The truth about NASA’s ‘GoFast’ UFO verdict exposed in secret internal emails

One of the Pentagon‘s most famous UFO videos is facing new scrutiny after secret NASA emails raised fresh questions about how it was analyzed.

The ‘GoFast’ encounter, recorded by Navy pilots tracking a fast-moving object off the Atlantic coast in 2015, was assessed by NASA as most likely showing an ordinary object drifting with the wind.

But newly released documents obtained by UFO researcher Grant Lavac through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that NASA’s 2023 review relied entirely on publicly available footage and did not include interviews with the Navy aviators who witnessed the encounter.

NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) panelist Josh Semeter, director of Boston University’s Center for Space Physics, acknowledged the limitation in an internal email written weeks before the agency released its findings.

‘No, our panel did not speak with the aviators,’ Semeter wrote. ‘The analysis is based purely on information in the publicly released video.’

The correspondence also showed the panel did not have access to raw sensor data, instead relying on details visible within the footage itself. They noted that although the raw data were unavailable, the video display contained information such as camera elevation angle and aircraft altitude that analysts used in their calculations.

Semeter added that mathematical modeling suggested the object was not traveling at unusually high speeds, but stressed the analysis did not determine what the object actually was, noting the available data were insufficient to identify its size, shape, material, or whether it had visible flight features.

‘We cannot determine from the data whether this object is a metallic orb, or has any flight surfaces,’ he continued. He also emphasized that while the calculations suggested the object was not moving at extraordinary velocity, this did not mean the GoFast incident had been fully explained.

Public interest in UFOs heightened in 2017 with the leak of three Navy pilots infrared videos that captured UAP. Pictured is a still from one of these videos, GOFAST, which NASA’s expert UAP advisory panel attempted to explain as terrestrial this week

In another internal exchange, one panel member suggested the group’s detailed review of high-speed claims may have been limited to a single case, the GoFast video itself, and acknowledged that even that analysis was not comprehensive.

The ‘GoFast’ UFO video was recorded in 2015 by a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet crew operating off the East Coast.

The grainy, black-and-white footage shows an object skimming low above the Atlantic Ocean, captured through a fighter jet’s targeting display as one pilot can be heard exclaiming: ‘Ohhh, got it!’

The Daily Mail has contacted NASA and Semeter for comment.

Internal emails suggest the panel’s testing of high-speed UFO claims may have been narrower than publicly understood.

David Spergel, president of the Simons Foundation and a member of NASA’s independent UAP study team, wrote in an August 21, 2023 message that the group appeared to have closely examined only a single case, the GoFast video, when evaluating claims of extreme speeds.

‘I don’t believe our panel reviewed more than a single case (Go Fast by Josh) where the high velocity claim was brought into question, and even that review wasn’t comprehensive,’ Spergel wrote. 

He added that the panel did not believe it had reviewed enough cases to justify broad conclusions about multiple high-speed UFO events.

Newly released documents obtained by UFO researcher Grant Lavac through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that NASA’s 2023 review relied entirely on publicly available footage and did not include interviews with the Navy aviators who witnessed the encounter

The correspondence also revealed internal debate over how strongly the panel should phrase its findings, with Spergel urging colleagues to avoid language suggesting that numerous high-velocity sightings had been disproven. 

Instead, he recommended revising the wording to emphasize that accurately determining distances is essential to understanding anomalous events, rather than implying that many such sightings had already been explained.

In a February 2024 email, NASA records officials contacted the independent study team to determine what UAP-related data had been collected, citing new federal requirements under the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that mandate the tracking and management of unidentified anomalous phenomena records.

The correspondence also revealed internal debate over how strongly the panel should phrase its findings, with Spergel urging colleagues to avoid language suggesting that numerous high-velocity sightings had been disproven

Instead, he recommended revising the wording to emphasize that accurately determining distances is essential to understanding anomalous events, rather than implying that many such sightings had already been explained

Daniel Evans, the assistant deputy associate administrator for research at NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, wrote in an email sent on February 9, 2024 that ‘we are not aware of any UAP records at NASA.’

The recipient, Patti Stockman, who worked as a management and program analyst for NASA headquarters, questioned Evans’ claim, responding: ‘Daniel. Really? You haven’t been gathering any existing records that might have relevance to UAP, even though you’ve conducted the public meeting of the study team on categorizing and evaluating data of UAP?’

To which Evans sent a formal response: ‘I would like to reaffirm that, following a comprehensive review of our activities and the discussions held during the public meeting on UAP, as well as the subsequent report, NASA currently does not hold or manage records classified specifically as UAP documents.’

He added in a May 10, 2024 email to Stockman: ‘The one incident that was in proximity to a NASA Center was actually picked up by a DoD radar, and hence is their record.’

The internal exchanges also noted that NASA’s UAP study team consisted of external experts rather than agency staff, with them describing the panel as an independent scientific review body separate from NASA’s own operational decision-making