Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

FBI Confirms Report of 'Long, Cylindrical' UFO 'Moving Really Fast' Over New Mex (popularmechanics.com) 150

An anonymous reader shares a PopularMechanics report: An American Airlines flight crew encountered an unidentified flying object over New Mexico on February 21. American Airlines has confirmed the strange incident, during which a "long, cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile" zipped over the Airbus A320, according to a pilot's transmission obtained by The War Zone. American Airlines Flight 2292 was en route from Cincinnati to Phoenix on Sunday afternoon when it came into contact with the mysterious object at approximately 37,000 feet over northeastern New Mexico. Radio interceptor Steve Douglass captured Flight 2292's transmission on the Albuquerque Center frequency of 127.850 MHz or 134.750 MHz.

In the transmission, which you can hear here, the American Airlines pilot reported:

"Do you have any targets up here? We just had something go right over the top of us. I hate to say this, but it looked like a long, cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile type of thing -- moving really fast right over the top of us."

Albuquerque Center didn't respond to the pilot's report because local air traffic interfered, Douglass wrote on his blog, Deep Black Horizon. American Airlines Flight 2292 safely landed in Phoenix shortly after the encounter.

American Airlines later confirmed with The War Zone the validity of the transmission:

"Following a debrief with our Flight Crew and additional information received, we can confirm this radio transmission was from American Airlines Flight 2292 on Feb. 21. For any additional questions on this, we encourage you to reach out to the FBI."
When TMZ reached out to the FBI, spokesperson Frank Fisher said the Bureau is "aware of the reported incident." He continued: "While our policy is to neither confirm nor deny investigations, the FBI works continuously with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to share intelligence and protect the public."

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also released a short statement confirming the encounter:

A pilot reported seeing an object over New Mexico shortly after noon local time on Sunday, Feb. 21, 2021. FAA air traffic controllers did not see any object in the area on their radarscopes.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Confirms Report of 'Long, Cylindrical' UFO 'Moving Really Fast' Over New Mex

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:05PM (#61103080)

    Stop talking about it. Stop asking.
    -Lockheed

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Thelasko ( 1196535 )
      No, it's Antifa.
  • Missile (Score:5, Funny)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:09PM (#61103094)

    "long, cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile"

    So, a cruise missile?

    • Re:Missile (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:14PM (#61103116)
      Sure, probably. Half of New Mexico is test ranges. (Exaggeration but still). The distressing thing is that whatever this was got close enough to alarm the pilot. Even if there was enough separation for safety, the fact we're reading about it means it should have been more.
    • Re:Missile (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:16PM (#61103128)
      A cruise missile isn't cylindrical -- It's a small winged aircraft.
      • Re:Missile (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:21PM (#61103164)

        I was thinking this sounds rather similar to some of the newer UAV approaches. Maybe something similar to this: https://newatlas.com/military/... [newatlas.com]

      • by MDMurphy ( 208495 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:30PM (#61103202)
        An analysis popped up on Metabunk a couple of days ago:
        https://www.metabunk.org/threa... [metabunk.org]
        • by careysub ( 976506 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:44PM (#61103262)

          For those who do not bother to follow the link, a Lear Jet 60 XR, designated N738RJ, passed by overhead a few minutes before the report was made by the pilot.

          UFO no longer.

          • Except that that looks like a pretty stereotypical airplane that a pilot would see quite frequently.

            Granted, I have no belief that this object is alien/extraterrestrial in origin, however I highly doubt that it would be a bog-standard airplane.

            • by aitikin ( 909209 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:59PM (#61103326)

              Except that that looks like a pretty stereotypical airplane that a pilot would see quite frequently.

              Granted, I have no belief that this object is alien/extraterrestrial in origin, however I highly doubt that it would be a bog-standard airplane.

              If you follow the whole thread, one of the posters explains that from the distance and the speed, an assumption of it being closer and flying faster may have occurred.

            • Except that that looks like a pretty stereotypical airplane that a pilot would see quite frequently.

              There are many, many, many cases of UFOs turning out to be planes. You can find them all over the place on metabunk, including the fucking silly claims by the pilots who took the footage.

              There is this bizarre belief that pilots can't be stupid. I assure it, it's completely fucking false.

              • by Z80a ( 971949 )

                They don't even need to be stupid.
                The human vision is full of shortcuts and "reconstructions", with the vision on the peripheral area being pretty much guesswork with the black & white, low resolution quality there is.

                • Oh- don't get me wrong. Inability to identify a target, or even misidentification of a target does not make one stupid.

                  Looking at a fuzzy blob and thinking it was an alien does.
                  • by Z80a ( 971949 )

                    You don't see a fuzzy blob, you see whatever your brain decided that the fuzzy blob looks like.
                    Look for a video called "Shocking illusion - Pretty celebrities turn ugly!" to see how autocomplety your vision is.

          • Why did the controllers report they saw nothing on radar?

      • Current cruise missiles look like small stubby-winged aircraft. They test the new ones in New Mexico.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Totally not cylindrical. Not at all.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • You just won stupidest fucking comment on the internet today award.

        Not only are most aircraft highly cylindrical in nature, a cruise missile happens to be a literal cylinder with a couple of tiny wings, tiny elevators, and a tiny vertical stabilizer attached to it.
      • The Tomahawk (the standard cruise missile in US inventory) IS a cylinder with tiny aerofoils.

    • "long, cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile"

      So, a cruise missile?

      The problem with saying 'it was a cruise missile' is that as soon as its determined to be not an actual cruise missile but some other thing that looks like a cruise missile, then whoever said that becomes belittled for being an idiot who raises false alarms and makes unfounded accusations.

    • Re:Missile (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:49PM (#61103292)

      Why do I get the feeling there is some low level Air Force guy getting chewed out right now.

      • Oddly enough, it's possible it's some low-level Navy guy. More than a few US submarines are capable of carrying (and firing) something that looks like a cylindrical cruise missile.
        • More than a few US submarines are capable of carrying (and firing) something that looks like a cylindrical cruise missile.

          How many of those submarines are in New Mexico?

          • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

            Due to an overflow bug, the mighty Rio Grande is perfectly navigable by any vessel with a keel depth less than 65536 fathoms. They can't even fix it now, or else the roadrunner penguin will go extinct.

        • Oddly enough, it's possible it's some low-level Navy guy. More than a few US submarines are capable of carrying (and firing) something that looks like a cylindrical cruise missile.

          I wonder which about-to-retire admiral is assigned the coastal defense of New Mexico.

        • More than a few US submarines are capable of carrying (and firing) something that looks like a cylindrical cruise missile.

          Ya. Cruise missiles.

    • Not up where airliners fly it's not....
    • I wonder when you're flying at 500mph and something passes close to you, if literally any object wouldn't look cylindrical? I've been in a passenger jet and staring out a window when I saw two fighter jets fly below in the opposite direction. I have no idea how far away they were, probably 10kft in height and for all I know a mile off to the side (or more, I have no way to know). They moved really, really fast, if I blinked I would have missed it. But they were far enough away that I got a good enough look

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Current US cruise missiles only travel about 80 kt faster than this airplane was going, but it sounds like this thing was going so fast that the pilot didn't get a very good look at the thing.

      China, Russia and the US all have hypersonic missile programs; the US program is called "Prompt Global Strike". If this thing was one of ours, it was from a program the DoD is being cagey about, so maybe that was it.

    • "long, cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile"

      So, a cruise missile?

      Or Tom Cruise.

    • It was 2001-2003 timeframe, flew over our office building while were outside having lunch. Many people saw it. It went by at the blink of an eye and made no noise. Only caught the tail of it was it went over the building, looked like a cruise missile tail but white.
  • You mean a ... rocket?

  • by LatencyKills ( 1213908 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:19PM (#61103144)
    An A320 cruises at about 840 km/hr. If this were some type of missile test, it would have been supersonic - at least 1200km/hr, and more likely multiples of that. The overlap of an A320 and a cruise missile would have been seconds, probably no long enough for the pilot to identify anything more than the contrail.
    • Not all cruise missiles are supersonic, including some very recent and test-worthy ones like LRASM.
      • Also including every cruise missile ever fired in anger that I can think of, in my lifetime.

        Tomahawks are subsonic.
        • P-800 Oniks missiles were reportedly fired by Russians at targets in Syria in 2016.
          • I figured that if anyone had used supersonics, it would have been the Russians against ISIS/L. That's why I hedged with "that I can think of"

            Informative though, so thank you
    • Supersonic is actually a shit regime for cruise missiles (which is why ours are subsonic)

      The problem with cruise missiles, is that they're essentially a plane.
      Planes are very easy to shoot out of the sky.

      This gives you 2 reasonable options: Too fast to hit (hypersonic) or too low to hit (subsonic)
      Technically speaking, one could have a ground-hugging supersonic cruise missile, but its control surface requirements would be vastly different.
  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:20PM (#61103148)
    Whose wings fell off. They fall really fast that way.
  • by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:22PM (#61103168)
    There appears to be a reporting error/inconsistency in the coverage from the anonymous Slashdot reader who submitted this story. In the OP, above, msmash notes the the following:-

    "American Airlines later confirmed with The War Zone the validity of the transmission:

    "Following a debrief with our Flight Crew and additional information received, we can confirm this radio transmission was from American Airlines Flight 2292 on Feb. 21. For any additional questions on this, we encourage you to reach out to the FBI." When TMZ reached out to the FBI, spokesperson Frank Fisher said the Bureau is "aware of the reported incident." He continued: "While our policy is to neither confirm nor deny investigations, the FBI works continuously with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to share intelligence and protect the public."


    But if you go to the provided link to the Black Horizon Blog [blogspot.com], you can see that their original article was updated on Tuesday 23rd with the following:-

    "American Airlines emailed ABC 7 News the following statement on Tuesday morning:

    At this time, we do not have any indication the radio transmission was from the flight crew on board American Airlines Flight 2292 on Feb. 21."


    It isn't entirely clear what's happened here... It looks as though the timeline was:-

    2/21/21 - Black Horizon publish their initial post covering the incident, which includes the first American Airlines quote, confirming the incident and redirecting reporters to the FBI
    2/23/21 - Black Horizon update their original post, with what amounts to a denial from American Airlines, effectively suggesting that the transmission was not from the AA flight in question.
    2/26/21 - Slashdot cover the story but do not include references to the updates now showing on the Black Horizon Blog.

    It isn't clear from the material presented quite what has happened here. Certainly I don't think there is any attempt to deceive or mis-represent what had happened. But perhaps the original anonymous submission was either incomplete or it sat in a queue for a while waiting to be posted, during which time the updates occurred.

    Bottom line is: there have been additional developments. Definitely worth clicking through to the document sources to get the latest updates.
  • It's probably a duck. This thing didn't show on radar, and a quick googling reveals lots of cruise missiles that claim to be stealthy. They have ranges of 100s of miles. The speeds I saw were just listed as "subsonic", but that still gives some room to be considerably faster than an airliner.

    Somebody, somewhere, is getting chewed out by their CO.

    That seems like the most likely explanation, but we'll probably never find out. I'm still wondering who overflew our neighborhood *twice* last year at tree-top

    • Near as I can tell, cruise missiles are mostly meant to cruise at low altitudes to avoid AAA and AA missiles. Near as I can tell, they cruise slower at high altitude when they fly at high altitude.

      I think a cruise missile (more or less known models) don't fly at 37,000 feet at speeds greater than commercial aircraft cruise speeds.

      I think it's possible that this could have been a new kind of cruise missile being tested that's capable of high altitude, high speed flight, although I kind of wonder if even thi

      • Googling around a bit more, it seems that some cruise missiles (especially air-launched) will maintain high altitude to increase range, then drop down once they enter a zone where that's more advantageous.

        I couldn't find a picture of the LRSO [airforcemag.com] currently under development. It's launched from a B-52 and allegedly has a 1500 mile range though, so a stray test of that is a good candidate.

    • The thread above about the Learjet that is known to have passed over the plane's flight path a few minutes before the call is pretty convincing though. The silhouette of a small jet is pretty similar to a cruise missile (aka. unmanned smaller jet) from a distance, and you can't tell how far away something is against the sky so the pilot wouldn't have a scale reference. The Lear was going 500 knots which was faster than the airliner (and surprisingly fast for a small craft) and in almost the opposite directi

    • Ducks aren't cylindrical!

  • by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:27PM (#61103196) Journal
    Just like correlation does not mean causation. UFO does not mean extraterrestrial.

    In case we forgot, UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object.
    • You mean there aren't cylindrical aliens out there?

      • You mean there aren't cylindrical aliens out there?

        There could be. We don't have proof either way.

      • by hawk ( 1151 )

        >You mean there aren't cylindrical aliens out there?

        Only the very lowest budget aliens are cylindrical.

        The slightly higher budget aliens are boxy, and full price aliens have tentacles.

        Budgetless aliens simply have bad eyebrows, squint a lot, speak with a bad combination of German and Russian accent.

    • You don't need to state the obvious that UFO stands for unidentified flying objects. Maybe only children think it means aliens.
  • Dr. Evil? (Score:5, Funny)

    by boudie2 ( 1134233 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:40PM (#61103248)
    Johnson: [Noticing Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
    Colonel: What is it, son?
    Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
    Jet Pilot: Dick.
    Dick: Yeah?
    Jet Pilot: Take a look out of starboard.
    Dick: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--
    Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.
    Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Ooh, Where?
    Bird-Watching Woman: Wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's--
    Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
    Baseball Umpire: Two balls.
    [looking up from game]
    Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous--
    Chinese Teacher: Wang, pay attention!
    Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying--
    Musician: Willie.
    Willie Nelson: Yeah?
    Musician: What's that?
    Willie Nelson: [squints] Well, that looks like a giant--
    Colonel: Johnson?!
    Johnson: Yes, sir?
    Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.
  • The big question in my mind is: did it leave a contrail? If it did, then it's almost definitely terrestrial (and I suspect that it is). If it didn't, well that would be pretty interesting.
    • What physics says an ET object would not leave a contrail in our atmosphere? The same laws of physics applies to alien craft too. Though I find it very highly unlikely that it is such.
  • by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:10PM (#61103370)

    Almost all of the major military powers have been pursuing supersonic cruise missile technology and some designs have been put into service. The US has been conspicuously absent in this area. The US has been publicizing its hypersonic missile work, but not supersonic cruise.

    Odds are these pilots saw a glimpse of a secret supersonic cruise missile prototype. They used to term 'cruise missile type of thing' and a fast supersonic cruise missile is likely to look less like a small aircraft and more like a fuel filled cylinder with stubby — perhaps hard to observe — control surfaces.

    There has been writing from supposedly authoritative military analysists that attempt to downplay the need for supersonic cruise and rationalize the lack of an active supersonic cruise missile program in the US. I've always believed this is misguided or deceptive; in war speed is life and a fast cruise missile is likely to be capable of things that a slow one isn't, meaning targets that can't be killed by the latter are vulnerable to the former. The US military isn't in the habit of foregoing such capabilities.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Wow, film at 11?
    They actually confirmed that someone made a report!!!
    Clearly cold fusion using bleach and windex is true, because someone made that report, you can confirm it.
    Why is confirming that someone made a report news here?
    As per rule I did not RTFA.
  • Just the Sunday night shipment coming in. Beats tunnelling.

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...