A DIA FOIA AATIP/AAWSAP response - nearly four years on

Searching for information

One of the earliest Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), of which I am aware, was submitted by Melbourne researcher Paul Dean. After seeing the initial announcement of the establishment of To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science in October 2017, Paul submitted an FOIA request to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the USA on 15 October 2017, even though he did not know the exact name of the program. The request was assigned the number 18-F-0082 and read as follows:

"I am requesting documents which would include mission statements, program overviews, fact sheets, program briefs etc. relating to the so called Unidentified Aerial Threats for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The name of this program (Unidentified Aerial Threats) may not be the EXACT title. However, to aid you, the manager or director of the program was a Luis Elizondo. He also served as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. What I am essentially looking for are documents which would describe the program findings and goals, any high level and general correspondence with interested parties, fact sheets and summaries of the program history, and any other records that describe what the program has achieved, what resources it used, etc."

The four year's later response

On 24 November 2021 Paul received an email attachment from the FOIA Division, Pentagon, Department of Defense. With Paul's consent I provide an image of the attached letter. Note his address shown here is an old one. 

"This is a final response to your October, 15, 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. We received your request on October 16, 2017, and assigned it FOIA case number 18-F-0082...Please note that your request for information pertaining to the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) was misdirected to this office for processing. This FOIA office only processes requests for the office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff. There is no central FOIA processing point for the entire Department of Defense (DoD). FOIA processing is decentralized and delegated to those officials of the Military Department and various DoD Components who generate and/or maintain the records being sought or reviewed. In this instance, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which operates its own FOIA program, would have cognizance over the information you have requested. In consideration of this fact, we have forwarded your request to DIA for their direct response to you. For your convenience, contact information for DIA FOIA.....This action closes your request with this office....."

Enter the DIA

Also the same day, Paul got another email; this time from the DIA, which read:

"This email is to inform you that we received a consultation from OSD in regards to an FOIA request you had submitted to the agency. As a result they found there were no equities within their agency and referred your request to the Defense Intelligence Agency. This request, was also submitted by you on March 28, 2018 to our agency. For this reason, the consultation referral was not opened and no further action regarding that consultation will be taken, as it is a duplicate. Please note, your current request with DIA is FOIA 022-2018....This case is currently being tasked out to other elements within the agency and are currently being processed. We will make every effort to process your request as soon as possible and solicit your patience and understanding. However, please keep in mind we are backlogged with over 1,900 FOIA cases and work on the cases based on date they are received and complexity of each case."

In short, please wait a little while longer

So, nearly four years on, and Paul's 28 March 2018 separate request directed to the DIA is still being processed. 

The DIA FOIA request log

The DIA maintains an FOIA request log for each year, the latest available being 2018. An inspection of the 2018 log shows Paul's DIA request. This time asking for documents about the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) as by then he was aware of the difference between AATIP and AAWSAP.

I welcome hearing from anyone who has had a positive response from their 2017/2018 DIA FOIA request for AATIP/AAWSAP documents. My own such requests still await a final response. 

The UAP interests of aerospace companies, and some of their employees

Introduction and background

Aerospace companies, particularly in the United States, have had a long history of interest in Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP.) It is a natural fit. UAP exhibit a number of "observables" which would be valuable to an aerospace company, in terms of understanding advanced physics; advanced propulsion systems, and in general, advanced technology.

It has also been suggested by some, that if you were looking to reverse engineer an advanced object, then why not bury such a project within a private aerospace company? The Wilson/Davis document, of course, implies that this has already been done.

The purpose of this blog post is to bring together some of the information about the interest of aerospace companies, and some of their employees, in UAP. It is not meant to be comprehensive but to provide a broad overview of the subject.

Firstly, though some basic information about the major players:

1921 Douglas Aircraft Company established.

1926 Lockheed Corporation established.

1939 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation founded.

1961 The Martin Marietta Corporation founded.

1967 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and Douglas Aircraft Company merge to form McDonnell Douglas.

1995 Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta merge to form Lockheed Martin. 

1997 McDonnell Douglas merges with Boeing.

1947: Lockheed statement

In an article in Volume 26, number 3 (pp3-9, 32) of the International UFO Reporter, by Joel Carpenter, titled "The Lockheed UFO Case, 1953," Carpenter mentions a 7 July 1947 official statement from Lockheed on the subject of "flying discs."

Hal Hibbard, then Lockheed's Chief Engineer, is reported to have told the Los Angeles Times:

"They're either reflections from planes flying singly or in formation, or mass hysteria and the desire of various persons to get their names in the paper. I know of no secret aviation project which would have the slightest bearing on these so-called phenomena."

1949: Lockheed employee sighting

A May 2020 post on the blog "The Saucers that time forgot" led to an image of an interdepartmental communication from Clarence L. ("Kelly") Johnson of Lockheed, to John L. Hill, dated 8 July 1949 reported a 17 June 1949 sighting by a Lockheed employee. Johnson wrote, in part:

"As you know, I have been very interested in the possibility of such things existing, and my discussions with certain people in the Air Force, as well as late newspaper reports indicate there is something to flying discs."

https://www.fold3.com/image/6314607

There is an existing Project Blue Book (PBB) case file on this sighting. Below is an image of the PBB index card and the PBB conclusion.

https://www.fold3.com/image/6314586

1951: Johnson sighting

Also in Carpenter's 2001 IUR article was mention of a sighting by Kelly Johnson himself, in "about November 1951." Below are the available details, in Johnson's own words, from 1953:

"I should also add that about two years ago Mrs. Johnson and I saw an object which i believed at the time, and still do, to be a flying saucer, flying west of Brents Junction, California on a very dark night. I did not see the object itself, but saw a clearly defined flame or emanation, as shown in the attached sketch. The object was travelling from east to west at a very high speed and with no noise. The flame or emanation was a beautiful light blue, having extremely well defined edges. My first impression was that it was an afterburning aircraft but the lack of noise and the pure speed of the plume eliminated that possibility completely."

http://www.nicap.org/docs/lockufo2.pdf

January 1953: Lockheed patent

Thanks to an article in the blog "Saucers that time forgot" we know that Lockheed employee Nathan C. Price designed and then filed a patent, for a Vertical take-off and landing "saucer" shaped aircraft, in January 1953. The machine was designed for vertical ascents and descents, and for long range flights at speeds up to Mach 4, with a ceiling around 100,000 feet. It was never built. 

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/86/8e/4b/c143e484f8dae6/US3066890.pdf

 December 1953: Johnson sighting

On 16 December 1953, Kelly Johnson and his wife observed a black silhouette, to the west of a ranch house near Agoura, California. For five minutes it was observed both by naked eye and through binoculars. It appeared stationary then dwindled in size and disappeared in 90 seconds in an apparent long, shallow climb.

http://www.nicap.org/docs/lockufo2.pdf

At the same time, a group of Lockheed employees, aboard a Lockheed test aircraft, outbound from Burbank, California also sighted a sharp-edged black silhouette in the sky, over the sea. After about five minutes, it shrank from view.

The PBB Case file, which records the cause as a lenticular cloud, may be viewed here.  

1954 - 1955: Douglas Aircraft Company study

In Jacque Vallee's book "Forbidden Science: Volume 2" page 336 there is a diary entry which reads:

"Belmont Saturday 15 May 1976

...I got an interesting call from a vice-president with Environmental Systems in Van Nuys who'd read Invisible College. As early as 1955 he belonged to a UFO group at Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica. He worked there with Wheaten (now at Lockheed in the submarine division) Ted Gordon, Klemperer and Dave Crook. They were asked by McDonnell management to assess cases from Blue Book, complete with photos and films. Their conclusion which they were asked to "forget" was that the objects used multi-dimensional physics. He now claims they found no less than 2,000 sites in Owen valley alone, including one where objects seem to go in and out of solid ground."

Image from PDF on file

 

I researched this 1955 study and ended up writing two blog posts about it, here and here.  Ultimately, I was able to locate, thanks to Boston researcher Barry Greenwood, 100 pages of documents generated by the study, a few pages of which are available on the Internet here.  The project was headed by Wolfgang Benjamin Klemperer, head of their Missile Division,  and staffed by Elmer P Wheaton; Theodore Jay Gordon; Dave Crook and A M Rochlen. Given that the names Vallee provides are all in the 1955 documents, bar that of Rochlen, I wonder if Rochlen was Vallee's informant? 

Courtesy of Barry Greenwood

In the 2012 book "UFOs and Government" by Swords, M. et al (Anomalist Books, San Antonio) there is the following:

"Douglas' Missile Engineering Department had made an analysis of the Great Falls, Montana, film of 1950 incidental to a study of publications dealing with unusual propulsion systems...The Douglas analysis was done by Dr. Robert L Baker."

Memo - Klemperer to Wheaton 1 March 1955 

 The analysis was published in March 1956 as "Photogrammatic Analysis of the 'Montana' Film Tracking Two UFOs" by Baker, R.M.L. 

Mid 1950's: Anti-gravity research

"The Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook, is a 2002 book which explores research conducted into anti-gravity as a means of advanced propulsion. Cook was employed by the English Journal "Jane's Defence Weekly" and became intrigued by the concept of anti-gravity research. He came across the fact that in the mid 1950's a number of aerospace companies in the U.S. were actively researching anti-gravity. One of the most prominent was headed by George S. Trimble, head of Advanced projects and Vice President of the G-project for Martin Aircraft. To read more on Cook's work click here. 

1965: Martin Marietta

In Jacques Vallee's "Forbidden Science: Volume 1" in an entry dated 17 May 1965, Vallee writes:

"A curious incident recently took place during a conversation with a Martin Marietta engineer who says he is compiling a book on UFOs. The engineer circulated a black binder with material in it, and when someone turned a page the engineer leapt out of his chair like a tiger and took the binder away, tersely spitting out '...the other papers have nothing to do with that.' We were left fairly shocked at the violence of his reaction. Of course we wondered what else might be in that binder. There are rumors that major aerospace companies are conducting their own secret studies of UFOs."

1967-1968: Study undertaken on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson

In the period 1967-1968, Frank F. Rand Jnr., became an assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson. President Johnson had been contacted by researcher James E. McDonald about UFOs. President Johnson himself retained a long term interest in the subject. The President asked Rand to look into the topic and report back to him; and Rand and his team spent nine months conducting a scientific investigation of the topic, and concluded by providing a report to President Johnson.

By 2001, Rand had prepared a book length manuscript, both about his career and the UFO study. It was titled "UFOs...Fact or Fiction" and U.S. researcher Michael Swords acquired a copy, which I have read. The manuscript was never published and few have seen it.

Some of Rand's team's conclusions were:

"There is no doubt that "UFOs" exist and are under control. Nor, do I doubt that there may well have been some harmless probes sent to our Earth from other civilizations beyond our solar system."

The other members of Rand's team were stated to have been Arthur Lundahl; General James T. Stewert; Dr. Brockway McMillan; Dr. "Lee Brockings" (pseudonym); a Dr. Bleakley and a Dr. Losh; plus of particular interest here, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson.  

1967-1970: The McDonnell Douglas "secret" study

In the July/August 1993 edition of the "International UFO Reporter," a McDonnell Douglas employee, Robert M. Wood revealed that his company had conducted a "secret" study of the subject of UFOs. 

Image from PDF on file

Wood recommended to management, a modest $M0.5 project to explore unpopular theories, conduct laboratory experiments and evaluate hypotheses, conduct field observations, and review the UFO literature. They agreed. At one stage the project employed four full time and three part time employees.

Image from PDF on file

A fuller description of the work undertaken, appeared much later, in an another article by Wood, this time in the October 2008 issue of the "MUFON Journal." Individuals mentioned as taking part in the project were Dr. Joseph M. Brown; Chan Thomas; Paul Wilson; Stanton Friedman; Dr. Darell Boyd Harmon; Leon A. Steinert and Harvey C. Bjornlie. I wrote a lengthy piece about the project; its paperwork and its findings in a blog post dated 22 September 2020 If you would like to read 275 pages of the project's documentation, you can go to this website. 

Robert M. Wood in the 1993 article stated:

"The Project was terminated in 1969 at my recommendation due to our inability to identify the timing of the payoff...the code name was "BITBR" - standing for "Boys in The back Room."

Wood also revealed that:

"The only contact with the government about the Project came towards the end of the spring of 1970 when there was interest expressed by one of the intelligence agencies. This resulted in a draft proposal to "mimic, imitate or duplicate the observables associated with UFOs. "We called this potential opportunity Project Skylite and prepared a good deal of technical information in anticipation of contract work. It never materialized with McDonnell Douglas to my knowledge."

Researcher Lois Taylor contacted me and provided me with a number of documents dealing with this Project which I wrote about in a blog article dated 15 October 2020.

In an internal memo dated 2 May 1968, and titled "Advanced Vehicle Concept Research" by Wood, Brown and Harmon, there appears a section headed "Competitors efforts":

"Hughes (10 men at Fullerton under Meiers); Lockheed Sunnyvale; Rand has proposed project (as have several other companies); Several companies have UFO related efforts. Raytheon has had computer project from Condon (U. of Colo.)"

 1973: Sample from the 1897 Aurora, Texas "crash" analyzed

In the MUFON "Skylook" Journal, issue number 70, dated September 1973 (p.8) author Walt H. Andrus wrote a piece titled "Report on 1897 Aurora, Texas, Investigations."  Part of this reported that samples of materials found on the site of the alleged "crash" were sent to:

"John F. Schuessler, Deputy Director of MUFON and consultant in Aeronautics, on June 15. They have been submitted to laboratories of McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis for their expert analysis."

As far as I can determine, results of analyzes were never published.

1974: UFO research for the CIA?

The 10 December 1974 entry in Vallee's "Forbidden Science: Volume Two" includes:

"Kit reluctantly confirmed that there was a group of 15 engineers in the Midwest ( I assumed it was McDonnell in St. Louis) are secretly doing UFO research for CIA under cover of 'aeronautical research.' They're getting data through leaks from CUFOS and other amateurs."

Note: Kit refers to Christopher 'Kit' Green.

1978: McDonnell Douglas continues its studies

Two more pieces of information from Jacques Vallee.

a. Diary entry dated 5 January 1978

"Yesterday, I received a phone call from a fellow who works with McDonnell Douglas Aeronautics. He told me that 'on a private basis' he was compiling a new close encounter database. I am not stupid enough to believe that his company has no corporate interest in the matter. They have an on-going secret project well funded with the blessing and official monitoring of the CIA and they.re pretty connected with major UFO groups all of which love the secret intrigue of a link to the spooks even as they vilify the government cover up' in their public pronouncements."

b. Diary entry dated 15 October 1978

"McDonnell Douglas is continuing their quiet but well funded study with John Schuessler, also monitored by the Agency. They seem to be looking for exotic alloys. Who is kidding who? Why is the scientific community kept in the dark about these projects? Why all the secrecy? Where do the research results go?" 

1979 -1986: McDonnell and parapsychology

Between 1979 and 1986 the McDonnell Foundation funded a permanent paranormal PSI laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri. James Smith McDonnell was Chairman of the Board of McDonnell Douglas.  

1985: The ATP

The Advanced Theoretical Physics (ATP) Project was co-founded by John B. Alexander and Dr. Ronald F.  Blackburn. Blackburn was a microwave specialist, formerly at the Lockheed "Skunk Works" and according to Jacques Vallee ("Forbidden Science: Volume 3" diary entry dated 11 April 1989)  Blackburn hinted that he studied UFOs. I profiled Blackburn in a blog post in 2019.

The ATP had a number of participants, who met to discuss current and future research into the topic. For a look at a batch of ATP documents please click here.

Among ATP participants were at least five individuals who worked for aerospace companies. These were Ron Blackburn, Milton Jantzen and Don Keuble from Lockheed; and Bill Souder and Robert Wood from McDonnell Douglas.

Although Alexander briefed a number of high ranking U.S. government officials while ATP was operational, eventually no funding was forthcoming to support the ATP research agenda, and it was disbanded. 

1986: Ben Rich

Over the years, much has been made of certain statements made by Ben Rich of Lockheed. In 1986 Ben Rich was Executive V.P. and General manager, Advanced Development Projects, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company. In a letter dated 10 July 1986 from researcher John Andrews to Rich, Andrews asked if Rich's beliefs covered both manmade and extraterrestrial UFOs? In a response dated 21 July 1986, on Lockheed letterhead, Rich replied:

"Yes, I'm a believer in both categories. I feel everything is possible. Many of our manmade UFOs are Un Funded Opportunities."

 I image the correspondence below from a PDF I have on file:

1992 - 2012: Robert Bigelow and Bigelow Aerospace

Las Vegas businessman Robert T. Bigelow has had a long-term interest in both UAP and the paranormal. He expressed this interest in a series of business entities, commencing with the Bigelow Foundation in the early 1990's; the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS -1996-2004); and finally the Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) between 2008-2012. I have reviewed each of these entities and their research in a series of blog posts which can be found by using the blog search function. Much of the information published by NIDS can still be found on their now defunct website using the Wayback machine.  Bigelow Aerospace was founded in 1998 and BAASS in 2008. 

BAASS received two years of funding, $M22 in total,  from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under a contract for the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP.) Robert Bigelow also reached into his own pocket to add to the DIA funds. Very little detailed information has been publicly released by either the DIA or BAASS concerning the AAWSAP.

Mid 1990's: Project Greenglow

https://www.amazon.com/Greenglow-search-gravity-control-Ronald/dp/1784620238

In the mid-1990's aerospace engineer Dr. Ron Evans was working for British Aerospace (which became BAE Systems in 1999.) He asked management if he could investigate "gravity control?" They said yes; gave him an office and a small budget. He called the Project, Project Greenglow and worked on it until he retired in 2005. In 2015 he published a book called "Greenglow and the Search for Gravity Control."

2001: Donald Phillips

According to Steven M. Greer in his 2001 book "Disclosure Project Briefing Document," Donald  Phillips is said to have been in the USAF, and also to have worked with Kelly Johnson at Lockheed. In his Disclosure testimony he speaks of how ETs met with Earth's leaders in 1954; leading to the advancement of our technology. Phillips refers to Colonel Corso's work as evidence to support his own testimony. 

2014: Boyd B. Bushman

Boyd B. Bushman worked for Lockheed Martin, and held a number of patents, filed between 1989 and 2002, assigned to Lockheed. Before he passed away in August 2014 he was interviewed on video about his views on UAP. In the video he speaks of UFOs as being real; that they are extraterrestrial visitors and that bodies and craft have been recovered. He produced, and showed. photographs of UFOs and an alien, which he spoke of as if he had met them himself; and of the alien's planet. He claimed that Russia and China were both working at Area 51. He also stated that he analyzed pieces of UFOs, which had the property of reducing the weight of anything near the pieces. Critics of his video account pointed out that the alien in the photograph strongly resembles a toy alien doll available at Wal-Mart.

2016: William Tompkins

https://www.amazon.com.au/Selected-Extraterrestrials-secret-think-tanks-secretaries/dp/1515217469

A book titled "Selected by Extraterrestrials" authored by William Mills Tompkins, was published in 2016. The book is reportedly an autobiography, although reads like a B grade novel, by Tompkins who stated that he was a long-term employee of the Douglas Aircraft Company, back to 1953. He makes statements such as:

"After extensive study in 1953, Advanced Design concluded that UFOs were actually interplanetary spacecraft, piloted by extremely advanced extraterrestrial beings." 

For further information, please see my blog post dated 28 April 2016.  

What of the now?

The demonstrated long-term interest in the topic by aerospace companies, would indicate to me that there is most probably some aerospace company, right now, conducting current research into UAP. With all the interest in the 2004 Nimitz encounters; the 2014/2015 off the East coast of the U.S. training area incursions; and other cases since, I would suggest that one or more of the major aerospace company players has its own UAP research program on the go. This is separate from the official U.S. government UAP Task Force.

There are undocumented claims by a number of UAP researchers, that they are aware of four other U.S. research programs dealing with UAP. However, there is no indication that these are lodged within private aerospace companies. Have any blog readers any insight into such a current aerospace company program?

Update: 23August 2021

The German Aerospace Society held a meeting where they discussed SETI and UAP. Click here for the link.

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics held a panel discussion on UAP on 6 August 2021. Click here for the link. 

Unidentified Submerged Objects and sensor detection systems

One of the elements of the November 2004 USS Nimitz encounters, which is often overlooked, is the fact that several pilots from the Nimitz reported seeing an unusual disturbance on the surface of the ocean. 

Douglas S. Kurth

The first to report this was the Commanding Officer of Marine Hornet Squadron VMFA-232 Lt. Col. "Cheeks" Douglas S. Kurth. Operators on the USS Princeton asked him to investigate an unidentified airborne contact. Princeton then asked Kurth to stay above 10,000 feet as two other Hornets had been sent to investigate. Kurth's radar picked up the Hornets but no other contacts. The ocean surface at that time was calm and glassy. Kurth reported seeing a disturbance on the ocean surface - round in shape, turbulent, and about 50-100 meters in diameter. It was the only area and type of "whitewater" in that area. It looked to him as if there were something below the surface. He overflew the disturbance. As he turned away, and the other Hornets arrived, the whitewater cleared.

Fravor et al

There were two crew in each of the other Hornets. One pilot, David Fravor, reported that he noticed whitewater on the surface of the ocean, the approximate size of a 737 aircraft. He took his F-18 lower. As he descended through about 20,000 feet he saw a white object moving just above the frothing water. It was a white featureless, oblong shaped object, making lateral movements over the turbulent circle of water. 

In an interview on the TTSA website Fravor stated:

"I look out the right side and I see something in the water. And it looks like about the size of a 737 in the water pointing east. So you don't see an airplane, but if you've ever been out to sea with like an underwater sea mountain, as the waves come and there's something right under the surface, they'll break. Same thing that happens on shore. They’ll break and you'll get whitewater. So this thing looks kind of like that shape. Looks, you know… like if you put a 737 about 10 to 15 feet under the water. The waves are gonna crash over the top and you're gonna get this whitewater."

In another  interview on the TTSA website the female pilot of the other Hornet described what she had seen:

"...noticed a small patch of water, approximately 60 feet wide by 80 feet in length. It appeared choppy and turbulent against a calm sea. The disturbance was unusual in that there was no apparent cause. The area was generally the shape of an oval and appeared to be "rolling." Towards the center of the disturbance, water appeared to be lighter in color and smooth again, as if an unknown object had recently submerged beneath the surface. She then noted a small, elongated, white object, 30-40 feet in length...(when the incident had concluded) looked back at the ocean but the water was again smooth and calm..."

Implication

Perhaps the best fit for an explanation for the ocean disturbance, was either that the small, white, "Tic-Tac" shaped object had emerged from beneath the surface of the ocean; or that some other object had also been there and submerged, leaving the airborne "Tic Tac" there alone. 

Elizondo

On a number of occasions, Luis Elizondo, when discussing the "five observables" of UAP, includes one of these as "Multi medium travel." For example, at the October 2018 Centro Ufologico Nazionale conference talk which he gave in Rome, he referred to "Multi Medium travel," i.e. that UAP can operate in a vacuum, or in atmosphere; and in water, without changing their physical properties.

Aldrich

There have been some excellent efforts at collecting together reported observations of UAP from seagoing service, e.g. Jan L Aldrich's "Updated Draft Catalogue of UFOs/USOs Reported by Seagoing Services." 

What U.S. large scale underwater sensor systems exist?

If there are unknown objects traversing our oceans, underwater, what underwater sensor systems exist which might detect them? The U.S.A. has the following:

1. Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS)

SOSUS consists of high-gain, long length fixed arrays of hydrophones, on the ocean bottom, which relay data to onshore facilities where that data is analysed. SOSUS and SURTASS are now part of IUSS. 

2. Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS)

A number of seagoing vessels use a towed sonar array.  It is a non-military program, used to detect submarines and also used in drug surveillance operations. 

3. The Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) uses the Fixed Surveillance System (FSS), the Fixed Distributed System (FDS) and the Advanced Deployable System (FDS.) IUSS is under the operational command of the U.S. Navy's Commander Undersea Surveillance. 

4. The Deep reliable Acoustic Path Exploitation System (DRAPES)

In 2016 the Office of Naval research awarded a contract to design, and install three DRAPES arrays, with the work to be completed by 2020. It is designed as a fixed, passive listening system which can transmit its data onshore for processing by one of three remaining Navy Operational Processing Facilities, which also process data from SOSUS and SURTASS. 

5. Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance Network (PLUSNet)

This aims to create a semi-autonomous controlled network of fixed bottom and mobile sensors.

6. Distributed Agile Submarine Hunting Program (DASH)]

Collaborative sensor platforms to detect and track submarines over large areas.  

Have we any well documented occurrences of USOs arising from use of the above sensors? The short answer is, no we do not.

The National Underwater Reconnaissance Office (NURO)

A recent Tweet on Twitter dated 31 October 2020, directed at a number of people including myself, asked the question as to whether or not we had directed a request to NURO re UFO/USO? In this Tweet was mention of a recent B. R. Inman talk. (Link given at the end of this section.)

Are there any U.S. Intelligence Agencies specifically established to look at underwater reconnaissance? Indeed, there is. I recently came across discussion about the US National Underwater reconnaissance Office on Twitter, and wondered what it was. I turned to Jeffrey T. Richelson's classic work "The U.S. Intelligence Community" (7th. ed. 2015) for information. As the entry was short, I will cite it in full, below:

"In 1969, as a result of an agreement between the CIA and U.S. Navy, an underwater counterpart to the NRO, the National Underwater Reconnaissance Office (NURO), was established, with Secretary of the Navy, John Warner, as its first Director.

The office served as a means of managing the conduct of submarine intelligence missions and the exploitation of their product.

Those missions involved the recovery of sunken submarines (The Soviet K-19), taping of underwater Soviet communications cables (The IVY BELLS program), ocean floor mapping (under a program designated DESKTOP,) and images and SIGINT collection from submarines ( a program at one time designated the Special Navy Control program.) Some of the covert US submarine operations were allegedly conducted in the territorial waters of non-Soviet bloc waters, sometimes with consent, including Sweden, to test the nations defenses.

The existence of the NURO was classified at its inception and remains so today."

In a YouTube video retired U.S. Navy Admiral, Bobby Ray Inman states that one of the roles which he had, in 1974, was as Director of NURO. 

Some claimed USO observations 

1. In June 1954 in the Atlantic Ocean/Pacific Ocean, [APRO Bulletin, July 1954, p.7.]

2. On 13 March 1958 near Bodega Bay, California. An unidentified undersea object was spotted by Navy Pilots. Despite a search nothing was found. [Associated Press, March 18, 1958.]

3. 23 May 1968 near the Azores, Atlantic Ocean. Crew of USS Monrovia, reported a large, submerged object. Ovoid in shape, luminescent orange in color, with a translucent quality. USO matched several course and speed changes. radar, compass and other equipment rendered inoperable until object disappeared. [Feindt, C W  "UFOs and Water" p. 395.]

4. 1969. Gulf of Tonkin, off Vietnam. Ensign Will Miller was on the USS Leary, and saw a light which moved from above to below the waterline and approach the ship. It passed underneath the vessel. Not recorded on sonar or surface radar. [Good, T. "Need to Know: UFOs, the Military and Intelligence,' p 215.]

5. Ca. 15 July 1974. Mediterranean Sea. An E-2 Signalman on the bridge of the USS Forrestal, an aircraft carrier, reported seeing a bright underwater light through binoculars. There was no sonar contact. The light moved back and forth across the bow at 60 mph, all underwater. It suddenly pulled away and disappeared into the depths. [NUFORC 6/5/2004.]

One first hand account comes from MUFON's Marc D'Antonio n around 2013. D'Antonio related the account to journalist Emma Parry of the English "The Sun" newspaper at a conference in the USA in 2017. Stating that he was on a US nuclear submarine at the time, D'Antonio says he heard the sonar operator shouting "fast mover, fast mover." The operator estimated the object was travelling at "several hundred knots." Four years after the event, when D'Antonio asked a senior figure in the US Navy about the Fast Mover program, and the man responded "Marc, I can't talk about that program."

A "Popular Mechanics" magazine article dated 9 October 2019, authored by Kyle Mizokami, titled "The Weird History of Unidentified Submerged Objects" reminded us that there has been a long history of objects reportedly going in and out of the ocean. Citing Ivan Sanderson's 1970 book "Invisible Residents," Mizokami gives details of a typical sighting of this type:

"19 April 1957, crew members of the Kitsukawa Maru, a Japanese fishing boat, spotted two metallic silvery objects descending from the sky into the sea. the objects, estimated to be ten meters long were without wings of any kind. As they hit the water they created a violent turbulence."

Another incident in Sanderson's book,  recounts that during an anti-submarine exercise off the coast of Puerto Rico in 1963, involving a number of U.S. Navy ships, including the aircraft carrier Wasp, that one of the submarines involved had pursued an unknown object travelling at over 150 knots. The object was reportedly tracked for four days, to depths of 27,000 feet. 

What do U.S. submariners have to say on the subject?

Another 2019 article by Tyler Rogoway, titled "What U.S. Submariners Actually Say About Detection of So Called Unidentified Submerged Objects" appeared on www.thedrive.com's "The Warzone." Rogoway contacted a number of individuals who serve(ed) on U.S. submarines and found:

"What we learned is that yes, unexplained noises and even tracked contacts do pop up on submariners' sonars, some of which seem to move at incredible speeds, but it is rare and the data is often inconclusive as to what was actually detected. But maybe most interesting and peculiarly so, is that the Navy doesn't actually have a way to classify these strange sounds as unknown and tag them for further review."

Carl W. Feindt

One of the few books devoted to looking at the broader topic of UFOs and water, which does relate some USO observations, is the work "UFOs and Water" by Carl W. Feindt, published in 2010. 

https://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Water-Physical-Accounts-Eyewitnesses/dp/1450095348

Other countries

Russia

https://www.amazon.com/Russias-USO-Secrets-Unidentified-International/dp/1532898401

Have there been reported USO observations by other countries? Yes, there have. A 2020 book titled "Russia's USO Secrets," by authors Paul Stonehill and Philip Mantle, details a variety of observations by Russian sources, for example:

1. In 2009Yury Beketov, said to be a former Russian nuclear submarine commander, related an account of instrumented detection of objects travelling at 230 knots.

2. Another incident where depth charges were dropped in front of a USO, which then changed direction and left the area.

3. A crew which watched a cigar shaped object slowly descend into the ocean, some half mile from their submarine.

Chile

Admiral Jorge Martinez Bush, former Commander in Chief of the Chilean Navy is cited by Timothy Good in the book "Need to Know: UFOs, the Military and Intelligence" referencing J. Antonio Huneeus, "UFOs in Chile and Peru" Fate, Vol. 56 No. 1, January 2003, pp6-7 as saying:

"There have been submarine contacts impossible to identify, with the characteristics of a submarine - metallic sound and rapid displacement. There are inexplicable things that require a profound study..."

Freedom of Information Act requests

I wondered if anyone had submitted a request under the FOI Act for data from U.S. underwater sensor systems? I looked around but couldn't find any, that's not to say there haven't been any, just that I was unable to find any such requests.

In summary

There are numerous accounts in the UAP literature of objects being seen rising from or disappearing into the sea. There are a smaller number of observations of mysterious objects seen underwater. Fewer still are accounts of instrumented detection of such USOs. What is really lacking are official government documents providing detailed descriptions and analysis of USOs which defy conventional explanation.

 Acknowledgement:

Thanks to Melbourne based researcher Paul Dean for research assistance with this post. 

What was Bigelow's "Center for Advanced Cognitive Science."

 Elaine Douglass

Earlier today, I was looking through a 700+ page PDF of documents originating with the late U.S. researcher, Elaine Douglass.  One of the sets of documents in her papers was a list of companies registered by Las Vegas entrepreneur Robert T. Bigelow. While I was familiar with almost all of his non-budget suite businesses; such as the Bigelow Foundation; Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS); and the Mt. Wilson Ranch; there was one name I hadn't come across before, namely, the "Center for Advanced Cognitive Science, LLC." Now, cognitive science is "the interdisciplinary scientific method of the mind and intelligence."

Official Nevada records

I therefore went to the Nevada Secretary of State website and looked up business entity information.  The following are snapshots of what I found.

The Center for Advanced Cognitive Science LLC, was registered in Nevada on 14 May 2009. The business is listed as "Domestic-Limited-Liability-Company." The current operating status is "revoked." The commercial agent who registered it was Rickie L. Golightly, the same agent who has registered all of Bigelow's companies since the 1980's. Subsequent papers were lodged, up until 29 May 2013, with nothing shown beyond that date.

Under "Officer Information" where you normally expect to see the names of individuals behind the company,  appears "Mortgage Menu Realty, LLC." Mortgage Menu Realty was registered 14 January 2009; has officer information of "Mortgage Menu Service Corp", registered 9 April 1982, which lists Robert T Bigelow as "President" of that Corporation. Meaning the Center for Advanced Cognitive Science LLC was a Bigelow company.

As with many of the non-budget suite Bigelow business companies, there is nothing else shown on the Nevada State documents which tells us what the Center did.

What was going on in May 2009 to cause Robert Bigelow to register such a company?

BAASS was registered in January 2008, and later that year, was successful in winning the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) contract for the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications program (AAWSAP.) By May 2009, many of the employees to be hired by BAASS, had been engaged, and were busy at work. 

Now, one of the 11 aspects of the DIA AAWSAP contract was to study what was referred to as the "human interface." In fact, one of the 38 DIA Defense Reference Documents (DIRDs) commissioned by BAASS employee Hal Puthoff, was titled "Cognitive limits on simultaneous control of multiple unmanned spacecraft" written by Dr. R. Genik of Wayne State University.

In addition, if we go back to September 2008, and the time of the commencement of BAASS' work on AAWSAP, and taker a look at what jobs were being offered at BAASS, we find:

"Several positions are also available for research scientists in the disciplines of: Biological Cognitive Interaction, Psychology, Social Psychology; Sociology."

Further research 

Is there anything about the Center to be found on the Internet? A search for "Center for Advanced Cognitive Science" only leads us back to the Nevada business entity.

A search for "Center for Advanced Cognitive Science" + "University of Nevada" located a 1993 paper titled "Environmental Modulation And Statistical Equilibrium in Mind-Matter Interaction," by Dean I Radin, cited as from the Center for Advanced Cognitive Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The Central Intelligence Agency commissioned a 1994 report titled "Phenomenological Research and Analysis" Radin is mentioned in the report as at the Center for Advanced Cognitive Science, University of Nevada.

Radin worked for the Bigelow Foundation between 1993-1996; and between 1993 and 1997 he was Director Consciousness Research Division of the Harry Reid Center  for Environmental Studies at University of Nevada-Las Vegas. 

If there was a Center for Advanced Cognitive Science at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, around 1993, why was Robert Bigelow registering a company with he same name in 2009? For what purpose was this company created? Did it have a relationship with BAASS?

Chris Mellon and those videos

 Alejandro Rojas

On 23 October 2020, Alejandro Rojas published an article written by himself, titled "How US Intelligence Community Insiders Got the Senate's Attention Regarding UFOs." Regarding the source of two USN UAP videos given to the New York Times for its November 2017 article, Christopher Mellon is cited as stating:

"I received the videos. the now-famous videos in the Pentagon parking lot, from a Defense Department official. I still have the packaging." 

Now, that last bit of the statement is interesting, namely, that Christopher Mellon says "I still have the packaging." This is because on 7 August 2018 Twitter user @Jay09784691 posted several tweets about the existence of a number of images, which had been found on a US website belonging to Christopher Mellon. One of these was the image below:

 

If this is the packaging referred to by Mellon, then can we glean anything further from the image? "Chris Mellon 16000 9/7/17" This is possibly the date and time when Mellon received the package, as this would be useful for creating a chain of custody of the material in the package. 

Another image from Mellon's website, is the following:

This image appears to be a set of four CD-R's lying on a package. Many in the UAP community have assumed these CD-R's contained copies of the videos. Note that the CD-R's contain "Unclassified" material. The USN said at one stage that the videos were unclassified. There is also the number "9/5" which is probably 5th September, two days before the date on the Mellon package. 

Who is R. Essex?

At about 22m20s In a YouTube video discussion dated September 2019, between Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, and U.S. researcher Richard Dolan, there was mention made of the manner in which the initial two United States Navy Unidentified Aerial Phenomena videos had been "released?" Cameron states that he had seen the images of the material from Mellon's website. He had noted the name on the package which was not Elizondo's or Mellon's.  Cameron went on to say that he had checked out this individual via a contact he had in the Pentagon. It turned out that there was such an individual at the Pentagon; it was a female, in Public Relations. 

Despite a check via FaceBook; LinkedIn and Radaris, etc., I have been unable to locate such an individual. Has any blog reader any additional information?

Task Force of the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services given briefing on UAP

John Greenewald 

 Recently, U.S. researcher John Greenewald located a US House of Representatives document dated 7 April 2020 which mentions Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

The House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services submitted a monthly report for March 2020 to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Committee on House Administration. The 12 page report is the HR Committee on Armed Services' "Summary of Progress of Specific Studies and Investigations." Page 2 lists details of "Full Committee Progress" and "Subcommittee progress." One of the lines listed states 

"March 11th, the task force met to receive a classified briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena."

Note, that even though the item is under the heeding "Full Committee Progress" unlike all the other items which state that "the full committee met," this one states that "the task force met."

Now, the full committee consists of 31 Democrats and 26 Republican members. There are six permanent sub-committees on the Armed Services Committee, namely:

Tactical Air an Land Forces

Military Personnel

Readiness

Seapower and Projection Forces

Strategic Forces

Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Each of these sub-committees consists of a number of members from the full committee.

So, what does the reference to a Full Committee Task Force mean?

It means that the Full Committee created a non-permanent Task Force, of a small number of the members of the Full Committee, to look after a specific task. Are there any current or recent Task Forces? Yes, as a recent example, The Future of Defense Task Force released its final report, on 29 September 2020, following the commencement their months-long review, since October 2019. The Task Force consisted of eight member of the Full Committee and was bi-partisan. 

This might imply that there is/was a Full Committee Task Force with a task concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. However, a search of the relevant House of Representatives Armed Services Committee website failed to locate such a Task Force. The only Task Force running on 11 March 2020 was the aforementioned Future of Defense Task Force. Is there anything in its final report about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? A  search of that document reveals that there is no such reference. The most reasonable conclusion, however, is that the 11 March 2020 classified briefing on unidentified aerial phenomena was indeed given to the Future Of Defense Task Force. Can any blog reader confirm this?

The seventh "observable"

 The five "observables"

On a number of occasions, Luis Elizondo has mentioned that the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) identified five "observables" concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP.) These are:

1. Sudden and instantaneous acceleration.

2. Hypersonic velocities without signatures.

3. Low observability.

4. Trans media travel.

5. Positive lift.

In a post dated 11 August 2020, US researcher Danny Silva, spoke about a sixth AATIP "observable," namely, biological effects on humans. I would like to add a seventh "observable, " i.e. the effects that UAP have on our own technology.

UAP effects on our technology

Motor vehicles

Perhaps the most well know piece of our technology which has been long associated with UAP effects, is the motor vehicle. A typical example is the following:

At 6.35pm, on 8 August 1971, near the town of Kadina, South Australia, a man was driving alone when he noted his surroundings were lit up by an orange hue. Suddenly, the car's engine stopped and the car's lights went out. He was unable to restart the engine so stopped the car. Getting out of the vehicle, he noted an object some 150 feet above the car. During this time he noted a buzzing/purring noise was constantly audible. The object then departed to the south east, after 2-3 minutes of remaining stationary above him. Before losing sight of it, he got back in the car and successfully restarted the engine. 

In numerous other sightings, the engine, headlights, and radio of motor vehicles, have been affected. Perhaps, the classic collection of such cases is "UFO Reports Involving Vehicle Interference" authored by Mark Rodeghier, and published by the J Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, in 1981. This collection and analysis, studied several hundred such cases, which illustrate the diverse nature of effects on motor vehicles due to the close proximity of UAP. 

Aircraft

The other piece of our technology which has been affected in some instances, are aircraft. One of the most comprehensive catalogues available, was compiled by French Researcher Dominique F. Weinstein, and published by the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, (NARCAP) in 2001. Weinstein's work features details of several hundred cases of sightings involving aircrews, between 1916 and 2000. About 14% of cases feature electromagnetic effects to equipment onboard the aircraft, involving "radios, radar, compasses, engines ..."

Weinstein and Richard Haines took a closer look at EMF effects on aircraft in another 2001 NARCAP study, titled "A Preliminary Study of Fifty Seven Pilot Sighting Reports Involving Alleged Electro-Magnetic Effects on Aircraft Systems."

 Nuclear weapons

Image courtesy of Amazon Books

There have been a number of instances where nuclear missiles have reportedly been affected by UAP.. For example: 

US researcher Robert Hastings has documented a number of these, including an incident around 1977 at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, where a now retired USAF Missile Security Supervisor related that unidentified lights had interfered with their ability to communicate with the launch sites. No missile could have been launched if required.

Robert L Salas reported on his involvement with an incident at Malstrom Air Force Base, Montana in March 1967, where numerous nuclear missile warheads were reportedly deactivated, and UAP observed. 

Other technology

In other cases involving UAP, there have been reported effects on numerous pieces of technology. For details of individual cases. I would recommend a viewing of the EMF category of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) website. Cases go back to at least 24 June 1947: 

"Prospector Fred M Johnson sighted five or six "round,  metallic looking discs" 30 feet in diameter, with tails or fins. He got a better look at one when he focused his telescope on it. As the discs banked in the sun 1000 feet overhead, Johnson, was surprised to see his compass needle was weaving back and forth . It ceased doing so as soon as the UFOs, which were in view less than a minute, headed off toward the southwest." (Clark, J. 1992."The UFO Encyclopedia: Volume Two," Omnigraphics, Detroit, page 129.)

Deliberate or accidental?

The debate has always been as to whether the effects we notice, are due to a byproduct of UAP, e.g. as a side effect of say a propulsion system; or a deliberate targeting of our technology. The fact that not every close encounter between our technology and UAP results in effects, would seem to argue for the latter.

Have blog readers, any thoughts as to other "observables?"

An analysis of the latest Department of Defense statement on UAP

Office of Naval Intelligence

In a blog post dated 9 July 2020, titled "Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) now part of the AATIP effort?" I explored that possibility. Now, in July 2020, we know that the ONI is indeed heavily involved.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Part of report 116-233 from the U.S. Congress Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated 17 June 2020, stated:

"The Committee supports the effort of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence, to standardise collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments and the threat that they pose to U.S. military assets and installations."

Department of Defense statement

Popular Mechanics magazine posted an article on their website dated 24 July 2020, by Andrew Daniels, which discussed the recent New York Times article on UAP, and various aspects of recent reporting on the topic.

Popular Mechanics sought and received, a statement from the Department of Defense, issued by spokesperson Susan Gough, and then updated their digital article with parts of that statement. However, researcher Nick Pope sought and obtained the full text of that statement, and it is worthwhile reproducing this in full.

"As we have said previously, the Department of Defense and all of the military departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace very seriously, and examine every report. This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing.

Thorough examinations of any incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace often involves assessments from across the department, and, as appropriate, consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies. The safety of our personnel and the security of our operations is of paramount concern. To protect our people and maintain operations security, which includes not providing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.

Regarding the task force mentioned in the article, I can say that the department is creating a task force to gain knowledge and insight into the nature and origins of UAPs, as well as their operations, capabilities, performance, and/or signatures. The mission of the task force will be to detect, analyze, catalog, consolidate, and exploit non-traditional aerospace vehicles/UAPs posing an operational threat to U.S. national security and avoid strategic surprise."

Analysis of the statement

1. "...incursions of unauthorized aircraft..."

The DOD has consistently utilised this phrasing of "unauthorized aircraft" when speaking of incursions; as opposed to the terms "drones;" "unmanned aerial systems;" "unmanned aerial vehicles;" etc. Thus, downplaying the suggestion that the incursions are possibly due to other than terrestrial vehicles.

2. "...into our training ranges or designated airspace..."

As we know, there have been reported observations due to incursions into DOD training ranges off both the east and west coasts of the United States. However, I note that "designated airspace" could refer to any part of the U.S., not just training ranges.

3. "This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing."

This, to me, implies that they will be examing reported observations of both "unauthorized aircraft" and "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon," seemingly differentiating  between these two things. A report of a drone like object with wings travelling at sub-sonic speed, is a different thing from a white, Tic tac like object travelling at hypersonic speeds.

4. "...consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies."

Hence the fact that it is a Task Force; i.e. a group of individuals from various agencies, coordinated by one specific agency; in this case the ONI.

5. "To protect our people and maintain operations security, which includes not providing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP."

This is consistent with earlier public DOD statements that no details of incursions, and their investigation will be made public. From an operation security perspective, this makes perfect sense. If you announce that you have detected an unknown object at 120,000 feet from a particular radar system you tell an enemy that your radar has at least this range. However, it seems to me that ONI could release some details to the public, e.g. number of observations in a specific time period; some description of what was seen, and whether or not their investigation revealed a cause; or that after a detailed examination of all the data, an observation remains in the UAP category.

6. "I can say that the department is creating a task force."

Luis Elizondo has referred to the fact that AATIP or its successor is already/still in place. Does this mean that the Task Force is already in place, or as the DOD statement says, is being "created?"

7.  "The mission of the task force will be to detect, analyze, catalog, consolidate, and exploit non-traditional aerospace vehicles/UAPs posing an operational threat to U.S. national security and avoid strategic surprise."

a. "detect"

Now, this to me, is an interesting word used in this context. I would have expected the Task Force's first job would be to collect observations and then take a look at that data. However, the DOD statement specifically says "detect." Does this imply that the Task Force, themselves will be out there actively seeking to observe the objects intruding on U.S. training ranges and designated airspace. This is very different from collecting observations from other people.

b. "Analyze"

Once you have collected data, either from your own sources or that of others, naturally you wish to analyze them. Recall, though that this has already been undertaken by AATIP, where Elizondo refers to the five observables that they have drawn out of their data. Will the Task Force merely be reinventing the wheel, or will this analyze bring something fresh to the table?

c. "consolidate"

Another unusual word to use, consolidate what|? Usually you collect, consolidate/collate, then analyze. I am not sure what consolidate means when used in the order detect, analyze, collate, consolidate.

d. "exploit"

Exploit what? Information gained from the anlsysis? To do what, use the data to build your own UAP?

e. "...non-traditional aerospace vehicles/UAPs"

So, is this an admission that the DOD already knows that some of the incursions are in fact due to "non-traditional aerospace vehicles?

f. "...and avoid strategic surprise."

A reasonable concept, avoid being surprised by advanced aerospace vehicles which you don't. yourself possess.

Other comments

The statement does not describe the composition of the Task Force, other than that it is headed by ONI. Does it have representation from the USAF? NORAD? etc.

All in all, as per past DOD statements on UAP, the contents of the statement, raises more questions than it answers.

US Senate Select Committee report refers to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

Introduction

Thanks to a lead provided to US researcher Danny Silva (original source Steve McDaniel) we have been made aware, of a Report 116-233, from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated 17 June 2020, that refers to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

Details

Senator Marco Rubio. Source:https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/ 

The introduction to the Committee's report on a Bill, S3905, "Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021" sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, (Senator for the state of Florida) states:

"The Select Committee on Intelligence, having considered an original bill (S.3905) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, reports favourably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass." So, they recommend the bill be turned into an Act, thereby authorizing the details contained in the bill (after debate) to be then law, and actionable.

UAP reference

Why are we interested in this bill? Well, under "Committee comments," in the Committee's report, we find the following:

"Advanced Aerial Threats

The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations.

However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.

Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena (also known as "anomalous aerial vehicles"), including observed airborne objects that have not been identified.

The Committee further directs the report to include:

1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.

2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by:
a. geospatial intelligence;
b. signals intelligence;
c. human intelligence, and
d. measurement and signals intelligence.

3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace.

4. A detailed description of an interagency process for ensuring timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information.

5. Identification of an official accountable for the process described in paragraph 4.

6. Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to national security, and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries.

7. Identification of any incidents or patterns that indicate a potential adversary may have achieved breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could put United States strategic or conventional forces at risk; and

8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of data, enhanced research and development, and additional funding and other resources.

The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified anex."

Analysis and comments

1. In a blog post dated 9 July 2019, I posed the question" Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence now part of the AATIP effort" and concluded that it was. 

2. On 6 July 2019, US researcher Danny Silva noted, that in Episode 6 of the "Unidentified" TV series, former Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) manager Luis Elizondo stated that:

"AATIP is no longer run by a single office. There's now several offices that are engaged in this effort...and it is being run with official blessing."

The Committee report provides the name " Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force" and places it at the Office of Naval Intelligence. The language the report uses, supports the notion that this Task Force is currently in existence, and appears to suggest that this may well be the new AATIP. The Committee comments include the words "and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations" not just Naval assets. This is what you would expect from a Task Force which draws its members from various agencies. 

3. The main thrust of the Committee's comments, is a call for a detailed report within 180 days of the date of the enactment of the bill, and provides some fairly detailed things which are to be reported upon. Specifically, that it must include data held by the Task Force, which should therefore include data obtained by AATIP. Note that the report is to be unclassified. 

4. Interestingly, there is mention of the FBI - presumably the Federal Bureau of Investigation "A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace." While I waa aware that the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations did look into the release of the US Navy videos, I do not recall hearing of any FBI investigation. I'd appreciate hearing from any blog reader who knows more about this aspect.

5. The Committee also wishes to be provided with "A detailed description of an interagency process for timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information." This requirement looks to provide a central point of contact for data, which can only be a good thing. 

6. Note, that there remains a perspective expressed that the phenomena may be due to foreign adversaries, although there have been strong indications that this is not the case, from a number of sources. 

7. Finally, the report must include recommendations for future action; such as collection, research, funding and resources. Note that there is no mention of fiscal year 2021 funding for any of this, in the bill, as funding for intelligence programs comes from separate Appropriations legislation. 

8. Of course, any of the above depends on the passage of the bill into law and an Act.

Nevertheless, a very interesting development, which to a large degree has been one of the main actions which To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) have been working on in the background. Kudos to them.

Update 23 June 2020

I have corrected parts of this blog following a comment in the blog's comment section. 

Update 25 March 2021

Las Vegas investigative journalist George Knapp, provided a link to a piece by Politico reporter Bryan Bender, who on 24 March 2021 wrote a piece titled "Outer limits." It read:

"ALIEN NATION: The public interest in a forthcoming public report to Congress on sightings of "unidentified aerial phenomenon: is exceptionally high. As for expectations on what the government's accounting of UFOs will reveal? Not as much.

Morning D is hearing rumblings that scant resources have been dedicated to the effort, which calls for the director of national intelligence to collect data from the Pentagon and other agencies about what they've been tracking and how. The report is due in June, but we hear it has a good chance of being delayed.

A spokesperson for DNI Avril Haines on Tuesday would only say that "we are aware of the requirement and will respond accordingly." "