USSUBCOM: Unknown Contacts

[bogeyman]

We have all heard of the term UFO but almost nothing is known or released officially concerning unknowns detected by sonar under our oceans which covers a large percentage of this world.

So I began my quest to see if any official information could be released. I filed a FOIA request to the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington DC. for records pertaining to known/unknown contacts within the territorial waters of the United States for a period of 30 days. The request was transferred to the Submarine Force Pacific Fleet COMSUBPAC.

The Commander of COMSUBPAC responded via letter dated 13 July 2017 stating: " The Department of Defense has determined the existence of non existence of records, which would reveal a connection or interest in the matters set forth in your request, is classified......the Department of Defense neither confirms or denies that such records may or may not exist..." So my request denied. So I appealed it, and my appeal went to the Judge Advocate General, Washington Naval Yard. A response was swift, from the Director of JAG.

The missive dated August 22 2017 stated that COMSUBPAC response was termed a "Glomar" response from a court case pertaining to the CIA's classified project. Further they stated it would could harm if they answered by request, and that the information if it existed would fall under the exemption "(b)(1)" which means that the information is properly and currently classified in the interests of national defense. If potential responsive information qualifies as exemption (b)(1) there is "no discretion" regarding its release. Further they stated the "request for sonar contacts data related to military operations if it exists, fits squarely within this category of information that could cause serious damage to national security."

So it seems that unknowns under the ocean are classifiable the fact they have information on such contacts is a secret within it self.....nothing to unknowns in the ocean, think again.

[Joe from the Carolinas]

Seems like a form letter response. You would expect some log somewhere of a sonar operator in training unable to identify at least 1 contact.

[findingneo]

Bogeyman, WOW!

BTW, what did you make of that photo by the Flying Dutchman, Domestic Arline pilot , off the coast of Russia, along the fault line a year or more back? Was it volcanic activity, or something else do you think?All the sea lit up at night.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=f...pqLKMzsObot5M:

[avid]

Posted by findingneo (here)
Bogeyman, WOW!

BTW, what did you make of that photo by the Flying Dutchman, Domestic Arline pilot , off the coast of Russia, along the fault line a year or more back? Was it volcanic activity, or something else do you think?All the sea lit up at night.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=f...pqLKMzsObot5M:

Kamchatka is extremely unstable, with regular earthquakes and volcanic activity. Looks like an underwater eruption. However, very exciting to see.

[findingneo]

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2014...-red-glow.html

[bogeyman]

Posted by JoefromtheCarolinas (here)
Seems like a form letter response. You would expect some log somewhere of a sonar operator in training unable to identify at least 1 contact.

It is not a standard response has such the Director of JAG reviewed my letter carefully since my appeal was two pages and provided details of sonar surveillance systems in use, to provide evidence that sonar contacts are made. Basically the sonar contacts are classified in itself, example One(U) is unclassified and can be admitted to, Two (S) is classifiable since the term is SECRET and to admit to it would be providing classified material. It is the exploitability of the release of such material that is always a factor in current operations and sonar contacts within 30 days falls into that category, that is what he was saying.

[Joe from the Carolinas]

Posted by bogeyman (here)

Posted by JoefromtheCarolinas (here)
Seems like a form letter response. You would expect some log somewhere of a sonar operator in training unable to identify at least 1 contact.

It is not a standard response has such the Director of JAG reviewed my letter carefully since my appeal was two pages and provided details of sonar surveillance systems in use, to provide evidence that sonar contacts are made. Basically the sonar contacts are classified in itself, example One(U) is unclassified and can be admitted to, Two (S) is classifiable since the term is SECRET and to admit to it would be providing classified material. It is the exploitability of the release of such material that is always a factor in current operations and sonar contacts within 30 days falls into that category, that is what he was saying.

Okay, thanks, that makes sense. I'm extremely ignorant to the language/jargon/terms being used so the implications are hard for me to follow.

Are you saying that because of the response, it shows that they've found unknown contacts in the last 30 days?

Also I was thinking, sonar has been around a long time, have you found any evidence of unknown contacts outside of the 30-day period?

[bogeyman]

Posted by JoefromtheCarolinas (here)

Posted by bogeyman (here)

Posted by JoefromtheCarolinas (here)
Seems like a form letter response. You would expect some log somewhere of a sonar operator in training unable to identify at least 1 contact.

It is not a standard response has such the Director of JAG reviewed my letter carefully since my appeal was two pages and provided details of sonar surveillance systems in use, to provide evidence that sonar contacts are made. Basically the sonar contacts are classified in itself, example One(U) is unclassified and can be admitted to, Two (S) is classifiable since the term is SECRET and to admit to it would be providing classified material. It is the exploitability of the release of such material that is always a factor in current operations and sonar contacts within 30 days falls into that category, that is what he was saying.

Okay, thanks, that makes sense. I'm extremely ignorant to the language/jargon/terms being used so the implications are hard for me to follow.

Are you saying that because of the response, it shows that they've found unknown contacts in the last 30 days?

Also I was thinking, sonar has been around a long time, have you found any evidence of unknown contacts outside of the 30-day period?

Reading between the lines and the three paragraphs of legal cases regarding the records that I seek which were denied has a result, they stated they may "refuse to confirm or deny" records where the answer would "cause harm" under the FOIA exemption (b)(1) (national security). So yes they have detected unknowns within the last 30 days but cannot admit to it. If say they had 30 unknowns within a period of 30 days any potential enemy who is familiar with sonar and has a vested interest in keeping tabs on sonar systems and the ability to differentiate between various contacts, would be able to make something out of these unknowns, has to why the US Navy cannot identify them, the parameters so to speak or the shortcomings within their sonar equipment, tactics, techniques and the ability to a analyses these contacts to distinguish them from other known contacts. This would provide an advantage to any opponent and mask known contacts to make it look like something else. After all an unknown object is a potential threat, a known potential enemies submarine is a potentially actually threat and gives more parameters and information on what action can be taken, offensively and defensively, because you know what it is, an unknown is something that you don't know what it is, hence less information and less parameters on what action that can be taken, since you are detailing with an unknown.

I did state also to JAG after I received the denial appeal letter that the only reason why the Glomar response is prevailing is that the oceans are out of the public view other wish this response would not last the test of time. Has regarding outside the 30 day period is yet to be officially seen but in view of the response it would seem likely the US Navy and others are monitoring submarines and other submersibles across the globe, and no doubt the submarine fleet has been involved in such activities, but being what they are, stealth is the key to these activities and has President Trump once stated, the submarines are much more powerful than any aircraft carrier.