US Naval Flight Training Instruction Manual - Actually mentions "Alien Spacecraft"

As covered, light levels will be increased with the addition of starlight, cultural light and alien spacecraft

www.cnatra.navy.mil...

Once you have downloaded the PDF, search for "alien spacecraft"

This document is publically available. The section which mentions it, is actually covering Night Vision and the variables of light which could affect it.

Now, it is more than likely that someone just has a sense of humour and included it. It's not uncommon to have "funnies" in military training manuals, but either way - it clearly says those words in the correct context.





[edit on 6-11-2007 by timb3r]

Their cover story about this is very simple. What does the word "alien," mean?
It can mean "alien," as in UFOs which also covers foreign spacecraft from other countries when they are identified.

Surely they might define "alien," as extraterrestrial, but in the context of the manual, it is not entirely clear. Unless there are other briefings and training manuals that supplement this one, we are at odds upon actually knowing what they meant.

The inclusion of such wording is interesting but not necessarily definitive. NASA had a more definite presentation in their book Pioneering the Space Frontier

Our Resolve: To Go Forth "In Peace for All Mankind"

When the first Apollo astronauts stepped onto the Moon, they emplaced a plaque upon which were inscribed the words, "We came in peace for all mankind." As we move outward into the Solar System, we must remain true to our values as Americans: To go forward peacefully and to respect the integrity of planetary bodies and alien life forms, with equality of opportunity for all.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by SkipShipman]

reply to post by SkipShipman


It says "alien SPACECRAFT". I think that pretty much narrows it down to ETs.

Whilst I'm personally sceptical anyway, the term "alien spacecraft" is rather definitive in terms of a helicopter flight manual. The word spacecraft is not standard terminology for what a naval helicopter could potentially encounter. Mainly because of the effects of OGE. (assuming that as this is a naval flight manual, we are "at sea" for the purpose of this discussion)

Out of Ground Effect (OGE) is the opposite to IGE, where there are no hard surfaces for the downwash to react against.

For example a helicopter hovering 150ft above the ocean surface will be in an OGE condition and will require more power to maintain a constant altitude than if it was hovering at 15ft.
Therefore a helicopter will always have a lower OGE ceiling than IGE due to the amount of engine power available.

Source: www.helis.com...

In black and white, it states "alien spacecraft". It does not say foreign aircraft, alien aircraft or unidentified aircraft. As I said before, not standard terminology.

I think it's an odd inclusion, not a smoking gun. Even more so as we're talking in the context of light and the average UFO report tends to favour bright lights or a light in the sky - light which would certainly impact night vision. And it's certainly more definitive than the trend of reptilian nonsense threads. But it doese seem people are more interested in a "I'm an alien" thread than some actual military document (currently live, not FOI or archived).

Talk about MTV generation.





[edit on 6-11-2007 by timb3r]

Double post* ignore

[edit on 6-11-2007 by timb3r]

"Alien Spacecraft," is not defined in the manual. Yes I want it to be extraterrestrial too, but they do not tell us anything else but "alien spacecraft." It could mean unknown spacecraft, say a satellite returning from space. Can someone find the USN definition of "alien spacecraft?"

For me it is not specific enough to hang our hopes. Much more it covers any number of different extraterrestrial spacecraft as well of many different shapes.
That's my argument, but if there is more documentation, let me know. It seems they must be training with other supplementary manuals as well.

I do not think the Navy wants its pilots to define "alien spacecraft," from a UFO magazine, does it?

[edit on 6-11-2007 by SkipShipman]

If they really meant a foreign spacecraft it would've stated so.

The only reasonable conclusion is that they meant with what they said either that it was indeed a joke or perhaps it was a just in case type thing.

for me the actual site isnt loading so I am downloading an archived version, takes forever though

[edit on 6-11-2007 by johnlear]

Originally posted by SkipShipman

I do not think the Navy wants its pilots to define "alien spacecraft," from a UFO magazine, does it?

Thanks for the posts Skip. I don't think I have even seen you reach so far out on the limb of the ridiculous. Are you kidding me?

You really think the Navy defines alien spacecraft as "Mexican Flying Saucers"?

Thanks for the post Skip, I needed a shot of the totally insane. I was a quart low.

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the posts Skip. I don't think I have even seen you reach so far out on the limb of the ridiculous. Are you kidding me?

You really think the Navy defines alien spacecraft as "Mexican Flying Saucers"?

Thanks for the post Skip, I needed a shot of the totally insane. I was a quart low.

wait, wouldn't the technically correct term then be "flying tortillas"? lol, just had to say that, no offense intended btw, i love tortillas.



[edit on 7-11-2007 by luis9343]

Interesting find, thanks - added it to the growing collection of "official" documents.

Though I agree that without some type of corroboration from the Navy (forget it - will never happen), we are left to decide motive and semantics on our own.

If a typo (doubtful), then the rest of the document would be less-perfectly compiled. If a joke (also doubtful), then the author/author team face reprimand when caught. Technical writers are not known to have a very rich sense of humor that transpires into their work. If a semantics problem (possible), then we can expect a retraction, addenda/errata, and an eventual reprint (the GAO will love the cost of that one).

I agree with those that have doubts about the "intent" or presumed definition of the term as used here. As a pilot myself (John may confirm here), these manuals tend to be composed and published with significant aviator input and editing. It seems reasonable to assume that if they "meant" foreign aircraft they would have said so. Further, the term "spacecraft" is, as far as I know, almost exclusively utilized for sub-orbital or higher capacity vehicles - and not for "atmosphere-dependent" conventional aircraft.

It might be argued that the term "alien spacecraft" could refer, in this passage, to foreign-entity originating sub-orbital (or higher) craft, though I seriously doubt that because this section of the manual was discussing the use of NVG (night-vision goggles) during operations - equipment that would not be used in a "space flight".

Intriguing, Timb3r - nice sleuthing...

p.s. - Anyone have a direct contact within Navy Ops or Intel that they can run this by for a quick take/opinion?

[edit on 11/7/2007 by Outrageo]

"Grasping at straws". Thats all I can say.

In a whole manual the only mention of the fictional alien UFO craft is under a section related to luminosity. If this is genuine (including the typos:lol then I would have expected something like the admitance of the existence of ET to either not exist...or be mentioned in a threat relevance to the Earthlings craft.

If genuine we dont know what context the manual was written in. Personally I think it is more akin to unreferenced spacecraft and the addition to the overall luminosity of the local sky.

If ET does exist I would have expected more severe reference and advice, like get down quick and hide..or break out the KY jelly and prepare for anal probing

Originally posted by SkipShipman
"Alien Spacecraft," is not defined in the manual. Yes I want it to be extraterrestrial too, but they do not tell us anything else but "alien spacecraft." It could mean unknown spacecraft, say a satellite returning from space. Can someone find the USN definition of "alien spacecraft?"

For me it is not specific enough to hang our hopes. Much more it covers any number of different extraterrestrial spacecraft as well of many different shapes.
That's my argument, but if there is more documentation, let me know. It seems they must be training with other supplementary manuals as well.

I do not think the Navy wants its pilots to define "alien spacecraft," from a UFO magazine, does it?

[edit on 6-11-2007 by SkipShipman]

Sorry, I disagree with you on this one. If it was foreign, it would not be a spacecraft, it would be a foreign fighter jet.

Space and Craft means is a transportation vehicle in outer space. Aliens, not of this world. I don't think too many foreigners (people from other countries) have cool Space Crafts in outer space that she bright luminous light that the Navy can calculate the LUX with.

I don't think your spin on the definition of Alien Spacecraft is going to convince too many people here on ATS.

But i don't want to speak on anyones behalf. As for me, I think they are talking about UFO's.