged objects (USO/unidentified submerged objects) or anything “transmedium.”
“Legends of USOs (unidentified submerged objects)have permeated the maritime community for centuries, and remain a common facet of discussion among UFO researchers to this day. In fact, many UFO witness statements, including those provided by military aviators, have suggested that the unusual craft they’ve spotted flying in the sky seem to operate just as readily in the far denser medium of water — suggesting that these unusual objects can function beneath the surface of the ocean just as well as they can in the air.”
The AARO will be headed by the almost-mysterious Dr. “K” Kirkpatrick, who is reportedly bringing in his depth of experience in space policy, research and development, and space/outer space mission areas.”
So, with more official confirmation on UFOs from the Navy and DoD, should we expect a new task force created to potentially combat any threats from UFOs/USOs?
Join SOFREP for insider access and analysis.
TRY 14 DAYS FREEAlready a subscriber? Log In
COMMENTS
You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.