UFO Sightings UFO News Reports

Releasing Naval UFO Sightings Reports

Navy UFO Sighting Large Disk over water photo

A memo from Robert Low, administrator of the University of Colorado official government UFO study, advising investigators to wrap up their inquiries and begin report writing acknowledged that a number of areas were close to successful completion but had to be abandoned due to the scheduled final report. One of these areas was locating Navy UFO Sighting reports. While Project Blue Book contained both Navy UFO Sighting reports and investigations, press reports, incomplete investigations, and information released by the Navy itself, indicated that much more data involving the Navy existed than was contained in the Project Blue Book files. The Sign Historical Group suggested several areas of Navy involvement which could be investigated to the Coalition for Freedom of Information (CFI) including compiling a list of Navy cases. We are pursuing some proposals on the CFI list. 
http://www.project1947.com/shg/cfi/sfcfiproposal.htm  
Now that the Navy is looking into UFO incidents by its personnel, it might be profitable to review previous reports and compare them to current activity. Two recent criticisms of UFO Sighting reporting by officials and others: 1. UFOs are a plastic phenomenon changing as different new technologies and ideas arise. Ted Bloecher’s work: The UFO Sighting Wave of 1947” demonstrated and is further reinforced by Project 1947 research that all current UFO aspects and activity were represented in the 1947 wave. The idea that 1947 incidents were distant observations is contradicted by reports of close encounters and interaction with the environment and human activity. 2. That new advances in senor technology results in anomalous observations due to the learning curve involved in employing these new technologies. As operators (pilots, radar observers, etc.) become more proficient with the new technology the anomalous phenomena disappear. Another possible answer here concerns both self and command censorship involved in reporting such observations. Individual reluctance, sometimes reinforced by rater’s advice, cause one to not “volunteer for trouble.” Changing or deleting incidents from logs, records, or recordings by command authority assures that incident will not come to attention of the proper activity. “No mention of this, I intend to be promoted one day.” Such attitudes are reflected not only in the Navy, but other agencies. Dr. McDonald received a report of a car stalling incident from a scientist in the US Geological Survey. McDonald investigating, contacted the man’s superiors. They were fully aware of the report, but instead of further reporting or investigating it, they had decided that they would take to their graves had McDonald not brought it up. Here ridicule and possible negative reflections on one’s career cause a blind spot or “the disappearance of anomalous phenomena.” Such mentality excluding the reporting of embarrassing incidents leads to improper threat assessments. credit Jan Aldrich

Go Back

Comment