A Military Operator Saw One Shiny Object Circle Another
Radar and a camera tracked two contacts. Then, according to the report, both vanished in a fraction of a second.
Radar and a camera tracked two contacts. Then, according to the report, both vanished in a fraction of a second.
A military operator reported seeing two shiny objects, one circling the other. According to the report, both vanished in a fraction of a second, and the footage did not identify them.
A completed U.S. Navy 'Range Fouler Debrief' form documenting a nighttime encounter on 10/27/20 at 01:12:21Z during a DCA mission. The aircrew, directed by KINGPIN to ID an unknown contact, obtained a radar lock and target pod video on two IR-significant contacts at 26,000 ft, with one 'range fouler' circling the other before both disappeared in '1/30th of a second.' The tally was '2X RED BLINKING STROBES' and noise jamming (indicated by two chevrons) was received. Initial detection was at bullseye ZIM 248/17.
Aircrew on a DCA (Defensive Counter-Air) mission, directed by KINGPIN to ID an unknown contact, obtained radar lock and target pod video but were unable to close inside 16.9 NM for a better ID. The target pod showed two IR-significant contacts; one range fouler was circling around the other. Both disappeared in '1/30th of a second.' Tally achieved was '2X RED BLINKING STROBES.' Noise jamming was received, indicated by two chevrons. Stable trackfile achieved; tally achieved.
"KINGPIN DIRECTED ID OF UNKNOWN CONTACT."
Why it matters: Establishes the tasking/origin of the intercept.
Page 1
"OBTAINED RADAR LOCK AND TARGET POD VIDEO BUT UNABLE TO GET CLOSER THAN 16.9NM TID GETA BETTER ID."
Why it matters: Documents sensor data captured but limited closure for visual ID.
Page 1
"THE TARGET POD SHOWED 2 IR SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS. ONE RANGE FOULER WAS CIRCLING AROUND THE OTHER IN 1/30TH OF A SECOND, THEY WERE GONE."
Why it matters: Core anomaly: one object circling the other and both disappearing in 1/30th of a second.
Page 1
"TALLY ACHIEVED WAS 2X RED BLINKING STROBES AND NOISE JAMMING WAS RECIEVED. NOISE JAMMING WAS INDICATED BY TWO CHEVRONS."
Why it matters: Visual/EW characterization of the contacts.
Page 1
"FIRST DETECTION OF THE RANGE FOULERS WERE AT B/E ZIM 248/17"
Why it matters: Records initial detection bullseye reference.
Page 1
MG Richard A. Harrison
Declassification authority · Page 1
Bullseye ZIM 248/17
Page 1
KINGPIN
U.S. Navy (controller/callsign) · Page 1
Radar
sensor · Page 1
Target Pod (ATFLIR)
sensor · Page 1
AIM-9x
sensor · Page 1
Last Name, First Name / Rank / Squadron / S/PR Email Address fields blank or sanitized per SPEAR policy
Likely reason: Aircrew/squadron identifying information sanitized per stated policy
Narrative section, marker '1.4a' appearing inline before/after sensor description
Likely reason: Likely Executive Order 13526 Section 1.4(a) (military plans/operations) classification marking
Submission/troubleshooting contact info redacted as (b)(5) and (b)(6)
Likely reason: FOIA exemptions: (b)(5) deliberative process; (b)(6) personal privacy
Form fields captured: Date 10/27/20; Time 01:12:21Z; Day/Night = Night; Mission = DCA; LFE? = No; Contact Altitude = 26000; Contact moving = Yes, Direction/Speed 060/20; # of Contacts in Group = 2; Stable Trackfile = Yes; Tally Achieved = Yes; Radar Equipped = Other; EA Indications = Other/ECM; Crew Position = O-3 (likely WSO/IFFS field truncated); Side No. = 'Bimo'; First detection bullseye ZIM 248/17. Lat/Lon fields left blank on form. Document references USCENTCOM MOR 26-0038 to 26-0046 and 'Approved for Release to AARO' dated 03/27/26.
He described two metallic, shiny, balloon-shaped objects with flashing red lights.
The report describes footage of two dots in the infrared range, but the source material does not include a link to the recording.
No. The operator couldn’t get close enough to identify them, and the report offers no explanation.
On the night of October 27, 2020, a military operator spotted two unidentified objects in the sky. He tracked them on radar and filmed them with the aircraft’s camera, but couldn’t get close enough to determine what they were.
One detail in the report stands out: one object circled the other. A moment later, both vanished in a fraction of a second. The camera recorded two dots in the infrared range, confirming that two objects were there but offering no clue as to what they were.
The operator described the encounter in a report to the U.S. Navy. He wrote that he had tracked both contacts on radar and that the aircraft’s camera showed two dots in the infrared range. Those words describe what the camera captured; they don’t identify the objects.
The operator tried to get closer for a better look but couldn’t get near enough. Neither the radar tracking nor the footage answered what had passed in front of him. He described one object circling the other, but didn’t say how long the movement lasted.
The operator described the two objects as metallic, shiny, and balloon-shaped. He also wrote that he saw two flashing red lights. These descriptions reflect what he saw at the time; they don’t definitively identify the objects’ shape or how they operated.
Then, according to the report, both objects vanished in a fraction of a second. The operator didn’t simply lose track of one: he wrote that both disappeared after one had circled the other. The report does not say what he saw afterward or describe any further attempt to approach them.
The incident took place at night, but the report gives no specific location. It is unknown what the objects were or what caused them to disappear. The report offers no conventional explanation and makes clear that the descriptions of their shape and movement reflect the operator’s impressions.
One object circled the other. Then both vanished from the screen.