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), the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), and the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). There were also short-term projects that supported some of these established programs including: Projects TWINKLE and BEAR and short-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 USAF-established 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 of these efforts, including Projects SAUCER and SIGN, were closely connected and essentially the same 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.
Background: The exact date of the founding of this first effort as well as its official and unofficial name are unclear. According to one source, General Nathan Twining, Commander of the Air Technical Services Command, established Project SAUCER on December 30, 1947, to collect and evaluate all information relating to UFO sightings which could be construed as of concern to the national security. Captain Edward Ruppelt claimed that Project SAUCER was the informal 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 s1https://military-history.fandom.com/wikiProject-Sign; Connors, Wendy, Project Blue Book. A dearth of data and information is associated with this effort s2Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956), .
Project SAUCER investigated one of the first well-known accounts provided by a private pilot, Kenneth Arnold. The pilot claimed that on 23 Monday,
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 flight characteristics as the tail of a Chinese kite
s3U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert
(Government Printing Office, 1995). Arnold described their shape as saucer-like aircraft
. 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.
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 Friday, 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 secret weapons or “extraplanetary” objects. The staff seemed confident that after a few months of work they could reach a conclusion. As part of their work, the staff at Project SIGN reviewed all of the military’s intelligence on German weaponry and aeronautical capabilities to determine if some might have fallen into Soviet possession s4Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956), ; USAF.
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 disprove the existence of these
unidentified objects as real aircraft of unknown and unconventional configuration.
s5J. 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 (Fall
1966), 95-110. Project SIGN determined that nearly all were caused by either misinterpretation of known
objects, hysteria, hallucination, or hoax s6Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974).; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
It also recommended continued military intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings. It did not rule
out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena.
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 s9Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956). Project GRUDGE was terminated on Tuesday, 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, it folded that work into its existing intelligence processes.
Results: Project GRUDGE investigated 244 reports of UFO sightings. It did not discover any evidence that the UAP sightings represented foreign technology; therefore, these findings did not pose a threat to U.S. national security s10Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; USAF; Project Grudge Report, . The report recommended that the organization 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 a public affairs campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary. The stated goal of this effort was to alleviate public anxiety s11Gerald 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.
Background: Project TWINKLE was established in the summer of August 1949 to investigate a series 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 s13Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956). 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 the fireballs were captured, then their speed, altitude, and time could be discerned s14Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
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 ever taken s15Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
Background: In late October 1951, almost two years after Project GRUDGE was disestablished, 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 to correct the mistakes of Project SIGN and the former Project GRUDGE. His primary goal was to ensure 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 three staff. He also realized that he needed a range of scientific expertise which he sourced through a contract 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 s16Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
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 were concentrations of cases in the Los Alamos-Albuquerque area, Oak Ridge, White Sands, Strategic Air Command locations, ports, and industrial sites s17Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
Background: Project BEAR was an informal name given by Capt Ruppelt, Chief of Project 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 the reliability 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” s18Hector Quintanilla Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall 1966), pp. 95-110; U.S. Congress, House of Representatives.
Results: The Project BEAR report was based on a statistical analysis of UFO sightings and 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 were resolved 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
s19Hector Quintanilla Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4
(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110; U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives.
Background: After an increase in UFO sightings in 1952, particularly those that gained widespread 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) s20Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;.
Results: The Study Group assessed that 90 percent of the reports were explainable and the 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 reports of UFOs, leading the group to assume that the Soviets were deliberately suppressing such 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 s21Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;.
something was going on that must 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 vehicless22Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;.
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.
s23“The Robertson Panel Report” The
panelists had expertise in a range of fields, including nuclear physics, high-energy physics, radar, electronics,
and geophysics s24Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4
(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role
in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
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.
Background: CIA officer Frederick Durant drafted a report for CIA’s Assistant Director of 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 from members which they had not included in the final report s26The Durant Report; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
Results: The report offered no distinct or separate findings of note and mostly summarized the findings of the Robertson Panel.34
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 the reorganized 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 scientific investigator s27National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); NARA; Department of the Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966); USAF; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974); Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1..
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:
Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans, Jr. announced Project BLUE BOOK’s termination on December 17, 1969 s29Department of Defense, Press Release, 17 December 1969.
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 a significant 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:
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 officially acquired UFO-sighting case information from the director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a private organization founded in 1956 s30Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
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 were a threat to the security of the United
States or that they were of foreign origin
s31Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
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 s32Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
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 s33Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
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 and 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 research and 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 s34“The Condon Report,”, ; Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam, 1968)., University of Colorado, Boulder. Among other duties, it closely examined 59 specific case studies s35“The Condon Report,”, ; Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam, 1968)., University of Colorado, Boulder.
Results: The panel’s report stated that:Our general conclusion is that nothing has come 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 be advanced thereby.The panel cautioned against support for scientific papers on this topic and recommended that teachers should not give credit to students for reading UFO literature and materials s36“The Condon Report,”, ; Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam, 1968)., University of Colorado, Boulder.
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 s40The National Academy of Sciences Panel Assessment of the Condon Report.
Results: The NAS review concluded that, We are unanimous in the opinion that this has been a very
credible effort to apply…techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem.
s41The National Academy of Sciences Panel Assessment of the
Condon Report
Background: Dr. Frank Press, Science Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, sent a letter to Dr. Robert Frosch, NASA Administrator, on 21 Thursday, suggesting that a panel be formed by 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 to establish a research
activity in this area or to convene a symposium on the subject.
s42Richard C. Henry, “UFOs and NASA,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 2, No. 2,
(1988); The
Washington Post
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 want to know
s43Presidential Papers of the United States; “Bill Clinton Phones Home on Aliens,”
Politico, Tal Kopan, April 3, 2014; The Washington Post;
New York Times
In 1993, Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-New Mexico) made inquiries about the Roswell incident to DoD. The Roswell incident refers to the July 1947 recovery of metallic and rubber debris from a crashed military balloon near Roswell Army Air Field personnel that sparked 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 the Government Accountability Office) to determine the requirements for reporting air accidents, such as the crash near Roswell, and to identify any government records concerning the Roswell crash s44Government Accountability Office.
The USAF conducted a systematic search of numerous archives and records centers in support 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 s45U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (Government Printing Office, 1995).
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 “cover-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 GAO’s 1995 report on the results of its investigation found 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 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 s49Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-187.pdf.
Background: At the direction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the Defense 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 United States. 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 DIA- managed program was awarded to a private sector organization s50Info Memo, From Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, December 1, 2010. n1Note 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 some individuals 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. This effort was not a recognized, official program, and had no dedicated personnel or budget.
dead-end discussions” and the “morass” about discussing “evidence.s56Review of Report from a private sector organization, July 30 2009. 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 s57Review of Report from a private sector organization, July 30 2009..
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.
Background: Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved the establishment 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 s58Department of Defense.
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 s59AARO discussions with UAPTF leadership.. 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 high-quality 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 flight characteristics; although those observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer 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 more sophisticated analysis of UAP s60Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
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 s61Department of Defense; DoD, PDF.
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 and national security s62Department of Defense; DoD, PDF. 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.
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 the private sector s63National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
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.
Background: In response to the NDAA for FY22, the Deputy Secretary of Defense in coordination with the DNI, conveyed direction to the USD(I&S) by renaming the AOIMSG as AARO, and expanded its scope and mission s64Department of Defense. AARO organized itself around four functions (analysis, operations, science & technology (S&T), and strategic communications). AARO is developing 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 Thursday, 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.
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 report from 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 to reflect the opinions of the director of the effort and was not endorsed or supported by the Canadian government.
flying saucers did not exists67United Kingdom National Archives. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/briefing- guide-12-07-12.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;.
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 Canadian government closed the project, saying that there were no definitive results from the research. Smith admitted that his beliefs concerning UFOs were his alone and not the government’s official position s70Rod Tennyson, University of Toronto Institute for Aerophysics Studies, “1960s: Dr. Gordon Peterson Establishes the UTIAS UFO Project; Timothy Good, “Above Top Secret,” William Morrow & Company, 1988; Matthew Hayes, “Then the Saucers Do Exist?”: UFOs, the Practice of Conspiracy, and the Case of Wilbert Smith,” Journal of Canadian Studies, University of Toronto Press, Volume 52, Number 3, Fall 2017, pp. 665-696.
Key Findings