CLEAREDFor Open Publication
Mar 06, 2024
Department of Defense

OFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEWTHE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ALL-DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE

Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvementwith Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)
Volume I
February 2024

1

Table of Contents
SECTION I: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION II: Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 7
SECTION III: Scope & Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 11

Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 11
Note on “UAP” Nomenclature .................................................................................................. 12
Congressional Oversight ........................................................................................................... 12
AARO’s HR2 Program of Analysis .......................................................................................... 12
SECTION IV: Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945 ............................................. 13

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 13
Project SAUCER (1946/1947–January 1948)........................................................................... 13
Project SIGN (January 1948–February 1949) ........................................................................... 14
Project GRUDGE (Original Organization) (February–December 1949) ................................. 15
Project TWINKLE (Summer 1949–Summer 1950).................................................................. 15
Project GRUDGE (Reestablishment) (October 1951–March 1952) ......................................... 15
Project BEAR (Late 1951–Late 1954) ...................................................................................... 16
CIA Special Study Group (1952) .............................................................................................. 16
The Robertson Panel (January 1953) ........................................................................................ 17
The Durant Report (February 1953).......................................................................................... 17
Project BLUE BOOK (March 1952–December 1969) ............................................................. 18
CIA Evaluation of UFOs (1964) ............................................................................................... 19
O’Brien Committee (1964) ....................................................................................................... 19
The Condon Report (April 1968) .............................................................................................. 19
National Academy of Sciences Assessment of the Condon Report (Late 1968) ...................... 20
Carter Administration Tasking to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)(1977) ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Roswell Investigations/Inquiries (1992-2001) .......................................................................... 21
Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) (2009–2012)/
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)................................................. 22
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) (August 2020-November 2021) ......... 24
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (June 2021) .................................. 24

2

Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) /Airborne Object Identification and Management Executive Management Committee(AOIMEXEC) (November 2021-June 2022) ............................................................................ 24
UAP Independent Study Team (UAPIST) (June 2022-September 2023)................................. 25
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) (Established July 15, 2022) ....................... 25
Foreign and Academic Investigatory Efforts ............................................................................ 26
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 27
SECTION V: Assessment of Interviewee Claims of USG Involvement in Hidden UAP Programs ......... 28

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 28
Primary Narrative ...................................................................................................................... 28
Secondary Narrative .................................................................................................................. 30
Findings............................................................................................................................................... 30
No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered .................................................................. 30
Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP Crash
Denied on the Record.......................................................................................................................... 31
The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic ............ 31
Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP Program
Activity ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial Spacecraft ...... 32
The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP.................. 32
Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-Sponsored ...................................... 32
Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft.............................. 32
Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy ................................... 32
AARO Investigating Unresolved Historical Nuclear-Related UAP Cases ......................................... 33
SECTION VI: Investigation into Named USG Sensitive Programs .......................................................... 33

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 33
Process for Protecting Sensitive Programs while Investigating Interviewee Claims................ 34
Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 34
One Private Program Mistaken for USG Program .............................................................................. 34
KONA BLUE: A Proposed UAP Recovery and Reverse-Engineering Program ............................... 34
Unnecessary IC Program Expansion................................................................................................... 35
Nexus of Proponents of the USG UAP Reverse-Engineering Allegation .......................................... 35
SECTION VII: Historical Context of UAP Investigatory Efforts Since 1945 .......................................... 36

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 36
Commonalities of 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations ................................................... 37
3

International Security Environment and Technological Surprise ....................................................... 37
Secrecy ................................................................................................................................................ 37
Public Interest ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Alleged Bureaucratic Barriers ............................................................................................................. 38
Insufficient Data and Information ....................................................................................................... 38
Perceived Deception ........................................................................................................................... 38

Differences between 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations ............................................... 39
Decreased Public Trust ....................................................................................................................... 39
Popular Culture ................................................................................................................................... 39
SECTION VIII: Testing and Development of U.S. National Security and Space Programs Most Likely
Accounted for Some Portion of UAP Sightings ......................................................................................... 39

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 39
Manhattan Project (August 1942) ............................................................................................. 40
V-173/XF5U-1 “Flying Pancake” (1942) ................................................................................. 40
Project Mogul (1947-1949) ....................................................................................................... 40
Project High Dive (1950s)......................................................................................................... 40
Project Aquatone/Dragon Lady (1954) ..................................................................................... 41
WS-117L/CORONA (Late 1956) ............................................................................................. 41
VZ-9AV Avrocar/Project Silver Bug (1958) ............................................................................ 41
Explorer 1 (January 1958) ......................................................................................................... 41
Oxcart/A-12/SR-71 (1958) ........................................................................................................ 41
Project Mercury (1958-1963) .................................................................................................... 42
TATTLETALE/GRAB (September 1960)................................................................................ 42
Project Gemini (1961-1966)...................................................................................................... 42
Project Apollo (1961-1972) ...................................................................................................... 42
Poppy (1962-1977).................................................................................................................... 42
Gambit (1963-1971) .................................................................................................................. 42
Hexagon (1971- 1986) .............................................................................................................. 42
Space Transportation System/Space Shuttle (1972 - 2011) ...................................................... 43
HAVE Blue/F-117A Nighthawk/TACIT Blue (1975) .............................................................. 43
Advanced Technology Bomber/B-2 Spirit (1980) .................................................................... 43
Strategic Defense Initiative (March 1983) ................................................................................ 43
Advent of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 1980s-Present............................................................... 43

4

GNAT 750 .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Predator ............................................................................................................................................... 44
Reaper ................................................................................................................................................. 44
Dark Star ............................................................................................................................................. 44
Polecat ................................................................................................................................................ 45
Sentinel ............................................................................................................................................... 45
Global Hawk ...................................................................................................................................... 45
SECTION IX: Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 45

5SECTION I: Introduction
This report represents Volume I of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office’s(AARO) Historical Record Report (HR2) which reviews the record of the United States
Government (USG) pertaining to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). In completing thisreport, AARO reviewed all official USG investigatory efforts since 1945, researched classified
and unclassified archives, conducted approximately 30 interviews, and partnered withIntelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) officials responsible forcontrolled and special access program oversight, respectively. AARO will publish Volume II inaccordance with the date established in Section 6802 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23); Volume II will provide analysis of information acquired by AARO
after the date of the publication of Volume I.
Since 1945, the USG has funded and supported UAP investigations with the goal ofdetermining whether UAP represented a flight safety risk, technological leaps by competitor
nations, or evidence of off-world technology under intelligent control. These investigations weremanaged and implemented by a range of experts, scientists, academics, military, and intelligence
officials under differing leaders—all of whom held their own perspectives that led them toparticular conclusions on the origins of UAP. However, they all had in common the belief that
UAP represented an unknown and, therefore, theoretically posed a potential threat of anindeterminate nature.
AARO’s mission is similar to that of these earlier organizations. AARO methodology
applies both the scientific method and intelligence analysis tradecraft to identify and help
mitigate risks UAP may pose to domain safety and to discover, characterize, and attributepotential competitor technological systems.
A consistent theme in popular culture involves a particularly persistent narrative that the
USG—or a secretive organization within it—recovered several off-world spacecraft andextraterrestrial biological remains, that it operates a program or programs to reverse engineer therecovered technology, and that it has conspired since the 1940s to keep this effort hidden fromthe United States Congress and the American public.
AARO recognizes that many people sincerely hold versions of these beliefs which are
based on their perception of past experiences, the experiences of others whom they trust, or
media and online outlets they believe to be sources of credible and verifiable information. The
proliferation of television programs, books, movies, and the vast amount of internet and social
media content centered on UAP-related topics most likely has influenced the public conversationon this topic, and reinforced these beliefs within some sections of the population.
The goal of this report is not to prove or disprove any particular belief set, but rather to
use a rigorous analytic and scientific approach to investigate past USG-sponsored UAP
investigation efforts and the claims made by interviewees that the USG and various contractors
have recovered and are hiding off-world technology and biological material. AARO hasapproached this project with the widest possible aperture, thoroughly investigating these6assertions and claims without any particular pre-conceived conclusion or hypothesis. AARO iscommitted to reaching conclusions based on empirical evidence.
Lastly, AARO thanks all participants in this review who made this report possible, toinclude the interviewees who came forward with information.
SECTION II: Executive Summary
AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research,or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial
technology. All investigative efforts, at all levels of classification, concluded that most sightings
were ordinary objects and phenomena and the result of misidentification. Although not the focusof this report, it is worthwhile to note that all official foreign UAP investigatory efforts to datehave reached the same general conclusions as USG investigations.
•

Although many UAP reports remain unsolved or unidentified, AARO assesses that if
more and better quality data were available, most of these cases also could be
identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena. Sensors and visualobservations are imperfect; the vast majority of cases lack actionable data or the data
available is limited or of poor quality.

•

Resources and staffing for these programs largely have been irregular and sporadic,
challenging investigatory efforts and hindering effective knowledge transfer.

•

The vast majority of reports almost certainly are the result of misidentification and a
direct consequence of the lack of domain awareness; there is a direct correlation
between the amount and quality of available information on a case with the ability toconclusively resolve it.

AARO found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies
have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology. AARO determined, based on all
information provided to date, that claims involving specific people, known locations,
technological tests, and documents allegedly involved in or related to the reverse-engineeringof extraterrestrial technology, are inaccurate. Additional claims will be addressed in Volume
II. AARO successfully located the USG and industry programs, officials, companies,
executives, and documents identified by interviewees. In many cases, the interviewees named
authentic USG classified programs well-known and understood to those appropriately accessedto them in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch; however, the interviewees mistakenly
associated these authentic USG programs with alien and extraterrestrial activity. AARO hasreached the following, high confidence conclusions related to:•

UAP Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA): AARO has found no evidence of any
authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence fordisclosing UAP information.

7

•A CIA Official Allegedly Managed UAP Experimentation: The named, former
CIA official was not involved in the movement of extraterrestrial technology. The
same former CIA officer signed a memo rejecting a claim made by interviewees that
he managed the movement of and experimentation on off-world technology.

•

Alleged UAP Intelligence Community Document: An alleged 1961 Special
National Intelligence Estimate that was “leaked” to online sources and suggests theextraterrestrial nature of “UFOs,” is inauthentic.

•“Aliens” Present During a DoD Technology Test: AARO reviewed information
related to an account of an interviewee overhearing a conversation about a technology
test at a military base where “aliens” allegedly were observing, and AARO judges thatthe interviewee misunderstood the conversation.

•

Claim That a Military Officer Touched an Off-World Craft: An interviewee
claim that a named former military officer explained in detail how he physicallytouched an extraterrestrial spacecraft is inaccurate. The claim was denied on therecord by the named former officer who recounted a story of when he touched an
F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter that could have been misconstrued by theinterviewee, though the named former officer does not recall having this conversation
with the interviewee.

•

Test of Off-World Technology: An interviewee claim that he witnessed what hebelieved to be the testing of extraterrestrial technology at a USG facility almost
certainly was an observation of an authentic, non-UAP-related, technology test thatstrongly correlated in time, location, and description provided in the interviewee’s
account.

•

UAP Disclosure Study: Interviewees’ claims that between 2004 and 2007 the WhiteHouse requested a research institute in Virginia study the theoretical societal impacts
of disclosing that UAP are extraterrestrial in origin; AARO confirmed the study was
conducted, but it was not requested by the White House.

•

Named Companies Allegedly Experimenting on Alien Technology: AARO has
found no evidence that U.S. companies ever possessed off-world technology. The
executives, scientists, and chief technology officers of the companies named byinterviewees met with the Director of AARO and denied on the record that they haveever recovered, possessed, or engaged in reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial
technology.

•

Experimentation on Alleged Extraterrestrial Spacecraft Sample: AARO has
concluded that a sample from an alleged crashed off-world spacecraft that AARO
acquired from a private UAP investigating organization and the U.S. Army is amanufactured, terrestrial alloy and does not represent off-world technology or possess
any exceptional qualities. The sample is primarily composed of magnesium, zinc,8and bismuth with some other trace elements, such as lead. This assessment was basedon its materials characterization.
AARO assesses that all of the named and described alleged hidden UAP reverseengineering programs provided by interviewees either do not exist; are misidentified authentic,
highly sensitive national security programs that are not related to extraterrestrial technology
exploitation; or resolve to an unwarranted and disestablished program. AARO created asecure process in partnership with the highest-level security officials within the DoD, IC, andother organizations to research and investigate these programs; AARO was granted full,unrestricted access by all organizations. It is important to note that none of the interviewees had
firsthand knowledge of these programs—they were not approved for access to nor did they workon these efforts—which likely resulted in misinterpretation of the programs’ origins and purpose.
•

The interviewees and others who have mistakenly associated authentic sensitive
national security programs with UAP had incomplete or unauthorized access tothese programs; discussion of these programs outside of secure facilities presents ahigh risk of exposing national security information.

•

One named program was a UAP-related Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP)
called KONA BLUE that was proposed to the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) and supported by individuals who believed the USG was hiding off-worldtechnology. The program was never approved by DHS and its supporters neverprovided empirical evidence to support their claims.

•

In 2021, without sufficient justification, the scope of an IC Controlled Access
Program was expanded to protect UAP reverse-engineering. This program neverrecovered or reverse-engineered any UAP or extraterrestrial spacecraft. This IC
program was disestablished due to its lack of merit.

AARO assesses that the inaccurate claim that the USG is reverse-engineering
extraterrestrial technology and is hiding it from Congress is, in large part, the result of
circular reporting from a group of individuals who believe this to be the case, despite the lackof any evidence. AARO notes that although claims that the USG has recovered and hidden
spacecraft date back to the 1940s and 1950s, more modern instances of these claims largely stemfrom a consistent group of individuals who have been involved in various UAP-related
endeavors since at least 2009.
•

Many of these individuals were involved in or supportive of a cancelled DIA program
and the subsequent but failed attempt to reestablish this program under DHS, called
KONA BLUE.

AARO assesses that UAP sightings and reports of these sightings to USG organizations
and claims that some UAP constitute extraterrestrial craft and that the USG has secured andis experimenting on extraterrestrial technology have been influenced by a range of cultural,political, and technological factors. AARO bases this conclusion on the following factors:

9•The aggregate findings of all USG investigations to date have not found even one
case of UAP representing off-world technology.

•

None of the programs mentioned by interviewees are UAP reverse-engineering
programs, and all the authentic programs have been properly notified and reported toCongress through the congressional defense and/or intelligence committees.

•

AARO has no evidence for the USG reverse-engineering narrative provided byinterviewees and has been able to disprove the majority of the interviewees’ claims.
Some claims are still under evaluation.

•

AARO determined that a piece of metal alleged to be recovered from an off-worldspacecraft is ordinary, of terrestrial origin, and possesses no exceptional qualities.

Several factors—domestic and international—most likely influenced sightings, reports,
and the belief by some individuals that there is sufficient proof that some UAP represent
extraterrestrial technology. AARO’s examination of the historical context of UAP
investigations from 1945 to the present reveals that these factors—some common to and distinct
between the earlier era of UAP investigations (pre-2009) and the modern era (post-2009)—
undoubtedly influenced the direction of these investigations, the volume of and spikes insightings, and the overall public interest, concern, and debate. These periods are divided intopre- and post-2009 timeframe because this is the year of the standup of the Advanced Aerospace
Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) and Advanced Aerospace Threat
Identification Program (AATIP) efforts. Prior to AAWSAP/AATIP there was about a 40 year
gap in UAP investigation programs since the termination of Project BLUE BOOK in 1969.
•

Common contextual factors between earlier and modern investigations include a
rapidly evolving and dynamic national security environment, concern about
technological surprise, intense secrecy related to government military programs,
public interest in UAP, perceived bureaucratic barriers, and the persistent lack ofquality data.

•

Some contextual factors that were distinct between earlier and modern investigations
include: differences in the level of public trust in the government; the large volume of
popular culture content related to UAP; the perception within some segments of the
population that the USG is hiding extraterrestrial technology; unauthorized
disclosures of classified programs mistaken for UAP observations; the proliferation of
online sources that reinforce these beliefs; the impact that social media has had on
circular reporting; and the rapid spread of misinformation.

AARO assesses that some portion of sightings since the 1940s have represented
misidentification of never-before-seen experimental and operational space, rocket, and air
systems, including stealth technologies and the proliferation of drone platforms. From the1940s to the 1960s especially, the United States witnessed a boom in experimental technologies
driven by World War II and the Cold War.

10•Many of these technologies fit the description of a stereotypical Unidentified Flying
Object (UFO). It is understandable how observers unfamiliar with these programs
could mistake sightings of these new technologies as something extraordinary, evenother-worldly.

•

Along with these conventional technology research areas, the USG started the
Manhattan Project in 1942. This program operated in secrecy and led to theestablishment of several “secret cities” across the United States to support thedevelopment of the nuclear bomb. Any misunderstanding stemming from the intense
secrecy surrounding this and similar programs could have been misconstrued forother efforts.

SECTION III: Scope & Assumptions
Scope
This HR2 is provided by DoD in response to a requirement established in the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2023, Section 6802(j), which states: “Not later than
540 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year2023, the Director of the Office shall submit to the congressional defense committees, thecongressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership a written report detailingthe historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous
phenomena.” This report, pursuant to the legislation, is based upon the records and documentsof the IC and DoD, oral history interviews, open source analysis, interviews of current andformer government officials, and classified and unclassified archives.
AARO will provide its findings to Congress in two volumes:•

Volume I contains AARO’s findings from 1945 to 31 October 2023 based on therequirements, and:•

Volume II will include any findings resulting from interviews and researchcompleted from 1 November 2023 to 15 April 2024.

AARO interviewed approximately 30 people who claimed to have insight into alleged
USG involvement in off-world technology exploitation or to possess knowledge of UAP thathave allegedly disrupted U.S. nuclear facilities in the past.
Assumptions
AARO and DoD assume that individuals convey their accurate recollection of theirperception of the events they observed or heard. It is important to note that AARO cannot
discount nor rely on interviewee accounts alone because of the extraordinary claims contained intheir reports. Although individual accounts are important, they are only one element of thelarger picture and provide AARO with the opportunity to initiate an investigation. However, any
final assessment on the veracity of these accounts must be accompanied by provable facts.

11•Some literature suggests individual accounts can be unreliable as they are subject to aperson’s interpretation of sensory data through the filter of their experiences, beliefs,
or state of mind during the event. A person who reports a case might be credible, inthat they believe the elements of their account to be accurate. However, theirreliability, which is their ability to accurately interpret events—as well as to recall
and convey those events due to a range of factors—is altogether different from theirinherent sincerity.1•

Similarly, confirmation bias is a recognized subconscious cognitive process whereby
a person tends to seek and believe information that supports their hypothesis and to
discount information that undermines their hypothesis.2•

AARO remains open to additional, verifiable information that may alter theconclusions rendered in Volume I and will note any changes to the findings in thisreport in Volume II.

Note on “UAP” Nomenclature
Use of the UAP naming convention, while imperfect, is the best manner in which tocharacterize the multitude of unidentified reported sightings. AARO understands that the use of“UAP” to refer to all potential possibilities provides a false sense of commonality; such as their
origins, identity, purpose, type, and threat they may pose. The only commonality that they all
share, at least initially, is that they are each unidentified. Beyond initially being unidentified or
misidentified, drones, balloons, aircraft, rockets, rocket exhaust plumes, satellites, infrared (IR)aberrations, sensor artifacts, birds, stars, planets, indistinct lights, vague radar returns, meteors,and optical effects—such as parallax—have nothing in common.
Congressional Oversight
DoD is committed to providing timely and thorough reporting to Congress and totransparency with the American public. Since its establishment, AARO has endeavored to keep
Congress fully and currently informed of its activities and findings at all levels of classification.
AARO and DoD will continue to share the status and findings of its research at the appropriate
level of classification with Congress.
AARO’s HR2 Program of Analysis
AARO established six complementary lines of effort (LOEs) to conduct the HR2 researchwith the goal of ensuring this report conveys an accurate and complete picture. LOEs wereconducted in parallel and reinforced each another; a lead in one LOE drove new research andpursuits in another. AARO’s goal was to conduct thorough cross-checks to vet all information to
discover and close gaps in its understanding. These LOEs were to:•

Conduct open-source research on claims (through historical interviews) about USG
investigations of, contact with, and recovery of UAP, as well as exploitation ofalleged UAP material and technology.

12•Conduct classified program research across the IC, DoD, and interagency tovalidate or invalidate any claims of classified programs derived from historicalinterviews.

•

Conduct historical interviews of individuals who claim knowledge of alleged USG
activities related to UAP.

•

Partner with the U.S. National Archives on locating UAP data, refining requests
based on the discovery of new leads derived from historical interviews, as well as
open-source and classified research.

•

Engage with commercial entities on named companies alleged to have worked with
the USG on UAP recovery and alleged exploitation of UAP technology.

•

Partner with the archives of key intelligence and national security agencies suchas the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
Department of Energy (DOE), National Security Agency (NSA), the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Services, and DoD CombatantCommands.

SECTION IV: Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945
Summary
AARO reviewed official USG efforts involving UFOs/UAP since 1945. This research
revealed the existence of approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts, depending on
how they are counted. These efforts ranged from formal, distinct programs employing a
dedicated staff with some measure of longevity including: Projects SAUCER/SIGN, GRUDGE,
and BLUE BOOK, the DoD UAP Task Force (UAPTF) led by the U.S. Navy (USN), theAirborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), and theAll-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). There were also short-term projects that
supported some of these established programs including: Projects TWINKLE and BEAR andshort-term inquiries into or reviews of specific cases, such as the USAF’s two Roswell reports.
Additionally, there were efforts that amounted to short-term, outside reviews of USAFestablished programs; such as the CIA-sponsored Study Group, the Robertson Panel, the Durant
Report, and the University of Colorado’s Condon Report (contracted by the USAF). Some ofthese efforts, including Projects SAUCER and SIGN, were closely connected and essentially thesame organization. Project GRUDGE was the name given to two related, but different
organizations; the second—reorganized Project GRUDGE—was established about a year after
the dissolution of the original Project GRUDGE.
Project SAUCER (1946/1947–January 1948)
Background: The exact date of the founding of this first effort as well as its official andunofficial name are unclear. According to one source, General Nathan Twining, Commander ofthe Air Technical Services Command, established Project SAUCER on December 30, 1947, to13

collect and evaluate all information relating to UFO sightings which could be construed as ofconcern to the national security. Captain Edward Ruppelt claimed that Project SAUCER was theinformal name of Project SIGN and it was designated a high priority. However, in an interview
with an employee of Project SIGN, the employee claimed the project started a year earlier, in
1946, and that Project SAUCER was its original, informal name. 3 A dearth of data andinformation is associated with this effort.4
Project SAUCER investigated one of the first well-known accounts provided by a private
pilot, Kenneth Arnold. The pilot claimed that on June 23, 1947, while flying near Mount
Rainier, Washington, he saw nine, large circular objects flying in a formation, objects that
periodically flipped and were traveling at 1,700 miles per hour. He also compared the flightcharacteristics as the “tail of a Chinese kite.”56 Arnold described their shape as “saucer-likeaircraft.” His account was picked up by several media outlets, and the term “flying saucer”
emerged.7
Results: Project SAUCER did not find evidence of extraterrestrial technology.
Project SIGN (January 1948–February 1949)
Background: Project SAUCER was formalized into an official, high-priority program
named Project SIGN. The Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) assumed control of Project
SIGN on January 23, 1948. (ATIC later became the National Air and Space Intelligence Center NASIC). The impetus for this effort was to determine if these objects might be Soviet secretweapons or “extra-planetary” objects. The staff seemed confident that after a few months ofwork they could reach a conclusion. As part of their work, the staff at Project SIGN reviewed allof the military’s intelligence on German weaponry and aeronautical capabilities to determine if
some might have fallen into Soviet possession.8
Results: The project evaluated 243 reported UFO sightings, and in February 1949, it
concluded that “no definite and conclusive evidence is yet available that would prove or disprovethe existence of these unidentified objects as real aircraft of unknown and unconventional
configuration.”9 Project SIGN determined that nearly all were caused by either misinterpretationof known objects, hysteria, hallucination, or hoax.10 It also recommended continued military
intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings. It did not rule out the possibility of
extraterrestrial phenomena.
•

Although the historical account is unsubstantiated and derived from only one source,
Project SIGN staff in late July 1948 allegedly drafted, signed, and sent a report(“Estimate of the Situation”) up the military chain for approval. This report allegedly
concluded that UFOs were “interplanetary” in origin, but it was rejected by USAF
Chief of Staff General Hoyt S. Vandenberg as lacking proof.11•

This rejected report may have resulted in the Pentagon leadership’s loss of confidence
in the staff at Project SIGN leading to the establishment of Project GRUDGE, whichsome sources claim possessed an institutional bias for debunking UFO claims.12

14

Project GRUDGE (Original Organization) (February–December 1949)
Background: Project SIGN was renamed Project GRUDGE in approximately February
1949. The staff, especially those who seemed to lean towards belief in the “interplanetary”
origin of UFOs, were reportedly purged from the organization. One account of this time period
suggests that because of perceived pressure from the Pentagon’s leadership, the remaining staff
who held this view changed their minds. This same account claims that the Pentagon’s goals for
Project GRUDGE were to discount and explain away all reports of UFOs.13 Project GRUDGE
was terminated on December 27, 1949, around the time a comprehensive report on its findings
was published. The USAF did not stop collecting and analyzing reports of UFOs; rather, itfolded that work into its existing intelligence processes.14
Results: Project GRUDGE investigated 244 reports of UFO sightings. It did notdiscover any evidence that the UAP sightings represented foreign technology; therefore, thesefindings did not pose a threat to U.S. national security.15 The report recommended that theorganization be downsized and de-emphasized because it was believed Project GRUDGE’s very
existence fueled a “war hysteria” within the public. The USAF subsequently implemented apublic affairs campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusualor extraordinary. The stated goal of this effort was to alleviate public anxiety.16•

In August 1949, the USAF asserted that the UFO reports were misinterpretations of
natural phenomena, man-made aircraft, fabrications, or hoaxes.17

Project TWINKLE (Summer 1949–Summer 1950)
Background: Project TWINKLE was established in the summer of 1949 to investigate aseries of UFO reports witnessed by numerous observers in Nevada and New Mexico. These
UFOs were described as “green fireballs” streaking across the sky, moving in odd ways, and—in
at least one account—the fireball navigated near an aircraft. The literature is not clear if Project
TWINKLE was officially supported by the original Project GRUDGE, but it was managed by
the USAF’s Cambridge Research Laboratory.18 The goal of this investigation was to use
multiple high-powered cameras near White Sands with the hope that if at least two images of thefireballs were captured, then their speed, altitude, and time could be discerned.19
Results: This project was only able to secure one camera, which was frequently moved
between locations following fireball reports, and no photographs of the fireballs were evertaken.20
Project GRUDGE (Reestablishment) (October 1951–March 1952)
Background: In late October 1951, almost two years after Project GRUDGE wasdisestablished, the USAF’s UFO mission was reorganized into another distinct program—also
named Project GRUDGE—led by Capt Ruppelt. By his own account, Capt Ruppelt sought tocorrect the mistakes of Project SIGN and the former Project GRUDGE. His primary goal was toensure that there would be “no wild speculation” and that if his staff were “too pro or too con”
regarding the off-world origin of UFOs, they would be let go. He claimed to have fired three15

staff. He also realized that he needed a range of scientific expertise which he sourced through acontract he dubbed Project BEAR. Capt Ruppelt set a policy that was intended to foster
objectivity. Unlike the previous Project GRUDGE, he allowed his staff to create an “unknown”
category of cases which he hoped would dissuade the forcing of a particular answer to any case.
The new Project GRUDGE reviewed all of the previous cases in Project SIGN, old Project
GRUDGE, and from the ATIC interim period.21
Results: The new Project GRUDGE noticed that there was some correlation between
sightings and the publication of UFO stories in the media. Capt Ruppelt noted that there wereconcentrations of cases in the Los Alamos-Albuquerque area, Oak Ridge, White Sands, Strategic
Air Command locations, ports, and industrial sites.22•

No evidence of extraterrestrial origin of UFO/UAP were discovered.

Project BEAR (Late 1951–Late 1954)
Background: Project BEAR was an informal name given by Capt Ruppelt, Chief ofProject GRUDGE, to a contract he created with the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) to provide
scientific support to the new Project GRUDGE. BMI provided technical support, studied thereliability of interviewee information recall from UFO sightings, created an improved debriefing
questionnaire for observers, and developed a computer punch-card system. This system helped
automate the statistical study of all the UFO reports in Project GRUDGE’s holdings and those in
Project BLUE BOOK.23 BMI released a report under the cover of ATIC to maintain its
anonymity. Completed in late 1954, the report was titled “Special Report No. 14.”24
Results: The Project BEAR report was based on a statistical analysis of UFO sightingsand contained graphs showing their frequency and distribution by time, date, location, shape,
color, duration, azimuth, and elevation. It concluded that all cases that had enough data wereresolved and readily explainable. The report assessed that if more data were available on cases
marked unknown, most of those cases could be explained as well. It also concluded that it was
highly improbable that any of these cases represented technology beyond their “present day
scientific knowledge.”25
CIA Special Study Group (1952)
Background: After an increase in UFO sightings in 1952, particularly those that gainedwidespread attention over the Washington, D.C. area during that summer, CIA’s Deputy Director
for Intelligence, Robert Amory Jr., tasked the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence’s (OSI)
Physics and Electronics Division to review UFO cases. A. Ray Gordon took lead on this project,
and the Study Group he established reviewed all of ATIC’s data (from Projects SIGN through
GRUDGE).26
Results: The Study Group assessed that 90 percent of the reports were explainable andthe other 10 percent amounted to “incredible” claims but rejected the notion that they represented
Soviet or extraterrestrial technology. The group also studied Soviet press and found no reportsof UFOs, leading the group to assume that the Soviets were deliberately suppressing such16

reports. The Study Group also believed that the Soviets could use reports of UFOs to create
hysteria in the United States or overload the U.S. early-warning system.27•

In December 1952, H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director of OSI, briefed the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), Walter Bedell Smith, on the subject of UFOs.
Chadwell urged action because he was convinced that “something was going on thatmust have immediate attention,” and that “sightings of unexplained objects at great
altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense
installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or
known types of aerial vehicles.”28•

The source material does not suggest that Smith believed that these sightings were of
extraterrestrial origin only that he believed they were not natural phenomena or
known competitor technology. It is not clear from the source material why Chadwell
seemed to hold a different view than that of the Study Group. It is possible that hesuspected that UFO reports represented unknown Soviet technology and therefore
posed a national security threat. His concerns about and interest in the topic led to theestablishment of the Robertson Panel.

The Robertson Panel (January 1953)
Background: H. Marshall Chadwell clandestinely sponsored the establishment of a
UFO scientific review panel led by California Institute of Technology physicist, H.P. Robertson.
This action followed a recommendation from CIA’s Intelligence Advisory Committee to enlist
the services of selected “scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in light of
pertinent scientific theories.”29 The panelists had expertise in a range of fields, including nuclear
physics, high-energy physics, radar, electronics, and geophysics.30
Results: The panel reviewed all USAF data and concluded that most reports had
ordinary explanations. The panel unanimously concluded that there was no evidence of a direct
threat to U.S. national security from UFOs or that they were of extraterrestrial origin.
•

The panel was, however, concerned with the outbreak of mass hysteria and how theSoviets could exploit it. They recommended the USG use various channels to debunk
UFO reports and suggested monitoring domestic UFO enthusiast organizations. 31•

The Robertson Panel discussed the complete lack of the recovery of any “hardware”
resulting from “unexplained UFO sightings” which contributed to its assessment thatthe reported UFOs were neither a foreign threat nor of extraterrestrial origin.32

The Durant Report (February 1953)
Background: CIA officer Frederick Durant drafted a report for CIA’s Assistant Directorof OSI on the Robertson Panel’s work and findings. Durant’s memorandum provided a brief
history of the panel and an unofficial supplement that provided comments and suggestions frommembers which they had not included in the final report.33

17

Results: The report offered no distinct or separate findings of note and mostly
summarized the findings of the Robertson Panel.34
Project BLUE BOOK (March 1952–December 1969)
Background: USAF Director of Intelligence, Major General Charles P. Cabell,established Project BLUE BOOK to study UFO phenomena. Based at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, Project BLUE BOOK was the longest running UFO/UAP
investigation. It was led successively by Capt Edward J. Ruppelt (the former Director of thereorganized Project GRUDGE), Capt Charles Hardin, Capt George T. Gregory, Lieutenant
Colonel (Lt Col) Roger J. Friend, and Lt Col Hector Quintanilla, Jr. The USAF recorded 12,618
UFO sightings between the years 1947-1969. J. Allen Hynek served as its lead scientificinvestigator.35
Project BLUE BOOK organized its cases into one of three categories: identified,insufficient data, and unidentified. For those reports that were categorized as identified,Project BLUE BOOK staff used the following categorization schema:•

Astronomical Sightings: These consisted of bright stars, planets, comets, fireballs,
meteors, auroral streamers, and other celestial bodies. When observed through haze,light fog, moving clouds, or other obscurations or unusual conditions, the planets—
including Venus, Jupiter and Mars—were often reported as UFOs.

•

Balloons: These included weather balloons, radiosondes, and large research balloons
with diameters up to 300 feet, which together accounted for several thousand cases.
Balloons were released daily from military and civilian airports, weather stations, andresearch activities. Reflection of the sun on balloons at dawn and sunset sometimes
produced strange effects which led to many UFO reports. Large balloons can moveat speeds of over 100 miles per hour when in high-altitude wind streams.

•

Aircraft: According to Project BLUE BOOK, various aircraft accounted for anothermajor source of UFO reports; particularly during adverse weather conditions. The
staff noted that when observed at high altitudes and at a distance, the reflection of thesun on aircrafts’ surfaces can make them appear as “disc” or “rocket-shaped.” They
also noted that vapor or condensation trails from jet aircraft will sometimes appear toglow fiery red or orange when reflecting sunlight.

•

Afterburners: Bright afterburner flames from jet aircraft were often reported as
UFOs since they could be seen from great distances when the aircraft was not visible.

•

Other UFO resolutions included stellar mirages, satellites, missiles, reflections,searchlights, birds, kites, false radar indications, fireworks, flares, and someconfirmed hoaxes.36

Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans, Jr. announced Project BLUE BOOK’s
termination on December 17, 1969.37

18

AARO partnered with the U.S. National Archives to examine the records from the
USAF’s Project BLUE BOOK, which spanned from 1947 to 1969. This research presented asignificant challenge because of the volume of the documentation amounted to 7,252 files
holding a total of 65,778 digital records. The vast majority of the files are populated with USAF
documentation. Some cases contain media clippings and images, but these instances are rare.
Results: Project BLUE BOOK determined that:•

No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the USAF demonstrated any
indication of a threat to national security.

•

There was no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the USAF that sightings
represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of thenpresent day scientific knowledge.

•

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as unidentified are“extraterrestrial vehicles.”•Of the 12,618 sightings in Project BLUE BOOK’s holdings, 701 were categorized asunidentified and never solved.3839

CIA Evaluation of UFOs (1964)
Background: Following high-level White House discussions on what to do if alien
intelligence was discovered or there was a new outbreak of UFO sightings, DCI John McCone
tasked the CIA to update its evaluation of UFOs. The CIA’s scientific division officiallyacquired UFO-sighting case information from the director of the National Investigations
Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a private organization founded in 1956. 40
Results: Donald F. Chamberlain, Assistant Director of OSI, subsequently informed
McCone that little had changed since the early 1950s; there was still no evidence that UFOs werea threat to the security of the United States or that they were of “foreign origin.” 41
O’Brien Committee (1964)
Background: Dr. Brian O’Brien, a member of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board,chaired the USAF Ad Hoc Review of Project BLUE BOOK. The committee included Carl
Sagan, a prominent astronomer from Cornell University.42
Results: The committee’s report stated that UFOs did not threaten U.S. national security
and that it could find no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances
outside of a terrestrial framework. The committee’s primary recommendation was that this topic
merited intensive academic research and that a top university should lead the study.43
The Condon Report (April 1968)
Background: Dr. Edward U. Condon, a physicist and former Director of the National
Bureau of Standards, was the scientific director of an 18-month study on “flying saucers” funded
under a $325,000 USAF contract to the University of Colorado. This panel took a narrow and19

somewhat unique view of UFO investigatory efforts, primarily focusing on whether or not UFO
phenomena merited formal scientific research in terms of academic or USG-sponsored researchand in secondary schools. The panel said their remit did not include the study of UFO
phenomena as a potential risk to U.S. national security interests.44 Among other duties, it closely
examined 59 specific case studies.45
Results: The panel’s report stated that: “Our general conclusion is that nothing hascome from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge.
Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will beadvanced thereby.” The panel cautioned against support for scientific papers on this topic andrecommended that teachers should not give credit to students for reading UFO literature andmaterials.46•

The panel also investigated and studied a small number of cases of alleged physicalevidence of UFO visitations—from imprints on the ground and residue allegedly left
behind from UFO landings (such as a white powder and ethereal strands dubbed“angel hair”)—to metallic debris. The panel found ordinary explanations for each ofthese cases. Some of these cases originated in Brazil, Norway, and Washington,
D.C.47•

The panel investigated a claim made by radio broadcaster Frank Edwards in a 1966
book that a piece of a UFO was recovered near Washington, D.C. in the summer of1952 during the spike in UFO sightings over the U.S. Capitol in July and August. He
claimed that a USN jet fired on a two-foot diameter glowing disc and dislodged aone-pound fragment that was recovered by a ground team. Project BLUE BOOK was
not aware of this claim. The USAF and USN found no incident report of weapons
engagement with a UFO that summer, no USN aircraft were present, and the retired
officer who was the original source of the claim had retired before the summer of1952, when the event allegedly occurred.48•

Edwards also made the claim in 1966 that the USG had loaned the Canadiangovernment fragments of a UFO it had allegedly recovered. It is not clear if thisclaim was linked to the alleged Washington, D.C. incident. He also claimed that Dr.
Vannevar Bush, a prominent inventor, defense industry scientist, and founder of the
National Science Foundation, led the effort to study the fragment. The Condon panel
determined that these claims most likely were false.49

National Academy of Sciences Assessment of the Condon Report (Late 1968)
Background: After the Condon Report was criticized by some scientists—including
Project BLUE BOOK’s Dr. Hynek—a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was
tasked in late 1968 to examine the rigor, methodology, and conclusions of the Condon Report.
The panel did not conduct its own investigation into the validity of UFO reports.50

20

Results: The NAS review concluded that, “We are unanimous in the opinion that thishas been a very credible effort to apply…techniques of science to the solution of the UFO
problem.”51
Carter Administration Tasking to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)(1977)
Background: Dr. Frank Press, Science Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, sent a letter
to Dr. Robert Frosch, NASA Administrator, on July 21, 1977, suggesting that a panel be formedby NASA to see if there had been any new significant findings on UFOs since the Condon
Report.
Results: Five months later, NASA responded by stating that it was not warranted “toestablish a research activity in this area or to convene a symposium on the subject.”52
Roswell Investigations/Inquiries (1992-2001)
President Clinton and Chief of Staff Podesta Inquire about Roswell (1992 – 2001)
The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (1995)
The GAO Roswell Report (1995)
The Roswell Report: Case Closed (1997)
Background: According to press reports, President Clinton tasked former National
Security Advisor Sandy Berger to determine if the USG held aliens or alien technology.
President Clinton said, “As far as I know, an alien spacecraft did not crash in Roswell, New
Mexico, in 1947…if the USAF did recover alien bodies, they didn't tell me about it…and I wantto know.”53
In 1993, Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-New Mexico) made inquiries about theRoswell incident to DoD. The Roswell incident refers to the July 1947 recovery of metallic andrubber debris from a crashed military balloon near Roswell Army Air Field personnel thatsparked conspiracy theories and claims that the debris was from an alien spaceship and part of a
USG cover-up. He asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) (subsequently renamed theGovernment Accountability Office) to determine the requirements for reporting air accidents,
such as the crash near Roswell, and to identify any government records concerning the Roswellcrash.54
The USAF conducted a systematic search of numerous archives and records centers insupport of GAO’s audit of Roswell. As part of this review, the USAF also interviewed
numerous people who may have had knowledge of the events. Secretary of the Air Force Sheila
E. Widnall released them from any security obligations that may have restricted the sharing of
information. The USAF then published The Roswell Report in 1995, which included: “The
Report of the U.S. Air Force Research Regarding the ‘Roswell Incident’” by Col Richard L.
Weaver, and the “Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings” by 1st Lt James McAndrew. 55
Results: The report stated that the USAF’s research did not locate or develop any
information that indicated the “Roswell Incident” was a UFO event, nor was there any “cover21

up” by the USG. Rather, the materials recovered near Roswell were consistent with a balloon of
the type used in the then-classified Project Mogul. No records showed any evidence that the
USG recovered aliens or extraterrestrial material.56•

The USAF subsequently published a follow-on report in 1997, The Roswell Report:
Case Closed, with additional materials and analysis which supported its conclusionthat the debris recovered near Roswell was from the U.S. Army Air Force’s balloonborne program.57•

The alleged “alien” bodies reported by some in the New Mexico desert were test
dummies that were carried aloft by U.S. Army Air Force high-altitude balloons forscientific research.58•

Reports of military units that allegedly recovered a flying saucer and its “crew” were
descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in the dummy recovery operations.
Claims of “alien bodies” at the Roswell Army Air Force (RAAF) hospital were most
likely the result of the conflation of two separate incidents: a 1956 KC-97 aircraft
accident in which 11 Air Force members lost their lives; and a 1959 manned balloon
mishap in which two Air Force pilots were injured.59

The GAO’s 1995 report on the results of its investigation found that that the U.S. Army
Air Force regulations in 1947 required that air accident reports be maintained permanently. Four
air accidents were reported by the Army Air Force in New Mexico during July 1947. All
involved military aircraft and occurred after July 8, 1947—the date the RAAF public information
office first reported the crash and recovery of a “flying disc” near Roswell. The military
reported no air accidents in New Mexico that month. USAF officials reported to GAO that there
was no requirement to prepare a report on the crash of a balloon in 1947.60
Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) (2009–2012)/
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)
Background: At the direction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), theDefense Appropriations Acts of Fiscal Years 2008 and 2010 appropriated $22 million for the
DIA to assess long-term and over-the-horizon foreign advanced aerospace threats to the UnitedStates. In coordination with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, DIA
established AAWSAP in 2009, which was also known AATIP. The contract for this DIAmanaged program was awarded to a private sector organization.61 [Note on program names:
The names AAWSAP and AATIP have been used interchangeably for the name of this program,including on official documentation. Unlike AAWSAP, AATIP was never an official DoD
program. However, after AAWSAP was cancelled, the AATIP moniker was used by someindividuals associated with an informal, unofficial UAP community of interest within DoD that
researched UAP sightings from military observers as part of their ancillary job duties. Thiseffort was not a recognized, official program, and had no dedicated personnel or budget.]•

The primary purpose of AAWSAP/AATIP was to investigate potential next
generation aerospace technologies in 12 specific areas—such as advanced lift,22propulsion, the use of unconventional materials and controls, and signature
reduction.62•

Although investigating UFO/UAP was not specifically outlined in the contract’s
statement of work, the selected private sector organization conducted UFO researchwith the support of the DIA program manager. This research included: reviewing
new cases and much older Project BLUE BOOK cases, operating debriefing andinvestigatory teams, and proposals to set up laboratories to examine any recovered
UFO materials.63•

AAWSAP/AATIP also investigated an alleged hotspot of UAP and paranormal
activity at a property in Utah—which at that time was owned by the head of theprivate sector organization—including examining reports of “shadow figures” and“creatures,” and exploring “remote viewing” and “human consciousness anomalies.”
The organization also planned to hire psychics to study “inter-dimensional
phenomena” believed to frequently appear at that location.64•

DIA did not seek, nor specifically authorize, this work though a DIA employee set up
and managed the contract with the private sector organization.65•

On 24 June 2009, Senator Reid sent a letter to then Deputy Secretary of Defense
William Lynn III requesting that AAWSAP/AATIP be made a DoD Special Access
Program. Deputy Secretary Lynn declined to do so based on the recommendation ofthen-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr., that such adesignation was not justified.66•

Just prior to DoD’s cancellation of the program, the private sector organization
proposed as a new line of effort to host a series of “intellectual debates” at academic
institutes to influence the public debate, which included hiring supportive reporters
and celebrity moderators. The goal of this proposed public relations campaign was toassume that “E.T. visitations are true” and that the moderators would steer debateaway from “dead-end discussions” and the “morass” about discussing “evidence.”67
A stated goal of this proposal was to increase public interest in government“disclosure” around the “E.T. topic” and explore the consequences of disclosure on
the public.68

Results: The AAWSAP/AATIP contract with the private sector organization produced
exploratory papers addressing the 12 scientific areas tasked in the contract’s statement of work.
These scientific papers were never thoroughly peer reviewed.
•

AARO has yet to uncover any other substantive UAP case work conducted by
AAWSAP/AATIP. Instead, AAWSAP/AATIP reviewed a large number of Project
BLUE BOOK and private cases and conducted interviews of UAP observers andconducted unrelated work on alleged paranormal activities at the private sector
organization’s property in Utah.

•

AAWSAP/AATIP was terminated in 2012 upon the completion of its deliverables
due to DIA and DoD concerns about the project.

23•After AAWSAP/AATIP was terminated, its supporters unsuccessfully attempted toconvince DHS to support a new version of this effort dubbed KONA BLUE.

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) (August 2020-November 2021)
Background: Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved theestablishment of the UAPTF in August 2020. Under the cognizance of the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)), the Department of the Navy was
asked to lead the task force. It was established to improve understanding of, and gain insight
into, the nature and origins of UAP. The task force’s mission was to detect, analyze, and catalog
UAP that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security.69
Results: The UAPTF helped standardize, destigmatize, and increase the volume of UAP
reporting. Its work also helped calibrate sensors to improve the quality of data collected. Its
methods and processes directly led to the identification of the People’s Republic of China’s(PRC) high altitude balloons that traversed over the continental United States.70
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (June 2021)
Background: Senate Report 116-233, accompanying the Intelligence Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2021, directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense to submit an intelligence assessment of the threat
posed by UAP and to report on the progress the UAPTF had made in understanding this threat.
Results: The preliminary assessment concluded that: (1) the limited amount of highquality reporting on UAP hampers the ability to draw firm conclusions about their nature or
intent; (2) in a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flightcharacteristics; although those observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, orobserver misperception and require additional rigorous analysis; (3) there are probably multiple
types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors
described in the available reporting; (4) UAP may pose airspace safety issues and a challenge to
U.S. national security; and (5) consistent consolidation of reports from across the USG,
standardized reporting, increased collection and analysis, and a streamlined process for screening
all such reports against a broad range of relevant government data will allow for a moresophisticated analysis of UAP.71
Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) /Airborne Object Identification and Management Executive Management Committee(AOIMEXEC) (November 2021-June 2022)
Background: The Deputy Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI), directed USD(I&S) to establish AOIMSG to succeed the USN’s
UAPTF.72
Results: The organization helped initiate synchronization of efforts across the
Department and the broader USG to detect, identify, and attribute objects of interests in “Special
Use Airspace,” as well as to assess and mitigate any associated threats to safety of flight and24national security.73 AOIMSG had not achieved initial operating capability before subsequent
legislation in the FY2022 NDAA resulted in it being renamed to AARO and given an expanded
mission set.
UAP Independent Study Team (UAPIST) (June 2022-September 2023)
Background: NASA established the UAPIST as a subordinate group of its Earth
Science Advisory Committee, which was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The UAPIST examined UAP from a scientific perspective, focusing on how
NASA can use data and the scientific tools to achieve a better understanding of UAP. The
Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for Research at NASA’s Science Mission Directorate
was responsible for orchestrating the study. The independent study team was chaired by the
President of the Simons Foundation and included members from the USG, academia, and theprivate sector.74
Results: NASA released its report in September 2023. The report focused on
discovering the best data streams available and discoverable to resolve UAP cases. It did not
focus on whether or not UAP were of extraterrestrial origin. NASA also established a UAP
Research Director position.
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) (Established July 15, 2022)
Background: In response to the NDAA for FY22, the Deputy Secretary of Defense incoordination with the DNI, conveyed direction to the USD(I&S) by renaming the AOIMSG as
AARO, and expanded its scope and mission.75 AARO organized itself around four functions(analysis, operations, science & technology (S&T), and strategic communications). AARO isdeveloping IC and S&T analytic tradecraft practices, implementing a science testing plan,
implementing a secure interviewee debriefing program, and is working to standardize UAP
collection and reporting across the DoD and the IC.
Results: Consistent with congressional direction, AARO provides quarterly reports,
semiannual briefings, and an annual report to Congress in coordination with the ODNI. In
addition, on January 12, 2023, the ODNI submitted the 2022 Annual Report on Unidentified
Aerial Phenomena to Congress. This report was drafted in partnership with AARO and based on
AARO’s data.
•

The report stated that there was a total of 510 UAP reports as of August 30, 2022.
This included the 144 UAP reports covered during the 17 years of reporting includedin the ODNI’s preliminary assessment, as well as 247 new reports and 119 reportsthat subsequently were discovered or reported.

•

The report also stated that UAP events continue to occur in restricted or sensitive
airspace, highlighting possible concerns for safety of flight or adversary collection
activity.76

25

•The AARO Director reported to Congress that the majority of cases in AARO’sholdings have ordinary explanation and that AARO has not seen any evidence thatany of these cases represent extraterrestrial technology.

•

Of all the reports that AARO investigated and analyzed, none represent
extraterrestrial or off-world technology. A small percentage of cases havepotentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics. AARO has
kept Congress fully and currently informed of its findings. AARO’s researchcontinues on these cases.

Foreign and Academic Investigatory Efforts
AARO reviewed seven other UAP investigatory panels and programs sponsored by a
U.S. university, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France. Of these efforts, one unofficial reportfrom a Canadian government effort in the early 1950s claimed UFOs were of extraterrestrial
origin, and the program director claimed he was in contact with aliens. This position appeared toreflect the opinions of the director of the effort and was not endorsed or supported by the
Canadian government.
•

Stanford University’s Sturrock Panel (1998) found no convincing evidence for the
extraterrestrial origin of UFO/UAP.77•

The United Kingdom’s Flying Saucer Working Party (1950–1951) concluded that“flying saucers did not exist.”78•

Canada’s Sky Project (2023) is currently ongoing, and the program will release its
findings in 2024.79•

Canada’s Project Second Storey (1952-1954), an advisory committee that advised
the government, never reached any significant conclusions.80•

Canada’s Project Magnet (1950-1954) was run by Department of Transport engineer
Wilbert B. Smith. Smith assessed that UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin and thatthey flew by magnetism. Smith believed he was in personal contact withextraterrestrial beings through telepathy and “tensor beams.” Smith, in an interview
as early as 1961, claimed that in 1952, the USAF lent him a piece of a UFO to study.
He also claimed it was composed of magnesium orthosilicate. The Canadiangovernment closed the project, saying that there were no definitive results from theresearch. Smith admitted that his beliefs concerning UFOs were his alone and not the
government’s official position.81•

The French government sponsored three comprehensive investigatory programs:
Groupe d’Etude et d’Information sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés(GEPAN, 1977-1987), Service d’Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées
Atmosphériques (SEPRA, 1988-2004), and a new version called Groupe d’Etudes etd’Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEIPAN) that stoodup in 2005. When it dissolved, SERPA concluded that the vast majority of cases
26possess ordinary explanations, while 28 percent of its caseload remained unresolved.
None of these organizations have found evidence of extraterrestrial visitations to
Earth.82
Key Findings•

None of these investigations (including USG, foreign, and U.S. academic efforts)
reached the conclusion that any of the UAP reports indicated extraterrestrial origin.

•

All of these efforts and reviews concluded that the vast majority of UAP reports could
be resolved as any number of ordinary objects, natural phenomena, optical illusions
or misidentifications. Many of the cases, however, remain unresolved.

•

The lack of actionable, researchable data—specifically the lack of speed, altitude, andsize of reported UAP—combined with resource constraints, high volumes of cases,
and perceived differing levels of support from USG officials were factors in allinvestigative efforts. Even with the significant advancements in ground- and airbased sensors, the apparent inability to collect sufficient and high-quality data forscientific analysis continues to plague investigations.

•Three efforts investigated reports of direct or indirect physical evidence of UFOs
(from depressions on the ground to metallic debris) and found nothing of foreign orextraterrestrial origin.

•

There was at least one USG proposal—by the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel—toengage in an active “training” and “debunking” effort using various public media
tools to steer the public away from reporting UFOs. The proposal reasoned that it did
not believe UFOs were foreign technological threats or of extraterrestrial origin;rather, it viewed the persistent flood of reports as cluttering and bogging down
government processes, expressing the concern that such reports could create “masshysteria” to the benefit of the Soviet Union.

•

At various points in history, individuals inside and outside of the USG, including Dr.
J. Allen Hynek, claimed the USAF had a key goal of debunking or explaining away
reports of UAP. AARO found no evidence to suggest that the USAF had a policy
intended to cover up the evidence of extraterrestrial knowledge, material, orinteractions. Rather, the USAF instead sought to focus on what it determined to be
more important concerns, such as Soviet technology and U.S. defense readiness.
Similarly, at least the first iteration of Project GRUDGE sought to resolve all casesand prohibited its staff from characterizing reports as unknown or unidentified.

•

AARO notes that there was possibly one unofficial estimate stating otherwise.
Project SIGN staff allegedly drafted and signed a report that was circulated for review
and approval. It was titled: “The Estimate of the Situation” and assessed that at least
some UFOs were of “interplanetary” origin. The DoD leadership rejected this reporton the basis that it lacked any proof, and it was never published. The first Director of27

Project BLUE BOOK, Capt Edward Ruppelt, said that all but a couple copies of thisestimate were destroyed. 83 AARO has been unable to verify his claim or locate thedocument.
SECTION V: Assessment of Interviewee Claims of USG Involvement in Hidden UAP
Programs
Summary
As of September 17, 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals. AARO
categorized these individuals into three tiers: Tier 1 interviewees are those who have spoken
with congressional staff or Members of Congress and have been subsequently referred to AARO;
Tier 2 interviewees are those who have been referred to AARO by Tier 1 interviewees; Tier 3
interviewees are AARO-generated interviewees that have a corroborating touchpoint to theprincipal integrated narrative of reports from Tier 1 and Tier 2 interviewees. Priority is given to
those interviewees who claimed firsthand knowledge of government programs, events, or details
about any resulting material. Interviewees relaying second or thirdhand knowledge are lower inpriority, but AARO has and will continue to schedule interviews with them, nonetheless.
AARO generated random numbers and assigned one to each interviewee. AARO
maintains the key, which is stored and handled in a secure manner to protect each interviewee’s
privacy. In some instances, AARO assigned a random number to a person who has notinterviewed with AARO but was referenced by interviewees as a key individual. AARO also
assigned numbers to organizations mentioned by interviewees.
AARO assesses that two main narratives have emerged, with various and potentially unrelated
offshoots:
Primary Narrative
The primary narrative alleges that the USG and industry partners are in possession ofand are testing off-world technology that has been concealed from congressional oversightand the world since approximately 1964, and possibly since 1947, if the Roswell events areincluded. The narrative asserts that this UAP program possesses as many as 12 extraterrestrial
spacecraft.
•

An AARO interviewee84 claimed in a thirdhand account that an organization85 was inpossession of 12 spacecraft recovered from different crash events prior to 1970.
Some of the craft allegedly were “intact.” The interviewee also stated that the CIA
had a partnership with the company that ended in 1989 and wanted all material
returned to the CIA. AARO discovered no empirical evidence supporting theseclaims.

•An interviewee86 claimed that an organization87 was in possession of off-world
material in 2009 and 2010. A separate interviewee stated they participated innegotiations to return the material to the USG. The same interviewee stated that a28former named senior CIA official quashed the proposal to remove the material fromthe corporation.
•

A separate interviewee88 claimed that circa 1999, a former, senior U.S. military
officer89 told the interviewee that that he touched the surface of an extraterrestrial
spacecraft. The interviewee stated that the senior officer gave a detailed descriptionof a craft floating in a building. The officer told the interviewee that approximately
150 individuals were working on the program and that the program was kept “outsideof government” so the technology could remain proprietary.

•

Two interviewees90 said they participated in an alleged White House-tasked UAP
study in Northern Virginia sometime between 2004 and 2007. The study evaluatedthe impacts to society should the United States, Russia, or China disclose they had
evidence of extraterrestrial beings or craft. One interviewee assumed thesegovernments possessed such evidence.91 The study was conducted by approximately
12 participants who evaluated 64 different aspects of society, such as religion andfinancial markets, which could be impacted by such a disclosure.92 The study lasted
one day, and the interviewee was not aware of any final report or to whom any report
may have been delivered.

•

Another interviewee claimed that in the 1990s he overhead electronic communicationof a conversation between two military bases where scientists claimed “aliens” were
present during specialized materials testing.93 The interviewee also reported that on
another occasion in the 1990s he observed an “unidentified flying object” at a U.S.
military facility. The interviewee described the object as exhibiting a peculiar flightpattern.

•

An interviewee who is a former U.S. service member said that in 2009, while
participating in a humanitarian and security mission in a foreign country, heencountered “U.S. Special Forces” loading containers onto a large extraterrestrial
spacecraft. 94•

A separate interviewee said that a family member was part of an effort to reverseengineer an object assumed to be off-world technology in the 1980s.95 The engineers
failed to reverse-engineer the object and it was sent to a different facility for further
evaluation.

•

An interviewee pointed out to AARO the existence of an alleged leaked Special
National Intelligence Estimate from 1961 as proof of the existence of UAP crashes.96
AARO obtained a copy of the document through open-source research and evaluatedits authenticity.

•

Some interviewees and public accounts underpin this storyline by claiming throughsecond and thirdhand accounts that some NDAs may have been used to protect a“reverse-engineering program of off-world technology.” These accounts describe theNDAs as including “punishment by death” provisions should the signatory disclose29

information about the program. Some interviewees claimed “verbal” and written
NDAs were administered in several instances.97
Secondary Narrative
The other narrative is that a cluster of UAP sightings that occurred in close proximity to
U.S. nuclear facilities have resulted in the malfunctioning and destruction of nuclear missiles
and a test reentry vehicle. AARO interviewed five former USAF members who served in andaround U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos at Malmstrom, Ellsworth,Vandenberg, and Minot USAF bases between 1966 and 1977.98 Some of these individuals claim
UAP sightings near the silos, while others claim UAP disruptions to ICBM operations.
Specifically, they said the ICBM launch control facilities went offline or experienced total power
failure. Additionally, one interviewee and a USAF videographer claimed to have observed andrecorded a UAP destroying an ICBM loaded with a “dummy” warhead, mid-flight. AARO is
researching U.S. and adversarial activity related to these events, including any U.S. programs
that tested defensive ballistic missile capabilities.
Findings
AARO investigated and reached conclusions on the majority of the claims made in thesenarratives. In most cases, AARO was able to locate the companies, people, and programs thatwere conveyed to AARO through interviews. AARO will report the results of the unresolved
allegations in Volume II. AARO’s findings to date are as follows:
No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered
In the conduct of this review, and to meet the direction of Section 1673 of the NDAA for
FY 2023, AARO sent guidance and requests to DoD, IC elements, DOE, and DHS to review andprovide any NDAs pertaining to UAP (or its previous names). To date, AARO personnel havenot discovered or been notified of any NDAs that contain information related to UAP. Also,
apart from the standard NDA language contained in Title 18, Section 794 describing the death
penalty or jail time for illegally disclosing information relating to the national defense, AARO
has not discovered any NDAs containing threats to interviewees for disclosing UAP-specificinformation.
Historically, most if not all NDAs contained standard language stating that the death
penalty can be applied for the crime of disclosing classified information. Title 18, Section 794,
is referenced in typical NDAs in several places in relation to the transmission of classified
information:“Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the UnitedStates or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, ortransmits…information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or byimprisonment for any term of years or for life….”

30

Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP
Crash Denied on the Record
AARO interviewed and obtained a signed statement from the former CIA official who
was specifically named by AARO interviewees. The former official stated he had no knowledgeof any aspect of this allegation.99 The allegation included the claimed crash of the objects, thepossession of the resultant material by the USG and the private sector, and the attempt to transfer
material that was purported to be of off-world origin. This reverse-engineering program
allegedly occurred at the named facility in the 2009-2010 time frame. Interviewees allege that aseparate interviewee100 from the facility attempted to set up a meeting to return material to the
USG in 2010, but that the former CIA official stopped the transfer from industry to the USG.
The interviewee alleged to have stopped the transfer denied these allegations.101 The former CIA
official stated that he had no knowledge of any extraterrestrial material in the possession of the
USG or any other organization.102 The official signed a Memorandum for the Record (MFR)
attesting to the truthfulness of his statements.
The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic
An interviewee 103 brought to AARO’s attention the existence of an alleged Special
National Intelligence Estimate (SNIE), dated November 5, 1961, titled: “Critical Aspects of
Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and its
Allies.” Through open-source research, AARO obtained a copy of the document. After
discussions with the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI), the NSA Scientific Studies
Board (one of the alleged authors), and research comparing this document to a number of known
SNIEs and National Intelligence Estimates, AARO concluded the document is not authentic.
NSA archives were searched because “the NSA Scientific Advisory Board” purportedly was oneof the document’s authors. CIA/CSI and NSA did not possess nor have knowledge of the
document. AARO found the document lacked IC tradecraft standards and possessed significant
inconsistencies with SNIE’s and National Intelligence Estimates of the general time period.
These inconsistencies included: the document’s short length, incorrect formatting, inconsistent
branding, lack of a dissemination block and coordination language, loose narrative style,convoluted logic, imprecise and casual language, and its superficial treatment of globallysignificant issues.
Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP
Program Activity
AARO determined this account most likely amounted to a misunderstanding. The
conversation likely referenced a test and evaluation unit that had a nickname with “alien”
connotations at the specific installation mentioned. The nature of the test described by theinterviewee104 closely matched the description of a specific materials test conveyed to AARO
investigators.

31

Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial
Spacecraft
An interviewee105 stated that a former military member, who was also an interviewee,
had stated that he had touched an off-world aircraft. AARO contacted and interviewed theformer military member106 who denied any knowledge of off-world technology in possession of
the USG, a private contractor, or any other foreign or domestic entity. The former military
member attested that he could not remember if this encounter with the original interviewee had
ever occurred, but opined that if it had happened, the only situation that he might have conveyed
was the time when he touched an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter at a facility. The former
military member signed an MFR attesting to the truthfulness of his account.
The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP
AARO was able to correlate this account with an authentic USG program because theinterviewee was able to provide a relatively precise time and location of the sighting which theyobserved exhibiting strange characteristics. At the time the interviewee said he observed theevent, DoD was conducting tests of a platform protected by a SAP. The seemingly strange
characteristics reported by the interviewee match closely with the platform’s characteristics,
which was being tested at a military facility in the time frame the interviewee was there. This
program is not related in any way to the exploitation of off-world technology.
Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-SponsoredAn organization107 in Northern Virginia did conduct a study between 2004 and 2007 on
the societal effects should the United States or other world governments disclose they haveevidence of extraterrestrial life. Interviewees believed the White House sponsored it. AARO
confirmed through two former White House senior officials108 that the White House did not
request it, nor were they aware of any such study.
Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft
AARO met with high-ranking officials, including executives and chief technology
officers, of the named companies. All denied the existence of these programs, and attested to thetruthfulness of their statements on the record.
Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy
AARO learned through an interviewee that a private sector organization109 claimed tohave in its possession material from an extraterrestrial craft recovered from a crash at an
unknown location from the 1940s or 1950s. The organization claimed that the material had thepotential to act as a THz frequency waveguide, and therefore, could exhibit “anti-gravity” and“mass reduction” properties under the appropriate conditions. The organization that owned thematerial negotiated an agreement in 2019 with the U.S. Army to analyze the samples. With
permission from the stakeholders, AARO acquired this sample to conduct more in-depth
analyses.

32

•

AARO and a leading science laboratory concluded that the material is a metallic
alloy, terrestrial in nature, and possibly of USAF origin, based on its materials
characterization. It was also assessed that the material is mostly composed ofmagnesium, and the bismuth present was not a pure layer per initial claims.

•

The U.S. Army had also conducted in-house analysis on the sample, and while
AARO generally agrees with its conclusions, AARO found that the structure was not
purely layered magnesium alloy and bismuth.

AARO assesses that a separate private sector organization’s recreation of this metallic
sample was almost certainly conflated with claims that the aerospace industry was attempting
to reverse-engineer off-world technology. Prior to AARO’s acquisition of the sample, theorganization fabricated a replica of the sample to determine if it could be done.110•

The same organization111 made an attempt to replicate the sample at the same
specific location cited by the interviewee112 as the location where the interviewee
alleged to have participated in discussions about transferring UAP crash materials.
The claim that extraterrestrial technology was being reverse-engineered almost
certainly was conflated with this material fabrication.

AARO Investigating Unresolved Historical Nuclear-Related UAP Cases
Like all historical UAP cases, very little actionable data exists beyond limited firsthandnarrative accounts. Nevertheless, AARO continues to investigate these cases due to the sensitive
nature of these events potentially impacting the readiness of the U.S. nuclear program. Although
AARO has not been able to recover the alleged film of the ballistic missile reentry vehicle being
shot down by a UAP in 1964, AARO was able to correlate the general time and location with anantiballistic missile test, which could have been the genesis for this observation.
SECTION VI: Investigation into Named USG Sensitive Programs
Summary
AARO investigated numerous named, and described, but unnamed programs alleged to
involve UAP exploitation conveyed to AARO through official interviews. Although at least one
interviewee claimed to have seen a captured UAP, none of the interviewees had direct access toor firsthand knowledge of the programs alleged to be UAP-related. One interviewee had accessinto one authentic program, but his position was such that he had only limited access to its
complete details. Interviewees’ indirect and incomplete knowledge of authentic efforts most
likely contributed to their misinterpretation of what they heard or saw.
•

AARO concludes many of these programs represent authentic, current and former
sensitive, national security programs, but none of these programs have been
involved with capturing, recovering, or reverse-engineering off-world technology ormaterial.

33•All the programs assessed to be authentic were or—if still active—continue to be,appropriately reported to either or both the congressional defense and intelligencecommittees.

Process for Protecting Sensitive Programs while Investigating Interviewee Claims
AARO instituted a secure process for handling information to allow interviewees to comeforward to provide their statements to AARO within secure facilities. AARO established apartnership with the Special Access Program Control Offices for the DoD, IC, and DHS toreview programs identified in interviews by name or description to determine if the programs
correlated in time and location to historic SAP or Controlled Access Programs (CAP). Thisagreement details how interviewee claims concerning the names and descriptions of the alleged
programs are handled, stored, and protected so that their veracity can be determined in a securemanner. A key part of this agreement is that AARO investigators have been granted full accessto all pertinent sensitive USG programs.
•

When industry partners were named, AARO interviewed senior level, appropriatelycleared executives, department leads, senior scientists, and engineers.

Findings
One Private Program Mistaken for USG Program
AARO determined that the following alleged USG program name was portrayedinaccurately by the interviewee:•

Virtual Institute for Satellite Integration Training–This program is not a USG-funded
and supported effort. It was a program operated by a private UAP organization andhad a NASA engineer as a participant. NASA verified that it did not sponsor the
project.113

KONA BLUE: A Proposed UAP Recovery and Reverse-Engineering Program
KONA BLUE was brought to AARO’s attention by interviewees who claimed that it wasa sensitive DHS compartment to cover up the retrieval and exploitation of “non-humanbiologics.”114 KONA BLUE traces its origins to the DIA-managed AAWSAP/AATIP program,which was funded through a special appropriation and executed by its primary contractor, aprivate sector organization. DIA cancelled the program in 2012 due to lack of merit and theutility of the deliverables. As discussed in Section IV of this report, while the official purpose of
AAWSAP/AATIP was to conduct research into 12 areas of cutting edge science, the contractor
team, and at least one supportive government program manager, also conducted UAP andparanormal research at a property owned by the private sector organization.
When DIA cancelled this program, its supporters proposed to DHS that they create andfund a new version of AAWSAP/AATIP under a SAP.115 This proposal, codenamed KONA
BLUE, would restart UAP investigations, paranormal research (including alleged “humanconsciousness anomalies”) and reverse-engineer any recovered off-world spacecraft that they
hoped to acquire. This proposal gained some initial traction at DHS to the point where a34

Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) was officially requested to stand up this program,but it was eventually rejected by DHS leadership for lacking merit. As demonstrated by the
proposal package and by statements from the originator, Senators Lieberman and Reid asked that
the PSAP be established with the promise of additional funding.116 The proposed KONA BLUElines of effort closely mirrored those conducted by the private sector organization for
AAWSAP/AATIP.
KONA BLUE’s advocates were convinced that the USG was hiding UAP technologies.
They believed that creating this program under DHS would allow all of the technology andknowledge of these alleged programs to be moved under the KONA BLUE program. The
program would provide a security and governing structure where it could be monitored properly
by congressional oversight committees. This belief was foundational for the KONA BLUE
proposal, based on the proposal documents and several interviewees who have provided the same
information to AARO and Congress.117 The Oral History Initiative section of the KONA BLUE
proposal was to collect data:“…from an already identified and calibrated list of retired, previously highly placed
government, armed services, contractor and intelligence community individuals. The oral
history project will include gathering all information pertaining to the location ofadvanced aerospace technology and biological samples, including records, files, reports,
photographs, as well as physical samples.”118
It is critical to note that no extraterrestrial craft or bodies were ever collected—thismaterial was only assumed to exist by KONA BLUE advocates and its anticipated contract
performers. This was the same assumption made by those same individuals involved with the
AAWSAP/AATIP program. The SAP was never approved or stood up, and no data or material
was transferred to DHS.119•

KONA BLUE was not reported to Congress at that time because it was neverestablished as a SAP and, therefore, did not meet the threshold for congressional
reporting. However, the Deputy Secretary of Defense provided a Congressional
Notification concerning the program when it was identified in the spirit oftransparency.

Unnecessary IC Program Expansion
AARO confirmed the existence of one IC CAP that was unnecessarily expanded in 2021
to include a UAP reverse-engineering mission. This program was expanded despite the lack ofany evidence or mission need to justify the expansion. The appropriate congressional
committees were notified. This program never recovered or reverse-engineered any technology,
let alone off-world spacecraft. This CAP was disestablished due to its inactivity, absence of
mission need, and lack of merit.
Nexus of Proponents of the USG UAP Reverse-Engineering Allegation
AARO found no empirical evidence that any UAP investigatory effort since 1945—
foreign, domestic, government, private, or academic—has ever uncovered verifiable information
35

regarding the recovery or existence of extraterrestrial beings or crafts. Although AARO
continues to conduct interviews, research programs, and pursue investigatory leads, AARO’swork has resulted in disproving the majority of these claims using the verifiable information
made within those claims.
AARO researched and interviewed numerous people, programs, and leads. It hasdetermined that modern allegations that the USG is hiding off-world technology and beings
largely originate from the same group of individuals who have ties to the cancelled
AAWSAP/AATIP program and a private sector organization’s paranormal research efforts.
These individuals have worked with each other consistently in various UAP-related efforts.
•

Persons 1-5 and Interviewees 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 14 have repeatedly voiced theseclaims in various public and private venues, and they have petitioned Congress invarious capacities on UAP issues. They have not provided any empirical evidence of
their claims to AARO. 120•

Persons 1 and 3 and Interviewees 1, 3, and 12 were involved with the paranormal
research conducted under AAWSAP/AATIP. 121•

Person 5 and Interviewees 3, 9 and 14 were involved with the alleged crashed UAP
materials that were provided to the U.S. Army and subsequently to AARO for
examination.122•

Persons 4, 7, and 8 and Interviewees 1, 3, and 13 investigated UAP on their own andwere responsible for successfully expanding the remit of an existing IC program toinclude UAP exploitation language.123•

AARO notes that Persons 1 and 4 never formally sat down with AARO to provide
official, signed statements; these individuals have been mentioned by otherinterviewees frequently as sources of their claims. Person 8 held an informalinterview and Interviewee 14 sat for an official interview but has not signed thememo for the record documenting this interview.

SECTION VII: Historical Context of UAP Investigatory Efforts Since 1945
Summary
AARO assesses that the incidents of UAP sightings reported to USG organizations, theclaims that some constitute extraterrestrial craft, and the claims that the USG has secured andis experimenting on alien technology, most likely are the result of a range of cultural,political, and technological factors. AARO bases this conclusion on the aggregate findings of
all USG investigations to date, the misinterpretation of all reported named sensitive programs,
the lack of empirical evidence to support the USG reverse-engineering narrative, and AARO’sassessment that the piece of metal alleged to be recovered from an alien spacecraft in the late
1940s is ordinary, of terrestrial origin, and possesses no exceptional qualities.
•

Although many cases remain unsolved—primarily because of the lack of actionable
and researchable data—AARO and its predecessor organizations concluded that the36

vast majority of cases report on events that amount to ordinary objects, atmosphericand natural phenomena, and observer misidentification.
•

Although many UAP/UFO cases remain unsolved, based on the lack of evidence ofthe extraterrestrial origin of even one UAP report and the assessment that all resolved
cases to date have ordinary explanations, AARO assess sightings and claims ofextraterrestrial visitations have been influenced by a range of factors.

Commonalities of 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations
International Security Environment and Technological Surprise
In both periods, changes in the international order brought uncertainty. Concern about
the Soviet Union’s desire for regional hegemony and military and political superiority
contributed to U.S. involvement with conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere, sparked aboom in U.S. technological innovation, and led to widespread fear within society about Soviet
capabilities and intentions.
One primary means of competing with the Soviet Union was to collect intelligence on
Soviet leadership intentions and military capabilities. The means by which the U.S.
accomplished this goal was to develop a range of air- and space-based reconnaissance systems tocollect an array of intelligence on the Soviet Union—especially over its territory. During someearly UFO investigation efforts, it was deemed essential to determine if UFOs were Soviet“secret weapons” or psychological warfare operations aimed at causing public fear andgenerating hysteria to undermine U.S. societal morale.
Today’s global security environment is similarly dynamic. Both the Russian Federationand the PRC seek to alter the international system at the expense of the security of the UnitedStates. AARO recognizes that concern with competitor technological surprise is still a real andlegitimate driver of UAP investigations today. It is imperative to determine whether or not thesesightings represent a risk to flight safety, and whether these sightings represent technologicaladvances that could pose counterintelligence and national security threats.
Secrecy
The USG’s need to maintain secrecy to protect classified information about intelligencesources and methods, military operations and technology, and U.S. vulnerabilities is also ashared context among all UAP investigations. While secrecy is essential to protect U.S. national
security interests, it can reduce the public’s trust in government. With a gap in information about
UFO/UAP investigations, other information sources and narratives, including private UFO
investigative organizations and “UFOlogy” emerged to fill that gap. AARO assesses that theclassification of prior USG investigations have fueled speculation that the government washiding knowledge of extraterrestrials, when, in fact, secrecy was and still is intended todeliberately and thoughtfully protect sensitive military and intelligence community programs,
capabilities, sources, and methods.

37

Public Interest
Segments of the American public have been interested in this topic since the term “flying
saucer” emerged after Arnold’s sighting in 1947, as evidenced by the proliferation of television,
books, movies, and podcasts today on the topic. The subject is deeply rooted in popular culture
with its own themes, mythologies, and conspiracy theories. Capt Ruppelt, who was involved
with three UFO investigations efforts, including being the initial leader of Project BLUE BOOK,
noted that there would be spikes in reported sightings after official press events mentioning
UFOs; suggesting that reports of sightings can influence the incidence of additional reported
sightings.124
Alleged Bureaucratic Barriers
Alleged bureaucratic barriers including indifference, cognitive dissonance, lack ofsupport or resources, and deliberate obstruction are also similarities. Some members ofinvestigatory panels have claimed official obstruction, ranging from lack of access to seniordecision-makers to insufficient staff and resources.
Insufficient Data and Information
Previous and current investigations have been challenged by insufficient data andinformation for intelligence and scientific analysis to resolve anomalous incidents. Insufficient
data and information was compounded by inconsistent reporting and lack of continuity among
investigations and investigative practices. Capt Ruppelt, the first director of Project BLUE
BOOK, noted that the inability to collect the UFO’s altitude, size, and speed was a recurring andsignificant obstacle to resolving cases.125 A similar challenge remains today, even with theadvancement in technology. Most UAP sightings have no data associated with them beyond anoften vague narrative account; and when there is hard data, it is often incomplete or of poor
quality. In terms of military reporting, the sensors on which UAP most frequently are captured
are calibrated and optimized for combat. UAP are not routinely captured by exquisite, highdefinition, multi-capability, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance collection platforms—
a threshold which is often required to successfully resolve a case.
Perceived Deception
There is a conviction among some Americans that the USG has conducted a deception
operation to conceal the fact that it has recovered extraterrestrial spacecraft and alien beings aswell as systematically exploited and reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology.126 This
perception probably has been fueled by key UFO investigators’ public comments. For example,
J. Allen Hynek of Project BLUE BOOK, said that the USAF expected him to perform the role ofdebunker; and Capt Ruppelt, the first chief of BLUE BOOK, later wrote that he was expected to
explain away every report and that the USAF sought to produce press stories in alignment with
the USAF’s position.127

38

Differences between 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations
Decreased Public Trust
Polling data on public trust reflects Americans’ changing views over time. According to
the Pew Research Center, polling on this topic began in 1958, when about 75 percent ofAmericans trusted the USG “to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.” Since
2007, however, that figure has not risen above 30 percent. This lack of trust probably has
contributed to the belief held by some subset of the U.S. population that the USG has not beentruthful regarding knowledge of extraterrestrial craft.128
Popular Culture
Though there were waves of public interest in UAP in popular culture during the Cold
War, especially during the 1950s, AARO assesses that UAP content in popular culture is morepervasive now than ever. The speed of discovery, and the ubiquity of information available
through the internet on the topic is unprecedented. Frequent exposure to the topic thoughtraditional and social media has increased the number of Americans who believe that UAP are of
extraterrestrial origin, based on a 2021 Gallup poll.129
Aside from hoaxes and forgeries, misinformation and disinformation is more prevalentand easier to disseminate now than ever before, especially with today’s advanced photo, video,and computer generated imagery tools. Internet search and content recommendation algorithms
serve to reinforce individuals’ preconceptions and confirmation biases just as much as to help
educate and inform.
SECTION VIII: Testing and Development of U.S. National Security and Space Programs
Most Likely Accounted for Some Portion of UAP Sightings
Summary
We assess that the majority of UAP sightings in the earlier decades of UAP investigations
were the result of misidentification of ordinary phenomena and objects, based on AARO’sfindings of its own cases to date and the findings of all past investigatory efforts. However, we
assess that some portion of these misidentifications almost certainly were a result of the surge innew technologies that observers would have understandably reported as UFOs.
Along with these systems, a broad and varying technology industry emerged along with a
network of highly secretive national laboratories across the United States to support these efforts.
AARO’s review of Project BLUE BOOK cases shows a spike in reported UAP sightings from
1952-1957 and another spike in 1960.130 These reporting spikes most likely are attributed toobservers unknowingly having witnessed new technological advancements and testing andreporting them as UFOs. The below examples represent formerly classified and sensitive
programs that involved thousands of test flights, rocket launches, and extensive experimentation
which AARO assess most likely were the cause of many UAP reports. AARO assesses that thiscommon and understandable occurrence—the misidentification of new technologies for UAP—39

is present today, such as in cases where rocket exhaust plumes, micro-satellite trains, and UAS
systems with odd morphologies are reported as UAP.
The below examples represent a sample of the unclassified and declassified authentic
national security programs that AARO assesses probably were associated with erroneous UAP
reporting:
Manhattan Project (August 1942)
The U.S. effort to build an atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project, was named after thelocation of its initial offices in what became known as the Manhattan Engineer District at 270
Broadway, Manhattan, New York City. General Leslie R. Groves, head of the project, followed
the custom of naming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ districts after the city in which they
were located.131 The secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project and the establishment of several
other national laboratories, such as Los Alamos National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, andOak Ridge National Laboratory to support this effort probably contributed to the spike inreported UAP.132
V-173/XF5U-1 “Flying Pancake” (1942)
The V-173 aircraft flew for the first time on November 23, 1942.133 It was believed thatmaintaining a uniform airflow over the wingspan—or “pancake” fuselage—would allow theaircraft to take off and land at exceptionally low speeds without sacrificing high-speed
performance qualities that appealed to the USN for its fighter aircraft.134 The V-173 could takeoff vertically, had a circular wing 23.3 feet in diameter, and could almost hover. The XF5U-1’s
design was largely similar to the V-173. However, the USN cancelled the project in 1948 infavor of a switch to turbojet engines.135
Project Mogul (1947-1949)
The U.S. Army Air Force Air Materiel Command operated Project Mogul between 1947
and 1949. The aim of this program was to secure intelligence on Soviet nuclear weapons testing
and to provide an early warning mechanism for Soviet ballistic missiles. Specifically, Project
Mogul scientists worked on developing high-altitude balloons that would carry sensors capableof detecting long-range sound waves from weapons tests or missiles traveling through theatmosphere. A crashed balloon associated with Project Mogul outside of Roswell, New Mexico,
is assessed to be the source of early UFO claims.136
Project High Dive (1950s)
Project High Dive was a program that conducted tests on large balloons and used test
dummies in its experimentation. The goal of this program was to research the effects on pilots
when they ejected from aircraft, especially pilots’ tolerance to deceleration from wind drag.137

40

Project Aquatone/Dragon Lady (1954)
President Eisenhower authorized Project Aquatone to develop the U-2 Dragon Lady, ahigh-altitude reconnaissance aircraft to collect intelligence on Soviet nuclear deployments. Morethan half of the UFO reports investigated in the 1950s and 1960s were assessed to be U.S.
reconnaissance flights, according to a declassified CIA assessment on reconnaissance aircraft.138
The report noted that UFO reports would spike when the U-2 was in flight, especially fromairline pilots to Air Traffic Control. At that time, commercial flights typically flew below 20,000
feet while the U-2 flew at 60,000 feet. The report noted that when commercial pilots were flying
east to west, with the sun below the horizon, the sunlight would illuminate the U-2.139
WS-117L/CORONA (Late 1956)
In 1956, the USAF initiated the WS-117L satellite reconnaissance program equippedwith a film-return vehicle. Following the launch of Sputnik, the Eisenhower Administration
made this program a high-priority. In February 1958, President Eisenhower decided the CIA
would have the lead role in the program, called “CORONA,” and that it would be jointly
managed alongside the USAF. The CORONA program performed 140 launches between 1959
and 1972, with many returning film from space to the Earth for recovery.140
VZ-9AV Avrocar/Project Silver Bug (1958)
Canada initially led an effort to develop a supersonic, vertical takeoff and landing fighterbomber in the early 1950s. A.V. Roe (Avro) Aircraft Limited (later Avro Canada) led the designfor the concept, and this effort yielded the Avrocar, an aircraft with a circular shape that gave it astereotypical “flying saucer” appearance.141 Canada pulled its support when the project became
too expensive. The U.S. Army and U.S. USAF took over the project in 1958 when Avro offeredit to the USG, when it became known as “Project Silver Bug.”142 143 Avro built two test vehicles
that were designated as the VZ-9AV Avrocar, but the project was cancelled in December 1961
when the vehicle could not lift more than a few feet off the ground.144 Project Silver Bug was
declassified in 1997.145
Explorer 1 (January 1958)
The United States launched its first satellite, Explorer 1, into space on January 31, 1958.
Explorer 1 carried a cosmic ray detector and was designed, built, and operated by the NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.146
Oxcart/A-12/SR-71 (1958)
President Eisenhower approved this CIA-led program to develop a successor to the U-2
spy plane in 1958, which became fully operational in 1965.147 The U-2’s successor, the A-12
OXCART sustained a speed of Mach 3.2 at 90,000 feet altitude.148 By the time the A-12 was
deployed by the CIA in 1967, CORONA satellites were being used to collect imagery of denied
areas with less provocation than aircraft overflights.149 In 1968, President Johnson ordered theretirement of the A-12 when it was replaced by the SR-71, which itself was a modified version of
the A-12.150

41

Project Mercury (1958-1963)
Project Mercury, America’s first human space program made six flights. The
objectives of the program were to orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate
humans’ ability to function in space, and recover astronauts and spacecraft safely.151
TATTLETALE/GRAB (September 1960)
The United States was the first nation to deliver a reconnaissance satellite to space. This
electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellite was developed by the Naval Research Laboratory inearly 1958 under the code name “TATTLETALE” with the mission of intercepting Soviet radar
signals.152 The program later became known as GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background),after public disclosure of the ELINT satellite project.153 154
Project Gemini (1961-1966)
The Gemini program was a U.S. human spaceflight program that took place between the
Mercury and Apollo programs. Similar to Project Mercury, Project Gemini spacecraft was
launched using ballistic missiles that were designed to carry nuclear payloads.155 Project Gemini
conducted 12 missions.156
Project Apollo (1961-1972)
Project Apollo was a NASA human spaceflight program conducted after Project Mercury
and Project Gemini.157 Project Apollo totaled 14 missions, 11 spaceflights, and 12 astronauts
walking on the moon.158
Poppy (1962-1977)
The successor to GRAB, Poppy was an ELINT satellite system developed by the
National Research Laboratory that operated from 1962 to 1977 to collect Soviet radar
emissions.159 A total of seven Poppy missions were launched between December 1962 andDecember 1971.160 The program was declassified in 2004.161
Gambit (1963-1971)
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) launched its first high-resolution
photoreconnaissance satellite system in 1963, which became known by its codename, Gambit.162
Two Gambit systems were developed: Gambit 1, initially launched in 1963, and Gambit 3,
which was first launched in 1966.163 The Gambit 1 satellite’s exposed film was returned to Earthin reentry vehicles, or “buckets,” that separated from the satellite, fell through the atmosphereand descended by parachute until obtained by USAF aircraft at about 15,000 feet altitude.164
Gambit was declassified in 2011.
Hexagon (1971- 1986)
Similar to Gambit, Hexagon was an NRO photoreconnaissance satellite system. It was
launched in 1971 to conduct wide-area searches of denied territory.165 From 1971-1986, 19
missions collected imagery over 877 million square miles of the Earth’s surface.166 The
42

Hexagon system was the last satellite employing film reentry vehicles.167 Hexagon was
declassified in 2011.168
Space Transportation System/Space Shuttle (1972 - 2011)
The Space Shuttle program was NASA’s fourth human spaceflight program and wascomprised of the first reusable spacecraft to carry humans into Earth’s orbit.169 The space shuttle
fleet—Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour—flew 135 missions, serviced
the Hubble space telescope, and helped construct the International Space Station.170 The first
shuttle launch, Columbia, was conducted on April 12, 1981.171
HAVE Blue/F-117A Nighthawk/TACIT Blue (1975)
The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) oversaw the development of
HAVE Blue in the mid-1970s, which was the first practical, combat-stealth aircraft. HAVE Blue
completed its first test flight in 1977, and the success of this program led the USAF to later
produce the F-117A Nighthawk, as well as the TACIT Blue aircraft. The HAVE Blue, F-117A
Nighthawk, and TACIT Blue programs laid the foundations for the later development of the B-2
stealth bomber.172
Advanced Technology Bomber/B-2 Spirit (1980)
The B-2 is a USAF low-observable stealth bomber capable of delivering conventionaland nuclear payloads. It uses a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, and electromagnetic
signatures. It was first publicly displayed on November 22, 1988 in Palmdale, California andconducted its first flight on July 17, 1989. The first aircraft was delivered on December 17,
1993.173
Strategic Defense Initiative (March 1983)
At the initiative of President Ronald Reagan, the Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization was established in 1984 to explore a multi-layered strategic defense against
ballistic missiles; this program involved research into space-based and ground-based systems
including laser and interceptor missiles. This intensive research effort involved national
laboratories and academia. Some of the technologies researched were determined to be years
from development, and funding was reduced. The program ended in 1993 and was replaced by
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.174
Advent of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 1980s-Present
The research and development, flight testing, evaluation, deployment, and the operationof drones—Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Remotely
Piloted Aircraft (RPA), and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)—almost certainly
resulted in reported sightings of UAP. Some of these systems had a “saucer” or triangle-shaped
appearance and were capable of loitering aloft.
The USG acquired and operated a number of systems for a range of missions including
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike, among others. The below systems
43represent a sample of those that have been operationally deployed since the 1994 Bosnia conflictand subsequently employed in counterterrorism operations around the world.175 Since then, theirform and use have spread to civil and commercial applications.
GNAT 750
The GNAT 750 was developed in the late 1980s by General Atomics Aeronautical
Systems, Inc. The prototype served as the basis for a more advanced design under DARPA.176
It was first used in 1994 during the Bosnia conflict where satellites were not optimized tocollect for extended times over such small areas and where the airspace was heavily defended
by capable anti-aircraft missile systems.177
Predator
The Predator system, also built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., wasbased on the GNAT-750.178 It was initially a joint USN and U.S. Army project but
transitioned to the USAF in 1996.179 It was known as the RQ-1.180 The system possessed
synthetic aperture radar, electro-optical, and infrared sensors. 181 It was used to support United
Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization efforts in Bosnia and was widely used incounterterrorism operations.182 It became a platform with a wide array of technicalcapabilities that performed a variety of missions—such as close air support, combat search andrescue, precision strike, convoy/raid over watch, target development and terminal air
guidance.183 The USAF retired the fleet in 2018.184
Reaper
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. also built the MQ-9 Reaper—a newer,
larger version of the MQ-1 Predator UAV.185 This platform is faster, equipped with moreadvanced sensors, can carry more munitions than the Predator, and can be easily tailoredwith a variety of mission-specific capabilities.186 The system requires a pilot to control theaircraft and an aircrew member to operate the sensors and weapons.187 188 It has an
operational altitude of 50,000 feet.189 The aircraft is operated out of a variety of locations
worldwide, including Creech Air Force Base (AFB) in Nevada.190
Dark StarThe RQ-3 Dark Star was a remote pilot-assisted stealth system intended to conduct
reconnaissance missions in high-threat areas. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and DARPA developed
Dark Star in the mid-to-late 1990s.191 It never entered production, but the research conducted on
Dark Star led to subsequent advances used on other platforms. Some observers asserted that
Dark Star resembled a flying saucer with long narrow wings.192
It was designed to be fully autonomous from its launch, mission engagement, and return.
It used satellite links to transmit sensor data. The first prototype flew in 1996, but crashed amonth later on its second flight. The system completed five test flights before DoD terminatedthe program in 1999 due to cost and instability problems.193

44Polecat
Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Program organization, also known as“Skunk Works” developed the P-175 Polecat UAV to better understand the flight dynamics
of tailless, bat-wing- shaped, 90-foot wingspan high-altitude UAV, including the next
generation of structural composite materials and configurations.194 The Polecat made its
first flight in 2005, and Lockheed Martin disclosed its existence in the Farnborough Airshow
in 2006.195
Sentinel
The RQ-170 Sentinel is a UAV developed by Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works for
the USAF.196 It is a low observable platform with a variety of intelligence, surveillance, andreconnaissance payloads. The Sentinel is operated out of Creech AFB and the Tonopah Test
Range in Nevada.197
Global Hawk
Built by Northrop Grumman, the RQ-4 Global Hawk is the largest UAS in operationby the USAF.198 It can fly at 65,000 feet more than 34 hours and is also capable of loitering
at 60,000 feet while monitoring almost 58,000 square miles. 199 The aircraft is currently
fielded in three different models.200
SECTION IX: Conclusion
To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence that any sighting of a UAP
represented off-world technology or the existence a classified program that had not been
properly reported to Congress. Investigative efforts determined that most sightings were theresult of misidentification of ordinary objects and phenomena. Although many UAP reports
remain unsolved, AARO assesses that if additional, quality data were available, most of thesecases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.
This report represents Volume I of AARO’s HR2. Volume II will be published inaccordance with the date established in Section 6802 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) and will provide additional analysis on information not yet secured
and analyzed, interviews not yet conducted, and additional avenues of investigation not yet
completed by the date of the publication of Volume I.

45

Anjali Nandan, “Eyewitness Testimony: A Psychological and Legal Perspective,” Journal of
Positive School of Psychology, 2022; Biswa Prakesh Nayak & H. Khajuria, “Eyewitness
Testimony: Probative Value in the Criminal Justice System,” Egyptian Journal of Forensic
Science, 2019; Stephen L. Chew, “Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence,”
Association for Psychological Science, 2018; Fangting Liu, “The Reliability of Eyewitness
Testimony,” from the Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Public Relations andSocial Sciences, Atlantis Press, 2021.
1

Daniel Khaneman, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2013; Helen Lee,
“Don’t Let Anchoring Bias Weigh Down Your Judgment,” Harvard Business Review, August30, 2022; Richard J, Heuer, Jr., “Psychology of Intelligence Analysis,” Novinka Books, 1999;
Drake Baer, “Kahneman: Your Confirmation Bias Acts Like an Optical Illusion,” The Cut,
January 13, 2017; Ben Yagoda, “The Cognitive Bias Tricking Your Brain,” The Atlantic,
September 2018.
2

3

https://military-history.fandom.com/wikiProject-Sign; Connors, Wendy, Project Blue Book

4

Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence,
Vol 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
5

Russell Lee, “1947: Year of the Flying Saucer,” June 24, 2022,
https://www.airandsapce.si.edu/stories/editorial/1947-year-flying-saucer
6

Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832
7

8Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; USAF
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_a_
1.pdf
J. Marker, “Public Interest in UFOs Persists 50 Years after Project Blue Book Termination,” 2019;
Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall1966), 95-110.
946

Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974).
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
1011

National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Edward J. Ruppelt,
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
12Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
13

Ibid.

14

Ibid.

Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; USAF
https://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/Portals/67/documents/AFD-110719-005.pdf?ver=201607-19-142520-690; Project Grudge Report,
https://www.academia.edu/43389931/Project_GRUDGE_Report_1949USA
15

Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; Mihm, S., “US Government Has Been Dancing Around UFOs for 75
Years.” The Washington Post. 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-governmenthas-been-dancing-around-ufos-for-75-years/2023/02/22/7ce50280-b2c4-11ed-94a0512954d75716_story.html
16

17

https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary

18

Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf.
19

Ibid.

47

20

Ibid.

21

Ibid.

22

Ibid.

23

Ibid.

Hector Quintanilla Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; U.S. Congress, House ofRepresentatives; https://history.house.gov/Blog/Detail/15032395730
24

25

Ibid.

Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC 0000838058.pdf
26

27

Ibid.

28

Ibid.

“The Robertson Panel Report,” https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/ciardp81r00100030027-0
29

Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Rolein the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
30“The Robertson Panel Report”, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/ciardp81r00100030027-0; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies
in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
31

32

Ibid.

33

The Durant Report, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp81r00100030027-0;
Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf

48

34

Ibid.

35

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Department of the
Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966); USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; Gerald K. Haines,“CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1.
36

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Department of the
Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966), USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf.
37

Department of Defense, Press Release, 17 December 1969.

38

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary.
39

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Department of the
Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966), USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);49https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; Gerald K. Haines,“CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
40

41

Ibid.

42

Ibid.

43

Ibid.

“The Condon Report,” https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0680976.pdf,
https://files.ncas.org/condon; Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects (Bantam, 1968)., University of Colorado, Boulder,
https://www.colorado.edu/coloradan/2021/11/05/condon-report-cu-boulders-historic-ufo-stu
44

45

Ibid.

46

Ibid.

47

Ibid.

48

Ibid.

49

Ibid.

50

The National Academy of Sciences Panel Assessment of the Condon Report;
https://www.apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADO688541.pdf
51

Ibid.

Richard C. Henry, “UFOs and NASA,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 2, No. 2,(1988). https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/ufosNASA.pdf; The Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/04/30/ufo-over-georgia-jimmyloggedone/080ef1c3-6ff3-41a9-a1e4-a37c54b5cbca/
52

50

53

Presidential Papers of the United States, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1995book2/html/PPP-1995-book2-doc-pg1813-2.htm; “Bill Clinton Phones Home on Aliens,”
Politico, Tal Kopan, April 3, 2014; The Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/08/the-long-strange-history-ofjohnpodestas-space-alien-obsession/; New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-aliens.html
54

Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-187.pdf

55

U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert(Government Printing Office, 1995), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA326148.pdf
56

Ibid.

57

U.S. Air Force, https://www.af.mil/The-Roswell-Report; USAF, The Roswell Report: Case
Closed (Government Printing Office, 1994),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf
58

Ibid.

59

U.S. Air Force, https://www.af.mil/The-Roswell-Report; USAF, The Roswell Report: Case
Closed (Government Printing Office, 1994),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf; U.S. Air
Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (Government Printing
Office, 1995), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA326148.pdf
60

Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-187.pdf

61

Info Memo, From Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director to the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, December 1, 2010.
62

Info Memo, From Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director to the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, December 1, 2010.
63

Review of Report from a private sector organization 1, July 30, 2009.

64

Ibid.

51

65

Defense Intelligence Agency, https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room;
New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harryreid.html.
66

Memorandum, from the Under Secretary of Defense James Clapper to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, 17 November 2009.
67

Review of Report from a private sector organization, July 30 2009.

68

Ibid.

69

Department of Defense,
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2314065/establishment-ofunidentifiedaerial-phenomena-task-force/
70

AARO discussions with UAPTF leadership.

71

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
72

Department of Defense,
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2853121/dod-announcestheestablishment-of-the-airborne-object-identification-and-manag/; DoD,
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/23/2002898596/-1/-1/0/ESTABLISHMENT-OFTHEAIRBORNE-OBJECT-IDENTIFICATION-AND-MANAGEMENTSYNCHRONIZATIONGROUP PDF
73

Ibid.

74

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://science.nasa.gov/uap; National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://science.nasa.gov/sciencered/s3fspublic/atoms/files/UAPIST%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20-%20Signed.pdf;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announcesunidentified-anomalous-phenomena-study-teammembers/
75

Department of Defense,
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3100053/dod-announcestheestablishment-of-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office/

52

76

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena.
P.A. Sturrock, et. al., “Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of aWorkshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 October 4, 1997,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 2, (1998).
http://www.jse.com/ufo_reports/Sturrock/toc.html; Stanford University
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980701082300.htm
77

78

United Kingdom National Archives. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/briefingguide-12-07-12.pdf; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies inIntelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
79

Department of National Defense,
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21885184/documents-obtained-through-accesstoinformation-ufo-files.pdf; CTV News; https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/document-revealsfirst-known-canadian-ufo-study-in-nearly-30-years-now-underway-1.6293124
80

University of Ottawa, https://biblio.uottawa.ca/atom/index.php/project-second-story
https://biblio.uottawa.ca/atom/index.php/project-second-story-defence-research-boardmeetingminutes; Mathew Hayes, “A History of Canada’s UFO Investigation, 1950-1995,”
Dissertation Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and Science.
Rod Tennyson, University of Toronto Institute for Aerophysics Studies, “1960s: Dr. Gordon
Peterson Establishes the UTIAS UFO Project; https://www.utias.utoronto.ca/2018/08/15/1960sdr-gordon-patterson-establishes-the-utias-ufo-project; Timothy Good, “Above Top Secret,”
William Morrow & Company, 1988; Matthew Hayes, “Then the Saucers Do Exist?”: UFOs, thePractice of Conspiracy, and the Case of Wilbert Smith,” Journal of Canadian Studies, Universityof Toronto Press, Volume 52, Number 3, Fall 2017, pp. 665-696
81

82

CNES, https://cnes.fr/en/web/CNES-en/5866-geipan-uap-investigation-opens-its-files.php;
https://cnes-geipan.fr.en.node/5891
83

National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Edward J. Ruppelt,
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf

53

84

AARO case files

85

AARO case files

86

AARO case files

87

AARO case files

88

AARO case files

89

AARO case files

90

AARO case files

91

AARO case files

92

AARO case files

93

AARO case files

94

AARO case files

95

AARO case files

96

AARO case files

97

AARO case files

98

AARO case files

99

AARO case files

100

AARO case files

101

AARO case files

102

AARO case files

103

AARO case files

54

104

AARO case files

105

AARO case files

106

AARO case files

107

AARO case files

108

AARO case files

109

AARO case files

110

AARO case files

111

AARO case files

112

AARO case files

113

AARO case files

114

AARO case files

115

AARO case files

116

Senator Harry Reid Letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn III; Memorandum,
from the Under Secretary of Defense James Clapper to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 17
November 2009; program documentation from ARRO case files
117

AARO case files

118

Program documentation, from AARO case files

119

Senator Harry Reid Letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn III; Memorandum,
from the Under Secretary of Defense James Clapper to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 17
November 2009.
120

AARO case files

121

AARO case files

55

122

AARO case files

123

AARO case files

124

Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf. Page 93.
125

Ibid, page 91.

J. Allen Hyneck, “The UFO Experience,” Da Capo Press, 1977; Edward J. Ruppelt, The
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
126

127

Ibid.

Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022,” June 6, 2022.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/
128“Do Americans Believe in UFOs,” Gallup,
https://www.news/gallup/com/poll/350096/americans-beleive-ufos.aspx
129

130

National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; National Archives andRecords Administration, https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50thanniversary; National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlmwakUTo3M; Department of the Air Force, Project Blue
Book, (February 1, 1966), USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Hector
Quintanilla, Jr., “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; Gerald K. Haines,“CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1

56

131

Department of Energy (DoE), https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-projecthistory/Events/1945/trinity.htm, Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told (Harper, 1962).
Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Simon and Shuster, 1986), Kai Bird andMartin J. Sherwin
132

Department of Energy (DoE)
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm; Leslie Groves,
Now It Can Be Told (Harper, 1962); Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Simonand Shuster, 1986).
Norman Polmar, “The Pancake that Didn't Fly,” Naval History Magazine, Volume 33,
Number 3, (June 2019); https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-historymagazine/2019/june/pancake-didnt-fly
133

134

National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/vought-v-173flying-pancake/nasm A19610120000; Norman Polmar, “The Pancake that Didn't Fly,” Naval
History Magazine, Volume 33, Number 3, (June 2019); https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory-magazine/2019/june/pancake-didnt-fly
135

Ibid.

136

U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert(Government Printing Office, 1995); https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA326148.pdf; U.S. Air
Force, The Roswell Report: Case Closed (Government Printing Office, 1995),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf
137

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://history.nasa.gov/afspbio/part4-4.htm;
U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Case Closed (Government Printing Office, 1995),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf; U.S. Air
Force, https://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000345085/
138

Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974(CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1998), https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/booksmonographs/the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/; Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E.
Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead; Reconnaissance Program, The U2 and Oxcart Programs 1954-1974 (CIA History Staff, 1992),
https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2014-004-doc01.pdf; Central
Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIARDP62B00844R000200070131-1.pdf; Central Intelligence Agency,57

https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/u2.pdf; National Security Agency,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/docs/doc_40.PDF
139

Ibid.

140

Bruce Berkowitz, A Brief History of the NRO (NRO Center for the Study of National
Reconnaissance, 2018,https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/NRO Brief History.pdf;
National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/History-and-Studies/Center-for-the-Studyof-National-Reconnaissance/The-CORONA-Program/; Dwayne Day, et. al., eds., Eye in the Sky:The Story of the Corona Spy Satellites (Smithsonian, 1998)
141

U.S. Air Force, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/FactSheets/Display/Article/195801/avro-canada-vz-9av-avrocar/
142

Ibid.

American Heritage Center, “Flying Saucers—For Real! The Papers of Jack D. Pickett,”
https://ahcwyo.org/2022/04/04/flying-saucers-for-real-the-papers-of-jack-d-pickett/
143

144

U.S. Air Force, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/FactSheets/Display/Article/195801/avro-canada-vz-9av-avrocar/
American Heritage Center, “Flying Saucers—For Real! The Papers of Jack D, Pickett,”
https://ahcwyo.org/2022/04/04/flying-saucers-for-real-the-papers-of-jack-d-pickett/
145

146

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/explorer-

1147

National Security Archive, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/

148

Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/exhibit/a-12-oxcart/

149

Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/exhibit/a-12-oxcart/;
National Security Agency Archive, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/
150

Ibid.

151

National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-wasmercury-program

58

152

Robert A. McDonald and Sharon K. Moreno, Raising the Periscope: Grab and Poppy:
America’s Early ELINT Satellites (NRO History Office, 2005).
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-03.pdf
153

Robert A. McDonald and Sharon K. Moreno, Raising the Periscope: Grab and Poppy:
America’s Early ELINT Satellites (NRO History Office, 2005).
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-03.pdf; U.S.
Naval Research Laboratory, https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/3074375/grab-i-firstoperational-intelligence-satellite/
154

Ibid.

155

National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-wasgemini-program
156

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/gemini/; National Air
and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-was-gemini-program
157

National Archives and Records Administration, Kennedy Library,https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-ofcongress-may-25-1961
158

National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/explore/topics/space/apolloprogram; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/learningresources/for-kids-and-students/what-was-the-apollo-program-grades-5-8/; National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/missions.html
159

Robert A. McDonald and Sharon K. Moreno, Raising the Periscope: Grab and Poppy:
America’s Early ELINT Satellites (NRO History Office, 2005),
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-03.pdf
Bruce Berkowitz, “A Brief History of the NRO” (NRO Center for the Study of National
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/NRO_Brief_History.pdf
160

161

Ibid.

162

National Reconnaissance Office,https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/gambhex/Docs/GAM_1_Fact_sheet.pdf

59

163

National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/About-NRO/history/more-historicalprograms/
164

National Museum of the United States Air Force,
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/FactSheets/Display/Article/195925/gambit-1-kh-7-film-recovery-vehicle/
165

National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/About-NRO/history/more-historicalprograms/
166

National Museum of the United States Air Force,
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/FactSheets/Display/Article/195921/hexagon-kh-9-reconnaissance-satellite/
167

National Reconnaissance Office,https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/gambhex/Docs/GAM_1_Fact_sheet.pdf
168

The National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/About-nro/history/more-historicalprograms
169

National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/explore/topics/space/spaceshuttle-program
Gamillo, E. (2023). “From Space to Museum Showcase: the Shuttles’ Final Mission.”
Astronomy. https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/from-space-to-museum-showcasethe-space-shuttles-final-mission/
170

171

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/humans-inspace/nasa-day-of-remembrance-pays-tribute-to-fallen-astronauts/
172

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), https://www.darpa.mil/aboutus/timeline/have-blue
173

U.S. Air Force, https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104482/b-2-spirit/

174

Department of Defense, https://www.mda.mil/about/history.html; Department of State,
http::2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/rd/104253.htm
Frank Strickland, “The Early Evolution of the Predator Drone,” Studies in Intelligence 57, no.
1 (2013): 1-6. https://www.cia.gov/static/Early-Evolution-of-Predator.pdf; Defense Advanced
175

60

Research Projects Agency (DARPA), “Predator.” https://www.darpa.mil/aboutus/timeline/predator
Roger Connor, “The Predator, a Drone That Transformed Military Combat,” National Air andSpace Museum, March 9, 2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/predator-dronetransformed-military-combat
176

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “Predator.” https://www.darpa.mil/aboutus/timeline/predator; Strickland, “The Early Evolution of the Predator Drone,” 1-6; Roger
Connor, “The Predator, a Drone That Transformed Military Combat,” National Air and Space
Museum, March 9, 2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/predator-drone-transformedmilitary-combat
177

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “Predator.” https://www.darpa.mil/aboutus/timeline/predator
178

179

Ibid.

180

Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper, Air Force Technology, https://www.airforcetechnology.com/projects/predator-uav/; Christian Clausen, “The evolution of the combat RPA,”
Air Force, December 17, 2016, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1032544/theevolution-of-the-combat-rpa/
181

DARPA, https://www.darpa.mil/About-Us/timeline/predator; U.S. Air Force,
https://af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104469/mq-1b-predator
182

Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper, Air Force Technology, https://www.airforcetechnology.com/projects/predator-uav/; Strickland, “The Early Evolution of the Predator Drone,”
1-6.
Christian Clausen, “The evolution of the combat RPA,” Air Force, December 17, 2016,
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1032544/the-evolution-of-the-combat-rpa/
183

John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential
Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report R47067,
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067
184

U.S. Air Force, “MQ-9 Reaper.” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/FactSheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/; John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned
Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report
R47067. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067
185

61

U.S. Air Force, “MQ-9 Reaper,” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/FactSheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
186

187

Ibid.

188

Ibid.

U.S. Air Force, “MQ-9 Reaper,” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/FactSheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/; Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper UAV, Air
Force Technology, https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
189

U.S. Department of Defense, “Air Force to Retire MQ-1 Predator Drone, Transition to MQ-9
Reaper,” https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1095612/air-force-toretire-mq-1-predator-drone-transition-to-mq-9-reaper/; Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper
UAV, Air Force Technology, https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
190

191

U.S. Air Force, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/FactSheets/Display/Article/195774/lockehhed-martin-rq-3-darkstar/;https://www.airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lockheed-martin-boeing-rq-3a-darkstar/nasm_A20070230000; https://www.armypress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studiesinstitute/csi-books/OP37.pdf
192

Ibid.

193

Ibid.

Lockheed Martin, “Popular Science Awards Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and Polecat
UAV Best of What’s New for 2006.” https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/node/17136/pdf;“From the Skunk Works, a New Polecat Emerges,” Air & Space Forces Magazine,
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/1005polecat/
194

195

Ibid.

U.S. Air Force, “RQ-170 Sentinel.” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/FactSheets/Display/Article/2796993/rq-170-sentinel/
196

197

Ibid.

62

John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential
Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report R47067.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067
198

199

Ibid.

John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential
Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report R47067.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067; U.S. Air Force, “RQ-4 Global Hawk.”
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk/; U.S. Army
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/OP37.pdf
20063