|
|
Nav Canada is sitting on 25 years of UFO evidence from pilots and the military.
|
A private company holds some of Canada’s most
compelling UFO data—and it has no interest in sharing it. From air traffic control towers to radar installations, Nav Canada |
By Daniel Otis
Vice 7-29-21 |
 |
| The force was asked in a Freedom of Information request how many 999 and 101 calls it had received during 2015, 2016 and 2017. | By BBC News 2-4-18 |
| In 1896, newspapers throughout the United States began reporting accounts of mysterious airships flying overhead. Descriptions varied, but witnesses frequently invoked the century’s great technological achievements. Some sources reported dirigibles | By Greg Eghigian smithsonian.com 2-1-18 |
|
| There are currently two Australian government agencies who are equipped to, and indeed do, accept UFO reports from civil aviation flight crews. They are the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Airservices Australia (ASA). Of course, they do more than deal with infrequent UFO reports, and, in fact, are responsible for airspace management, the functionality of airports, pilot licensing, air safety, navigational systems, etc. Australia’s Department of Defence (DoD) also accepts and processes UFO reports, but their system is quite different from those of the ATSB and ASA. The DoD’s Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (DDAAFS) accepts reported military UFO cases via a form called an “Air Safety | +(45+px).png "Paul Dean") By Paul Dean ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com 11-28-17 |
“….any incidences where flight crews have reported any: 1) Unusual, Unknown, or Unidentifiable Aircraft or Objects; 2) Suspected Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 3) Meteoric events, fireballs and the like; and, 4) Especially unusual weather phenomenon; which are held on the Electronically Submitted Incident Report (ESIR) database or the “Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System” (CIRRIS) database.”On the 18th of February, 2015 Sasha Pesic, ASA’s Freedom of Information & Privacy Contact Officer/Legal Inquiries Coordinator, asked me if I would grant them an extension of time in searching their database(s) and preparing any found material, which, despite not being famous for my patience, I agreed to. On the 7 May, 2015, I received the results of my request. At one page, in PDF form, ASA supplied me with 3 UFO or related events in table form, which is imaged below.
“Pilots of AJP and AJK enroute for Alice Springs sighted an unidentified green object in their vicinity. No details of any other traffic held by Brisbane Sector 11.”In the “Description” column it is stated:
“At 1015 the pilot of AJP Tindal for Alice Springs reported sighting a green object climbing and descending vertically and paralleling his track for some time. The pilot of AJK Darwin for Alice Springs reported sighting this green object as well. No details of any other traffic were held by Brisbane Sector 11.”The document in question is imaged below.
 |
| - click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge - |
“…any documents held by Air Services Australia, on the subject of ‘unidentified flying objects’.”On the 18th of June, 2012, Keith was furnished with internal ASA material containing a number of media enquiries to ASA’s Public Affair’s desk, and a number of general enquiries from the public. Nothing of note was unearthed. Technically, of course, Basterfield had asked for records regarding “unidentified flying objects”, and the event I have highlighted was listed as an “unidentified green object”, with the “Primary Occurrence Type” listed as “MISCELLANEOUS”, and the “Attribution” listed as “OTHER”. These details do not contain the specific term ”unidentified flying objects”, which is what Basterfield had based his FOI request on, so the failure to release him anything of note probably boils down to a terminology issue. Usually, FOI staffers will do little more than process the request using exactly what a requestor has asked about, but surely a search of the ESIR and CIRRIS databases for the terms “unidentified” and “object” should have come up with the Alice Springs AJP and AJK event. Whatever the parameters, or limitations, of ASA record searching are, one can’t help but wonder if further requests, using a whole list of other keywords, would pick up. We may not have to wait long. I aim, very soon, to formulate a new FOI request to ASA. It will include a more robust and wider scope than anything I have done previously.
| |
| The CIA published a trove of declassified documents online for the first time this week — including reports from as far back as the 1940s on topics like the Cold War, thousands of pages of daily briefings from two presidential administrations and eerie, unexplained UFO sightings. | By Joshua Rhett Miller The New York Post 1-18-17 |
| To this day, people swear there is something eerie about Rendlesham Forest - only last year, dog walkers claimed their pets became ill from walking in the area. In 1980, U.S. Army personnel stationed near Rendlesham in Suffolk saw a strange, metallic triangle which was ‘dripping molten metal’ - and witnessed a light like a ‘huge red eye’. | By Rob Waugh www.yahoo.com 4-15-16 |
|
| TO CELEBRATE the new season of X Files, we researched the reported UFO sightings in Central Queensland. This information was obtained from the UFO Research Queensland Incorporated database. | Melanie Plane www.themorningbulletin.com.au 3-29-16 |
| People in cities and towns near Siberia's Lake Baikal have reported seeing a mysterious bright object flying slowly through the sky, and posted videos and photos online to corroborate their accounts, Russian news reports said Wednesday. | The Moscow Times 2-18-16 |
| There have been numerous 'sightings' of UFO in the skies of North Wales over the years. The UFO crash the at Berwyn Mountains in 1974 has been much reported, but there have been various sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects across North Wales. | By Daniel Bissett www.dailypost.co.uk 2-12-16 |
 | By Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos fotocat.blogspot.com October 2015 |
“I wish to have searched your Aviation Accident or Incident Notifications database(s) for any reported incidences or events which contain any of the following attributes: Unusual or Unidentifiable Aircraft and/or Objects; ie UFO's; Suspected (but not confirmed) Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. As stated, I would like the searches performed on files/databases dating back to May, 2003.The next day, the ATSB sent me their mandatory acknowledgement of receipt of my request, and thus I waited for some four weeks for some progress.
“In accordance with arrangements made by Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner of ATSB, I am authorised to make a decision under section 29 of the FOI Act. Accordingly, I have decided that you are liable to pay a charge for the processing of your request. The preliminary estimate for processing this request is $2010.63.”$2010.63?? For material they already have accessible at the touch of a mouse button?? Well, I was having none of it. None of it, see! On the 5th of January I sent the ATSB a request for a waiving of charges, backed up by my assertion that $2010.63 seemed a rather high figure – indeed far higher than any other FOI request I have submitted to other agencies and departments; plus, the little fact that UFO’s, unknown or unusual craft, drones, etc were of an air safety significance, sometimes in the extreme, and that the public would be better served knowing a bit more about what seems to be flying around in our airspace. The very next day I received a surprising and much appreciated response from the ATSB:
“Thank you for your email of 5 January 2015. The ATSB has decided to waive the charges applicable for processing your request.”On the 19th of March, 2015, after nearly three months of waiting, I received three PDF files containing a formidable 158 pages of ATSB Aviation Accident or Incident Notification reports, plus other internal ATSB correspondence, as well as inter-agency correspondence between the ATSB and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Upon studying this material, I was able to ascertain that there were, dated back to 2004, twenty-four individual air safety incidences involving near misses, or “air proximity” events, between aircraft and unknown, or at least, hard to identify bodies in Australian skies. Now, five of these events were already known to us from previous FOIs to Air Services Australia (ASA) and general information publically available, usually from online ATSB systems.
“4NM north of Mount Sandon the pilot of [redacted] thought they saw traffic just below them coming towards them. They commenced a turn to the right to avoid the object then turned back to the left to see behind and attempt to identify what it was. The pilot subsequently reported that it was a red and white object travelling very fast but it could not be identified for certain as an aircraft. There was no other known traffic to the ATS system within 12NM of the aircraft and there was no cloud. The sun at the time was high and to the rear left of the direction of travel. Air situation playback (ASPB) confirmed there were no other Mode-C SSR returns. The area is outside of primary radar coverage. The object passed at an estimated distance of less than 500 feet below the aircraft.”20,000 feet hey? What, I ask, other than another airplane, does a pilot need to turn to avoid? A missile or UAV? We are currently, and somewhat urgently, looking into what sort of body could achieve this sort of altitude; and some of you may remember the fiasco that has occurred over Perth in recent times involving potential rocket firings near passenger planes. If not, read my previous blogs:
.png "UFO Occurence Detail Report (FOI 200502046 Via Paul Dean)") |
| - click on image(s) to enlarge - |
“Please note that this occurrence is a notification only and has not yet been investigated. After being issued departure instructions and a take-off clearance [redacted] take-off clearance was cancelled due to multiple unidentified system tracks that appeared on the Australian Defence Air Traffic System (ADATS) Situational Data Displays (SDD). The tracks presented as primary radar returns only, with no associated secondary surveillance radar (SSR) data. These tracks appeared at approximately 30NM south of WLM and disappeared from all SDD screens at approximately 8NM south of WLM. No further returns were observed and [redacted] was subsequently departed without further incident.”Now, I wish to stress that this event could be related to primary radar glitches involving interference and such, but, as the paperwork tells us, an Air Safety Occurrence Report (ASOR) was raised because of the event. ASOR’s are a RAAF report, so someone considered the event serious enough to not ignore it. Maybe soon we will find out. I have already sent an FOI Request to the Department of Defence in which I described the event and its pertinent data, and I finished by stating:
“I wish to ask for any material held by the Department of Defence, regarding the above matter. The material may well be held at the Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (DDAAFS) and/or at Williamtown RAAF. Specifically, I wish to obtain ASOR material; any internal Defence emails, or emails to and/or from external agencies (the ATSB for example); any investigative reports; any material held on the Defence Aviation Hazard Reporting and Tracking System (DAHRTS); any material held on the Closed Loop Hazard/ASOR Review and Tracking System; imagery from the actual Situational Data Displays (SSD); primary radar system test results; general opinions and conclusions of RAAF officers; logs of phone calls made regarding the incident; etc.”Below is an image of the paperwork for this puzzling event:
.png "UFO Occurence Detail Report (FOI 201402471 Via Paul Dean)") |
| - click on image9s) to enlarge - |
A large (approx. double size of a soccer ball) cylindrical shiny object passed by aircraft by our right hand side. Its colour was brown/orange. It caught my eye in the 1230 position and I watched it pass by our right hand side at our level and missed our right hand wing tip by about 5 metres. Reported to ATC (Sydney approach). It happened very quickly and I was the only known witness. It might have been a balloon but it was not round.”An image of the ATSB documentation is below:
.png "UFO Occurence Detail Report (FOI 201204538 Via Paul Dean)") |
| - click on image(s) to enlarge - |
| By Paul Dean The UFO Chronicles 1-29-15 |
“any documents held by Air Services Australia, on the subject of “unidentified flying objects.”On the 18th of June, Keith was furnished with internal ASA material containing a number of media enquiries to ASA, enquiries to ASA from the general public, etc. The only significant material given to him was a 2004 “Event Report” involving a Qantas flight and an “unidentified object”. This material can be viewed on Keith’s blog site here:
“….any incidences where flight crews have reported any:After receiving an acknowledgment reply on the 25th of November, I waited for what I thought would be the usual “no material responsive to your request can be found” type nonsense. However, on the 10th of December, 2014 I was pleasantly surprised when I received quite the opposite:
1) Unusual, Unknown, or Unidentifiable Aircraft or Objects;
2) Suspected Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;
3) Meteoric Events, fireballs and the like;
4) Especially unusual weather phenomenon;
which are held on ESIR or CIRRIS database(s).
“Dear Mr. Dean,Contained with this email were 3 attachments. One was the usual “Access Decision” which all FOI requests end with; one was a “Table of Documents” which is a list of any material being furnished; and the final PDF was the one that contained the smoke and fire… Dryly titled “Documents Being Released Under The Access Decision” this PDF was a full 3 pages, and in tiny font size at that, of tabulated pilot reports of UFO events over Australia. Below is an image of the “Table of Documents” page:
Please find attached an FOI access decision, table of documents and documents being released under the access decision re your request dated 25 November 2014.
Freedom of Information &
Privacy Contact Officer/Legal Inquiries Coordinator
Office of Legal Counsel
Airservices Australia”
.png "Scehdule of Documents (Paul Dean FOIA)")
“Either we are dealing with morons at these government FOI and information branches, or, they are not morons and they are deliberately hiding the material I have asked for, and am entitled to, as an American citizen.”Whatever the truth of the matter, we now have, for those who are interested in real data and real cases - rather than the pathetic “UFO theatre” that goes on in this caper – actual reports from pilots to Airservices Australia. The only problem is, I cannot understand half of it, and I am waiting on advice from people who can. Until then, here are some of the better cases in absolute raw form:
Case ATS‐0126807, which occurred on the 26th of January, 2014, above Adelaide, states:And so they go on. For three pages. All of this is completely raw data: No internal ASA opinions, no emotive statements by the pilots, no conclusions; just the actual tabulated entries on ASA databases, and little else. Even a cursory look at a not insignificant number of these entries tells me that the offending “UFOs” are nothing more than lanterns or model aircraft. But some are not. Right now, I am trying to have these cases – which admittedly come with limited data – put “into English” by the contacts I have to gain a clearer picture of what was actually happening in the skies to cause the pilots to submit such reports, some of which I suspect may have been made quite urgently.“At 2315Z TGW484, inbound on the ALEXI 05V STAR reported having traffic at 12 o'clock, 5NM. AAE reported there was no observed traffic in that vicinity. TGW484 then requested a turn onto heading 210. TGW484 then reported the traffic in their right, 3 o'clock 2.5 NM "visual", and were turning back for the VSA. TGW484 then asked if AAE had the traffic on radar, 3' o'clock at 4NM. AAE replied they had an A320 past the 3 o'clock at 6.8NM. AAE confirmed whether that was the traffic they had reported, which TGW reported they were not sure, they had had traffic showing 2.5 NM same level. Shortly after JST774 following TGW reported TCAS showing something at BATIP, "hovering" at A020, which then disappeared.”Case ATS‐0075593, which is listed as occurring on the 10th of April, 2009, in the region of “TOPS”, wherever that is, states:“ANO332 tracking DN‐KU on descent, reported an airprox with an unknown aircraft approximately opposite direction, at approximately A090. Subsequent questioning of the crew elicited that the aircraft was observed approximately 3‐4 NM east of the flight planned track and followed on TCAS, but there was no RA, nor was the aircraft sighted. Weather conditions were VMC. ANO332 reported unable to raise the aircraft on VHF.ATS surveillance is not available in this part of the airspace so the report was unable to be corroborated by ATC. No flights matching the aircraft were known to the ATS system.Case ATS‐0105506, which occurred on the 25th of April, 2010 in the Canberra region states:“Unidentified (upside down pyramid shaped) object drifting close to final rwy 35. First spotted at approximately 400ft AGL on the Western edge of Mt Jerrabomberra. Initially drifted West, towards final for rwy 35, before climbing and drifting to the Northeast. Two aircraft (QFA814 and VOZ259) were diverted through noise abatement areas (Southwest of YSCB) to avoid the object.”Another one, ATS‐0098025, 26th September, 2012:“TGW581 reported a red cylindrical object passing the aircraft in the opposite direction when climbing through FL200 approximately 20 nm miles south of Sydney.”
