I question whether this is real report. It has been floating around for a bit. Read it and see if that reads like a government report.
Here's a quote from another source...
Tyler Rogoway, the War Zone defense industry reporter who has raised the bar in this field over the past couple of months with stellar FOIA work on two recent U.S. incidents, is unambiguously impressed with the quality of the witnesses and the overall level of detail in the accounting.“Regardless if you think the AATIP program was totally legit or some type of elaborate misinformation mechanism dreamed up in the darkest corners of the defense-industrial complex,” Rogoway wrote on Tuesday, “during that week in November of 2004, something totally strange did indeed occur. And it didn’t just happen in a blink of an eye, it happened over days, with the object in question being examined by a multitude of the U.S. Navy’s front-line sensors as well as by the human eye of one of the best-trained and reliable observers one can imagine.”
A worthy debate over the provenance of the documents is ongoing. Between now and whenever the authenticity issue is resolved, the military’s characterization of the intruder(s) – “no known aircraft or air vehicle currently in the inventory of the United States or any other foreign nation,” “advanced aerodynamic performance,” “advanced propulsion capability,” and “possibly … a highly advanced capability to operate undersea completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors” – is making an implicit but revolutionary concession: not only can’t we compete with Tic Tac, the thing appears to be mocking our illusions of absolute control.
There are many such unexplained incidents that military people are witness to. Even tracked by Radar.
This was obviously produced to sound convincing. So you have to tell the average internet reader why they should be so convinced by this report - look how impressive these systems are, and this technical stuff we're throwing in.
That is not the way a real report would be organized. The paragraphs would be numbered and portion-marked for classification. Fake.
Not authentic. Obviously someone typed something up, but it is not an official doc.
No agency markings to reference to begin with.
Someone took some effort to make this appear somewhat like the typewriter typed inking of reports from the 70s or what not. I especially like the circles indicating the three hole punch.
Believe it or not, DoD actually does actually use things like Microsoft Word. Just because a doc is leaked doesn’t mean it has to look like someone took a leak on it.
Not knowing anything else, I call the leak story BS. No comment on the content.
Dude, how dare you question an article in newsmax that refers to Harry reid!
There are some commonalities. Granted.
However, there are also plenty of idiosyncrasies because even in the military and civil government circles, people are still individuals with their own somewhat unique writing styles etc.
It's reasonable to conjecture about whether something is official because of style. However, it is far from conclusive.
It is all the more so when there are special projects involved--sometimes headed by very unique individuals. For someone to emphatically declare that this doc cannot be official because of stylistic differences--is just not convincing, to me. Even if it was a 1% sort of thing--that this thing is a unique 1% of official communications and everything else is on the other side--that is entirely conceivable, to me.