Pentagon Answers on Navy UAP Investigations

Swedish researcher Roger Glassel has been pursuing the details of the Pentagon's UFO investigation since the AATIP story broke in 2017. On Sept. 16, 2019, he queried Navy spokesman Joseph Gradisher, asking for their definition of UAP or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Later, Susan Gough was formally designated the Pentagon's spokesperson and point of contact for UAP inquiries.

The Pentagon's Investigation of Navy UAP Reports

by Roger Glassel

In comments given to me by the Pentagon they have stated that they are investigating incursions and sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), and said that ”reports of unidentified aerial phenomena by military aviators are investigated by the military department of the aviator who made the report”. 

The Navy has elaborated on the matter by explaining that ”the information obtained in these reports will be catalogued and analyzed for the purpose of identifying any hazard to our aviators”, and that ”this process could involve multiple Department of Defense and Intelligence Community organizations”. This indicates that there is indeed a centralized effort. 

Statements from the Navy have also indicated that the UAP investigations is done in relation to the counter Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) effort, by saying that the term UAP is defined as ”any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified”, and that incursions/sightings since 2014 ”may be referred to as either UAS or UAP, depending on the circumstances surrounding the specific incident in question”. The Navy clarified that ”it’s just when the UAS is NOT immediately identifiable we refer to it as UAP”. Others, such as Luis Elizondo, have stated that UAP is something else, and in a report on the Nimitz case at TTSA's website there are talks about the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles being used in relation to UAP investigations.

In regards to the AATIP the Navy has explained that the Program involved offices from across the Department of Defense, but that details remain classified. 

With this information, I sent new Navy specific questions to the Pentagon, asking them to be answered by both the Pentagon and the Navy.

"Dear Susan and Joseph,

In an email from Joseph Gradisher (USN) dated February 20, 2020, he told me that I should feel free to cc him on Navy specific issues, as he is working together with you on such issues. Following are my Navy specific questions, that I like you and the Navy to answer.

On May 18, Susan Gough sent a detailed reply:

Roger,

Here are our responses to your questions.

1) In the Navy's effort to investigate sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) is there a centralized office, program or council, that analyse such sightings?

A: Under the cognizance of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), there is an interagency team charged with gathering data and conducting investigations into range incursions. As the preponderance of recent/reported sightings are from naval aviators, the Navy is leading much of the effort. All reports of range incursions are sent to this team for inclusion in the overall effort, thus maximizing the data available for analysis.

2) Are the Navy using the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles, AAV, in relation to investigation of UAP incursions?

A: When an observed object is NOT immediately identifiable, the Navy/DOD refers to it as UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). The generic term UAP is used in communications to avoid pre-judging the results of any investigation. If we are able to identify the object, we would use the appropriate term.  For example, a quadcopter would be referred to as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The U.S. Navy does not use the term “Anomalous Aerial Vehicles.”

3) If so, what is the definition of AAV used by the Navy and the U.S. Defense Department?

A: Neither the Navy nor the Department of Defense (DOD) use the term “anomalous aerial vehicles.”  In DOD, the acronym AAV stands for amphibious assault vehicles.  The contractors who prepared the 38 technical reports under AATIP occasionally used the term “anomalous aerial vehicles,” but it is not a DOD term.

4) How many UAP contacts/sightings are still categorized as unidentified by the Navy?

A:  As the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) sightings is ongoing, we will not discuss any aspect of individual sighting reports / observations, including frequency of sightings.

5) Are the Navy's effort to investigate UAP incursions part of the overall C-UAS [Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems] effort? 

A:  The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Any incursion into our ranges by any aircraft, identified or not identified, is problematic from both a safety and security concern. Safety of our aircrews is paramount. Unauthorized and unidentified aircraft pose a risk to flight safety. Additionally, it is vital we maintain security on our operations. Our aviators train as they fight. Any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations, tactics, or procedures is of great concern.

6) As the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) involved the Navy, which of the 38 DIA reports produced by the AATIP was the Navy involved in?

A: The contractors who produced the 38 technical reports under AATIP consulted with many experts across DoD, including Navy.  As these involve intelligence matters, we’re not to comment on specifics.

7) Without going into classified details, what was the Navy's role in the AATIP?

A: The contractors who produced the 38 technical reports under AATIP consulted with many experts across DoD, including Navy.  As these involve intelligence matters, we’re not to comment on specifics.

8) Are the Navy proactively investigating UAP, or are investigations only being done after a reported observation?

A:  The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Documented reports of sightings by military personnel form the basis for the investigation process. The investigation of UAP sightings by the multi-agency task force is ongoing.

Regards,

Sue Gough

Pentagon Spokesperson"

 . . .

This response raises further questions, if Luis Elizondo was part of such interagency team as he claims, and if AATIP indeed was a UAP study, as the contractors used the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles? Further questions have now been sent to the Pentagon.