UAP

Those U.S. Navy “Range Fouler” forms

Summary

Range Fouler Debrief Form One set of documents recently uploaded to the U.S. Navy SecNav FOIA website were titled “Range Fouler Debrief Form.” We now know that we have Twitter user @randomisas to thank, for submitting the particular FOIA request […]

Range Fouler Debrief Form

One set of documents recently uploaded to the U.S. Navy SecNav FOIA website were titled “Range Fouler Debrief Form.” We now know that we have Twitter user @randomisas to thank, for submitting the particular FOIA request in August 2021, that saw this set of forms released. @randomisas’ request to the U.S. Navy was:

“It was widely reported in US media that the US Navy has introduced new guidelines/procedures for its personnel to report sightings/encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)/UFOs. I would like to request all encounters/sightings of UAP/UFO reported by any Navy personnel using those new procedures from June 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.”

@randomisas submitted the request on 15 August 2021, but this original request was denied on 5 October 2021. An appeal was submitted that same day, 5 October 2021, and the appeal was granted on 6 January 2021. The end result of this FOIA request was a total of 27 pages of heavily redacted documents. Despite the extensive redaction, there is some interesting data to be noted.

The forms


Here is a form by form guide to what was released, followed by my comments.

Pages 1 – 2. Forms 1 – 2. Apparently the same sighting submitted by a pilot and WSO. It occurred at dusk. Wind direction at their altitude was from 315 degrees, at a speed of 5-10 knots. The one object sighted was tracking 230 degrees true at an estimated speed of 250 knots.

Page 3 – Form 3. A pilot at dusk, possibly in formation with pilot in form 1, reported an object travelling to 200 degress true at 300 knots. Wind direction from 315 degres at 5-10 knots.

Pages 4-9. Forms 4-6. A female pilot and two WSO, so in two different aircraft, reported a nocturnal, three minute observation of multiple objects. Wind from 340 degrees at 15 knots. Form numbes 2019-004 to 2019-006. The female pilot stated that “…she had never seen [redacted] like it.” One WSO added “…he’s never seen anything like this before.”

Page 10 – Form 7. A pilot reported seeing multiple objects during the day. Wind from 270 degrees at 40 knots.

Page 11 – Form 8.  Anothe day time report by a pilot of one ‘contact.’ Circular in shape. Wind 300 degrees at 70 knots.

Page 12 – Form 9.  A further day time sighting by a pilot of six objects clustered together. Both aircraft in the flight witnessed the object. Wind 250 degrees at 78 knots.

Pages 13-14. Form 10. Form  2019-10. Day time pilot sighting. Contact direction/speed was 180 degrees at 20 knots. “…missed ONI briefing on these platforms.”

Pages 15-16. Form 11. Form number 2019-11. Nocturnal observation.

Page 17 – Form 12. Little detail. “…object in video appears over rocky terrain. Need to know the type of platform [redacted.]”

Page 18 – Form 13. One object seen in 2019.

Page 19 – Form 14. A day light report by a WSO. Wind 330 degress speed 17 knots. Contact tracking 140 degres at 40-70 knots. One object.

Pages 20-21. Form 15. Form number 2019-17.Wind 330/17 knots. To the question “Was contact moving?” The answer was “yes.” One object.

Pages 22-23. Form 16. Report number 2019-018. Day time. “I noticed an object with flight characteristics unlike anything I had seen in my [redacted] years of [redacted.] One object.

Pages 24-25. Form 17. Form number 2019-019.

Page 26 – Form 18. “…multiple UAPs together over [redacted.]”

Page 27 – Form 19. “…tracked unknown object observed by [redacted.]

My comments

1. So, a total of 19 “Range Fouler debrief forms” indicating incursions, over a seven month period between 1 June – 31 December 2019.

2. There were only four mentions of the speed of an object, namely 20 knots, 40-70 knots, 250 knots and 300 knots. So, no really fast objects.

3. Where the wind direction speed at the altitude of the reporting aircraft was shown, together with the tracking direction/speed of the contact, and there were only two such mentions; one object was going with the wind and another against the wind.

4. Note the instances where witnesses said:

a. “…she had never seen [redacted] like it” – pilot.

b. “…he’s never seen anything like this before.” – WSO.

c. “I noticed an object with flight characteristics unlike anything I had seen in my [redacted] years of [redacted.]

This, to me, suggests that non-mundane explanations were in the minds of these observers.

5. In some instances there were multiple objects being reported.

6. Page 17 refers to a video.

7. It is frustrating to have so much data redacted. When you read the unredacted portions and look at what words can be read, it is hard to imagine why they redacted the words they did.

8. There are no geographic latitudes/longitudes provided on any of the forms, to give us the localities of these observations. Presumably they were either/both the east and west coast off-shore US military training areas, but all we get are latitude “North” and  longitude “West.” on some forms.

9. The forms are headed SECRET/NOFORN meaning SECRET/No distribution to foreign nationals, only to US citizens.

10. So again to sum up, we are given only fragments of data.

11. Obviously, there is a need for further FOIA requests asking for “Range fouler” reports for other time frames; and following up small details mentioned in these documents.

12. Thanks again for twitter user @randomisas for their FOIA request, which have revealed that, at least in 2019, and presumably ongoing, the “new” US Navy system of UAP reporting involves online “Range fouler debrief forms.”

Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Have you seen Meetn? It's a new online meeting platform 👉
This is default text for notification bar