Course Correction (Controlled Flight)

Bob Fish Fast Walker Description

The clearest documented example comes from Bob Fish's 2015 email to John Podesta, describing a Fast Walker detection witnessed by DSP personnel in El Segundo, California:

"Not only was it going very fast but it made a 30° course correction turn which means it did not have a ballistic freefall reentry trajectory that a meteorite might have. So it was under some sort of control although whether it was manned or just robotic there's no way to tell."

This 30-degree course change is critical because:

1. Meteors follow ballistic paths: Natural objects entering the atmosphere are subject only to gravity and atmospheric drag, producing predictable trajectories
2. Satellites follow orbital mechanics: Man-made spacecraft in orbit follow Keplerian trajectories governed by gravitational physics
3. Missiles are ballistic post-boost: After powered flight ends, missiles follow ballistic arcs toward their targets

An object making a significant course correction mid-flight demonstrates active propulsion or control authority incompatible with these natural or conventional explanations.

1984 Indian Ocean Case

The May 5, 1984 Fast Walker case reported by Joe Staulia describes an object that:

• Traveled at 22,000 mph toward Earth
• Passed within 1.8 miles of the DSP satellite
• Changed course and flew back into outer space

The ability to reverse direction after approaching Earth — going from inbound to outbound trajectory — represents extraordinary control authority requiring propulsion systems capable of overcoming Earth's gravitational pull while traveling at extreme velocity.

Distinction from Ballistic Trajectories

Military analysts and satellite operators are intimately familiar with ballistic trajectories from monitoring missile launches and space activities. The fact that Fast Walkers making course corrections are specifically noted in reports suggests these maneuvers are:

• Readily apparent in detection data
• Anomalous enough to merit special designation and tracking
• Inconsistent with any known natural or conventional aerospace phenomena

Implications for Origin and Intent

Course correction capability implies:

1. Intelligence-directed operation: An object making deliberate trajectory changes is under guidance, suggesting purposeful navigation rather than random motion
2. Advanced propulsion: The ability to maneuver at extreme velocities in the vacuum of space or upper atmosphere requires propulsion far beyond conventional chemical rockets
3. Possible reconnaissance or surveillance intent: Deliberate maneuvering near Earth could indicate observational missions rather than random transit through the solar system
4. Non-terrestrial origin likelihood: No publicly acknowledged terrestrial technology can perform 30-degree course corrections at 22,000+ mph in space near Earth

As Evidence of Non-Natural Phenomena

Course corrections serve as the strongest piece of evidence that Fast Walkers are not:

• Meteors: Follow ballistic paths with no maneuvering capability
• Space debris: Follows orbital mechanics with no propulsion
• Conventional satellites: Maneuver slowly using small thrusters, not rapid course changes at extreme speeds
• Ballistic missiles: Follow predictable arcs after boost phase ends

The controlled flight characteristics documented in multiple Fast Walker cases over decades establish these objects as exhibiting capabilities beyond any conventionally explained phenomena — the key reason US Space Force, NORAD, and US Northern Command maintain strict classification on detection records under Executive Order 13526.

Sources

• Video - FASTWALKERS – UFOs Outside Earth