Somewhat old material, but I was having trouble finding these, so I thought I'd make a thread to store them, and for more focussed discussion.
There's a cache of Range Fouler reports, released in Jan 2023
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/CaseFiles/UAP INFO/UAP DOCUMENTS/RF Reports Redacted (202301).pdf
Also on The Black Vault
https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/RFReportsRedacted(202301).pdf
The Gimbal incident is listed as 2015-002, on page 27
Then there's a different FOIA document about a meeting on Jan 16, 2019 where SASC staffers were briefed by pilots on the incident. It contains a copy of the range fouler with different retractions (in the section labeled "background:"
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
These are included, and referred to in @TheCholla's paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.08773.pdf
From the two versions we can get a single version with all the unredacted info. The bold text was redacted in one or the other version. The length of the redactions are just approximations, and you should refer to the originals if you want to see if a word it too long or short to match.
I'm revisiting this because the Range Fouler report has been cited as corroboration of the weird close path derived from the lines of sight. It does not. All it says that matches somewhat is:
There does not seem to be any differentiation here between the "rotating" craft vs. the "fleet". While the broad strokes are similar to Grave's descriptions, the details of the turn are lacking.
See also the discussion of the SA page which includes a look at the different statements from Graves:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/recreating-the-gimbals-fleet-on-the-sa-page-with-sitrec.12431
There's a cache of Range Fouler reports, released in Jan 2023
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/CaseFiles/UAP INFO/UAP DOCUMENTS/RF Reports Redacted (202301).pdf
Also on The Black Vault
https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/RFReportsRedacted(202301).pdf
The Gimbal incident is listed as 2015-002, on page 27
Then there's a different FOIA document about a meeting on Jan 16, 2019 where SASC staffers were briefed by pilots on the incident. It contains a copy of the range fouler with different retractions (in the section labeled "background:"
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
These are included, and referred to in @TheCholla's paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.08773.pdf
From the two versions we can get a single version with all the unredacted info. The bold text was redacted in one or the other version. The length of the redactions are just approximations, and you should refer to the originals if you want to see if a word it too long or short to match.
So that's all from 2015. The 2019 briefing continued:
Operating off the coast o[---] [-----] [------] Weather cloudy, unrestricted visibility. [-----]
In [---],LT [---] was serving as a Weapons Systems Officer in [---]. At that time, the squadron was participating in COMPTUEX with the [---] as part of the pre-deployment workup cycle. Toward the end of one of the night flights, LT [--] was conducting during the at-sea period, he and his pilot detected an air contact via [---------] coming from the east and heading towards the ship. Initially thinking it may be a simulated adversary aircraft as part of the COMPTUEX scenario, he took a [---] lock to investigate further. The contact was at approximately [----------------------]. With a stable trackfile, the two aircrew determined that it was not a "false hit" and they were able to gain a lock via the [-------------] which further indicated the vehicle had a [-----------]. It became clear via the [----] that there were [---] air vehicles flying [-------] [-------] type formation. The pilot maneuvered the [----] to maintain [----] lock in an effort to gather [----] and try to make an ID. The air vehicle appeared to be shaped like a [------] resembling some type of [--------] Maintaining [--------] on what appeared to be the [---] craft, LT [---] and his pilot noted what appeared to be very [-------------] that it made. Because this event too place at night [---------------] being used and the closest point of intercept being approximately [-------------] with the craft(s) was never made. Instead, all of the aerial [--------------] and headed back towards the east, away from the [----]. Closest the air vehicles came to the the [---] was approximately [----]. Once LT [---] and his pilot were back on board the [-----------] was viewed [--------] [----] and [------------]) but nothing more was ever discussed or analyzed about the event after it occurred.
The sentence "In Dec 2017, a portion of that video was aired by the press" shows this is Gimbal, as GoFast was aired in 2018.
In Dec 2017, a portion of that video was aired by the press, and Congressional interest in these sighting began to grow.
- The staffers asked if the objects seemed aware of the [-----] or the Navy ships in the area. The staffers also asked [------] if he knew if the [--------------] observed the unidentified craft via radar as he did.
- Staffers were interested in the shape of the unidentified object and how it compared to the [------] objects identified by other pilots.
- Staffers were interested in the amount of experience [------] had and the amount of flight hours he had. They were very respectful of his opinions and thoughts based on his 700 plus hours of experience at the time.
- Staffers also asked about the action the Navy took following [------] return to the ship to include his debrief by the intelligence professional and actions taken by the CVW Staff, Commander of the Strike Group and others throughout the Chain of Command. The staffers were disappointed by the lack of action taken by the Navy. They also wondered what happened to the video evidence of the encounter. The staffers also asked if [------] was forced to take a drug test following the incident or was harassed.
- The staffers also asked about the chain of custody of the video of the encounter. The staffers are generally disappointed that the Navy does not save any video of these encounters and the chain of custody is lacking.
- Overall, the Staffers desired [------] to spread the word that Congress is interested in the topic and are willing to hear about their experiences.
- Staffers asked all three Naval Aviators why they had the perception that UFO where [------]. The staffers were shocked that the ranger fowlers in 2014-2015 [---------------------]. That is the first time a pilot communicated to the staffers [------------------] to a large extent
- Finally, The SSCI staffer wanted to know the official Navy response and reaction to these reports and observance.
- The staffers indicated that Sen Reed, Sen Durbin, and Sen Menendez were all interested in this topic and will likely desire to talk with pilots directly who have observed these unexplained craft.
- The SASC staffers indicated there is a low possibility that this topic will come up during the CNO's posture hearings scheduled for Feb-Mar 2019.
I'm revisiting this because the Range Fouler report has been cited as corroboration of the weird close path derived from the lines of sight. It does not. All it says that matches somewhat is:
Instead, all of the aerial [--------------] and headed back towards the east,
There does not seem to be any differentiation here between the "rotating" craft vs. the "fleet". While the broad strokes are similar to Grave's descriptions, the details of the turn are lacking.
See also the discussion of the SA page which includes a look at the different statements from Graves:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/recreating-the-gimbals-fleet-on-the-sa-page-with-sitrec.12431
Last edited:
