⿻ Subsea UAP/NHI

|OVERVIEW|SITREP|PRODUCTS|FEED|
|UPDATED: 02 OCT 2025

|OVERVIEW|

Recent years have seen a surge of mainstream interest in the subject of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), now referred to in official (military) parlance as UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena), as well as non-human intelligence (NHI).

Subsea UAP and NHI are subjects of increasing interest in the scientific and defense communities, driven by recent reports and public disclosures about anomalous phenomena observed in both air and water.

WHAT IS KNOWN OR UNDERSTOOD

Connection Between UAP and Water:

• Many UAP sightings occur near large bodies of water, leading to speculation about underwater bases or transit points.
• Reports describe objects moving seamlessly between air and water (transmedium capabilities) without creating significant turbulence or noise, which is beyond the capabilities of known human technology.

Reported Observations:

• Objects exhibiting extreme speed, maneuverability, and silent operation have been observed underwater (sometimes tracked by sonar or reported by submarines).
• Sightings often occur in strategic areas such as the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, near naval bases or shipping lanes.

Scientific and Defense Research:

• Naval sonar systems occasionally detect anomalous objects moving at speeds or with patterns inconsistent with marine life or conventional vessels.
• The U.S. Department of Defense has set up the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to investigate UAP, including underwater cases.
• Some scientific efforts, such as those by the Galileo Project, aim to study anomalous phenomena using rigorous, data-driven approaches.
• Former Oceanographer of the Navy Tim Gallaudet authored a white paper for the Sol Foundation, a nonprofit think tank focused on advancing science and policy on UAP, which highlights the potential of ocean science in understanding trans-medium phenomena, and later reinforced these points in his public testimony before Congress calling for greater transparency and study of underwater UAP/USOs.

SPECULATIVE THEORIES

• Advanced Human Technology: Suggests underwater UAP may represent secret military projects or cutting-edge technologies from adversarial nations, and that these technologies are testing transmedium vehicles capable of operating covertly in underwater environments.

• Extraterrestrial or Non-Human Origin: Suggests that UAP/NHI could be extraterrestrial probes or vehicles, and their presence in water might indicate the ocean as a strategic hiding place or resource hub, or the presence of underwater extraterrestrial bases.

• Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis: Proposes that an advanced, undiscovered civilization exists beneath Earth's oceans, explaining why many UAP sightings occur in marine environments.

• Natural Phenomena Misinterpreted: Natural underwater phenomena, such as bioluminescent marine life, unusual atmospheric conditions, or sensor errors, could be mistaken for UAP. Rogue waves, methane seeps, or underwater volcanoes might create anomalies that are misidentified as advanced vehicles.

• Dimensional or Interdimensional Entities: Some suggest UAP/NHI phenomena could involve entities or objects transitioning between dimensions, using water as a gateway or energy medium.

MOST LIKELY EXPLANATIONS

• Technology Testing - It is plausible that some underwater UAP reports stem from experimental underwater or transmedium platforms developed by nations with significant defense budgets.

• Unexplored Natural Phenomena - The ocean is vastly unexplored, and unknown species or geophysical phenomena could explain some encounters.

• Sensor or Data Misinterpretation - Advanced sonar and radar systems are not infallible and may occasionally misinterpret clutter or environmental noise as anomalous objects.

• Hyped or Misreported Events - Many UAP sightings may stem from miscommunication or exaggeration, especially in media or unofficial reports.

OPEN QUESTIONS

• Why Water? - If UAP/NHI do indeed frequent underwater environments, are they using the oceans as hiding places, transit routes, or energy sources?

• Why Transmedium? - What mechanisms enable UAP to transition seamlessly between air and water? This remains a major technological mystery.

• Global Distribution - Why are sightings concentrated in certain geographic areas? Does this indicate strategic interest, or is it a matter of observation bias?

POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS

• Strategic Considerations: Underwater UAP could influence naval and undersea warfare strategies, especially if they pose security threats or offer new technology insights.

• Scientific Exploration: UAP research might drive advancements in oceanography, sonar technology, and aerospace engineering.

• Philosophical Impact: Discovering NHI would raise profound questions about humanity's place in the cosmos, redefining our understanding of intelligence and life.

|OVERVIEW|SITREP|PRODUCTS|FEED|

|SITUATION REPORT|

Below is a timeline and thematic breakdown of what is publicly known about recent U.S. congressional/government hearings and oversight activity related to UAP/NHI, and what has (or has not) been said specifically about underwater or subsurface phenomena. This is a rapidly evolving topic, and many statements remain speculative or anecdotal.

KEY THEMES IN THE HEARINGS

From the public record, several common themes emerge:

• Transparency vs. Classification: Many committee members express frustration with the high level of classification around UAP-related programs and data, which they argue impedes oversight and public understanding.

• Whistleblower Protection: Witnesses and legislators repeatedly call for stronger protections and legal safeguards for personnel who report UAP/NHI anomalies.

• Data Sharing, Standards, and Coordination: A recurring recommendation is to mandate consistent data collection, cross-agency sensor fusion, and reporting protocols (military, intelligence, civilian).

• Skepticism & Demand for Rigorous Evidence: Some members and analysts warn against overhyping anecdotal testimony, instead urging better science, instrumentation, and falsifiable hypotheses.

• Institutionalization & Legislation: The hearings often allude to pending legislative proposals to embed UAP oversight into permanent governmental structures rather than one-off hearings.

• Ambiguity, Unresolved Cases, and Limits of Public Record: Despite dramatic claims, no hearing to date has produced a consensus, confirmed NHI artifacts, or a definitive explanation for claimed anomalies. Many cases are closed due to insufficient data or remain unresolved.

UNDERWATER/SUBSURFACE UAP/NHI REFERENCES/CLAIMS

The record is particularly thin and speculative with respect to underwater or subsurface phenomena. A handful of references and claims have surfaced in hearings, media, and whistleblower accounts.

• White Orb Emerging from Ocean: In one congressional hearing, a “white orb” emerging from the ocean (off Kuwait) was presented as evidence of a UAP transitioning from beneath or near the surface to aerial space. Another report in televised coverage mentions “UAPs are interacting with humanity and these include unidentified submerged objects in the ocean.”

• Congressional Curiosity/Questions: Some members have explicitly asked witnesses about underwater alien bases and the possibility of Department of Defense concealment of such structures. Witnesses generally respond that evidence is lacking or unverified.

• Statements by Witnesses and Whistleblowers: While many claims focus on aerial encounters, some testimonies discuss objects moving horizontally near surface or underwater. For example, one congressman quoted an “admiral” referencing objects moving hundreds of miles per hour underwater. Some witnesses also argue that current sensor regimes (primarily aerial/ radar/infrared) are insufficient for detecting subsurface anomalies, implying a blind spot for underwater UAPs. (Such sensor gaps are more implicitly stated than clearly documented.)

CHALLENGES & GAPS IN PUBLIC RECORD

• Lack of Confirmed or Declassified Underwater Case Files: Unlike many of the aerial UAP reports, there is no widely accepted, declassified, and conclusively verified underwater UAP case presented in hearing transcripts or public government reports.

• Sensor Constraints & Classification: Subsea sensors (sonar, hydroacoustics, underwater vehicles) tend to fall under distinct jurisdiction (Navy, intelligence, national security) and may be more tightly classified. This may lead to underreporting. Some advocates argue these “blind zones” are where anomalous objects could operate. However, solid corroborating evidence is missing in public forums.

• Technical & Physical Plausibility: The underwater environment presents significant challenges (e.g. drag, density, energy demands, communication) for high-speed or trans-medium (water to air) trajectories. Claims implying extraordinary underwater capabilities often face skepticism unless backed with robust multisensor data.

• Inter-Domain Transitions: The “orb emerging from water” scenario is among the few that touches on a transition between subsurface and aerial modes. But key questions remain: was the object truly underwater prior? Did it pierce the water-air interface? What sensors tracked it in both domains? The public record doesn’t definitively answer these.

OUTLOOK

• Congressional hearings reflect a clear shift from taboo to more open discussion of UAP/NHI in U.S. government. The frequency of hearings, whistleblower platforms, and legislative attention all point to institutionalization of oversight.
• Much remains opaque. Many claims are anecdotal or unverifiable in public. No confirmed NHI artifact or underwater base has been publicly validated.
• Underwater UAPs currently occupy a speculative edge; they are occasionally mentioned, but the public evidence is thin. It’s plausible that if anomalous systems exist, they may exploit the gaps in underwater detection, but that remains conjecture in public discourse.
• Future hearings and reforms may dig deeper into subsurface claims, especially as Congress and oversight bodies press for sensor integrations, declassification of previously suppressed data, and cross-domain anomaly hunting.
• The inherent high-level secrecy of undersea warfare operations will likely continue to preclude any public disclosure of subsea anomalous activity.

|OVERVIEW|SITREP|PRODUCTS|FEED|

|STRIKEPOD PRODUCTS|

‣ ⿻ Subsea NHI: A Field Brief (Fiction) - 1 April 2025

|OVERVIEW|SITREP|PRODUCTS|FEED|

|INTEL FEED|