A change of direction

Since the inception of this blog in 2009, it has provided much information, including on the contents of Australian government UAP files; the UAP interests of employees of aerospace companies; Australian sightings; and details of the findings of numerous global UAP researchers. In particular, it has focussed on what is known about AAWSAP, AATIP and BAASS. Todate, the blog has published 1,238 individual posts, ranging in length from 100 to 10,000 words. However, blog posts take time to prepare. Firstly, there is a need to research a topic of interest, and then time to write, and edit each blog post, hoping to produce an informative and factual article.

Over time, other aspects of my own UAP interest have been neglected, in order to keep publishing blog posts. Today, keeping across the wealth of information about UAP coming in through various inputs, is simply beyond one individual's available time; a complaint I hear many of my Australian colleagues making. 

So, after 13 years, I have now decided it is the right time, to re-focus my available time on some of these other aspects. For example, I want to make time to go through my extensive electronic files on Australian sightings, such as Westall (1966); Valentich (1978); and Mundrabilla (1988) plus more recent events. I want to make time to review classic global UAP cases, for which we have various bits of unexplored data. I intend to then share these files with other interested researchers. In addition, I will take time to carefully and slowly re-read/listen to, a number of books; article, podcasts; and other blogs, taking more than the superficial glance which so many of them originally received. Most importantly, there is a need to simply spend time thinking about the topic, away from the distraction of time sensitive blog posting. 

So, effective immediately, I will be closing the blog to new posts; although, naturally the existing blog posts will remain accessible to readers. I wish to thank both long-term, and more recent, blog readers for their support; and hope that you will understand my decision. I am not certain when I will return to blogging, as these other aspects of the subject will be time consuming in their own way.

Best wishes,

Keith. 

The CSIRO and those 22,500 items

My CSIRO FOIA request

On 29 August 2022, I submitted an FOIA request to the CSIRO, as follows:

"I seek all emails, sent to/from or cc'd, CSIRO staff, including any attachments, for the period 1 June 2021 to 29 August 2022; which contain keywords "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena;" and/or "UAP" and/or "UAPs" and/or "Unidentified Flying Object" and/or "UFO."

A response letter, dated 20 September 2022, FOI 2022/46, included the following reply:

"CSIRO's FOI team has conducted internal enquiries to ascertain how many potentially relevant documents CSIRO might hold that relate to your request and the work required to search for, identify and collate those documents, prior to reviewing them and preparing a decision in response to your request.

Given the amount of work we estimate that would be required, I have decided that I need to send you this notice of an intention to refuse access to the documents you have requested...

The results of our searches todate indicate that CSIRO is likely to hold at least approximately 22,500 items including emails and attachments, that may be relevant to your request...

This amount of items concerning a topic about which the CSIRO says it does not research or investigate, seemed excessive, and I wondered how this volume of items could  be possible?

Grant Lavac

In October 2022, Melbourne researcher Grant Lavac submitted his own FOIA request, ultimately scoped as:

"...a copy of all emails and supporting file attachments (excluding media clippings); sent to/from or cc'd CSIRO staff for the period 1 July 2022 to 5 October 2022 (inclusive) that contain any of the following keywords: Unidentifed Aerial Phenomena, Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena, Unexplained Aerial Phenomena, Unexplained Aerospace Phenomena, Unidentified Flying Object, UFO, Unidentified Flying Objects, UFOs, Unauthorised Aircraft Movement, Unauthorised Aircraft Movements, Unusual Aerial Sighting.

The CSIRO, in a letter dated 18 November 2022, in part responded:

"I confirm that electronic searches were conducted by CSIRO Information Managment and Technology staff of all CSIRO email accounts...The searches resulted in a very high volume of documents being captured, including emails containing numerous media feeds that were addressed to multiple employees...From the roughly 7,000 items captured...CSIRO's FOI team identified four documents that fall within the scope of your request due to the inclusion of one of the keywords..."

Four documents

1. An email dated 1 July 2022 from [redacted] to [redacted A&F, Black Mountain] Subject: Whata headline. "I wonder what they were going out there? Sounds suss. And where is the wheel? UFO country out there."

There was a link shown of https://duchetridao.com/two-men-mired-and-lost-on-south-african-outback-dirt-road-for-two-days-rescued-by-police

2. An email dated 28 September 2022 from [redacted L&W, Sandy Bay] to Green Acres Hydroponics, "...unfortunately one of our 200w UFOs we bought off you has spontaneously stopped working..."

3. An email dated 5 October 2022 from [redacted A & O Hobart to [redacted] subject Re: Freezer UFO13." "...freezer in constant alarm." Unless this is a repeat of the 2013 story of an "alien kept in a freezer," then it is of no value to us. 

4. An email dated 5 October 2022 from [redcated\ to [redacted] subject freezer in alarm. "The upright -80 freezer UFO13..."

So, of the 7,000 items captured between 1 July and 5 October 2022, we end up with four documents. Compare this to the approximately 22,500 items captured for my request between 1 June 2021 and 29 August 2022, and we do not know how many actual relevant documents would have resulted if they had gone through the 22,500 items. However, given the nature of the four documents provided to Grant Lavac; it is reasonable to deduce that the approximately, 22,500 items would have produced may be a dozen documents. If these dozen were of the same quality as the four released to Grant, then they would have been of no value to us.

UAP questions asked in 2022 Australian Senate Estimates hearings

 At a recent hearing of the Australian Senate Estimates; Senator Peter Whish-Wilson asked a number of questions relating to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. This is the second year in a row, that the Senator has raised this issue. The questions were posed at the 9 November 2022 hearing for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=195565

Melbourne researcher Grant Lavac has been closely following the Senator's interest in the subject of UAP; and following the exchange in Senate Estimates, published a series of tweets which may be read here, including video clips of the questions and answers.

Transcript

On18 November 2022, the official Australian Parliament Hansard transcript of the 9 November 2022 Senate Estimates Hearings, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, became available. This is the Committee on which Senator Whish-Wilson sits. I extract the UAP relevant section of the transcript below.

Air Marshal Chipman: I started at ADFA in 1989.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I graduated from there in 1988, so I was interested if you were there while I was there.

About a year ago, I asked the previous Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Hupfeld, about the release of a US defence intelligence report, a preliminary report on UAPs, unidentified aerial phenomena. I've just got some follow-up questions for you. There's obviously been a lot happening in this space in the last 12 months, and, of course, you've taken over the role. Just to fill you in briefly: following the release of that preliminary assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there was a defence legislation amendment in December 2021 that required the ODNI organisation to report to congress every year on any updates in relation to UAP. There was a series of congressional hearings in May this year, and then, actually only a few weeks ago, NASA set up their UAP study team or taskforce. I was hoping that, by the time I got to ask you these questions, they may have released their first preliminary assessment to congress, which was due last week, but we are waiting for that. So, with that kind of rough time line used as context, could I just ask you: since you've taken over as Chief of Air Force, in what capacity, if any at all, have you been briefed on the UAP phenomena since you've taken over the role in July?

Air Marshal Chipman: I haven't had any specific briefings in relation to UAPs since I've taken over.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Have you followed it on a personal level, just as a matter of interest?

Air Marshal Chipman: I do not follow it on a personal level.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: At the US Congressional hearing on UAP back in May, the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Scott Bray, confirmed that, since the release of this preliminary report in 2021, they now had 400 case reports they were considering. Most of them were from pilots like you. He was quoted at those hearings as saying that the US had brought many allies and international partners into their discussions on UAP. Given how close we are to the US, have there been any discussions with Australian intelligence services or the Air Force in relation to their approach—

Air Marshal Chipman: I'm not aware of any formal discussions that we've held with the US.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: You're 'not aware'; does that mean that this just hasn't come across your desk, or can you say categorically there haven't been any?

Air Marshal Chipman: I imagine it would have come across my desk if those discussions were held in the last four months, but I can take that on notice and see if there were any other discussions that have been held.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you. You are a pilot yourself. When our military aviators or defence personnel spot something they don't understand or can't identify in our airspace, what encouragement and reporting mechanisms are afforded to the men and women of the ADF in relation to that?

Air Marshal Chipman: We have a really strong reporting culture. If there's anything related to safety or airworthiness issues, then we strongly encourage our pilots to report those. There are also mechanisms through standard operational means: our air traffic control, and also our air defence personnel, who maintain constant surveillance of our airspace.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Back at the congressional hearings on UAP in May, the same Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence stated that Navy and Air Force crews now have step-by-step procedures for reporting on UAPs on their kneeboard in the cockpit and in their post-flight debrief procedures. Does that surprise you?

Air Marshal Chipman: We've seen no reason why we would institute those measures in Australia.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Would you understand why they are implementing—

Air Marshal Chipman: No.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Is there a reason you haven't had a discussion with our chief ally about why they're implementing those procedures?

Air Marshal Chipman: I was not aware of those procedures.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: As Chief of Air Force, would the establishment of a comparable reporting procedure be relatively straightforward to implement in Australia?

Air Marshal Chipman: I think so, if we saw the need. If there were issues that we became aware of that affected our safety or security of our operations in our airspace, then yes, it would be a simple matter for us to implement those procedures.

Wednesday, 9 November 2022 Senate Page 56

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Lastly, in the context of our strong alliance with the US, the recently executed joint vision statement with the US Air Force, would you be prepared to make a commitment to establishing comparable reporting procedures, and what process would be required for that to occur?

Vice Adm. Johnston: We have routine practices across all of our defence capabilities. If an operationally significant event occurs, including those they might be able to explain or not, there is a reporting practice that is not limited to UAPs but anything that would accrue, whether on a vessel, aircraft, in the field, who might see something, there is an obligation to report those.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Obviously, incursions in defence training ranges by unidentified objects, intrusions by an unknown aircraft or objects would represent serious hazards to the safety of flight and potential threats to security of our operations. You obviously have strategies in place to do that here. I did raise this with the previous Air Marshal as well but are you aware of reports of US military exercises being cancelled because of concerns around air safety and observation of UAP's?

Senator Wong: Is this a UFO question?

Senator WHISH-WILSON: You could call them UFOs, if you like, Senator Wong. They are now technically known unidentified aerial phenomena.

Senator Wong: Just so I am clear.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Do you think it is funny?

Senator Wong: I haven't been here before. I don't think I have been asked questions about this. Can we assist at all, the senator, with this line of questioning?

Air Marshal Chipman: What I would say is I am not aware of that. I am aware there is a report due in the United States. If there is anything in that reporting that raises anything that would be of concern to us in our air space then we would take that seriously.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you for that. Perhaps this is the last question for me and I will put some other questions on notice. I understand in 1996 the Air Force ceased handling reports on UAPs. It determined there was no scientific or compelling reason to continue to devote resources to that investigation. I mean, part of the reason these US structures have been set up is to provide an evidence based or a data based, including NASA's involvement, approach to: Can we eliminate this as a potential threat to national security? Are these foreign flying objects from other places? Who knows? Are you aware of any documentation around the process that led the Air Force to move away from devoting resources to investigating it?

Air Marshal Chipman: There is a history of that. We have confidence in the reporting mechanisms that the vice chief mentioned before so that if there were any issues of concern to us then they would be reported.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: But if there was new data, that would shift your determination to investigate this as a potential issue such as the US reports?

Air Marshal Chipman: If there are issues raised that we thought were relevant to the safety and security of operations in our air space then we would be seriously concerned about it.

The DOD's interest, if any, in UAP

For my summary of what interest, if any, the Australian Department of Defence has in UAP, please take a look at my review article here. 

ASIO and DIO on distribution list for FBIS material

UFO Twitter

Thanks to the eagle eye of Twitter user @tploft2008, it has come to light that some distribution lists of the former Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS); where the subject matter was UFOs, had the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) on that list. 

What was the FBIS?

The FBIS was an open source intelligence component of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Science and Technology. Its role was to monitor, translate and distribute the contents of foreign broadcasts to various components of the US government. The FBIS was dissolved in November 2005, and became the CIA Open Source Center (OSC.) For some of its life, its headquarters was in Reston, Virginia, USA. In 2015, the OSC became the Open Source Enterprise, which monitors radio, television and online. 

Documents

@tploft2008 located a number of such documents including the following examples:

1. A document dated 16 November 2000, where the subject was "Azeri Security Ministry denies Russian reports of UFOs flying over border." Here the distribution list has a line "To RAYWAP/Attorney General."

2. A document dated 25 August 2001, subject "Azerbaijan Aerospace scientist says aliens have 'resesarch base' in Caspian." This distribution list has "To RAYWAP/Attorney General D Branch Canberra ACT AS. Note that the Attorney General D Branch is just another name for ASIO. 

3. A document dated 10 October 2005, subject "ROK's YONHAP watcher reports sighting hundreds of UFOs over Korea." Again this went to Attorney General D Branch.

4. A document dated 25 October 2010, subject "Turkey:Retired general says encountered UFO over Western Aegean 1983." This list contains both Attorney general D Branch, and DIO Canberra. 

Why were they on a distribution list?

So, one question is, why was ASIO, and then ASIO and the DIO, receiving copies of FBIS messages where the subject matter was UFOs, in the period 2000-2010? Did these organisations, ever have an interest in UFOs?

ASIO

There are indications from some sources that ASIO was interested in the topic of "flying saucers" from 1952. In 1956 the Commonwealth Investigation Service, held a file, (NAA file series A1533, control symbol 56/2773 titled "The Australian Flying Saucer Research Society.")

ASIO maintained a file ( NAA file series A6122, control symbol 2155 titled "Queensland Flying Saucer Bureau Volume 1") between 1959-1963. From the contents of these files it became clear that ASIO was interested in individuals within Australian UFO groups who exhibited "Communist tendancies" and monitored them, writing reports on their activities. It is also known that ASIO, inter alia, was keeping an eye on sightings of unidentified aircraft in Papua New Guinea, in 1959. 

DIO

The foreunners for the current Defence Intelligence Organisation (1989-today) were the Joint Intelligence Bureau (1947-1969) and the Joint Intelligence Organisation (1969-1989) . During a search of the NAA I located the following file:  NAA file series JIO63, control symbol 3092/2/000 "Scientific Intelligence - General - Flying Saucers." Date range 1957-1972.

It is also known that the JIB investigated the 1954 "Sea Fury" radar/visual case. 

So, historically,  we know that both ASIO and the DIO maintained files dealing with the UFO subject. However, these are at the latest finished by 1973. Nothing of more recent vintage has been found in the National Archives.

The Australian Department of Defence (RAAF) closed its own UFO investigations in 1996, and today maintains that it has no interest in the subject of UFOs/Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. 

Monitoring the subject

So, who in ASIO and the DIO was monitoring the UFO subject in the period 2000 to 2010? Did they continue to monitor the subject beyond 2010? Indeed, do they continue to do so today? Unfortunately, at present, the answer to this question remains unknown, and probably unknowable, as both these organisations are exempt from the Australian Freedom of Information Act.

Can any readers shed light on this mystery?

Update: 23 October 2022

A search of the Black Vault  using the keywords "FBIS DIO" revealed a number of FBIS documents using the initialism  "UFO" dated 1994 and 1995. In addition, to the distribution list stating "DIO Canberra AS; there is also mention of "ONA Canberra AS" which is the Office of National Assessment (1974-2018 when it became the Office of National Intelligence (ONI.) "ONI all-source intelligence assessments inform Government policy and decision making."

A similar search for the key words "FBIS and D Branch" found more documents in the date range 2000 to 2002. 

More details to add to the mystery. 

Update: 28 October 2022

I just came across a document titled "Routing Indicator Guide v 6.1" dated July 2013. This lists numerous routing designation codes for a variety of addresses. It icnludes the following:

RAYWAP = Attorney Genral D Branch Canberra ACT AUS

RAYBBK = ASJ Defence Intelligence Organisation/DIO/Canberra/ACT

The latest workshop of the official French government UAP study group

 Background

The official French government UAP study group, GEIPAN (Group for the study of information on Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) last held a workshop (CAIPAN, Collection and Analysis of Information on Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) dedicated to UAP, in 2014. This new workshop, was held in Toulouse, France, on 13 and 14th October 2022, with an interesting range of speakers and topics, relating to UAP. It is hoped, that as with the first workshop, that copies of the talks will be made available in due course.

Schedule for 13 October

The schedule of presentations was:

0930hrs The head of GEIPAN CNES, Vincent Costes welcomed participants and outlined the objectives of the workshop.

0945hrs Philippe Lay, Advisory Director CNES Technological & Digital Directorate spoke.

1000hrs "Research on UAP at the Julius-Maximillans University of Wurzburg, Germany" was the title of a talk by Hakan Kayal, Professor of Space Technology.

1020hrs Antoine Cousyn, a GEIPAN investigator talked on GEIPAN investigation and analysis.

1040hrs "Three emblematic cases solved with powerful image analysis software" was the title of a talk by Ruben Lianza, Commodore, Director of the Center for Aerospace Identification, Argentina.

1140hrs Jean-Marc Andre, a committee member of 3AF Sigma 2 spoke on "Use of data crossing in UAP investigations - Application on two cases."

1200hrs Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP presented "Preliminary Findings of the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, NARCAP and Subsequent Developments."

1220hrs "Observing the sky, observing human beings" by GEIPAN investigator and expert, Gilles Munsch.

1410hrs Yann Vadnais, Director of GARPAN and researcher in History of Ideas & Ancient Literature, from Canada, spoke on "The next steps to consolidate rigorous researches in UFOlogy."

1430hrs Thibaut Alexandre, a GEIPAN investigator talked about an example of GEIPAN investigation and analysis.

1450hrs Jacques Vallee, Documatica Research, USA spoke on "TRINTY- back to a confidential case."

1610hrs From NASA's Science Mission Directorate and their UAP study group, Daniel Evans spoke about the NASA UAP study group.

1640hrs Synthesis of themes of the workshop, and debate.

14 October 2022 

0930hrs Vincent Costes introduced day two of the workshop.

0940hrs Laurent Chabin, GEIPAN investgator - "Augmented Reality for more fidelity in UAP reports and cognitive psychology studies."

1000hrs "Pairing Earth Observations and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Observations: Towards a new Method to Investigate UAP Scientifically" was the title of a talk by Philippe Ailleris. He is on the AIAA UAPCOI steering committee and founding member, from the Netherlands.

1020hrs GEIPAN expert-META CONNEXIONS, France, Michael Vaillant, and Vincent Costes spoke on "GEIPAN Methodology and Classification."

1040hrs Jean-Marc Wattecamps, Chief of the investigators COBEPS network, Belgium, spoke on "GEIPAN classification with text learning and machine learning."

1140hrs "Characteristics of the Hessdalen Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and methods of observations" was given by A L Kjoniksen and Bjorn Gitle Hauge, Ostfold University College, Norway.

1200hrs Edoardo Russo, Centro Italluno Studi Ufologici, presented a paper titled "Mass sightings as a tool for assessing UFO eyewitnesses' reliability."

1220hrs "Reliability of eyewitnesses during atmospheric reentries of meteorites and satellites" presented by Jean-Pierre Rospars, GEIPAN expert.

1410hrs Jacques Py, Celine Launay & Antione Mourato, GEIPAN experts talked on "How to get and identify useful data from UAP witnesses."

1430hrs "Clinical perspective for Unidentifed Aerial Phenomena" by Thomas Rabeyron and Helene Lansley from the University de Lorraine, Interpsy (Psyclip), France.

1450hrs Francois Louange, a consultant to GEIPAN addressed "Where are we with photos and videos?"

1550hrs Pierre Lagrange, GEIPAN expert talked on "Does the history of the debate on the existence of meteorites enlighten that of UFOs?"

1610hrs UFO FOTOCAT Manager, Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos from Spain spoke on "The Soucoupe Volante Problem: A radical pragmatic approach."

1630hrs Synthesis and debate on workshop themes.

1720hrs Conclusion.

Comments

1. As we can see from the above schedule, there are representatives from a wide range of countries - France, Germany, Argentina, the USA, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Italy and Spain, among others.

2. Interestingly, there are speakers from official UAP study groups of a nation, i.e. France, the USA, and Argentina.

3. There are academics, aerospace specialists, and established civilian UAP researchers.

4. We all look forward to being able to view videos of each of the presentations.

Update: 28 October 2022

On the 28 October 2022, the debrief media outlet carried an article by one of the CAIPAN attendeees, Baptiste Friscourt.

Update: 13 January 2023

Videos of the presentation are now available.

CSIRO may have 22,500 relevant documents to an FOIA request re UAP

 Introduction

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is "Australia's national science agency."  Between 1952 and 1989 the CSIRO maintained files on the topic of UAP; e.g. National Archives of Australia (NAA) file series A9778 control symbol M1/F/31 (date range 1952-1957) and NAA file series A8520 control symbol HM1/30 (date range 1959-1989.) 

Freedom of Information request

On 29 August 2022, I submitted an FOIA request to the CSIRO, as follows:

"I seek all emails, sent to/from or cc'd, CSIRO staff, including any attachments, for the period 1 June 2021 to 29 August 2022; which contain keywords "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena;" and/or "UAP" and/or "UAPs" and/or "Unidentified Flying Object" and/or "UFO."

A response letter, dated 20 September 2022, FOI 2022/46, included the following reply:

"CSIRO's FOI team has conducted internal enquiries to ascertain how many potentially relevant documents CSIRO might hold that relate to your request and the work required to search for, identify and collate those documents, prior to reviewing them and preparing a decision in response to your request.

Given the amount of work we estimate that would be required, I have decided that I need to send you this notice of an intention to refuse access to the documents you have requested...

The results of our searches todate indicate that CSIRO is likely to hold at least approximately 22,500 items including emails and attachments, that may be relevant to your request...

I estimate that we would need to review at least 22,000 documents before a determination could be made regarding relevant documents that fall within the current scope of your request. I estimate that this would mean CSIRO would need to dedicate at least 80 hours to process your request...

In accordance with s24AB(6) of the FOI Act, you have 14 days from the date you receive this notice to either:

a) withdraw your request

b) make a revised request (amend the scope of your request), or

c) indicate you do not wish to revise your request..."

My decision

This is the first time, in my years of using the Australian FOIA, that I have received an FOIA request response which looked to refuse access to documents based on the fact that my request would "substantially and unreasonably" divert the resource of an Australian government department or agency, from its other operations.

Given the nature of my request, I was totally surprised that in a 14 month period, the CSIRO might have 22,500 items relevant to a request about UAP. I can't imagine how one government agency, which overtly has nothing to do with UAP, could accumulate such a large number of items. However, the FOI response, in short, was that I was not going to be able to view any such documents. 

So, on 20 September 2022, I decided to reduce the scope of my request, to a much simpler one, namely:

"Copies of any internally generated CSIRO research/discussion papers, on the sighting of, and/or nature of; and/or origin of, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena between 1 June 2021 and 29 August 2022."

 In a response letter dated 28 September 2022, CSIRO advised that "Searches were conducted by relevant CSIRO staff in Space and Astronomy as well as staff within CSIRO's Records Department and Library, and it was confirmed that CSIRO does not hold any documents relevant to the scope of your request."

James Oke Shannon and the EWD notes - a new interview with Shannon

 Background

Oke Shannon's name came to prominence with the unveiling of the document titled "EWD notes", aka "The Wilson/Davis document" in mid 2019. In these notes, purportedly written by physcist Dr. Eric Davis, was a description of an alleged meeting, between Davis and the past immediate (1999-July 2002) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director, Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, on 16 October 2002, in Las Vegas, USA.

https://www.dia.mil/About/History/Directors-of-DIA/VADM-Thomas-R-Wilson-USN/

The short version of the story contained in the notes, is that Wilson had learnt that a reverse engineering project, involving alien spacecraft, was hidden within an unnamed, private US aerospace company. Wilson denied that the meeting happened, and denied the central thesis about this purported program. 

The EWD notes

Oke Shannon's name is mentioned a number of times in the EWD notes.

"TW: I received phone call from Oke Shannon in Fall (Aug?) '99. Big Oke Shannon fan! Go back years in navy before Oke left for LANL."

"TW: Oke talked 2 hours. Wanted to convince me to talk to me (EWD) about what he told Will Miller ca. June '97 and April '97."

"TW: Oke told all about JA (don't trust JA, a liar!)

- Oke briefed me on the whole BDM thing - talked about RV program for 10 min

- Oke said I (EWD) was a team player."

"TW: Told Oke it's a bad time...said Oke too difficult to contact anymore - heard he was in and out of hospital - extremely sensitive to stress/ heart sick - bad news - tried calling: Linda takes messages but none returned. She doesn't want much on Oke's plate for fear ...didn't say yes or no to request - I will think on it."

"TW: Gave serious thought - recalled Oke's call in '99. Oke really supported me (EWD) - had good arguments."

"TW: I'm taking risk talking to you - but trust Oke's word and it is good with me - we should meet Oke together - face to face - but present health problems prevent that - too bad! - So I'll take risk with you."

Billy Cox

In a 11 July 2019 article, US journalist Bill Cox advised that he had located, and spoken, to Oke Shannon. Cox wrote "Shannon wasn't keen on an extended conversation." "According to one abbreviated web profile, Shannon is a Navy veteran who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1966, returned to earn a masters in nuclear physics 10 years later, and was a program manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1988-2000."

"On the other hand, Shannon said he avoids The Great Taboo because of all the 'crazies' and 'hoaxers' and the danger these associations can work on a career. The idea that some people regard whoever's driving the phenomena as "space brothers come to save us is nonsense." And the F-18 video, he said, are lame evidence for unearthly tech."

About the EWD notes

"I don't know the provenence of that purported document - I don't know whether its real or not real," Shannon said. "Let's just leave it at the fact that I do know both of these gentlemen. Tom Wilson is an honorable man. And if this has embarrased Tom Wilson, I am really sorry." "

Billy Cox again

In another article, this one dated 10 August 2021, Cox advised that he had recently spoken to both Shannon and Wilson. "When contacted over the weekend about Wilson's confirmation that Wilson didn't know Oke Shannon, from well, Eric Davis, Shannon chose his words carefully. "I won't contradict anything the Admiral said," he responded from his home in Florida. "I really have no comment on the whole thing"...This time around, I asked Shannon if it was possible that he'd never met Admiral Wilson at all. Shannon preceded his pause with a chuckle,

 "Uhh. You know, you've heard the term 'no comment' many, many times in your reporting career." True enough. But I addded, you had no reason to fabricate your statement two years ago, and I just wanted to make sure I hadn't misquoted you. "Um. I know Admiral Wilson," he replied. "Or I did know him. I've been out of that world for, oh my gosh, two decades plus, so that's a past tense. I knew him." "

Further information

Shannon's LinkedIn page states that the attended the US Naval Academy between 1962-1966 where he obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Naval Engineering. Between 1973-1976 he attended the United States Naval Postgraduate School where he obtained a Masters in Nuclear Engineering.

Career wise. Between July 1988 and February 2000, he was at the Las Alamos National Laboratory TA-33 LANL Los Alamos, New Mexico  where he was Deputy Group Leader and Program Manager for Special Technologies (Retired.) Then between June 2002 to the present, he was a Managing Partner at Stryder LLC.

2022- Jay Anderson

Jay of Project Unity, recently, recorded and published an on-line interview between himself and Oke Shannon. The following is a transcription of the part of that interview which refers to the EDW notes. Thanks must go to Jay for his ongoing efforts to document the validity of these notes.

"JA: I would not expect you to be able to confirm the legitimacy of the transcript itself or whether the meeting actually took place, because the alleged meeting has nothing to do with you in a direct sense. However, your name is mentioned in these documents and so for the sake of clarification, I think it's important that we just get your side of this, on the record. So, I would just like to be able to ask you first of all, whether or not, you personally know Dr. Eric W. Davis?

OS: Yes. I didn't work with him day in and day out, but I did work with him, and I know him fairly well.

JA: May I ask how you first got to know him?

OS: In mutual projects. Mutual acquaintances. Meetings, things of that sort.

JA: And do you personally know Admiral Thomas R. Wilson?

OS: Yes, I do. But again, I know him; fortunately know of him. But I read somewhere that his response was "Oke, Who?" And, I thought that was kinda funny.  As I mentioned to you, I consider myself eminently forgetable. So, I'm sure that my memory of him is stronger than his memory of me; because he became a flag officer and I was off and did weird things on top of a mesa in New Mexico. So, and so, I would expect that he would not remember me as well as I remember him.

JA: Did Admiral Wilson get in contact with you in 2001 or 2002 enquiring into the background and overall trustworthyness of Dr. Eric Davis?

OS: Earlier than that.

JA: Earlier than that, my apologies.

OS: Well, we moved to Florida in 2000 and Linda is listening in the background, so if she can yell at me and tell me if I'm, wrong... 2001? 2001. I'd had an heart attack and actually died on the operating table, and had my own out of body experience by the way, ... but I was eventually forced to retire medically, because I could not get back in the saddle, even remote work; and I was at home; several complications out of that experience; out of that problem, kept recurring over the months. That was, like in May of 99 honey? 

LS: May 1999.

OS: May of 99. Throughout the summer I was having these other problems, cropping up for that; so I was at home. I was actually writing; trying to write a novel about the destruction of the twin towers and this was in 1999, and I had to trash that when it actually happened... But, I got this phone call; and it was from Admiral Wilson. He asked me; now this was not a short conversation, you know, I was recuperating. I was able to carry on this conversation on the phone, but I wasn't able to do much else at that point. And we had a discussion, and one of the things he wanted to know was; could he trust Eric Davis? And, I think he might have even mentioned Hal Puthoff, and one or two other people. And I mentioned that, yes I believed that Eric Davis was an honourable and conscientious scientist and that he would honor any restrictions the Admiral might put on him, and I thought it would be safe for him to contact him.

JA: Did he say at all, why he was seeking that background information during your conversation?

OS: No. He really didn't.

JA: No, but you did...

OS: Now to my memory. Not to my memory. I do not recall. I think I would recall that, if he'd said I wish to check on the Little Green Men; I would. ah, OK...

JA: He did call you up. He did ask about Eric Davis. And you did subsequently vouch for Dr. Eric Davis in response to his...

OS: [Indecipherable]

JA: ...Just one last question on these notes and to be fair you have already glossed over this, but I just want to get kind of, get it in a confirmatory statement. So in these notes that were recovered from Dr Edgar Mitchell's estate...it's mentioned within the transcript of that conversation, that you were difficult to get in touch with at the time because you were in poor health due to heart conditions and were not easy to get hold of. So, this is actually; this is true you were in of itself, that you were struggling with that?

OS: Yes. I was difficult to get in touch, and I might add to that I'm still difficult to get in touch with...."

An aside

One of the alleged participants in John Alexander's Advanced Theoretical Physics UAP study program in the 1980's, was Oke Shannon. 

My comments

1. So, in Oke's latest interview we learn that it was Admiral Wilson who called him to, amongst other things, discuss Eric Davis. This was almost three and a half years before the alleged meeting between the Admiral and Dr. Davis.

2. So, does this tell us anything about whether or not the meeting actually occurred? No. Does it tell us whether or not the EWD notes are a genuine record of the contents of such a meeting, if it indeed it occurred. No. However, it does increased the pressure on both Wilson and Davis, because the details regarding Oke Shannon, which are in the notes; have been confirmed as correct, by Shannon himself.

3. These matters are ultimately, unresolvable, unless either Dr. Davis, or Admiral Wilson, or both, come out and state that the meeting really did occur and that these notes are an accurate reconstruction of what was discussed. Of coures, there is always the remote possibility that members of the alleged involved aerospace company will come forward.

4. In May 1999, Dr. Davis was employed by the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS). Jaques Vallee, in his Forbidden Science series of books was recording in his diary, things to do with NIDS. I checked his 1999 diary entries for any indication of what projects Dr. Davis was involved with during that year, for NIDS. I found nothing.