The latest developments from U.S. Congress - with updates to 7 December 2021

Introduction

There have been some recent, interesting, developments within various Committees of the U.S. Congress which have created waves of excitement within the global UAP researcher community. However, there has been quite a bit of misinformation and careless reporting, about exactly what will eventuate. Living in Australia, with a limited understanding of the U.S. Congressional system, places me at a disadvantage when it comes to a good understanding of exactly what the processes are. However, in this blog post I have tried to report accurately on what the numerous pieces of Congressional documentation which I have found, actually say. The limitations of tweets on Twitter, and brief comments on Facebook pages, about the new documentation, shows yet again that they are not a very good way of conveying the complexity of Congressional processes. U.S. researcher D. Dean Johnson has been trying very hard to educate us all on these processes, so I apologize in advance if any errors creep in. Always happy to correct them. 

The Senate 

S.2610 - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2022, was introduced by sponsor Senator Mark Warner on 4 August 2021. Warner is Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Committee prepared a report, S. Report 117-37 dated 10 August 2021. 

Section 345 of that report reads:

"Section 345. Support for and oversight of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.

Section 345 directs the DNI and the Secretary of defense to require each IC element and the Department of Defense to make data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena available immediately to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force and to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center. Section 345 further requires the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force to submit quarterly reports to Congress on its findings."

Elsewhere, in the Congressional documentation, Calendar 116, for S. 2610, we find:

"SEC. 345. SUPPORT FOR AND OVERSIGHT OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA TASK FORCE

(a) DEFINITIONS - In this section:

(1) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS - The term 'appropriate committees of Congress" includes

(A) The Congressional intelligence committee.

(B) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

(C) The Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

(2) UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA TASK FORCE - The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force" means the task force established by the Department of defense on August 2020, to be led by the Department of navy, under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security.

(b) AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON UNIDENTIFED AERIAL PHENOMENA - The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall each, in coordination with each other, require each element of the intelligence community and the Department of defense with data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena to make such data available immediately to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force and the National Air and Space Intelligence Center.

(c) QUARTERLY REPORTS TO CONGRESS -  

(1) IN GENERAL - Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than quarterly thereafter, the Unidentified Aerial phenomena task Force or such other entity as the Deputy Secretary of Defense may designate to be responsible for matters relating to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress quarterly reports on the findings of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force or such other designated entity as the case may be.

(2) CONTENTS - Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum the following:

(A) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during the previous 90 days.

(B) All reported unidentified phenomena-related events that occurred during a time period other than the previous 90 days but were not included in an earlier report. 

(3) FORM - Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in classified form. "

The House of Representatives

House of Representatives report 117-118 , dated 10 September 2021, is a report of the Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, on H. R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2022. In section 1652 there is the following:

"Establishment of Office to Address Unidentified Aerial phenomena.

This section would establish an office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to carry out the mission currently performed by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force and would require an annual report."

Union Calendar No. 83 provided us with more details on section 1652.

"SEC 1652. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE TO ADDRESS UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA.

(a) Establishment - Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National intelligence, shall establish an office within the Office of the Secretary of defense to carry out, on a department wide basis, the mission currently performed by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force as at the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Duties - the duties of the office established under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) Developing procedures to synchronize and standardize the collection, reporting and analysis of incidents regarding Unidentified Aerial phenomena across the Department of defense.

(2) Developing processes and procedures to ensure that such incidents from each military department are reported and incorporated in a centralized repository.

(3) Establishing procedures to require the timely and consistent reporting of such incidents.

(4) Evaluating links between Unidentified Aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, foreign governments or non-state actors.

(5) Evaluating the threat that such incidents present to the United States.

(6) Coordinating with other departments and agencies of the Federal government as appropriate.

(7) Coordination with allies and partners the United states, as appropriate to better assess the nature and extent of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. 

(c) Annual report - 

(1) Requirement - Not later than December 31, 2022 and annually thereafter, until December 31, 2026 the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees a report on Unidentified Aerial phenomena.

(2) Elements - each report under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the year covered by the report, the following  information.

(A) An analysis of data and intelligence received through reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. 

(B) An analysis of data relating to Unidentified  Aerial Phenomena collected through:

(i) geospatial intelligence.

(ii) signals intelligence.

(iii) human intelligence and

(iv) measurement and signals intelligence.

(C) The number of reported incidents of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena over restricted air space of the United States.

(D) An analysis of such incidents identified under subparagraph (c)

(E) Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by Unidentified Aerial phenomena to the national security of the United States.

(F) An assessment of any activity regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena that can be attributed to one or more adversarial foreign governments.

(G) identification of any incidents or patterns regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena that indicates a potential adversarial government may have achieved a breakthrough aerospace capability.

(H) An update on the coordination by the United States with allies and partners efforts to track, understand and address unidentified Aerial phenomena.

(I) An update on any efforts understanding on the ability to capture or exploit discovered Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

(J) An assessment of any health related effects of individuals that have encountered Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

(d) Task Force- Not later than the date which the secretary of defense established an office under subsection (a) the secretary shall terminate the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.

(e) Definitions - in this section:

(1) The term "appropriate congressional committee" means the following:

(A) The Committee of Armed Services , the Committee on Foreign Affairs; the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; The Committee of the Armed Services; the Committee of Foreign relations; and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. "

What does it all mean?

In short, there are Congressional members with a serious interest in the topic of UAP, who are providing legislative framework for future work. Although the general sentiment of the Senate and House of Representatives comments are similar, there are slight different approaches in terms of what they require, and the when. 

As U.S. researcher D. Dean Johnson reported in a tweet dated 12 September 2021:

"More likely than not, a single set of UAP-related requirements applicable to both military and intelligence community components will be hammered out during the months ahead."

Update: 8 October 2021

In a series of Recent Tweets, D Dean Johnson advised that there were four Congressional Committees involved, i.e.

1. House Armed Services Committee.

2. House Intelligence Committee.

3. Senate Armed Services Committee.

4. Senate Intelligence Committee.

Johnson found the following details:

1. Two subcommittees of the House Intelligence Committee, namely the Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and Counterproliferation; and the Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support, received a briefing on Wednesday 16 June 2021 on "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena."

2. The full House Intelligence Committee received a briefing on "Foreign adversary UAV Capabilities" on 28 June 2021.

3. The Intelligence and Special Operation sub committee of the House Armed Services Committee, received a briefing on UAP on Thursday 28 June 2021.

Update: 14 November 2021

Douglas Dean Johnson in a blog post dated 5 November 2021 reported on a proposed amendment to the Fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. It is a lengthy proposal by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the details were recorded in the 4 November 2021 edition of The Congressional record.

Johnson's blog may be read here. The full text of the proposed amendment is shown below:

At the appropriate place in title XV, insert the following: SEC. lll. ESTABLISHMENT OF STRUCTURE AND AUTHORITIES TO ADDRESS UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA. (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF ANOMALY SURVEILLANCE AND RESOLUTION OFFICE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, establish an office within an appropriate component of the Department of Defense, or within a joint organization of the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to assume— (A) the duties of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act; and (B) such other duties as are required by this section. (2) DESIGNATION.—The office established under paragraph (1) shall be known as the ‘‘Anomaly Surveillance and Resolution Office’’ (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Office’’). (3) TERMINATION OR SUBORDINATION OF PRIOR TASK FORCE.—Upon the establishment of the Anomaly Surveillance and Resolution Office, the Secretary shall terminate the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force or subordinate it to the Office. (b) FACILITATION OF REPORTING AND DATA SHARING.—The Director and the Secretary shall each, in coordination with each other, require that— (1) each element of the intelligence community and the Department, with any data that may be relevant to the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena, make such data available immediately to the Office; and (2) military and civilian personnel employed by or under contract to the Department or an element of the intelligence community shall have access to procedures by which they shall report incidents or information, including adverse physiological effects, involving or associated with unidentified aerial phenomena directly to the Office. (c) DUTIES.—The duties of the Office established under subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) Developing procedures to synchronize and standardize the collection, reporting, and analysis of incidents, including adverse physiological effects, regarding unidentified aerial phenomena across the Department and intelligence community. (2) Developing processes and procedures to ensure that such incidents from each component of the Department and each element of the intelligence community are reported and incorporated in a centralized repository. (3) Establishing procedures to require the timely and consistent reporting of such incidents. (4) Evaluating links between unidentified aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or nonstate actors. (5) Evaluating the threat that such incidents present to the United States. (6) Coordinating with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, as appropriate, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Energy. (7) Coordinating with allies and partners of the United States, as appropriate, to better assess the nature and extent of unidentified aerial phenomena. (8) Preparing reports for Congress, in both classified and unclassified form, as required by subsections (h) and (i). (d) EMPLOYMENT OF LINE ORGANIZATIONS FOR FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director and the Secretary shall each, in coordination with each other, designate line organizations within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community that possess appropriate expertise, authorities, accesses, data, systems, platforms, and capabilities to rapidly respond to, and conduct field investigations of, incidents involving unidentified aerial phenomena under the direction of the Office. (2) PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, AND RESOURCES.—The Director and the Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that the designated organization or organizations have available adequate personnel with requisite expertise, equipment, transportation, and other resources necessary to respond rapidly to incidents or patterns of observations of unidentified aerial phenomena of which the Office becomes aware. (e) UTILIZATION OF LINE ORGANIZATIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSES OF DATA ON UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA.— VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:03 Nov 05, 2021 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A04NO6.008 S04NOPT1 ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE --- November 4, 2021 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7815 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director and the Secretary shall each, in coordination with each other, designate one or more line organizations that will be primarily responsible for scientific, technical, and operational analysis of data gathered by field investigations conducted under subsection (d), or data from other sources, including testing of materials, medical studies, and development of theoretical models to better understand and explain unidentified aerial phenomena. (2) AUTHORITY.—The Director and the Secretary shall promulgate such directives as necessary to ensure that the designated line organizations have authority to draw on special expertise of persons outside the Federal Government with appropriate security clearances. (f) INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PLAN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The head of the Office shall supervise the development and execution of an intelligence collection and analysis plan on behalf of the Secretary and the Director to gain as much knowledge as possible regarding the technical and operational characteristics, origins, and intentions of unidentified aerial phenomena, including the development, acquisition, deployment, and operation of technical collection capabilities necessary to detect, identify, and scientifically characterize unidentified aerial phenomena. (2) USE OF RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES.—In developing the plan required by paragraph (1), the head of the Office shall consider and propose, as appropriate, the use of any resource, capability, asset, or process of the Department and the intelligence community. (g) SCIENCE PLAN.—The head of the Office shall supervise the development and execution of a science plan on behalf of the Secretary and the Director to develop and test, as practicable, scientific theories to account for characteristics and performance of unidentified aerial phenomena that exceed the known state of the art in science or technology, including in the areas of propulsion, aerodynamic control, signatures, structures, materials, sensors, countermeasures, weapons, electronics, and power generation, and to provide the foundation for potential future investments to replicate any such advanced characteristics and performance. (h) ASSIGNMENT OF PRIORITY.—The Director, in consultation with the Secretary, shall assign an appropriate level of priority within the National Intelligence Priorities Framework to the requirement to understand, characterize, and respond to unidentified aerial phenomena. (i) USE OF AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS.—The obtaining and analysis of data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena is a legitimate use of funds authorized and appropriated to Department and elements of the intelligence community for— (1) general intelligence gathering and intelligence analysis; (2) strategic defense, space defense, defense of controlled air space, defense of ground, air, or naval assets, and related purposes; and (3) any additional existing funding sources as may be so designated by the Secretary or the Director. (j) ANNUAL REPORT.— (1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than October 31, 2022, and annually thereafter until October 31, 2026, the Director, in consultation with the Secretary, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on unidentified aerial phenomena. (2) ELEMENTS.—Each report under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the year covered by the report, the following information: (A) An analysis of data and intelligence received through reports of unidentified aerial phenomena. (B) An analysis of data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena collected through— (i) geospatial intelligence (ii) signals intelligence; (iii) human intelligence; and (iv) measurement and signals intelligence. (C) The number of reported incidents of unidentified aerial phenomena over restricted air space of the United States. (D) An analysis of such incidents identified under subparagraph (C). (E) Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by unidentified aerial phenomena to the national security of the United States. (F) An assessment of any activity regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that can be attributed to one or more adversarial foreign governments. (G) Identification of any incidents or patterns regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that indicate a potential adversarial foreign government may have achieved a breakthrough aerospace capability. (H) An update on the coordination by the United States with allies and partners on efforts to track, understand, and address unidentified aerial phenomena. (I) An update on any efforts to capture or exploit discovered unidentified aerial phenomena. (J) An assessment of any health-related effects for individuals who have encountered unidentified aerial phenomena. (K) The number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with military nuclear assets, including strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships and submarines. (L) In consultation with the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with facilities or assets associated with the production, transportation, or storage of nuclear weapons or components thereof. (M) In consultation with the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena or drones of unknown origin associated with nuclear power generating stations, nuclear fuel storage sites, or other sites or facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (N) The names of the line organizations that have been designated to perform the specific functions imposed by subsections (d) and (e) of this section, and the specific functions for which each such line organization has been assigned primary responsibility. (3) FORM.— Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. (k) SEMIANNUAL BRIEFINGS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than semiannually thereafter until December 31, 2026, the head of the Office shall provide the classified briefings on unidentified aerial phenomena to— (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. (2) FIRST BRIEFING.—The first briefing provided under paragraph (1) shall include all incidents involving unidentified aerial phenomena that were reported to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force or to the Office after June 24, 2021, regardless of the date of occurrence of the incident. (3) SUBSEQUENT BRIEFINGS.—Each briefing provided subsequent to the first briefing described in paragraph (2) shall include, at a minimum, all events relating to unidentified aerial phenomena that occurred during the previous 180 days, and events relating to unidentified aerial phenomena that were not included in an earlier briefing due to delay in an incident reaching the reporting system or other such factors. (4) INSTANCES IN WHICH DATA WAS NOT SHARED.—For each briefing period, the Chairman and Vice Chairman or Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives shall receive an enumeration of any instances in which data related to unidentified aerial phenomena was denied to the Office because of classification restrictions on that data or for any other reason. (l) AERIAL AND TRANSMEDIUM PHENOMENA ADVISORY COMMITTEE.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—(A) Not later than October 1, 2022, the Secretary and the Director shall establish an advisory committee for the purpose of— (i) advising the Office in the execution of the duties of the Office as provided by this subsection; and (ii) advising the Director regarding the gathering and analysis of data, and scientific research and development pertaining to unidentified aerial phenomena. (B) The advisory committee established under subparagraph (A) shall be known as the ‘‘Aerial and Transmedium Phenomena Advisory Committee’’ (in this subparagraph the ‘‘Committee’’). (2) MEMBERSHIP.—(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Committee shall be composed of the following: (i) 20 members as follows: (I) Three persons appointed by the Administrator of the National Astronautics and Space Administration. (II) Two persons appointed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. (III) Two persons appointed by the President of the National Academies of Sciences. (IV) Two persons appointed by the President of the National Academy of Engineering. (V) One person appointed by the President of the National Academy of Medicine. (VI) Three persons appointed by the Director of the Galileo Project at Harvard University. (VII) Two persons appointed by the Board of Directors of the Scientific Coalition for Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Studies. (VIII) Two persons appointed by the President of the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics. (IX) Two persons appointed by the Director of the Optical Technology Center at Montana State University. (X) One person appointed by the president of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. (ii) Up to five additional members, as the Secretary and the Director jointly consider appropriate, selected from among individuals with requisite expertise, at least 3 of whom shall not be employees of any Federal Government agency or Federal Government contractor. (B) No individual may be appointed to the Committee under subparagraph (A) unless the Secretary and the Directly jointly determine that the individual— (i) qualifies for a security clearance at the secret level or higher; VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:03 Nov 05, 2021 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A04NO6.008 S04NOPT1 ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE S7816 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 4, 2021 (ii) possesses scientific, medical, or technical expertise pertinent to some aspect of the investigation and analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena; and (iii) has previously conducted research or writing that demonstrates scientific, technological, or operational knowledge regarding aspects of the subject matter, including propulsion, aerodynamic control, signatures, structures, materials, sensors, countermeasures, weapons, electronics, power generation, field investigations, forensic examination of particular cases, analysis of open source and classified information regarding domestic and foreign research and commentary, and historical information pertaining to unidentified aerial phenomena. (C) The Secretary and Director may terminate the membership of any individual on the Committee upon a finding by the Secretary and the Director jointly that the member no longer meets the criteria specified in this subsection. (3) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary and Director shall jointly designate a temporary Chairperson of the Committee, but at the earliest practicable date the Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among its members, who will serve a term of 2 years, and is eligible for re-election. (4) EXPERT ASSISTANCE, ADVICE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—(A) The Committee may, upon invitation of the head of the Office, provide expert assistance or advice to any line organization designated to carry out field investigations or data analysis as authorized by subsections (d) and (e). (B) The Committee, on its own initiative, or at the request of the Director, the Secretary, or the head of the Office, may provide advice and recommendations regarding best practices with respect to the gathering and analysis of data on unidentified aerial phenomena in general, or commentary regarding specific incidents, cases, or classes of unidentified aerial phenomena. (5) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2022, and not later than December 31 of each year thereafter, the Committee shall submit a report summarizing its activities and recommendations to the following: (A) The Director. (B) The Secretary. (C) The head of the Office. (D) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (E) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. (6) RELATION TO FACA.—For purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Committee shall be considered an advisory committee (as defined in section 3 of such Act, except as otherwise provided in the section or as jointly deemed warranted by the Secretary and the Director under section 4(b)(3) of such Act. (7) TERMINATION OF COMMITTEE.—The Committee shall terminate on the date that is six years after the date of the establishment of the Committee. (m) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (1) The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means— (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. (2) The term ‘‘intelligence community’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003). (3) The term ‘‘transmedium objects or devices’’ means objects or devices that are observed to transition between space and the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and bodies of water, that are not immediately identifiable. (4) The term ‘‘unidentified aerial phenomena’’ means— (A) airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable; (B) transmedium objects or devices; and (C) submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that they may be related to the subjects described in subparagraph (A) or (B). SA 4282. Mr. MENENDEZ s

Update: 8 December 2021

In a lengthy blog post dated 7 December 2021, US researcher Douglas Dean Johnson reports on the latest development in Congress re the establishment of a Congress mandated UAP office. 

Luis Elizondo on "Yesterday;" "Today;" and "Tomorrow" - the current state of UAP research

"That UFO Podcast"

Episode 54 of  a recent  "That UFO Podcast"  featured Luis Elizondo answering questions put by listeners to that podcast. During the show he stated "We are probably doing more now behind the scenes than we ever have before." I, like many other podcast listeners wondered just what he meant by that? Now, thanks to the diligent eyes of blog readers Paul Reddington and Steven West, we have further information.

Luis Elizondo presented at the recent International UFO Congress, and as part of his presentation featured the following three slides. 

This first slide "yesterday" summarized the actions which have been achieved to date.

The second slide "Today" summarized some of the activities which are going on right now. 

The third slide "Tomorrow" features hoped for, and speculative objectives in the future.

The "Today" slide

This is the one which most interest me, so I am going to take a closer look at it and see if I can draw out any further information that than the one line summary provides.

1. Senior academics are involved in the serious study of the UAP phenomenon.

The recent formation of "The Galileo Project for the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts" has brought a number of leading academics into our research field. There are many others associated with such organizations as the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena and The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. Of course, there have always been a small number of academics interested in the topic of UAP ever since the 1950's, but there are now more than ever being willing to be publicly identified with studying UAP. 

2. Renown universities are expressing interest in studying UAPs.

The Galileo Project is housed at Harvard University in the U.S. It would be interesting to hear of any other university which is looking to get involved with UAP studies. I have not heard of any to date. 

3. Scientific enclaves are being created to study the physics.

I haven't heard any more about this aspect.

4. Scholarship programs focusing on the study of UAP performance is being developed. 

Nothing further has come to light from my perspective. Which scholarly institution(s) are interested?

5. Defense Intelligence University and National Intelligence University are accepting thesis' on UAP.

The National Intelligence University is an institution for higher learning in intelligence and national security. As part of the process for education qualifications, students prepare a thesis on a selected topic. I deduce from Elizondo's statement that the two Universities has not previously been allowing students to prepare a thesis dealing with UAP, but now are prepared to?

Over the years a variety of higher education institutions have allowed students to write about UAP. Indeed there is a long list of "University UFO Theses and Dissertations - 1948-2016" compiled by Paolo Toselli." I scrolled through the lengthy list but was not able to find any from the two Universities named by Elizondo. 

6. Data from previous U.S. projects are being consolidated under a a single entity.

The obvious question here is who is this single entity? The DNI report to Congress advised that copies of UAP reports will go to both the UAP Task Force/new entity under consideration and the U.S.A.F's National Air and Space Intelligence Center.

Civilian UAP researchers have been commenting on the fact that the recent UAP report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence only went back to 2004. There are some 13,000 UAP reports with around 700 "unknowns" in the Project Bluebook archives alone. Note the use of the plural "projects." What else besides Bluebook? 

7. DoD is developing a "strategic plan" to study UAPs for years into the future.

As part of the DoD response to the report on UAP to Congress, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks issued a memorandum to the Department. In it she directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (OUSDI) to develop a plan  which includes procedures for collection of data, analysis of this data, staffing and associated budget for a long term study of UAP. 

8. UAP information is being integrated into the U.S. Intelligence collection cycle.

As part of the OUSDI process it would make sense that in order to collect data on UAP, procedures would need to be put into place so that various U.S. Intelligence agencies each have a process to undertake that collection, and analysis. 

9. Certain allies are expressing interest in working with the U.S. government.

Japan

In April 2021 media reports stated that the Japan Self Defense force was to draft UFO  protocols following the release of US UAP videos. 

"Minister Kono confirmed at the Japan-US Defense Ministers meeting last month that the SDF and US Forces had agreed to cooperate on UFOs." 

Other countries 

The Five Eyes agreement, is an intelligence sharing agreement between the U.S.; Canada, the United Kingdom; Australia and New Zealand. These countries would be a logical place for an extended global study of UAP. In the case of Australia, the Australian Department of Defense have indicated that they have no protocols concerning UAP.  

We also know from media reporting that the British Parliament discussed UAP, after the release of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence report was released. The British Defense Minister stated that the United Kingdom would not be instituting any new research on UAP. 

I have not come across any interest being expressed by either Canada or New Zealand, in working with the U.S. on new UAP studies. Canada, of course is part of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which maintains sensor systems capable of detecting UAP.

10. DoD Inspector General is conducting "evaluation" and inquiries into DoD's handling of the UAP topic.

On 3 May 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General announced it was conducting a new study related to UAP, titled "Evaluation of the DoD's Actions Regarding the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." No date has been given for the completion of the project or the release of a public report. 

11. Certain members of Congress have expressed desire for public hearings.

A number of members of the U.S. Congress have called for classified hearings on UAP, with a few indicating they would like to see public hearings. For a history of such hearings please click here. 

12. Study of UAPs are being included in annual budget cycles both MIP and NIP.

Organizations will not have funds for studying UAP unless such funding is appropriated through their normal agency processes. I believe MIP stands for Military Intelligence Programs and NIP is National Intelligence Programs, though I stand to be corrected if any blog reader has information on these. 

13. Former senior members of the intelligence community are assisting with USG efforts involving UAPs.

Former senior intelligence community members such as former ODNI John Ratcliffe have commented about UAP, so it is great to see that some of them are actively involved in the process. 

14. ODNI, OSD, Navy, SPACECOM, NORAD and other elements of the IC are actively working up UAP issues.

It will be interesting to see if we ever hear any detail of what is going on with agencies other than ODNI, OSD and Navy. 

15. Planning for state, local and tribal authorities to integrate UAP data is underway. 

Although I have heard Luis mention this before, I have not come across any detail. Has any blog reader?

Black Vault receives copies of U.S. Department of Defense "Briefing Cards" on UAP related matters

John Greenewald

On 9 September 2021, John Greenewald of the Black Vault, advised that the U.S. Department of Defense, under the FOI Act had released, "Briefing Cards" on "UAPs, UAP Task Force, and Navy UFO Videos."Greenewald wrote that these cards are "...used to assist public affairs officers, spokespeople and those from other agencies dealing with questions on various topics." This follows the earlier release to Greenewald of a single briefing card  dated 17 May 2021. 

The Cards

Given that they are now in the public domain, what was released? I will provide a snapshot of what interests me, and add some comments to these notes.

1. Briefing Card dated 19 September 2019 titled "Navy Confirmation of "UFO" videos. 3pages. 

Under the heading of "Media interest" the card notes that:

"A History Channel program over the summer on government investigations into "UFOs" highlighted several videos from Navy aircraft of Unidentified Aerial phenomena. The program generated significant interest in limited-reach outlets that focus on "UFO" theories and conspiracies."

Comment: This seems to be downplaying the fact that the program carried first hand interviews with Navy personnel, who clearly described "unknown" phenomena. 

Under the questions and answers section, one definition of UAP is given as:

"When an unmanned aerial system (UAS) is not immediately identifiable, we refer to it as UAP."

Comment: This is helpful as many of the objects in question, and especially those in Navy safety reports, which have been released under FOIA, have split the UAP researcher community. Some arguing for "drones" other "genuine UAP."

Later, under Q & A comes one on the New Navy UAP guidelines. After saying that guidelines have been released it adds:

"More formal guidance is in staffing and will be promulgated fleet-wide when completed." 

Comment: This seems to have been a two stage release. Firstly guidelines, then further guidance. I know of no researcher who has been able to obtain copies of either the preliminary guidelines or the later, formal guidance

A Q and A about how the 2004 Nimitz video came to be know. 

"...that the video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time. In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web. In 2009, the online post of the video came to the attention of Navy officials who, in consultation with Navy law enforcement personnel, decided not to pursue the matter." 

Comment: Simply put, they had no idea who released it to the net. Interesting that the 2007 online post came to light in 2009. 2009 was, of course, during the time of the AWSAP project, and there was a multi page investigation report of the 2004 Nimitz incident prepared by someone, unknown if DOD Navy or AAWSAP. 

2. Briefing card dated 30 April 2020 titled "UAP Videos." 3 pages. 

"As the investigation into UAP reports involves intelligence methods, we will not be providing any further information on these videos."

Comment: This suggests that the DoD had or was carrying out an investigation into the three incidents shown in the videos. I am not aware of any released detailed DoD investigation reports on the three incidents. 

"After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos doe not reveal an sensitive capabilities or system..."

Comment: It would be interesting to know who exactly, undertook the analysis of the videos to determine  this, and how lengthy this process was. Did they interview the Navy pilots in this process?

"...special interest media interest in AATIP and the videos has been unceasing."

Comment: I don't think that the New York Times can be described as "special interest media." I guess they are referring to UAP researchers who have been using the FOIA to uncover additional details.

"Investigations could involve multiple DoD and Intelligence Community organizations."

Comment: So, not just the Navy.  We have become aware that the FBI have been involved with some investigations of UAP. 

"One copy of the FLIR video had been erroneously marked classified during the intelligence investigation process."

Comment: It would be nice to see details of this "intelligence investigation process." 

3. Briefing Card dated 6 August 2020 titled "UAP Task Force and Report." 2 pages.

Noting that both National and special interest media were reporting about the formation of a UAPTF, the Card went on to state:

"NYT ran an article in late July on a forthcoming "Pentagon report on UFOs" that many other outlets subsequently reported (all without ever asking for DoD comment); the article included an alleged briefing slide that mentioned alleged "Off-world" vehicles on material that the Pentagon allegedly had found."

"[On the slide NYT published:] That slide was not used in by DoD in any briefing on this subject and does not represent the department's position. "Off-world" is not an official term or designation in DoD." 

Comment: 

“Mr.  Davis, who now works for Aerospace Corporation, a defense contractor, said he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as  recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on  this earth.”Mr. Davis said he also  gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff  members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to  members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.” (New York Times, 23 July 2020.)

4. Briefing Card dated 18 August 2021 titled "UAP Task Force." 3 pages. 

The Q and A section featured a question "is there someone we can speak to/interview/will there be a press briefing on the UAPTF" The short answer was "No." The longer answer was:

"No. To maintain operations security, which includes not discussing information publicly that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of report incursions ..."

Comment: The repetitive response is that we do not talk about specific instances; nor our analyses, and don't ask.

Another question was: "Are we aware of similar program being run by other foreign powers?" The response was: 

"We routinely discuss a variety of military matters with our allies and foreign partners. DOD does not comment on activities that other nations may or may not have."

5. Briefing Card dated 19 August 2020 titled "UAP Task Force." 4 pages.

Very similar in content with Card number 4. One new question of interest, "Will the UAPTF provide new reporting rules that would be adopted by the USAF, Army and Navy, in particular for their pilots?"
The response was:

"As previously reported, the Navy revised their reporting guidelines and procedures in 2019. Navy has shared these procedures with the other military services to encourage standardization of input/responses."

6. Briefing Card dated 25 January 2021, titled "UAP Report to Congress." 1 page.

Nothing new to me here.

7. Briefing Card dated 8 February 2021 titled "UAP Report to Congress."  2 pages.

Here a very specific question related to ET. "Has the Department found any evidence of extraterrestrial technology?" The response was:

"The examination into incursions by UAPs are still ongoing; the department does not comment on intelligence matters."

Comment: Why not simply say no? Their response allows some UAP researchers to quite rightly point out that the DoD has not said it has found no evidence. 

8. Briefing Card dated 23 March 2021, titled "UAP Report to Congress." 2 pages.

Specifically put out in relation to the recent comments by former DNI John Ratcliffe on Fox News. The short answer is ask the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

9. Briefing Card dated 17 May 2021 titled "UAP Report to Congress." 2 pages.

Appears to be in response to the airing on CBS "60 minutes" segment which was generating questions to the DoD. Talk to ODNI if you have questions re their report to Congress.

"We need data (from increased reporting by aviators, technical means etc.) to analyze in order to understand and draw the appropriate conclusions and to make the appropriate recommendations to leadership. As we collect additional data, we expect to close the gap between identified and unidentified and avoid strategic surprise regarding adversarial technology"

Comment: The U.S. government has been collecting data for many, many years, e.g. Project Bluebook had some 700 officially recognized unknowns. It would appear that the DoD is stalling, by insisting on collecting more current data. 

10. Briefing Card dated 4 June 2021 titled "UAP Report to Congress." 2 pages.

Noting that "Public and News media interest in Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) remains high," and "NYT ran a story on June 3 citing unnamed sources as saying the upcoming UAP report to Congress would say there's no evidence that any of the sightings are alien spacecraft."

Basically repeats previous Card details.

11. Briefing card dated 25 June 2021, titled "UAP Report to Congress." 2 pages.

Advising that the ODNI report to Congress had been published on the ODNI website. 

"Our approach has been - and will continue to be - driven by science and data."

"We currently lack the data to indicate whether UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative  of a major technology advancement by a potential adversary."

Luis Elizondo speaks out on SAPs; other possible "hidden" UAP programs and much more

"That UFO Podcast" puts listener questions to Luis Elizondo

Episode 54 of "That UFO Podcast" is part one of listener questions, put to Luis Elizondo by podcasters Andy McGrillen and Dan. The following blog post presents some summary notes and quotations I have prepared after listening to the podcast. It is by no means a comprehensive transcription of the entire program, simply parts of it which I found the most interesting to me.

Special Access Programs

Question: According to Ross Coulthart's book "In Plain Sight" you worked at DOD SAP Central office. What can you say about your time and responsibilities at SAPCO?

Answer: SAPCO is actually subordinate to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. I managed SAPs myself. 

"There were several meetings where I would go in with new information regarding AATIP and say, hey, does anyone know what's going on? And the response was no big goose egg, nothing. 

Furthermore, what I will share with you, that I haven't publicly, is that the former USDI, before he became the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, whose name is Jim Clapper, General Clapper, who was also the director of several organizations before. A very good man.

Politics aide. You know, I don't take sides politically. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, or anything in between. The bottom line, he was a very, very good intelligence officer and a very good leader when he was in.

And what I will say is that he was, he was, without a whole lot of detail, he expressed to me,, and it's something if you ever get a chance to talk to him; in front of my wife, he said, look he said, I'm really glad you are doing this. I'm really glad we had a UFO program. It's something that we should have done.

So, regarding SAPs, yeh, I would not have, not necessarily been managing all these SAPs, yet, I would have access , because of my 'need to know.'"

SAPs are compartmented and sensitive. "There are master lists of all SAPs, that certain people have access to. There are also oversight committees. Chris Mellon was SAPCO -when he was Deputy Secretary of Defense.

"These UFO programs, if they existed, beside AATIP, were probably been run rogue. There was no oversight. They were being run in a way that was out of minds, out of sight. So to speak. And that's problematic because we are an organization that's built on rules and regulations, and doctrine, and we have oversight for a reason. And so when the people who are responsible for knowing that information, are deliberately kept out of the loop. And then that's a significant (-). A legal issue. People can go to jail for that. So, I don't know how to emphasis enough that, if someone was running a rogue operation, you know, its a big no no.

I mean, I had, at least I had people in the chain or command and, at the secretary of Defense level and his echelons below that. They knew what I was doing. And I had that blessing to continue doing it. It wasn't that Lue Elizondo was just running some rogue operation. Anytime I asked, and had the authority, hey, I need to know what you guys are working on. People were shrugging their shoulders. We have no idea what you are talking about. That's true, not just with Chris Mellon. He'd tell you the same thing. So will Jim Clapper, who was eventually the Director of National Intelligence."

Comments:

1. Clapper served as Director of National Intelligence between 9 August 2010 and 20 January 2017.  Prior to that he served for three years as the USDI. 

James Clapper

2. Note the specific wording on the question of other than ATTIP UFO programs. Many UAP researchers seem to simply state that there were 4 other UAP programs, without citing any direct evidence. Here, Elizondo, qualifies his answer with "...if they existed..."

Are UAP a threat?

Question: You said on another podcast, that slide 9 could be related to Havana Syndrome. Wouldn't that mean that the phenomenon is an active threat? Secondly, are we in danger, as a species, from the phenomena?

Answer: A signature is a signature. Havana Syndrome is not my thing. "Myself and several colleagues perceive some interesting correlations there. I'm not prepared to elaborate right now. I simply cannot."

"Potential threat is not the same as hostile intent." We have an intelligence gap - meaning only that anything goes. We have seen some capabilities but we don't know the intent. 

"Biological effects are real. I'm not going to go into much detail in that. There's a reason why we has a DIRD by Dr. Kit Green - which by the way I highly respect - he's an incredible human being. There is a reason why we had a DIRD looking at biological effects. Right. You might think that it's all great and cumbyar, but then talk to someone who maybe had a little bit different experience and who is suffering from it."

Final version of Green's paper, before it was turned into an official DIRD

Ways in which UAP have come to our notice

Question: Radar updates and nuclear assets have revealed UAP. What other things may have exposed the phenomena, to your knowledge?

Answer: "On another podcast I was asked where I would place sensors to detect UAP? "I said you only need one and I meant that. I'm not going to go into a whole lot of details right now. because we are in the process of looking at that as an option. There are some very intriguing signatures that if you knew what to look for, and how to look for them, you know, you should have a really, really, really good chance of being able to collect data. And the data in a way which gives a lot more fidelity than we are getting now. Possibly to be able to predict. So, that's what we are doing right now. It's a bit in its planning stages and nascence stage. So, I don't want to tip my hand too much...Obviously the big connection is the nuclear connection. That is concerning.

We are planning on executing this, in a phase one approach probably within the next six months...There's lots of things happening behind the scenes."

Shorter answers

Question: If you were the Galileo Project team, what sensors would be needed? Infrasound?

Answer: Infrasound is one certainly interesting potential. We use it for other things as well. There's another way, that is even simpler. In fact, its absolutely simple...we are developing some high performing teams, the academic side, the scientific side, the technological side, governmental side. Again, there is a lot of things happening behind the scenes. I think the public's going to be very surprised and probably pretty excited once some of this information starts getting into the public realm because it means real results...We are probably doing more now behind the scenes than we ever have before."

Question: Given the facts, what is the current leading hypothesis?

Answer: It isn't ours. It isn't foreign adversaries. "Option C right now. Meaning something or someone else other than us." Beyond that I don't know. Need more data. Don't have the final story yet.

Question: Lue said that the three videos released so far are the least impressive. What makes a video considered for release?

Answer: Fidelity. Proximity. Telemetry, which can get you capabilities. If these are different from yours or an adversaries then that's good.

"As far as the 23 minute video. I've said for the record before, that I cannot elaborate. But there are people in the Pentagon that are aware of that video. That have seen that video, because they have corresponded with me about that video, when I was with AATIP. So, it has not gone and been lost forever. It's absolutely there. And at some point, if people are asked to testify, you know, Congress. They are going to have to tell the truth, that they've seen it too. 23 minutes is an awful lot of time...it's a lot of time to collect data."

Question: On another podcast, purpose of different UAP, e.g. are Tic Tacs different to triangles?

Answer: "No, we think they're using the same technology....just used for different applications...There's going to be some information on that in the near term, some more data...It's an assumption based on observation..."

Question: Have your views about death changed since AATIP?

Answer: "...things that occurred under Bigelow's watch and the previous director that, frankly, cannot be explained under modern day science...my focus was more on the UAP piece, even though I was tangentially involved with the AASAP stuff. I'll let the AAWSAP people talk about that..."

Question: The sixth observable is known to be biological effects. Have you personally been impacted?

Answer: "Yes. Impacted by them, because of friends."

Question: Did AATIP have interactions with the Department of Energy?

Answer: Yes, tangentially. Relationship is much better now.

Question: Can you speak about the Vatican's involvement with UAP?

Answer: You'd need to ask the Vatican.

Black Vault receives copies of internal emails from the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense

Background

On 3 May 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General announced a new project, "Evaluation of the DoD's Activities Regarding the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." Project number D2021-DEVOSN-0116. 

I, and no doubt others, submitted FOIA requests seeking documents generated by the process which led up to this announcement. To date, I have received no final response to my own request. However, yesterday, John Greenewald of the Black Vault announced that he had received documents relevant to his own request and published copies on his website.

What can we learn from these emails?

I will provide details which from the most interesting of these emails, and include some of my own comments along the way.  I will group the emails under their subject content.

1. The initial batch of emails are dated 23 February 2021, and titled "RE: Project title from notes," and although the recipients names are, in general, redacted, the addresses are all in the Office of the Inspector General. The topic is a discussion of precisely what the title of the project announcement should be. The title suggested, was in fact the title used in the 3 May 2021 announcement, namely "Evaluation of the DoD's Activities Regarding the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." There is a a note that the title is "...vanilla enough and not too controversial." 

Comment: Nowhere that I can see, in the entire series of emails, provides us with the reason why the Office of the Inspector General decided to initiate this project. Some have suggested that the project originated from Congressional members being unhappy with the information about UAP that they were receiving. Others have suggested that in using the Congressional process, e.g. the Intelligence Bill, that certain Committees of Congress wished to force recalcitrant U.S. government agencies to hand over what they know on UAP.  

Involvement of Air Force Office of Special Investigations

2. 4 March 2021 brought another series of emails titled "UAP meeting." One of the emails describing today's meeting is highly redacted. However, one point, was "Unfortunately Brig Gen Bullard was unable to attend." 

Comment: Brigadier General Terry L. Bullard is the Commander, Air Force Office of Special Investigations. 

3. A 5 March 2021 email also titled "UAP meeting" refers to a discussion with an unnamed individual from the MILDET and refers to another meeting next Tuesday. 

POLITICO article

4. 25 March 2021. Title "RE: Military and spy agencies accused of stiff-arming investigation on UFO sightings." 

The classified Special EB meeting is to be held on 29 March 2021.

The title of this email series refers to an article in POLITICO, and the full text of that article is given in the emails.

5.  26 March 2021 titled "RE: UAP article (#4) in Defense morning clips 26 Mar 2021." Clip #4 refers to the Bryan Bender article in POLITICO.

Is there a classified objective of the project?

6. On 30 March 2021. Emails titled "Special EB" in part reads "You can sign it off. The unclass objective is the simple one that we discussed, IE "The DoD activities regarding the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" Correct?"

Then there is:

"Special EB with the classification level TS/SCI in 2 phases.

Part 1: Read-ahead opportunity provided on project proposal/factsheet and supplementary briefing documents on JWICS (at least one week or more prior to meeting in part 2.)

Part 2: Special EB meeting to discuss project proposal and addl. info. (We'll also need to schedule the SCIF.)"

Comment: What to make about "The unclass objective is the simple one..." Does this infer that there is also a classified objective for the project? The mention that the briefing on the project is Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented information and held in a sensitive compartmented information facility might imply that there is such a classified part to the project.

Briefings for congressional staff?

7. 7/8/12/13 April 2021. Titles "Spoke to (redacted) re UAP." and "RE: Special EB results 4/7." Large amounts of these are redacted. Another briefing was held on 7 April 2021. It appears the discussion here is about a revised version of the announcement memorandum. There were apparently "...three announcement memo options...." In short, discussing the memo's wording. One specific point in one email dated 7 April 2021, "...we will run the options by the IG FO and OLAC. OLAC also mentioned the possibility of doing some briefings with interested congressional staff to discuss the project."

Comment: OLAC is the Office of Legislative Affairs & Communications within the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense. 

8. Next is a series of emails subject "RE: FY 2021PPT #591." Included is "Please see the attached project proposal for the next EB on 21 April."

9. Email series titled "Proposal Disc. Topics for IG FO weekly 4/14" dated 13 April 2021. Draft discussion topics were attached.

New York Times article

10. Series of emails dated 16 April 2021 on the publication of a New York Times article "They were not alone." Plus text of another article on CNN by Chandelis Duster. "Pentagon confirms UFO video is real."

11. 13/20/21 April 2021. Series titled "RE: Proposed UAP Announcement Memo." Discussion of the latest draft.

12. 20/21 April 2021. Title "RE: UAP Project Hill Engagement." Large chunks redacted. "As you recall at the special EB, OLAC would provide the various legislative staff advance notice of the project and an opportunity to discuss it with them prior to issuing the announcement memo to the Department."

13. 22 April 2021. Title "RE: Proposed UAP Announcement Memo." "Attached is a revised announcement based on the discussions held yesterday. Announce on 3 May 2021.

14. 29 April 2021. "RE: UAP announcement 5/3" .Announcement to Department and Hill, on 3 May 2021.

15. 3 May 2021. Excerpts from an article in the New Yorker: "How the Pentagon started taking UFOs seriously." Plus Announcement on DoD oversight project made and sent out to Department and placed on public website. 

Comment: As can be seen by the number of media articles which find their way into the email series, the Office of the Inspector General was closely monitoring media pieces. 

16.  4 May 2021. "Pentagon watchdog opens new project into military's handling of UFOs." Text of another POLITICO article about the newly announced Office of Inspector General, Department of Defense, project on UAP. 

Key named players

1. Randolph R Stone, Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations, Space, Intelligence, Engineering and Oversight, OIG, DoD.

2. Michael C. Zola, Assistant, Inspector General, Legislative Affairs & Communications, OIG, DoD.

3. Michael J. Roark, SES, OIG, DoD.

4. Nilgun Tolek, OIG DoD.

Update: 3 September 2021

On a re-read of the emails, I found one dated 30 March 2021 which adds to the question surrounding whether or no their was a classified as well as an unclassified version of the announcement memo, or the project objective. Part of that email read:

"Sir, the Pickup project is now loaded as #583 and is ready for you to sign off, or to delegate to have it signed off. I only put in the project title. The other paragraphs just have a statement to see the classified version. I can add the objective if necessary."

In addition, in a 25 March 2021 email there is:

"Come to the classified EB April 7 w/Zola!!"

The Aerospace Corporation - was it the organization reverse engineering off-world craft?

 The Wilson/Davis document

Since the release of the Wilson/Davis document, UAP researchers have been trying to identify the aerospace entity referred to in the notes. Part of the notes reads:

EWD: "Who was the project contractor or USG agency that runs program?"

TW: "An aerospace technology contractor - one of the top ones in US." 

EWD: "Who?"

TW: "Core secret - can't tell."

EWD: "Defense contractor?"

TW: "Yes the best one of them."

EWD is Eric W. Davis and TW is former Admiral Thomas R. Wilson. 

There has been much speculation as to whether it was an aerospace company like Lockheed Martin. 

In a previous blog post, I presented an historical review of the interest of aerospace companies, and some of their employees, in UAP. One entity I overlooked, was the U.S. "The Aerospace Corporation." The purpose of this blog is to explore what is publicly known about this Corporation, specifically looking for clues as to whether or not it conducted, or is conducting, any work on UAP. Or even if it could be the company TW was referring to?

You will note that Wilson does not say "An aerospace company," but "An aerospace technology contractor - one of the top ones in US." An additional point made by some UAP researchers, is the fact that Dr. Davis left EarthTech in 2020, and according to the 23 July 2020 issue of the New York Times newspaper joined The Aerospace Corporation. A search of the Corporation website failed to locate any reference to him.  I checked the LinkedIn profiles of employees of the Corporation but failed to find one for Dr. Davis. 

Dr. Eric W. Davis

The Corporation history

The "Our history" section of their website tells us that "The Aerospace Corporation" was founded in 1960. In the early years it was involved with projects for the U.S.A.F. and missile technology, including the conversion of military missiles for space rockets. It helped develop the Project Mercury Pilot Safety Program, and was also included in space based reconnaissance programs.

At the end of the 1960's it developed expertise in projects other than space in the areas of transportation; energy and body armor. In the 1970's it was involved with the development and operation of the space shuttle; and the Strategic defense Initiative. Into the 1980's the Corporation saw some of its time going into the development of the global positioning System; and on the Milstar and DSCS satellite communication systems.

The 1990's saw it perform assessments for the International Space Station. More recently it "...supported planning for Space radar to provide global persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to the Department of Defense" In times just gone by, it has provided support for a number of still classified DOD operations. 

Business model

The Corporation is not a private company , as opposed to say Lockheed Martin. It's website states that it is:

"...the only Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) committed exclusively to the space enterprise." 

It is an independent and non-profit organization. Its customers are government, civil and commercial. It operates an headquarters in El-Segundo, California; regional offices in Chantilly, Virginia and Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

Numerous other Corporation  business addresses are listed on its website including at a number of U.S.A.F. bases. One such  Corporation business address is worthy of specific note, being at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) at Wright Patterson AFB. NASIC was recently mentioned as one of the two locations, the other being the UAP Task Force, that U. S. agencies should forward UAP sightings to. 

The Corporation has around 4,000 employees. According to USA spending.gov the Corporation received $1 billion in funding in FY 2021, including 65 new awards. 89% of this funding was from the U.S, Department of Defense, and 8% from NASA. 

Focus areas

The Corporation website lists five focus areas:

1. Launch Assurance.

2. Satellite and orbits - "The Aerospace corporation remains the leading authority on the development, launch and deployment of space systems." Included in this is the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies." established in 1997. The Center maintains a database of all reentries; which might be useful for UAP researchers, in recognizing satellite reentries as IFOs.

3. Space exploration.

4. Space policy.

5. Research and development - A recently formed group within the Corporation is XLab

"...that consolidates our prototyping expertise to develop rapid solutions to the threat facing the nations' space assets." 

While there is no mention of UAP in this section, one could read into it that it should have an interest in UAP, given that the UAPTF report stated that UAP could be a threat to U.S. national security.

Area of interest - propulsion

Given that a range of aerospace companies, in the past, have taken an interest in the propulsion aspects of UAP observations, I checked what the Corporation says it is doing in terms of methods of propulsion, specifically, whether or not it had research going on "exotic" propulsion systems?

A search of the website found a section titled "State of Play: In-space Novel Propulsion Technologies," which I thought might be what I was looking for. It was released 8 June 2021. The document covers advances in nuclear, electric, chemical and solar propulsion systems. However, there is no mention of anything more exotic than those just mentioned. It is authored by one Laura Speckman with contributions from nine other Corporation employees. None of them was astrophysicist Dr. Eric W. Davis who lists work he undertook on exotic propulsion systems. 

Area of interest - retrieval of crashed space objects

Elsewhere on the Corporation's website, is a section dealing with the Corporation's Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies (CORDS.) In this section is the following:

"CORDS provides information on when a reentry might occur, and Aerospace collects and analyses material that survived re-entry."

It also has a section which actively seeks observations of space object reentries, via an input form.

The process by which Aerospace physically collects such material is not shown on their website. However, the mention of collection and analysis of conventional crashed space objects by the Corporation, raised a tantalizing thought in my mind.

Astute blog readers, will by now, recall that the U.S.A.F. ran programs, from the early 1960's, called MOON DUST and BLUE FLY.  These were to locate, then retrieve and transfer to the U.S., crashed objects which had returned from space, e.g. satellites, booster rockets, with a view to mining intelligence data from them. Some UAP researchers insisted that these programs also extended to the retrieval of crashed UFOs. There has been a lack of evidence of what happened to these programs post around the 1980's; and whether or not they continue to today. Perhaps The Aerospace Corporation is now the driver of the former MOON DUST and BLUE FLY programs?

A more speculative thought also occurred to me. If CORDS collects and analyses conventional crashed returned space objects, perhaps it might also be called upon to study alleged unconventional material, e.g. fragments from crashed UAP?

What then, can we conclude?

The Aerospace Corporation would fit Wilson's description, as in the Wilson/Davis notes, as well, if not better, than any traditional aerospace company. However, its public website failed to reveal any overt mention of UAP.

Update: 31 August 2021

Thanks to both Jonathan Davies, and a comment from "anonymous" on the blog, for pointing to the fact that Dr. Davis has a Facebook page. On that page it states that he is a Senior Project Engineer at The Aerospace Corporation. 

The Facebook page also has:

"Started job

9 December 2019 - Senior Project Officer at The Aerospace Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama. Work on the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Demonstration Project and quantum sensors at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, and advanced propulsion at the USSPACECOM/SSDP in Colorado Springs."

Which aerospace company is hiding a UAP black project?

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. Recently, Twitter user Britt@inf3rence has been digging deep into just which aerospace company these documents might be referring to.

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.

The major players

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?

Learned Aerospace professionals are taking an interest

The German Aerospace Society recently 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.