James "Jim" T. Westwood - some information about his crash retrieval program research

 Introduction

With all the current information flow about the phenomena, Jacques Vallee's book "Forbidden Science: Volume Five," slipped by relatively unreported and unanalysed by the UAP community. The only concerted area of comment on FS5, was in relation to what Vallee had to say about the Wilson/Davis notes.

Image courtesy of Amazon Books

Upon reading FS5 when it was first published, I noticed that there were entries referring to the investigation of one James T. Westwood; specifically into crash retrievals and reverse-engineering programs. In the light of recent clues by David Grusch and others, coming forward to relate their individual knowledge of such things, I thought it worthwhile to review what Vallee's diary entries, and others, had to say about the work of James T. Westwood. Below, is what I found.

1970-1988

In the timeframe 1970 to 1988, Lieutenant Commander James T. Westwood, U.S. Navy, wrote numerous articles for the U.S. "Naval War College Review," with titles such as "The Barometer" (1970); "Set & Drift: A Contemporary Political Dillema:The Impact of Intelligence Operations" (1977); "Soviet Naval Strategy: 1968-1978: A Reexamination" (1978); during which he became a specialist concerning the navy of the Soviet Union. He also authored at least one article found on the website of the NSA; titled "Electronic Warfare and Signals Intelligence at the Outset of World War 1."

1994

Westwood receives a mention in an 8 May 2020 article titled "UFO Study Programs and US Military Technology" :

"James T Westwood has an interesting background encompassing electronic warfare, unmanned aerial vehicles, cryptology and was a Sovietologist working as a military intelligence consultant. Westwood also had an interest in UFOs and wrote several articles including "Why Do The Lights Go Out?" in "UFO Magazine" May/June 1994, which examined electrical failures related to UFOs, but he also looked at microwave radiation as a weapon to produce similar effects..."

1998

Peggy O'Farrell, writing in the 27 June 1998 edition of the "Southeast Missourian," newspaper, mentions that one James Westwood of Centerville, Va was spending some time in the area, (June 23 to 28) looking at the claimed UFO crash, in 1941, at Cape Girardeau. Philip J. Klass's Winter 2001-2002 Newsletter also carried the fact that Westwood took time out to look into the claimed crash. I didn't find any material which indicated what Westwood's views were on this alleged crash.  

1999

Image courtesy of Amazon Books

Vallee's book "Forbidden Science: Volume 4" had one reference, dated 1 January 1999, to Westwood. Vallee was describing Bob Wood's analysis of the so-called MJ-12 documents:

"Actually, Hal had hired James Westwood, former CIA expert on fake soviet documents who had created similar fakes for disinformation. He paid him to bring his services to Bob Wood's project. Jim's verdict was that the 'Eisenhower briefing document," cornerstone of the UFO coverup arguments, had all the earmarks of a fake, an American disinformation document meant to fool the KGB."

Note: "Hal" is Hal Puthoff. 

2000

Vallee's FS5 in an entry dated 5 May 2000, notes:

"Counter-intelligence expert Jim Westwood has reviewed the MJ-12 documents: a sophisticated 'authentic fake,' he said, whose authors must be within the Intelligence structure. Jim also believes the Roswell crash may have been invented to flush out Soviet spies."

2001

A 10 June 2001 entry in Vallee's FS5 states:

"We flew back this afternoon and one of the first people to call me was Jim Westwood. Talking to him is to enter a universe of shadows and deception. His information on the "undercurrent" goes back to World War II, when Stalin asked the chief designer of his rockets, engineer Korolev, what flying saucers were. Korolev answered there was a real phenomenon, but it wasn't a great threat. Stalin is reported to have told him he'd received the same answer from other sources. Westwood pointed out that the Germans never built a real flying disc, but 'the Nazi did destroy a lot of stuff and machines; so we don't know everything.'

Jim assures me that in the course of his research he'd spoken to a 90-year-old gentleman who was involved in government UFO research in the fifties, when there was active classified interest. 'We never understood the phenomenon,' he told him. 'I was against using it to manipulate the silly UFO believers, but the boys on the dark side of the house went ahead anyway.'

Westwood said there was still an ongoing collection effort, a low-level project. He tracked down another man, now 84 years old, who worked on the Robertson Panel. 'Puthoff really wants to find the hardware. Well, I've been in this business for 48 years, and I know for a fact there isn't any.'

'When did the disinformation start' I asked "Surely in the forties and fifties it would have been hard to fly a fake flying saucer?'

I am still thinking of what I saw over Pontoise in 1955, a perfect lens with a transparent dome, hovering in the clear afternoon sky.

'Not before the early 1970's,' answered Westwood. 'Or perhaps the late 60's because I knew a pilot then who flew over Cleveland, carrying special light patterns that simulated a UFO. But the technology wasn't good enough to be effective before the 1970's.'

Westwood then went on to discuss 'the feasibility of infecting farms exploited by the Soviet Army...But we will do anything, repeat anything, not to fight a nuclear war or a bugs-and-gas war. That's what fascinated me about your book, Samizdat, when you described the sightings in Voronezh. You obviously didn't know it, but Voronezh is a major nuclear site, the most important one outside Moscow. It's like the underground command post we've got in Pennsylvania.'

'And those rumors about Roswell?' I asked.

'For over 20 years we had a thing going, it was called Operation Shocker. It was run through a double agent, an Army officer they thought they'd turned, but he worked for us, feeding them data to convince them we had capabilities we didn't have, and that the things we did have didn't work. The UFO business was woven into that.'

I decided to dig deeper: 'What about Bentwaters?' I asked.

'It may have been an American experiment, as you've argued in Revelations, but I doubt it. The timing would be right however. You have to understand my only theme is chronology. I keep this on little cardboard cards, organized by dates. When you reach a point of data density, you suspect that's more than coincidence.' "

Notes:

Westwood's 2001 statement that there isn't any hardware, is at odds with a number of other individuals who came forward around then.

His statement that around the early 1970's or perhaps the late 60's he knew a pilot who flew over Cleveland simulating a UFO, struck a cord with me; something I came across a few years ago-"Project Skylite."  The internal UFO project run at McDonnell-Douglas between 1967-1970 was contacted by one of the US intelligence agencies. This agency expressed an interest to "mimic, imitate or duplicate the observables associated with UFOs." Robert M. Wood, head of the McDonnell-Douglas project titled this mimicry as "Project Skylite." However, Wood stated that "It never materialized within McDonnell-Douglas to my knowledge," despite a lot of work going in to show what was necessary to mimic UFO sightings. Perhaps the intelligence agency concerned undertook "Project Skylite" on their own volition and that is what Westwood's pilot was doing?

"Operation Shocker" was real. It was a 23 yearlong counter-intelligence operation against the Soviet Union run by the FBI. 

2002

A short Vallee diary entry dated 1 March 2002 reads:

"Eric also told me about a recent conversation with Jim Westwood, who claimed to have located two genuine reports about UFO crashes with hardware recovery and bodies."

Note: "Eric" is Dr. Eric W. Davis.

2003

Vallee discusses the Wilson/Davis notes in an entry dated 3 October 2003, then poses the question:

"Where does all this leave Bob Lazar's story? It smells of official disinformation, my friends say, like the doctored MJ-12 documents, serving the purpose of confusing the crowd researchers and wasting their time. I think Jim Westwood is wrong with his idea of linking ufology with biological warfare; it nust be even bigger than that."

2004

(1) In a diary entry dated 6 March 2004 Vallee records:

"Westwood has covered the same investigative ground as Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis, even identifying their four secret "iron posts;" sources they believe to be unimpeachable, well connected in the Intelligence establishment. They confirm the existence of a hidden program for reverse engineering of Alien hardware."

"As Westwood writes, they are 'two senior flag officers, one defense industry/high OSD official; and one civilian high official of the Reagen and Clinton administrations, all pretty much telling the same story. Three of them helping manage the defense budget.' The two officers I already know to be Wilson and Sheehan."

Note: Elsewhere in FS5, Vallee relates that Four star General Jack Sheehan had found a $9bn discrepancy in the budget, which led him to locate and actually touch a craft. The Sheehan story emerged in the period 1996-1999. Joe Firmage, Hal Puthoff and John Petersen met Sheehan during this timeframe and heard his direct account.

(2) On 24 September 2004, Vallee recorded in his diary:

Charles A. Bowsher https://www.nti.org/about/people/charles-bowsher/

"Jim Westwood, in Virginia, has come up with new data, looking up archives and inspecting government documents. He's close to Fred Durant (of the old Robertson panel) and his contemporaries. He's uncovered a third official trail into the secret UFO program through Charles Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States under President Reagan, from 1981 to 1996. He may be one of the four "iron posts" beyond Sheehan and Wilson. Bowsher found a crashed UFO program during a massive audit of classified projects; 'Less than a handful of officials knew about it.'

In the period 1984-1985, Bowsher uncovered a bizarre special access program coverup which surely violated every classification, executive order, regulation and Congressional rule. They contemplated turning it over to Justice for prosecution, but 'a powerful person in DoD quenched it.' The program according to the reviewers, had to do with an exotic, non-Earthly vehicle."

Note: So, three leads into the secret program via Bowsher, Sheehan and Wilson.

Note: Frederick C. Durant was born on 1916 and is most likely the individual mentioned in the diary entry dated 10 June 2001, re a man aged 84.

FS5 End notes

"49. James Westwood was retired from a classified unit that designed fake documents on behalf of the US in order to disinform foreign intelligence agents. He was also an expert in the analysis of Soviet documents, obtained by US intelligence."

2005

In a Fall 2005 letter to the "Skeptic" magazine (Volume 12, issue 3); James T. Westwood, in part, wrote:

"Over 20 years ago, as senior defense analyst-cum-engineer employed by a foremost US defense electronics corporation, I was part of an early concept and design team to produce a computer based artificial intelligence flying contraption for the CIA, masquarading as a U.S. Air Force project; in other words an airborne artificial intelligence analyst to fly over denied areas and trouble spots, nominally inside a latter day U-2 known as a TR-2. As I studied the problem, it became clear to me that the artificial intelligence analyst would never fly, neither literally or figuratively. Sure enough, it did not. James T. Westwood, Unionville, Va."

2008

On the website of GlobalSecurity.org is a 2008 article where Charles P. Vick interviewed James T. Westwood, named as Senior Consultant, Military Science and Defense Analytics, Unionville, Va.

Westwood told Vick about a black prgram going back to 1949 and the 1952-53 CIA project which found 'that the flying saucer phenomenon had inherent potential for both Soviet and US psychological warfare operations...'

He related that the CIA's Desmond Fitzgerald flew flying saucers inside remote airspace of the People's Republic of China during the Kennedy administration.

In 1967 and 1975 'the black program was live-tested over some of the US Air Force's former strategic Air Command (SAC) bomber and ICBM bases in Montana, Michigan and Maine. This was a strategic C3CM application intended to shut down Soviet ICBM sites in situ.' According to Westwood, the program used the UFO phenomenon, as cover.

'The counter C3 capability, it turned out, tested so well in 1975 against "friendly" ICBMs, according to Westwood, that the ultimate effect was disasterous...Guidance and control circuits of Minuteman ICBMs were so thoroughly 'cooked' that an emergency contract had to be let to repair and replace critical components  of the ready strategic force.'

Note: Here Westwood is stating that the cause of the 1975 Northen Tier incursions, and the 1967 Malmstrom AFB events were due to a black US program. It is one explanation which has been discussed and debated in the UAP literature, but never so boldly stated as in Westwood's claims. 

End notes

1. Did Westwood's UAP interests extend beyond 2008, when he would have been aged 69?

2. Today, if still alive, Westwood would be aged 84.

3, I hope that someone, somewhere, had a chance to conduct an oral history interview with Westwood.

4. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has additional information about Westwood professional life, and specifically his interest in the UAP.

Update 1: 30 June 2023

Thank you to "anonymous" who left a comment on the blog about this article. They pointed out something I missed in my hard copy of FS5, due to an indexing error. Here is an additional comment about Westwood by Vallee, dated 5 May 2001. Vallee was in Las Vegas attending a meeting of the NIDS Science Advisory Board.

"In the afternoon we heard from Jim Westwood, the intelligence consultant who has done extensive work for Hal. In a scholarly but cynical way, he spoke about the history of the field and the disinformation associated with it. He left this idealistic group of scientists with an impression of dread mixed with disgust.

Westwood surfaces from the Cold War like a rusty submarine emerging from past eras. He first called our attention to various links with biological warfare and again dismissed MJ-12 and Roswell as counter-intelligence exercises designed to flush out foreign spies. He'd kindly bought a copy of my Samizdat for me to sign, saying he especially liked this book 'as a sovietologist.' He'd underlined the passage where Azhazha told me that soviet experts had long considered UFO rumours as CIA tricks...and 'and they were largely right,' Westwood said, 'much of the phenomenon in Russia was phony, part of our own disinformation.' "

Update 2: 30 June 2023

Westwood spoke about US aircraft being flown which mimicked UFOs as part of a black program. I found the following extract from FS5 which adds to this.

"12 January 2001

Kit has related to Eric and Colm that on one of his missions to Asia, he had a bodyguard who was a tactical helicopter pilot. The man assured him that his unit had flown 1000 hours in machines designed to look like UFOs. He gave no details, but made clear the purpose of the flights was to make certain the guards responded appropriately. This may not explain all the cases (especially when launching sequences are tampered with) but we shall take it into account."

Was the Department of Homeland Security keen to take on the AAWSAP?

Introduction

I have written much about Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) and the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP.) Simply type these acronyms into this blog's search function to read as much as you wish.

BAASS

French researcher Marc Cecotti submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, on 8 December 2021. In it he sought:

"...a copy of all records, including but not limited to emails, reports, memorandum, presentations, mentioning : "Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program" or the acronym "AAWSAP," "Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies" or the acronym "BAASS." Date range for record search from 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2012."

The DHS response was a one page document with the following text:

"BAASS goals 2011/2012

Area 1:

1. Advanced Technology Analysis Center - analyze recovered AAV technology in collaboration with aerospace companies. Construct extremely secure underground lab facility.

2. Conscious interactions with, and control of, advanced AAV technology.

3. Extend Remote Communications Programs to communicate and retrieve data across dimensional/space-time barrier. Target multiple locations.

4. Identify anomlaous activity in select areas of the United States and establish field research laboratories and remote communication programs on site.

Retrieve and integrate all historical data on AAVs from retirees (oral history.)

Area 2:

1. Liaison with IC, FBI, State, Local and tribal Police, FAA, DoD (including AFOSI), National Laboratories and with US Aerospace companies.

2. Collect data, including classified data, from IC/DoD entities, e.g. cockpit flight recordings of AAV performance, communications, medical autopsy reports, weapons use, AAV trajectory records (from NORAD.)

3. Classified data collection from AAV interactions with Nuclear Wepons Storage Facilities - (Northern Tier and other AFB AAV incidents.)

Area 3:

Note: unclassified seperate organization.

1. Create an open organization for collection of data on AAV performance.

2. Liaise with civilian groups for AAV data collection."

Lacatski

In their 2021 book "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" Lacatski, Kelleher and Knapp, had a section on AAWSAP and DHS. Lacatski presented to DHS' Science and Technology Directorate. The book records that Senators Harry Reid and Joe Sender and Lacatski, worked on securing a $10M AAWSAP-like program through DHS. However, leadership at DHS didn't accept this funding.

The book also provides details of BAASS's original proposal for funding from the Defense Intelligence Agency.There were nine areas of work proposed:

1. Global data collection.

2. Contact people with knowledge of novel technologies.

3. Lab program - Skinwalker Ranch as a "living lab."

4. Collect oral history.

5. Potential use of Bigelow space platforms.

6. Existing data that the DIA had.

7. Biological effects of advanced technolgy.

8. Remote sensing.

9. Expert analysis and synthesis.

The DIA for the first year of AAWSAP approved areas 1-4, 6 and 9.

Comments

1. You can see from the two nine point plans, that they are somewhat similar.

2. Area 1:1. Analyze recovered AAV technolgy - to my knowledge, no such recovered material ever found its way to AAWSAP, and therefore none was ever analyzed.

3. Area 1:2. Conscious interactions. Robert Bigelow, the creator of BAASS, during the era of the National Institute of Discovery Science (NIDS), was keen to pursue the study of consciousness and the phenomena. So, it is perhaps not surprising to see consciousness mentioned here.

4. Area 1:3. Remote communications programs. We know from individuals who worked as security guards at Skinwalker Ranch between 2010 and 2016, that there were a number of attempts at communication with non-human intelligence.

5. Areas 2:1 and 2:2. These read very much like the current goals of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO.)

6. An interesting find by Marc Cecotti. A little bit more information on AAWSAP and BAASS to add to the puzzle.

The "Five Eyes" and UAP - 2023-2025

The "Five Eyes" is the name given to an intelligence sharing alliance, consisting of five countries; namely Australia; Canada; New Zealand; the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

https://science.nasa.gov/uap

During his presentation to the NASA public meeting on 31 May 2023, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the Director of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) stated that he had recently held a forum on UAP, for the Five Eyes partners. Specifically, he said:

"I have just held our first Five Eyes forum on this subject, last week I think it was, or earlier this week. Dan was there. And, we have, we've entered into discussions with our partners on data sharing; how they do reporting; what kind of analysis can they help us with; what kind of calibration can they help us with; what can we help them with? We are establishing all of that right now and they're going to end up sending their information and data to us to feed into the process that we've laid out for how we are going to do all this."

Asked what the "Five Eyes" was, Kirkpatrick responded that it was the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. 

Who attended?

A number of individuals set out to seek comment from these five countries concerning Kirkpatrick's  statement about the holding of a Five Eyes forum on UAP. Here's what we know so far.

New Zealand

(a) In a tweet dated 16 June 2023, the UK's Christopher Sharp, senior contributing journalist for the Daily Mail newspaper reported that a spokesperson advised:

"An NZDF representative based in Washington DC attended the meeting. For more information you will need to contact US authorities."

(b) In a 15 June 2023 article, Defense Scoop writer Brandi Vincent wrote  that a spokesperson advised:

"A NZDF representative based in Washington DC attended the briefing. For more information you will need to contact US authorities."

Canada

(a) In the same 15 June 2023 article, Vincent noted that a Canadian spokesperson said:

"Our nations' militaries routinely exchange information on a number of subjects as part of our long-standing cooperation as partners in defence. While the details of the meeting remain classified it can be characterized as the sharing of information on the subject of UAP and no further details can be shared at this time. This sharing of information is an example of the ongoing important relationship between our militaries."

(b) Alexander Panetta in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news item dated 7 June 2023 reported that:

"The Canadian Department of National Defence told CBC News in an email that Canada had attended the meeting, led by a Royal Canadian Air Force representative. 'The details of the meeting remain classified' DND said in an email. 'It can be charactized as the sharing of information on the subject of UAP and no further details can be shared at this time.'"

For a previous post on Canada and UAP, click here.

In a recent development a letter from Canadian politician Larry Maguire, dated 22 March 2023, to the Canadian Minister of National Defence has been posted on the internet, which specifically mentioned the Five Eyes. The letter was titled Re: Defence Research and Development Canada in possession of recovered UAP material, Maguire points out that DRDC "...has participated in efforts to analyse UAP, which is publicly traceable to circa 1950. This recovered foreign material is studied through the Five Eyes Foreign Material Program (FMP) which, in Canada, is sponsored by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command..."

Australia

(a) Australian researcher Grant Lavac submitted a request to the Australian Department of Defence media section and the media section of the Department of the Prime Minister, on 2 June 2023 seeking comment about Kirkpatrick's Five Eyes statement. Plus also, he has submitted an FOIA request on the same topic to the DOD. As at the date of this article, Lavac has not received any response.

Lavac reminded us, that in a letter to him, dated 26 July 2022, R. J. Denney, Air Vice-Marshal, Head of Air Force Capability had stated in part:

"The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Air Force does not lead on these forums. Air Force does not consider this the appropriate platform to discuss the topic of UAP or UFOs."

(b) On 19 June 2023 MUFON's Australian Director, Roger Stankovic also advised me that he had submitted a similar request to the Australian Minister of Defence. As at the date of this article no response had been received.

(c) The 15 June 2023 Defense Scoop article contained the following regarding their inquiry to the Australian Department of Defence:

"Meanwhile, a spokesperson from Australia did not confirm whether a representative from their nation attended the UAP meeting - and their response took a different direction  entirely.

'The [Australian] Department of Defence does not have a protocol for reporting or recording of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) or Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs.)'

 As far back as June 2019, I asked the media section of the Australian DOD if it had any current guidelines on the reporting of UAP? It responded:

"Defence does not have a protocol that covers recording or reporting of UFO sightings."

Defence has used the same statement multiple times between 2019 and 2023 in responding to questions about UAP. 

United Kingdom

In a tweet dated 2 June 2023 Christopher Sharp wrote:

"NEW: UK MOD is not prepared to comment on the Five Eyes UAP meeting mentioned by AARO's Sean Kirkpatrick at yesterday's NASA event. This isn't even a 'no comment' - I am told that the UK simply doesn't comment on intelligence topics such as this, which is a matter of policy."

Comments: 

1. The lack of a definitive response by the Australian Department of Defence to the simple question of whether or not a DOD representative attended Kirkpatrick's Five Eyes UAP forum, is notable. It confirms a clear trend by them to seek no involvement in the topic of UAP. It remains to be seen whether or not the Department will see a need to decide to have some future involvement. Political pressure might be applied from above, if the Australian government is sufficiently lobbyied by the US government. Political pressure might also be generated by Australian citizens demanding from their elected representatives that they take a serious interest in the subject. So far, we have seen only Senator Whish-Wilson  taking a serious interest. 

2. On the Maguire letter. On the recent episode (#22) of the "Weaponized" podcast, when discussing the contents of the Maguire letter, hosts Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp both said that they hadn't previously heard of a Five Eyes Foreign Material Program. An Internet search, by me, failed to find anything on such a program. Naturally, at this point, caution should be exercised as a "Foreign Material Program" might simple refer to the recovery and analysis of mundane objects such as satellites, aircraft, drones etc. and not UAP. 

3. No doubt we will hear more in the near future about all of the above.

Update: 4 August 2024

In a letter dated 2 August 2024 to a [redacted] individual, the U.K. Ministry of Defence replied to a request "...I kindly request the following information - Confirmation of UK participation ..." The Ministry stated, "We can confirm that the UK were represented at the meeting on 24 March 2023, along with representatives from the member states." The Ministry declined to provide copies of any documentation, which was also parr of the request. 

Update:12 April 2025

Using the FOIA "X" user Steve_UAP2020 obtained "...a briefing memo from a Canadian military officer..." which discusses the contents of the May 2023 Five Eyes UAP meeting. Courtesy of Australian researcher Grant Lavac I acquired a PDF copy of the memo. It is heavily redacted but what there is shows that the Canadian government attendees saw value in continuing their involvement in the forum. Also that the size of the redacted text for "Partner briefings" means that the representatives from New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia had very little to say. 

Back in the "write" direction

Last December, I closed this blog to new posts. Since then I have spent my available UAP study time, on several projects as I described in that final December blog post. I cleaned up my digital files; so that I could actually find things; re-studied classic Australian cases; and re-read my files on some of the classic global cases. Not having the pressure of writing up the details of a time sensitive UAP revelation, in blog articles has been wonderful. As some of you will no doubt have seen, I did make time to update some of the blog articles of the past, namely the ones on NASA's UAP study efforts; and AARO. 

Now, it is time to go from "A change of direction" to return to writing and publishing articles on this blog; which I have titled "Back in the 'write' direction."

Keith.  

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.