We are now on Patreon! Click here to learn more about how you can help support the site.

Tuesday, November 30, 2021
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > The UFO Phenomenon > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
The UFO Phenomenon

US Navy releases pilot UFO incident reports

May 15, 2020 | Comment icon 531 comments



Even more information about these encounters has been revealed. Image Credit: US Navy
Newly declassified documents contain specific details of the unidentified objects encountered by US Navy pilots.
Last month the US Department of Defense took the unexpected decision to formally declassify and release three video clips of unidentified objects recorded by US Navy pilots.

Now thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Naval Safety Center, eight hazard reports providing additional details of these encounters have been finally made public.

Seven of the reports involve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and detail incidents that took place in 2013 and 2014 off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina in a region known as the W-72 warning area.

The eighth report details a separate incident from 2019 involving an EA-18G Growler.

One of the most interesting aspects of these encounters is that the UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) were fairly small - closer in size to a drone than a manned aircraft.

One of the pilots stated that the object encountered in November 2013 had an "approximately 5 foot wingspan and was colored white with no other distinguishable features."
Another in June 2013 was described as "white in color and approximately the size of a drone or missile." None of the pilots were able to determine who or what was flying the objects.

The Navy however noted that they did "pose a significant mid-air collision threat."

On March 26, 2014, another pilot reported an encounter with a "metallic object" which was "small in size, approximately the size of a suitcase, and silver in color."

He got within 1,000ft of it, but was "unable to positively determine the identity of the aircraft."

As for the nature and origins of these objects - nobody seems to know.

The reports themselves, as well as the analyses, are long and detailed, so to get the complete picture we recommend checking out the full article on - The Drive.



Source: The Drive | Comments (531)



Unexplained Mysteries is now on Patreon!

Click here to learn more about how you can help support the site and gain access to a range of perks including a subscriber badge, ad-free browsing, an exclusive weekly newsletter, sneak peaks of upcoming features and more.
24 / 25  
We are 96% of the way to our second Patreon subscriber target - thank you!
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #522 Posted by I'mConvinced 1 year ago
As there are people in this thread that do care about this stuff I'll leave you with an excellent, very recent, summary video.  I have checked many of his facts and interview sources and find it covers the subject without great bias.  Enjoy!  
Comment icon #523 Posted by Trelane 1 year ago
Thank you. This and other related events have been debated to the point of exhaustion.
Comment icon #524 Posted by I'mConvinced 1 year ago
In your opinion, I just see you as another person unable to address the new evidence i.e. we know Mick's explanation can't be right and expert testimony tells us what is shown in the videos isn't anything he usually sees, this from a person spending all day looking through FLIR cameras for a living...  Its been hilarious watching people demand I provide evidence and when I do, it's not addressed and everyone runs and ducks for cover.  If you stopped by to let us know you're bored then thanks for sharing?  
Comment icon #525 Posted by Trelane 1 year ago
I've made my stance known as best I can without me violating my own security clearance. Looking through FLIR all day is one thing. Having personally seen or being familiar with highly classified aircraft (foreign and domestic) is another. I don't demand anything from anyone. You have your opinion and that's fine. However, based off of my experiences I have a definitively different opinion.
Comment icon #526 Posted by I'mConvinced 1 year ago
That's fair enough and I'd love to hear your take.  However, I'm also not going to buy the whole, paraphrased,  'well I'm a top secret clearance guy but its so hush hush I can't speak of it, but what I can tell you is i'm right and you're wrong".  It doesn't hold much water as an argument. If you are saying you have worked with/flown US aircraft with brand new, gravity based propulsion systems and that what we are seeing is explained by this then cool, I could buy into that.  However I don't buy into the afterburners and weather balloon nonsense some around here like to believe are shown in th... [More]
Comment icon #527 Posted by Trelane 1 year ago
That's understandable, however I have nothing to prove to anyone. I'm not a pilot or aviator, I'm a MP (20+ years now). I am firmly aware of the NDAs I've had to sign and what I've seen. This both in security debriefings and being assigned to site security where items have been temporarily stored.  
Comment icon #528 Posted by ChrLzs 1 year ago
.. and we're still waiting for a link to the radar data or FLIR footage that shows the maneuvers requiring a 'gravity-based propulsion system'.
Comment icon #529 Posted by Hazzard 1 year ago
Im guessing that he is pulling a "Skyeagle" on you...  If you remember that guy and his more than dishonest debating tactics.
Comment icon #530 Posted by ChrLzs 1 year ago
Yes, Sky was a strange egg.  I respected his service in the airforce, and he was absolutely convinced of ufo coverups but could never present anything solid.  It was kinda odd that as he was somewhat indirectly involved, he was a staunch defender of the Apollo missions, so he didn't buy into other conspiracy theories... It's also a pity that Merc14 isn't still around..  I hope he's OK, although I suspect his absence may be post-Trump shock.  He was a defender of the orange idiot for a while.
Comment icon #531 Posted by stereologist 1 year ago
Actually you are making false claims. We know that Mick West's analysis is correct. Your so-called expert testimony is not expert testimony. You have provided virtually nothing. I see really nothing of value you have offered.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Recent news and articles