I will be continuing posts relating to the evolving relationship between Russia and the West, which shows no sign of improving – especially with Putin pursuing a fourth term. Standing up to the West has been key to the revival of his political fortunes and it seems unlikely that he will abandon that tactic. Look for an escalation of the new Russian surrogate offensive in eastern Ukraine and the potential that a miscalculation in Syria could bring about some sort of actual aerial engagement – the recent incident with an American F-22 deploying flares to warn Soviet aircraft repeatedly overflying agreed upon demarcation lines is a bad sign.

For this post I’m turning back to the recent news about the previously unknown Office of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification which began operation in the Pentagon circa 2007, and even with funding largely cut in 2012, appears to have function at some minimal level into 2017. Even with ongoing FOIA requests from several very experienced UFO historical researchers, that office and its files was totally unknown – while it was collecting decades worth of more contemporary military related UFO incidents.

While I was able to develop some very solid indications, patterns and trends for UFO activities in regard to the American atomic warfare complex in Unidentified, that effort was hindered by the virtual end of the military reporting during the 1970’s, alleviated only by some excellent individual FOIA work from the researchers I cite in that book

Yet now we know that a new Pentagon office collected extensive reports from at least the Navy into contemporary times – the extent to which the Air Force cooperated is unclear at this point but apparently the Pentagon office may have been stonewalled by the Air Force and by NORAD. NORAD’s record for space tracking is quite good but as I pointed out in the recent west coast aircraft incident, its airspace capabilities remain somewhat questionable. Which means that reports from individual military units – such as were released along with three sets of Navy intercepts – were probably the key data being collected.

Three things stand out in this new story. First, it appears that some of the patterns I call out in Unidentified may have proved to be very consistent – in one contemporary Navy incident a cruiser observed a group of UFOs enter its airspace at 80,000 feet, apparently circling over the ship and departing again at only 20,000 feet. That sort of observation occurred repeatedly over the Navy facilities in San Diego back in the late 1940s.

Second, given the new, sophisticated sensor pods on our interceptors, the level of technical data collected during even a fruitless interception has advanced tremendously. In at least one instance sensor pods provided both video and infrared scans of an object –  clearly differentiating the spectrum of emission from the body of the unknown from what appears to be a field emanating from it.  This is the type of technical data that the early UFO projects fought and failed to obtain – although now it appears that the broader intelligence community is still totally uninterested in it.  You can see what I’m talking about, if you have not already, at the following link:


Finally, this news once again demonstrates that an entity within the government can function – for years – collecting exactly the type of information that the public is requesting, via FOIA, while it and the data it is collecting remains totally invisible to public scrutiny and apparently totally ignored by the broader intelligence community.

Hopefully we will be able to force out some of the extensive data collected by the Pentagon Office, reportedly it prepared a 740 page report which is still not released. But even at this point, the experience confirms a point I made in Unidentified – if military intelligence studies UFOs and records no actual threat (apparently meaning no attacks or damage in the incidents) then the investigation will end up being dropped and the studies will be left at an incident by incident level, with no longer term indications analysis being conducted.

For those who may not have followed this story, the following interview is one of the most interesting views inside the program, which was apparently taken very seriously and very well staffed – although operating largely without broad reach within the overall intel community.




4 responses »

  1. Anthony says:

    It is indeed very interesting. The basic problem, more or less from the start, is what diagnostic tests could be applied to achieve positive identification of a nuts and bolts UFO rather than some rare natural phenomena such as various types of atmospheric plasma etc.?
    I agree with your overall analysis but that is a judgement call rather than something which can be firmly established at the moment.

    • larryjoe2 says:

      One of the things that becomes clear over the long run is that there literally is never enough data in any single incident to reach a conclusion that something fundamentally unknown (in a classic “Black Swan” sense) is being observed. To paraphrase Hynek, from a scientific standpoint there will simply never be enough data to justify risking academic reputations – which was why the Robertson Panel in 1953 failed to deliver an endorsement that would have allowed the CIA to elevate the problem to the NSC, as its own Office of Scientific Investigation recommended. Ruppelt noted the same thing from a military career standpoint, in particular in regard to Blue Book’s detailed study of anomalous radiation/UFO incidents.

      That’s why I turned to indications and pattern analysis in Unidentified. However if what we are told did occur in this Navy incident, the cruiser calling in the training flight had experienced prior incidents of the same sort previously. And for that matter, whatever was captured on that gun camera had entered the cruisers radar scan at eighty thousand feet, circled over the ship and departed outbound at twenty thousand feet. That sort of stretches the imagination in terms of a plasma phenomena, especially if it had occurred on previous occasions – but we need the actual incident report to determine that.

      At this point we can see long term patterns in the phenomena, especially as related to military incidents. I am a bit perplexed though as to why there appears not to have been much more detailed technical analysis given all the measurements – including sensor spectrum data – from the Navy incident in question.

  2. Anthony says:

    It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis which could potentially rule out various possibilities that can cause misidentifications such as various radar anomalies and such like.
    At the moment the information in the public domain doesn’t seem detailed enough to make a judgement. Hopefully the raw data exists as some of this sounds potentially of interest. I agree that the apparent lack of serious follow up is itself quite a curious fact.

    • larryjoe2 says:

      The technically proficient folks I’ve discussed it with seem to feel that given the specifications for the sensor pod as well as the operating frequencies for the radars involved..which would be different for the cruiser, the interceptor and possibly other systems in the area (the altitudes in question ought to have allowed pick up by NORAD coastal positive surveillance radars) it should have been possible to do a very detailed analysis, certainly one which would have allowed the elimination of things like inversions (seemingly improbable for unknowns traversing paths of the lengths involved).

      We can hope that Bigelow had the opportunity for such analysis but unless the Pentagon Office involved had a lot of cooperation from the Air Force, from NORAD in particular, it might have been difficult. If we do get public access to some of these case files we will be able to tell, until then it is frustrating to the extent that this is exactly the type of data that the early Air Force technical studies were seeking and had the resources to evaluate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s