The unexplained "Julia" sound is described as:

Julia is a sound recorded on March 1, 1999 by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA said the source of the sound was most likely a large iceberg that had run aground off Antarctica. It was sufficiently loud to be heard over the entire Equatorial Pacific Ocean autonomous hydrophone array. The unidentified sound lasted for about 15 seconds. Due to the uncertainty of the arrival azimuth, the point of origin could be between Bransfield Straits and Cape Adare.

If you Google for information on this you invariably find a whole slew of web-sites that claim something along the lines of

The photo and all the information regarding this is all hush-hush and classified, but often explained away as underwater volcanic activity or a large iceberg scratching against the ocean floor. But pictures rumored to have been taken by Nasa’s Apollo AA35 suggest something more sinister.

Is there any evidence to suggest that anything about the Julia sound or its cause is classified?

In the same vein, how could these web-sites and others could have determined that any classified evidence exists? (E.g. are there any reports with redactions?)

  • 4
    My first question is, what is Apollo AA35? – JasonR May 19 '15 at 14:42
  • 2
    The 3:20 from Chicago to Charlotte? It makes as much sense as anything else I can find. – Brian M. Hunt May 19 '15 at 15:24
  • I can't see how we could answer this one if it is false, apart from picking at minor details (e.g. the Apollo program ended in 1975). – Oddthinking May 19 '15 at 16:14
  • @Oddthinking There appear to be two avenues for demonstrating the negative: 1.) showing that NOAA/NASA has had no publication on Julia that has been classified; and/or 2.) showing that the rules governing NASA/NOAA "classified" material make it unlikely the web-sites/others would have any basis for alleging their existence. – Brian M. Hunt May 19 '15 at 16:40
  • 2
    Thanks @Oddthinking. NOAA/NASA regularly publish documents with confidential information redacted, and the titles of confidential document are often published/FOIA-able. If whistleblowers or others leaked the information, then one would expect a record or publication about it, or at least a reference to an origin and document identifier. Do you think there is room to improve the question to clarify these points? – Brian M. Hunt May 19 '15 at 17:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .