It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FOIA: Heavily Redacted UFO Siting

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:55 AM
Report of a UFO sighting.

Document date: 1111-11-11
Department: Redacted
Author: Redacted
Document type: Report
pages: 2


Archivist's Notes: This document is heavily blacked out. As a result most information is unreadable. It reports a sighting of strange lights, but it is unclear as to where. With the blacking out it reads like it identifying the lights but obviously this is unclear. A rather poor source for gaining useful information

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:25 AM
The document is indeed heavily redacted.

That being the case, I will post what I can pull from it.

A noiseless unidentified light was witnessed and reported.

Possibility of light being a satellite.

Light subsequently identified as "at least" one aircraft.

Possibly at a later time, 3 lights were seen at approximately 300 meters. One was stationary and blinking, other two were moving, presumably in the same general area with them crossing paths on at least one occasion.

Either the conclusion was made that it was a cargo flight, or it was suggested that the UFO be labeled a cargo flight.

Too heavily redacted to pull any real information.


[edit on 16-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:08 AM

1. Unidentified silent moving light

2. Three lights - one stationary and blinking (Item 1?); two moving and crossing paths

3. Apparent altitude of (Item 1) was estimated at 300 meters

Official Explanations:

1. Satellite

2. One aircraft (confirmation of flight(s) in the area)

Official Conclusion

1. Cargo flight


1. Discussion of two UFO's moving/crossing paths completely redacted/ignored.

2. Little or no disclosure value without corroborating documentation

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:57 AM
Pages are labeled "Page 0015" and "Page 0016".

May be part of another document.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by Hal9000

Indeed. That is what I was thinking myself. Certainly they would not have begun with pages 15 and 16.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by Hal9000

Good point. Thanks for the heads-up on paying attention to this important fact in the future.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by Hal9000

I've noticed that too. An indication that we should be careful with other documents. I hope not but might be a common thing...

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:27 PM
The mention of a satellite might date the document as being written after 4th October 1957, the date when the first satellite Sputnik 1 was launched.

Apart from that there's not an awful lot to go on.

new topics

top topics


log in