The Roswell UFO Incident involved the recovery of materials near Roswell, New Mexico, USA, on July 7, 1947, and since the early 1980s has become the subject of intense speculation, rumor and questioning. There are widely divergent views on what actually happened and passionate debate about what evidence can be believed. The United States military maintains that what was actually recovered was debris from an experimental high-altitude surveillance balloon belonging to a classified program named “Mogul.” Many UFO proponents maintain that a crashed alien craft and bodies were recovered, and that the military engaged in a cover-up. The incident has turned into a widely known pop culture phenomenon, and for some, Roswell is synonymous with UFOs. It ranks as one of the most publicised and controversial UFO incidents ever.

Document Archive

Roswell FBI File – This one-page teletype dated July 8, 1947, conveyed information originating from the United States Air Force. The teletype’s details purported that an object, possibly a flying disc, was recovered near Roswell, New Mexico.

GAO Roswell Report – Results of a Search for Records Concerning the 1947 Crash Near Roswell, New Mexico – Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the 1947 weather balloon crash at Roswell Air Field, New Mexico, focusing on: (1) the requirements for reporting air accidents similar to the Roswell crash; and (2) any government records concerning the Roswell crash.

The Roswell Report: Case Closed [245 Pages, 12.5 MB] – In July 1994, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force concluded an exhaustive search for records in response to a General Accounting Office (GAO) inquiry of an event popularly known as the “Roswell Incident.” The focus of the GAO probe, initiated at the request of a member of Congress, was to determine if the U.S. Air Force, or any other U.S. government agency, possessed information on the alleged crash and recovery of an extraterrestrial vehicle and its alien occupants near Roswell, N.M. in July 1947.

The 1994 Air Force report concluded that the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, recovered debris from an Army Air Forces balloon-borne research project code named MOGUL. Records located describing research carried out under the MOGUL project, most of which were never classified (and publicly available) were collected, provided to GAO, and published in one volume for ease of access for the general public.

This report discusses the results of this exhaustive research and identifies the likely sources of the claims of “alien bodies” at Roswell. Contrary to allegations, many of the accounts appear to be descriptions of unclassified and widely publicized Air Force scientific achievements. Other descriptions of “bodies” appear to be actual incidents in which Air Force members were killed or injured in the line of duty.

The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert – Abstract : This report represents an effort to address the request made by Representative Steven H. Schiff (R-NM) for information regarding an alleged crash of an unidentified flying object (UFO) that occurred in the state in 1947. This publication duplicates the information provided to the Secretary of the Air Force and to the General Accounting Office (GAO). It was written as a result of Colonel Weaver’s and Lieutenant McAndrew’s efforts to locate the records that explain the events of July 1947 leading to what is popularly known as the Roswell Incident. The only information presented here that was not in the report delivered to the Secretary of the Air Force and the GAO is the photograph section. It appears after Colonel Weaver’s final attachment, at the very end of this book. The importance of attachment 32, Lieutenant McAndrew’s synopsis, derives from his description of Project MOGUL, the top-priority classified project of balloon-borne experiments, which provides the explanation for the “Roswell Incident.” Interest abounds surrounding the UFO wave of 1947 which began in the spring and did not dissipate until fall. Interest in UFOs climaxed during the summer, when multiple sightings of such objects occurred.

The post The Roswell Incident first appeared on The Black Vault.

According to Mr. Frank Kimbler’s biography:

“Frank Kimbler is an Assistant Professor of the Earth Science at the New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI) and he has worked as a professional geologist for almost 30 years. He has worked as an oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and as a mining engineer for the State of Arizona. He moved to New Mexico in 2009 after accepting a teaching position at NMMI in Roswell. Shortly after moving to Roswell he took a keen interest in the story behind the Roswell UFO incident. His research has resulted in the discovery of a number of physical artifacts from the Roswell UFO debris field area. His research has also been featured on several National Geographic TV programs, the History Channel, and numerous Internet talk shows about UFOs. He is dedicated to discovering answers and using good science to prove that we are not alone in the universe.”

In June of 2018, the BLM reached out to Mr. Kimbler about his finds in relation to alleged metal pieces he discovered connecting to the Roswell craft.  He posted on Facebook, seeking help, as the BLM required him to not only come to their offices; but bring the metal pieces with him. This post piqued my interest, so I reached out to Mr. Kimbler, and asked if he’d like to come on to The Black Vault Radio to talk about his story, and get more awareness. The situation seemed bizarre, and definitely warranted attention.

He agreed to come on to the program, and the episode was first broadcast on this site on July 6, 2018. You can listen to it here:

A few months later, I requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), all records pertaining to the contact of Mr. Kimbler, and records relating to the subsequent investigations. Although a response letter was sent dated March 17, 2019, the CD-ROM sent was a completely different set of documents, which I can only assume were meant for a different requester on a wildly different topic. It was not until May 9, 2019, that I finally received the documents via electronic transfer. I took the liberty of blacking out a few phone numbers, that I felt should not be released, and I believe that may have been an accident.

The release revealed that not only did the BLM contact Mr. Kimbler, and ask for him to come to their office with the metal fragments as we already knew, it also showed that they watched his social network posts closely.  In addition, they kept track of most of the replies, in the form of comments, from his followers and supporters. Screen shots were taken by BLM staff and logged within the BLM files. They began watching Mr. Kimbler’s posts within one day of the original please for the public’s help (indicated by the time stamp in this screen shot):

In addition to the above, they watched Mr. Kimbler’s subsequent posts/followups after the one above, and had screen shots taken within hours of those.

The remaining documents show that the BLM took extensive notes on the meeting that Mr. Kimbler had with BLM personnel, and they took notes on all calls made with Mr. Kimbler, and also Mr. Donald Schmitt.

The documents are combined below, in a single .pdf for easier reading. The .pdf file contains “bookmarks” once opened, which indicate the various files that were released. As noted, I redacted a few phone numbers which should not have been made public. The rest, is how I received it.

Document Archive

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Documents on Frank Kimbler / Roswell Metal Pieces [56 Pages, 6.7MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [6.32 MB]

The post Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Documents on Frank Kimbler / Roswell Metal Pieces first appeared on The Black Vault.

A Die-Hard Issue

Gerald K. Haines

An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent believe they are real. (1) Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists–a neologism for UFO buffs–and private UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s. (2)

In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, (3) DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency’s efforts to solve the mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.

Background

The emergence in 1947 of the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union also saw the first wave of UFO sightings. The first report of a “flying saucer” over the United States came on 24 June 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot and reputable businessman, while looking for a downed plane sighted nine disk-shaped objects near Mt. Rainier, Washington, traveling at an estimated speed of over 1,000 mph. Arnold’s report was followed by a flood of additional sightings, including reports from military and civilian pilots and air traffic controllers all over the United States. (4) In 1948, Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining, head of the Air Technical Service Command, established Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) to collect, collate, evaluate, and distribute within the government all information relating to such sightings, on the premise that UFOs might be real and of national security concern. (5)

The Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Material Command (AMC) at Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Dayton, Ohio, assumed control of Project SIGN and began its work on 23 January 1948. Although at first fearful that the objects might be Soviet secret weapons, the Air Force soon concluded that UFOs were real but easily explained and not extraordinary. The Air Force report found that almost all sightings stemmed from one or more of three causes: mass hysteria and hallucination, hoax, or misinterpretation of known objects. Nevertheless, the report recommended continued military intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings and did not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena. (6)

Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, GRUDGE, which tried to alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a public relations campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary. UFO sightings were explained as balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, meteors, optical illusions, solar reflections, or even “large hailstones.” GRUDGE officials found no evidence in UFO sightings of advanced foreign weapons design or development, and they concluded that UFOs did not threaten US security. They recommended that the project be reduced in scope because the very existence of Air Force official interest encouraged people to believe in UFOs and contributed to a “war hysteria” atmosphere. On 27 December 1949, the Air Force announced the project’s termination. (7)

With increased Cold War tensions, the Korean war, and continued UFO sightings, USAF Director of Intelligence Maj. Gen. Charles P. Cabell ordered a new UFO project in 1952. Project BLUE BOOK became the major Air Force effort to study the UFO phenomenon throughout the 1950s and 1960s. (8) The task of identifying and explaining UFOs continued to fall on the Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson. With a small staff, the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) tried to persuade the public that UFOs were not extraordinary. (9)Projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK set the tone for the official US Government position regarding UFOs for the next 30 years.

Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52

CIA closely monitored the Air Force effort, aware of the mounting number of sightings and increasingly concerned that UFOs might pose a potential security threat. (10) Given the distribution of the sightings, CIA officials in 1952 questioned whether they might reflect “midsummer madness.” (11) Agency officials accepted the Air Force’s conclusions about UFO reports, although they concluded that “since there is a remote possibility that they may be interplanetary aircraft, it is necessary to investigate each sighting.” (12)

A massive buildup of sightings over the United States in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration. On 19 and 20 July, radar scopes at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base tracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared. The Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft to investigate, but they found nothing. The incidents, however, caused headlines across the country. The White House wanted to know what was happening, and the Air Force quickly offered the explanation that the radar blips might be the result of “temperature inversions.” Later, a Civil Aeronautics Administration investigation confirmed that such radar blips were quite common and were caused by temperature inversions. (13)

Although it had monitored UFO reports for at least three years, CIA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) and the Office of Current Intelligence (OCI) to review the situation. (14) Edward Tauss, acting chief of OSI’s Weapons and Equipment Division, reported for the group that most UFO sightings could be easily explained. Nevertheless, he recommended that the Agency continue monitoring the problem, in coordination with ATIC. He also urged that CIA conceal its interest from the media and the public, “in view of their probable alarmist tendencies” to accept such interest as confirming the existence of UFOs. (15)

Upon receiving the report, Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) Robert Amory, Jr. assigned responsibility for the UFO investigations to OSI’s Physics and Electronics Division, with A. Ray Gordon as the officer in charge. (16) Each branch in the division was to contribute to the investigation, and Gordon was to coordinate closely with ATIC. Amory, who asked the group to focus on the national security implications of UFOs, was relaying DCI Walter Bedell Smith’s concerns. (17) Smith wanted to know whether or not the Air Force investigation of flying saucers was sufficiently objective and how much more money and manpower would be necessary to determine the cause of the small percentage of unexplained flying saucers. Smith believed “there was only one chance in 10,000 that the phenomenon posed a threat to the security of the country, but even that chance could not be taken.” According to Smith, it was CIA’s responsibility by statute to coordinate the intelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in connection with US psychological warfare efforts. (18)

Led by Gordon, the CIA Study Group met with Air Force officials at Wright-Patterson and reviewed their data and findings. The Air Force claimed that 90 percent of the reported sightings were easily accounted for. The other 10 percent were characterized as “a number of incredible reports from credible observers.” The Air Force rejected the theories that the sightings involved US or Soviet secret weapons development or that they involved “men from Mars”; there was no evidence to support these concepts. The Air Force briefers sought to explain these UFO reports as the misinterpretation of known objects or little understood natural phenomena. (19) Air Force and CIA officials agreed that outside knowledge of Agency interest in UFOs would make the problem more serious. (20) This concealment of CIA interest contributed greatly to later charges of a CIA conspiracy and coverup.

Amateur photographs of alleged UFOs

Passoria, New Jersey, 31 July 1952

Sheffield, England, 4 March 1962
& Minneapolis, Minnesota, 20 October 1960

The CIA Study Group also searched the Soviet press for UFO reports, but found none, causing the group to conclude that the absence of reports had to have been the result of deliberate Soviet Government policy. The group also envisioned the USSR’s possible use of UFOs as a psychological warfare tool. In addition, they worried that, if the US air warning system should be deliberately overloaded by UFO sightings, the Soviets might gain a surprise advantage in any nuclear attack. (21)

Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the CIA Study Group saw serious national security concerns in the flying saucer situation. The group believed that the Soviets could use UFO reports to touch off mass hysteria and panic in the United States. The group also believed that the Soviets might use UFO sightings to overload the US air warning system so that it could not distinguish real targets from phantom UFOs. H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director of OSI, added that he considered the problem of such importance “that it should be brought to the attention of the National Security Council, in order that a communitywide coordinated effort towards it solution may be initiated.” (22)

Chadwell briefed DCI Smith on the subject of UFOs in December 1952. He urged action because he was convinced that “something was going on that must have immediate attention” and that “sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major US defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles.” He drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the National Security Council (NSC) and a proposed NSC Directive establishing the investigation of UFOs as a priority project throughout the intelligence and the defense research and development community. (23) Chadwell also urged Smith to establish an external research project of top-level scientists to study the problem of UFOs. (24) After this briefing, Smith directed DDI Amory to prepare a NSC Intelligence Directive (NSCID) for submission to the NSC on the need to continue the investigation of UFOs and to coordinate such investigations with the Air Force. (25)

The Robertson Panel, 1952-53

On 4 December 1952, the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) took up the issue of UFOs.(26) Amory, as acting chairman, presented DCI Smith’s request to the committee that it informally discuss the subject of UFOs. Chadwell then briefly reviewed the situation and the active program of the ATIC relating to UFOs. The committee agreed that the DCI should “enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories” and draft an NSCID on the subject. (27) Maj. Gen. John A. Samford, Director of Air Force Intelligence, offered full cooperation. (28)

At the same time, Chadwell looked into British efforts in this area. He learned the British also were active in studying the UFO phenomena. An eminent British scientist, R. V. Jones, headed a standing committee created in June 1951 on flying saucers. Jones’ and his committee’s conclusions on UFOs were similar to those of Agency officials: the sightings were not enemy aircraft but misrepresentations of natural phenomena. The British noted, however, that during a recent air show RAF pilots and senior military officials had observed a “perfect flying saucer.” Given the press response, according to the officer, Jones was having a most difficult time trying to correct public opinion regarding UFOs. The public was convinced they were real. (29)

In January 1953, Chadwell and H. P. Robertson, a noted physicist from the California Institute of Technology, put together a distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists to study the UFO issue. It included Robertson as chairman; Samuel A. Goudsmit, a nuclear physicist from the Brookhaven National Laboratories; Luis Alvarez, a high-energy physicist; Thornton Page, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Operations Research Office and an expert on radar and electronics; and Lloyd Berkner, a director of the Brookhaven National Laboratories and a specialist in geophysics. (30)

The charge to the panel was to review the available evidence on UFOs and to consider the possible dangers of the phenomena to US national security. The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953. It reviewed Air Force data on UFO case histories and, after spending 12 hours studying the phenomena, declared that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most, if not all, sightings. For example, after reviewing motion-picture film taken of a UFO sighting near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952 and one near Great Falls, Montana, on 15 August 1950, the panel concluded that the images on the Tremonton film were caused by sunlight reflecting off seagulls and that the images at Great Falls were sunlight reflecting off the surface of two Air Force interceptors. (31)

The panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in the UFO sightings. Nor could the panel find any evidence that the objects sighted might be extraterrestrials. It did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threaten “the orderly functioning” of the government by clogging the channels of communication with irrelevant reports and by inducing “hysterical mass behavior” harmful to constituted authority. The panel also worried that potential enemies contemplating an attack on the United States might exploit the UFO phenomena and use them to disrupt US air defenses. (32)

To meet these problems, the panel recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get the message across. Reporting at the height of McCarthyism, the panel also recommended that such private UFO groups as the Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators in Los Angeles and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Wisconsin be monitored for subversive activities. (33)

The Robertson panel’s conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN and GRUDGE and to those of the CIA’s own OSI Study Group. All investigative groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.

Following the Robertson panel findings, the Agency abandoned efforts to draft an NSCID on UFOs. (34) The Scientific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the Robertson panel) submitted its report to the IAC, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board. CIA officials said no further consideration of the subject appeared warranted, although they continued to monitor sightings in the interest of national security. Philip Strong and Fred Durant from OSI also briefed the Office of National Estimates on the findings. (35) CIA officials wanted knowledge of any Agency interest in the subject of flying saucers carefully restricted, noting not only that the Robertson panel report was classified but also that any mention of CIA sponsorship of the panel was forbidden. This attitude would later cause the Agency major problems relating to its credibility. (36)

The 1950s: Fading CIA Interest in UFOs

After the report of the Robertson panel, Agency officials put the entire issue of UFOs on the back burner. In May 1953, Chadwell transferred chief responsibility for keeping abreast of UFOs to OSI’s Physics and Electronic Division, while the Applied Science Division continued to provide any necessary support. (37) Todos M. Odarenko, chief of the Physics and Electronics Division, did not want to take on the problem, contending that it would require too much of his division’s analytic and clerical time. Given the findings of the Robertson panel, he proposed to consider the project “inactive” and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko. (38)

A nonbeliever in UFOs, Odarenko sought to have his division relieved of the responsibility for monitoring UFO reports. In 1955, for example, he recommended that the entire project be terminated because no new information concerning UFOs had surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division was facing a serious budget reduction and could not spare the resources. (39)Chadwell and other Agency officials, however, continued to worry about UFOs. Of special concern were overseas reports of UFO sightings and claims that German engineers held by the Soviets were developing a “flying saucer” as a future weapon of war. (40)

To most US political and military leaders, the Soviet Union by the mid-1950s had become a dangerous opponent. Soviet progress in nuclear weapons and guided missiles was particularly alarming. In the summer of 1949, the USSR had detonated an atomic bomb. In August 1953, only nine months after the United States tested a hydrogen bomb, the Soviets detonated one. In the spring of 1953, a top secret RAND Corporation study also pointed out the vulnerability of SAC bases to a surprise attack by Soviet long-range bombers. Concern over the danger of a Soviet attack on the United States continued to grow, and UFO sightings added to the uneasiness of US policymakers.

Mounting reports of UFOs over eastern Europe and Afghanistan also prompted concern that the Soviets were making rapid progress in this area. CIA officials knew that the British and Canadians were already experimenting with “flying saucers.” Project Y was a Canadian-British-US developmental operation to produce a nonconventional flying-saucer-type aircraft, and Agency officials feared the Soviets were testing similar devices. (41)

Adding to the concern was a flying saucer sighting by US Senator Richard Russell and his party while traveling on a train in the USSR in October 1955. After extensive interviews of Russell and his group, however, CIA officials concluded that Russell’s sighting did not support the theory that the Soviets had developed saucerlike or unconventional aircraft. Herbert Scoville, Jr., the Assistant Director of OSI, wrote that the objects observed probably were normal jet aircraft in a steep climb. (42)

Wilton E. Lexow, head of the CIA’s Applied Sciences Division, was also skeptical. He questioned why the Soviets were continuing to develop conventional-type aircraft if they had a “flying saucer.” (43) Scoville asked Lexow to assume responsibility for fully assessing the capabilities and limitations of nonconventional aircraft and to maintain the OSI central file on the subject of UFOs.

CIA’s U-2 and OXCART as UFOs

In November 1954, CIA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed’s Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-altitude experimental aircraft–the U-2. It could fly at 60,000 feet; in the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 started test flights, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings. (44) (U)

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency’s U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public.

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)

At the same time, pressure was building for the release of the Robertson panel report on UFOs. In 1956, Edward Ruppelt, former head of the Air Force BLUE BOOK project, publicly revealed the existence of the panel. A best-selling book by UFOlogist Donald Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major, advocated release of all government information relating to UFOs. Civilian UFO groups such as the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) immediately pushed for release of the Robertson panel report. (47) Under pressure, the Air Force approached CIA for permission to declassify and release the report. Despite such pressure, Philip Strong, Deputy Assistant Director of OSI, refused to declassify the report and declined to disclose CIA sponsorship of the panel. As an alternative, the Agency prepared a sanitized version of the report which deleted any reference to CIA and avoided mention of any psychological warfare potential in the UFO controversy. (48)

The demands, however, for more government information about UFOs did not let up. On 8 March 1958, Keyhoe, in an interview with Mike Wallace of CBS, claimed deep CIA involvement with UFOs and Agency sponsorship of the Robertson panel. This prompted a series of letters to the Agency from Keyhoe and Dr. Leon Davidson, a chemical engineer and UFOlogist. They demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and confirmation of CIA involvement in the UFO issue. Davidson had convinced himself that the Agency, not the Air Force, carried most of the responsibility for UFO analysis and that “the activities of the US Government are responsible for the flying saucer sightings of the last decade.” Indeed, because of the undisclosed U-2 and OXCART flights, Davidson was closer to the truth than he suspected. CI, nevertheless held firm to its policy of not revealing its role in UFO investigations and refused to declassify the full Robertson panel report. (49)

In a meeting with Air Force representatives to discuss how to handle future inquires such as Keyhoe’s and Davidson’s, Agency officials confirmed their opposition to the declassification of the full report and worried that Keyhoe had the ear of former DCI VAdm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter, who served on the board of governors of NICAP. They debated whether to have CIA General Counsel Lawrence R. Houston show Hillenkoetter the report as a possible way to defuse the situation. CIA officer Frank Chapin also hinted that Davidson might have ulterior motives, “some of them perhaps not in the best interest of this country,” and suggested bringing in the FBI to investigate. (50) Although the record is unclear whether the FBI ever instituted an investigation of Davidson or Keyhoe, or whether Houston ever saw Hillenkoetter about the Robertson report, Hillenkoetter did resign from the NICAP in 1962.(51)

The Agency was also involved with Davidson and Keyhoe in two rather famous UFO cases in the 1950s, which helped contribute to a growing sense of public distrust of CIA with regard to UFOs. One focused on what was reported to have been a tape recording of a radio signal from a flying saucer; the other on reported photographs of a flying saucer. The “radio code” incident began innocently enough in 1955, when two elderly sisters in Chicago, Mildred and Marie Maier, reported in the Journal of Space Flight their experiences with UFOs, including the recording of a radio program in which an unidentified code was reportedly heard. The sisters taped the program and other ham radio operators also claimed to have heard the “space message.” OSI became interested and asked the Scientific Contact Branch to obtain a copy of the recording. (52)

Field officers from the Contact Division (CD), one of whom was Dewelt Walker, made contact with the Maier sisters, who were “thrilled that the government was interested,” and set up a time to meet with them. (53) In trying to secure the tape recording, the Agency officers reported that they had stumbled upon a scene from Arsenic and Old Lace. “The only thing lacking was the elderberry wine,” Walker cabled Headquarters. After reviewing the sisters’ scrapbook of clippings from their days on the stage, the officers secured a copy of the recording. (54) OSI analyzed the tape and found it was nothing more than Morse code from a US radio station.

The matter rested there until UFOlogist Leon Davidson talked with the Maier sisters in 1957. The sisters remembered they had talked with a Mr. Walker who said he was from the US Air Force. Davidson then wrote to a Mr. Walker, believing him to be a US Air Force Intelligence Officer from Wright-Patterson, to ask if the tape had been analyzed at ATIC. Dewelt Walker replied to Davidson that the tape had been forwarded to proper authorities for evaluation, and no information was available concerning the results. Not satisfied, and suspecting that Walker was really a CIA officer, Davidson next wrote DCI Allen Dulles demanding to learn what the coded message revealed and who Mr. Walker was. (55) The Agency, wanting to keep Walker’s identity as a CIA employee secret, replied that another agency of the government had analyzed the tape in question and that Davidson would be hearing from the Air Force. (56) On 5 August, the Air Force wrote Davidson saying that Walker “was and is an Air Force Officer” and that the tape “was analyzed by another government organization.” The Air Force letter confirmed that the recording contained only identifiable Morse code which came from a known US-licensed radio station. (57)

Davidson wrote Dulles again. This time he wanted to know the identity of the Morse operator and of the agency that had conducted the analysis. CIA and the Air Force were now in a quandary. The Agency had previously denied that it had actually analyzed the tape. The Air Force had also denied analyzing the tape and claimed that Walker was an Air Force officer. CIA officers, under cover, contacted Davidson in Chicago and promised to get the code translation and the identification of the transmitter, if possible. (58)

In another attempt to pacify Davidson, a CIA officer, again under cover and wearing his Air Force uniform, contacted Davidson in New York City. The CIA officer explained that there was no super agency involved and that Air Force policy was not to disclose who was doing what. While seeming to accept this argument, Davidson nevertheless pressed for disclosure of the recording message and the source. The officer agreed to see what he could do. (59) After checking with Headquarters, the CIA officer phoned Davidson to report that a thorough check had been made and, because the signal was of known US origin, the tape and the notes made at the time had been destroyed to conserve file space. (60)

Incensed over what he perceived was a runaround, Davidson told the CIA officer that “he and his agency, whichever it was, were acting like Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamster Union in destroying records which might indict them.” (61) Believing that any more contact with Davidson would only encourage more speculation, the Contact Division washed its hands of the issue by reporting to the DCI and to ATIC that it would not respond to or try to contact Davidson again. (62) Thus, a minor, rather bizarre incident, handled poorly by both CIA and the Air Force, turned into a major flap that added fuel to the growing mystery surrounding UFOs and CIA’s role in their investigation.

Another minor flap a few months later added to the growing questions surrounding the Agency’s true role with regard to flying saucers. CIA’s concern over secrecy again made matters worse. In 1958, Major Keyhoe charged that the Agency was deliberately asking eyewitnesses of UFOs not to make their sightings public. (63)

The incident stemmed from a November 1957 request from OSI to the CD to obtain from Ralph C. Mayher, a photographer for KYW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio, certain photographs he took in 1952 of an unidentified flying object. Harry Real, a CD officer, contacted Mayher and obtained copies of the photographs for analysis. On 12 December 1957, John Hazen, another CD officer, returned the five photographs of the alleged UFO to Mayher without comment. Mayher asked Hazen for the Agency’s evaluation of the photos, explaining that he was trying to organize a TV program to brief the public on UFOs. He wanted to mention on the show that a US intelligence organization had viewed the photographs and thought them of interest. Although he advised Mayher not to take this approach, Hazen stated that Mayher was a US citizen and would have to make his own decision as to what to do. (64)

Keyhoe later contacted Mayher, who told him his story of CIA and the photographs. Keyhoe then asked the Agency to confirm Hazen’s employment in writing, in an effort to expose CIA’s role in UFO investigations. The Agency refused, despite the fact that CD field representatives were normally overt and carried credentials identifying their Agency association. DCI Dulles’s aide, John S. Earman, merely sent Keyhoe a noncommittal letter noting that, because UFOs were of primary concern to the Department of the Air Force, the Agency had referred his letter to the Air Force for an appropriate response. Like the response to Davidson, the Agency reply to Keyhoe only fueled the speculation that the Agency was deeply involved in UFO sightings. Pressure for release of CIA information on UFOs continued to grow. (65)

Although CIA had a declining interest in UFO cases, it continued to monitor UFO sightings. Agency officials felt the need to keep informed on UFOs if only to alert the DCI to the more sensational UFO reports and flaps. (66)

The 1960s: Declining CIA Involvement and Mounting Controversy

In the early 1960s, Keyhoe, Davidson, and other UFOlogists maintained their assault on the Agency for release of UFO information. Davidson now claimed that CIA “was solely responsible for creating the Flying Saucer furor as a tool for cold war psychological warfare since 1951.” Despite calls for Congressional hearings and the release of all materials relating to UFOs, little changed. (67)

In 1964, however, following high-level White House discussions on what to do if an alien intelligence was discovered in space and a new outbreak of UFO reports and sightings, DCI John McCone asked for an updated CIA evaluation of UFOs. Responding to McCone’s request, OSI asked the CD to obtain various recent samples and reports of UFO sightings from NICAP. With Keyhoe, one of the founders, no longer active in the organization, CIA officers met with Richard H. Hall, the acting director. Hall gave the officers samples from the NICAP database on the most recent sightings. (68)

After OSI officers had reviewed the material, Donald F. Chamberlain, OSI Assistant Director, assured McCone that little had changed since the early 1950s. There was still no evidence that UFOs were a threat to the security of the United States or that they were of “foreign origin.” Chamberlain told McCone that OSI still monitored UFO reports, including the official Air Force investigation, Project BLUE BOOK. (69)

At the same time that CIA was conducting this latest internal review of UFOs, public pressure forced the Air Force to establish a special ad hoc committee to review BLUE BOOK. Chaired by Dr. Brian O’Brien, a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the panel included Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Cornell University. Its report offered nothing new. It declared that UFOs did not threaten the national security and that it could find “no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances outside of a terrestrial framework.” The committee did recommend that UFOs be studied intensively, with a leading university acting as a coordinator for the project, to settle the issue conclusively. (70)

The House Armed Services Committee also held brief hearings on UFOs in 1966 that produced similar results. Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown assured the committee that most sightings were easily explained and that there was no evidence that “strangers from outer space” had been visiting Earth. He told the committee members, however, that the Air Force would keep an open mind and continue to investigate all UFO reports. (71)

Following the report of its O’Brien Committee, the House hearings on UFOs, and Dr. Robertson’s disclosure on a CBS Reports program that CIA indeed had been involved in UFO analysis, the Air Force in July 1966 again approached the Agency for declassification of the entire Robertson panel report of 1953 and the full Durant report on the Robertson panel deliberations and findings. The Agency again refused to budge. Karl H. Weber, Deputy Director of OSI, wrote the Air Force that “We are most anxious that further publicity not be given to the information that the panel was sponsored by the CIA.” Weber noted that there was already a sanitized version available to the public. (72) Weber’s response was rather shortsighted and ill considered. It only drew more attention to the 13-year-old Robertson panel report and CIA’s role in the investigation of UFOs. The science editor of The Saturday Review drew nationwide attention to the CIA’s role in investigating UFOs when he published an article criticizing the “sanitized version” of the 1953 Robertson panel report and called for release of the entire document. (73)

Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Arizona, had already seen the Durant report on the Robertson panel proceedings at Wright-Patterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wright-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, the Air Force refused to let him see it again, stating that it was a CIA classified document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed that the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Durant report. (74)

Bowing to public pressure and the recommendation of its own O’Brien Committee, the Air Force announced in August 1966 that it was seeking a contract with a leading university to undertake a program of intensive investigations of UFO sightings. The new program was designed to blunt continuing charges that the US Government had concealed what it knew about UFOs. On 7 October, the University of Colorado accepted a $325,000 contract with the Air Force for an 18-month study of flying saucers. Dr. Edward U. Condon, a physicist at Colorado and a former Director of the National Bureau of Standards, agreed to head the program. Pronouncing himself an “agnostic” on the subject of UFOs, Condon observed that he had an open mind on the question and thought that possible extraterritorial origins were “improbable but not impossible.” (75) Brig. Gen. Edward Giller, USAF, and Dr. Thomas Ratchford from the Air Force Research and Development Office became the Air Force coordinators for the project.

In February 1967, Giller contacted Arthur C. Lundahl, Director of CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), and proposed an informal liaison through which NPIC could provide the Condon Committee with technical advice and services in examining photographs of alleged UFOs. Lundahl and DDI R. Jack Smith approved the arrangement as a way of “preserving a window” on the new effort. They wanted the CIA and NPIC to maintain a low profile, however, and to take no part in writing any conclusions for the committee. No work done for the committee by NPIC was to be formally acknowledged. (76)

Ratchford next requested that Condon and his committee be allowed to visit NPIC to discuss the technical aspects of the problem and to view the special equipment NPIC had for photoanalysis. On 20 February 1967, Condon and four members of his committee visited NPIC. Lundahl emphasized to the group that any NPIC work to assist the committee must not be identified as CIA work. Moreover, work performed by NPIC would be strictly of a technical nature. After receiving these guidelines, the group heard a series of briefings on the services and equipment not available elsewhere that CIA had used in its analysis of some UFO photography furnished by Ratchford. Condon and his committee were impressed. (77)

Condon and the same group met again in May 1967 at NPIC to hear an analysis of UFO photographs taken at Zanesville, Ohio. The analysis debunked that sighting. The committee was again impressed with the technical work performed, and Condon remarked that for the first time a scientific analysis of a UFO would stand up to investigation. (78) The group also discussed the committee’s plans to call on US citizens for additional photographs and to issue guidelines for taking useful UFO photographs. In addition, CIA officials agreed that the Condon Committee could release the full Durant report with only minor deletions.

In April 1969, Condon and his committee released their report on UFOs. The report concluded that little, if anything, had come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years and that further extensive study of UFO sightings was unwarranted. It also recommended that the Air Force special unit, Project BLUE BOOK, be discontinued. It did not mention CIA participation in the Condon committee’s investigation. (79) A special panel established by the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Condon report and concurred with its conclusion that “no high priority in UFO investigations is warranted by data of the past two decades.” It concluded its review by declaring, “On the basis of present knowledge, the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings.” Following the recommendations of the Condon Committee and the National Academy of Sciences, the Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., announced on 17 December 1969 the termination of BLUE BOOK. (80)

The 1970s and 1980s: The UFO Issue Refuses To Die

The Condon report did not satisfy many UFOlogists, who considered it a coverup for CIA activities in UFO research. Additional sightings in the early 1970s fueled beliefs that the CIA was somehow involved in a vast conspiracy. On 7 June 1975, William Spaulding, head of a small UFO group, Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), wrote to CIA requesting a copy of the Robertson panel report and all records relating to UFOs. (81) Spaulding was convinced that the Agency was withholding major files on UFOs. Agency officials provided Spaulding with a copy of the Robertson panel report and of the Durant report. (82)

On 14 July 1975, Spaulding again wrote the Agency questioning the authenticity of the reports he had received and alleging a CIA coverup of its UFO activities. Gene Wilson, CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, replied in an attempt to satisfy Spaulding, “At no time prior to the formation of the Robertson Panel and subsequent to the issuance of the panel’s report has CIA engaged in the study of the UFO phenomena.” The Robertson panel report, according to Wilson, was “the summation of Agency interest and involvement in UFOs.” Wilson also inferred that there were no additional documents in CIA’s possession that related to UFOs. Wilson was ill informed. (83)

In September 1977, Spaulding and GSW, unconvinced by Wilson’s response, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Agency that specifically requested all UFO documents in CIA’s possession. Deluged by similar FOIA requests for Agency information on UFOs, CIA officials agreed, after much legal maneuvering, to conduct a “reasonable search” of CIA files for UFO materials. (84) Despite an Agency-wide unsympathetic attitude toward the suit, Agency officials, led by Launie Ziebell from the Office of General Counsel, conducted a thorough search for records pertaining to UFOs. Persistent, demanding, and even threatening at times, Ziebell and his group scoured the Agency. They even turned up an old UFO file under a secretary’s desk. The search finally produced 355 documents totaling approximately 900 pages. On 14 December 1978, the Agency released all but 57 documents of about 100 pages to GSW. It withheld these 57 documents on national security grounds and to protect sources and methods. (85)

Although the released documents produced no smoking gun and revealed only a low-level Agency interest in the UFO phenomena after the Robertson panel report of 1953, the press treated the release in a sensational manner. The New York Times, for example, claimed that the declassified documents confirmed intensive government concern over UFOs and that the Agency was secretly involved in the surveillance of UFOs. (86) GSW then sued for the release of the withheld documents, claiming that the Agency was still holding out key information. (87) It was much like the John F. Kennedy assassination issue. No matter how much material the Agency released and no matter how dull and prosaic the information, people continued to believe in a Agency coverup and conspiracy.

DCI Stansfield Turner was so upset when he read The New York Times article that he asked his senior officers, “Are we in UFOs?” After reviewing the records, Don Wortman, Deputy Director for Administration, reported to Turner that there was “no organized Agency effort to do research in connection with UFO phenomena nor has there been an organized effort to collect intelligence on UFOs since the 1950s.” Wortman assured Turner that the Agency records held only “sporadic instances of correspondence dealing with the subject,” including various kinds of reports of UFO sightings. There was no Agency program to collect actively information on UFOs, and the material released to GSW had few deletions. (88) Thus assured, Turner had the General Counsel press for a summary judgment against the new lawsuit by GSW. In May 1980, the courts dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Agency had conducted a thorough and adequate search in good faith. (89)

During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Agency continued its low-key interest in UFOs and UFO sightings. While most scientists now dismissed flying saucers reports as a quaint part of the 1950s and 1960s, some in the Agency and in the Intelligence Community shifted their interest to studying parapsychology and psychic phenomena associated with UFO sightings. CIA officials also looked at the UFO problem to determine what UFO sightings might tell them about Soviet progress in rockets and missiles and reviewed its counterintelligence aspects. Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings.

CIA also maintained Intelligence Community coordination with other agencies regarding their work in parapsychology, psychic phenomena, and “remote viewing” experiments. In general, the Agency took a conservative scientific view of these unconventional scientific issues. There was no formal or official UFO project within the Agency in the 1980s, and Agency officials purposely kept files on UFOs to a minimum to avoid creating records that might mislead the public if released. (90)

The 1980s also produced renewed charges that the Agency was still withholding documents relating to the 1947 Roswell incident, in which a flying saucer supposedly crashed in New Mexico, and the surfacing of documents which purportedly revealed the existence of a top secret US research and development intelligence operation responsible only to the President on UFOs in the late 1940s and early 1950s. UFOlogists had long argued that, following a flying saucer crash in New Mexico in 1947, the government not only recovered debris from the crashed saucer but also four or five alien bodies. According to some UFOlogists, the government clamped tight security around the project and has refused to divulge its investigation results and research ever since. (91) In September 1994, the US Air Force released a new report on the Roswell incident that concluded that the debris found in New Mexico in 1947 probably came from a once top secret balloon operation, Project MOGUL, designed to monitor the atmosphere for evidence of Soviet nuclear tests. (92)

Circa 1984, a series of documents surfaced which some UFOlogists said proved that President Truman created a top secret committee in 1947, Majestic-12, to secure the recovery of UFO wreckage from Roswell and any other UFO crash sight for scientific study and to examine any alien bodies recovered from such sites. Most if not all of these documents have proved to be fabrications. Yet the controversy persists. (93)

Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.

Notes

(1) See the 1973 Gallup Poll results printed in The New York Times, 29 November 1973, p. 45 and Philip J. Klass, UFOs: The Public Deceived (New York: Prometheus Books, 1983), p. 3.

(2) See Klass, UFOs, p. 3; James S. Gordon, “The UFO Experience,” Atlantic Monthly (August 1991), pp. 82-92; David Michael Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); Howard Blum, Out There: The Government’s Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990); Timothy Good, Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up (New York: William Morrow, 1987); and Whitley Strieber, Communion: The True Story (New York: Morrow, 1987).

(3) In September 1993 John Peterson, an acquaintance of Woolsey’s, first approached the DCI with a package of heavily sanitized CIA material on UFOs released to UFOlogist Stanton T. Friedman. Peterson and Friedman wanted to know the reasons for the redactions. Woolsey agreed to look into the matter. See Richard J. Warshaw, Executive Assistant, note to author, 1 November 1994; Warshaw, note to John H. Wright, Information and Privacy Coordinator, 31 January 1994; and Wright, memorandum to Executive Secretariat, 2 March 1994. (Except where noted, all citations to CIA records in this article are to the records collected for the 1994 Agency-wide search that are held by the Executive Assistant to the DCI).

(4) See Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Vol. 10, No. 4, Studies in Intelligence (fall 1966): pp.95-110 and CIA, unsigned memorandum, “Flying Saucers,” 14 August 1952. See also Good, Above Top Secret, p. 253. During World War II, US pilots reported “foo fighters” (bright lights trailing US aircraft). Fearing they might be Japanese or German secret weapons, OSS investigated but could find no concrete evidence of enemy weapons and often filed such reports in the “crackpot” category. The OSS also investigated possible sightings of German V-1 and V-2 rockets before their operational use during the war. See Jacobs, UFO Controversy, p. 33. The Central Intelligence Group, the predecessor of the CIA, also monitored reports of “ghost rockets” in Sweden in 1946. See CIG, Intelligence Report, 9 April 1947.

(5) Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 156 and Quintanilla, “The Investigation of UFOs,” p. 97.

(6) See US Air Force, Air Material Command, “Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project SIGN, no. F-TR 2274, IA, February 1949, Records of the US Air Force Commands, Activities and Organizations, Record Group 341, National Archives, Washington, DC.

(7) See US Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUEBOOK Reports 1- 12 (Washington, DC; National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1968) and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 50-54.

(8) See Cabell, memorandum to Commanding Generals Major Air Commands, “Reporting of Information on Unconventional Aircraft,” 8 September 1950 and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 65.

(9) See Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUE BOOK and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 67.

(10) See Edward Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assistant Director, SI, “Flying Saucers,” 1 August 1952. See also United Kingdom, Report by the “Flying Saucer” Working Party, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” no date (approximately 1950).

(11) See Dr. Stone, OSI, memorandum to Dr. Willard Machle, OSI, 15 March 1949 and Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum for DDI, “Recent Sightings of Unexplained Objects,” 29 July 1952.

(12) Stone, memorandum to Machle. See also Clark, memorandum for DDI, 29 July 1952.

(13) See Klass, UFOs, p. 15. For a brief review of the Washington sightings see Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 269-271.

(14) See Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum to DDI Robert Amory, Jr., 29 July 1952. OSI and OCI were in the Directorate of Intelligence. Established in 1948, OSI served as the CIA’s focal point for the analysis of foreign scientific and technological developments. In 1980, OSI was merged into the Office of Science and Weapons Research. The Office of Current Intelligence (OCI), established on 15 January 1951 was to provide all-source current intelligence to the President and the National Security Council.

(15) Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assistant Director, SI (Philip Strong), 1 August 1952.

(16) On 2 January 1952, DCI Walter Bedell Smith created a Deputy Directorate for Intelligence (DDI) composed of six overt CIA organizations–OSI, OCI, Office of Collection and Dissemination, Office National Estimates, Office of Research and Reports, and the Office of Intelligence Coordination–to produce intelligence analysis for US policymakers.

(17) See Minutes of Branch Chief’s Meeting, 11 August 1952.

(18) Smith expressed his opinions at a meeting in the DCI Conference Room attended by his top officers. See Deputy Chief, Requirements Staff, FI, memorandum for Deputy Director, Plans, “Flying Saucers,” 20 August 1952, Directorate of Operations Records, Information Management Staff, Job 86-00538R, Box 1.

(19) See CIA memorandum, unsigned, “Flying Saucers,” 11 August 1952.

(20) See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, “Flying Saucers,” 14 August 1952.

(21) See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, “Flying Saucers,” 19 August 1952.

(22) See Chadwell, memorandum for Smith, 17 September 1952 and 24 September 1952, “Flying Saucers.” See also Chadwell, memorandum for DCI Smith, 2 October 1952 and Klass, UFOs, pp. 23-26.

(23) Chadwell, memorandum for DCI with attachments, 2 December 1952. See also Klass,UFOs, pp. 26-27 and Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952.

(24) See Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952 and Chadwell, memorandum, “Approval in Principle – External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects,” no date. See also Philip G. Strong, OSI, memorandum for the record, “Meeting with Dr. Julius A. Stratton, Executive Vice President and Provost, MIT and Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS.” Strong believed that in order to undertake such a review they would need the full backing and support of DCI Smith.

(25) See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, “”Unidentified Flying Objects,” 2 December 1952. See also Chadwell, memorandum for Amory, DDI, “Approval in Principle – External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects,” no date.

(26) The IAC was created in 1947 to serve as a coordinating body in establishing intelligence requirements. Chaired by the DCI, the IAC included representatives from the Department of State, the Army, the Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the FBI, and the AEC.

(27) See Klass, UFOs, p. 27.

(28) See Richard D. Drain, Acting Secretary, IAC, “Minutes of Meeting held in Director’s Conference Room, Administration Building, CIA,” 4 December 1952.

(29) See Chadwell, memorandum for the record, “British Activity in the Field of UFOs,” 18 December 1952.

(30) See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, “Consultants for Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects,” 9 January 1953; Curtis Peebles, Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994). pp. 73-90; and Jacobs,The UFO Controversy, pp. 91-92.

(31) See Fred C. Durant III, Report on the Robertson Panel Meeting, January 1953. Durant, on contract with OSI and a past president of the American Rocket Society, attended the Robertson panel meetings and wrote a summary of the proceedings.

(32) See Report of the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects (the Robertson Report), 17 January 1953 and the Durant report on the panel discussions.

(33) See Robertson Report and Durant Report. See also Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 337-38, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 95, and Klass, UFO’s, pp. 28-29.

(34) See Reber, memorandum to IAC, 18 February 1953.

(35) See Chadwell, memorandum for DDI, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 10 February 1953; Chadwell, letter to Robertson, 28 January 1953; and Reber, memorandum for IAC, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 18 February 1953. On briefing the ONE, see Durant, memorandum for the record, “Briefing of ONE Board on Unidentified Flying Objects,” 30 January 1953 and CIA Summary disseminated to the field, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 6 February 1953.

(36) See Chadwell, letter to Julius A. Stratton, Provost MIT, 27 January 1953.

(37) See Chadwell, memorandum for Chief, Physics and Electronics Division/OSI (Todos M. Odarenko), “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 27 May 1953.

(38) See Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 3 July 1953. See also Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, “Current Status of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) Project,” 17 December 1953.

(39) See Odarenko, memorandum, “Unidentified Flying Objects,” 8 August 1955.

(40) See FBIS, report, “Military Unconventional Aircraft,” 18 August 1953 and various reports, “Military-Air, Unconventional Aircraft,” 1953, 1954, 1955.

(41) Developed by the Canadian affiliate of Britain’s A. V. Roe, Ltd., Project Y did produce a small-scale model that hovered a few feet off the ground. See Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, “Flying Saucer Type of Planes” 25 May 1954; Frederic C. E. Oder, memorandum to Odarenko, “USAF Project Y,” 21 May 1954; and Odarenko, T. M. Nordbeck, Ops/SI, and Sidney Graybeal, ASD/SI, memorandum for the record, “Intelligence Responsibilities for Non-Conventional Types of Air Vehicles,” 14 June 1954.

(42) See Reuben Efron, memorandum, “Observation of Flying Object Near Baku,” 13 October 1955; Scoville, memorandum for the record, “Interview with Senator Richard B. Russell,” 27 October 1955; and Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for information, “Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft,” 19 October 1955.

(43) See Lexow, memorandum for information, “Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft,” 19 October 1955. See also Frank C. Bolser, memorandum for George C. Miller, Deputy Chief, SAD/SI, “Possible Soviet Flying Saucers, Check On;” Lexow, memorandum, “Possible Soviet Flying Saucers, Follow Up On,” 17 December 1954; Lexow, memorandum, “Possible Soviet Flying Saucers,” 1 December 1954; and A. H. Sullivan, Jr., memorandum, “Possible Soviet Flying Saucers,” 24 November 1954.

(44) See Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974 (Washington, DC: CIA History Staff, 1992), pp. 72-73.

(45) See Pedlow and Welzenbach, Overhead Reconnaissance, pp. 72-73. This also was confirmed in a telephone interview between the author and John Parongosky, 26 July 1994. Parongosky oversaw the day-to-day affairs of the OXCART program.

(46) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 135.

(47) See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 128-146; Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Doubleday, 1956); Keyhoe, The Flying Saucer Conspiracy (New York: Holt, 1955); and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 347-49.

(48) See Strong, letter to Lloyd W. Berkner; Strong, letter to Thorton Page; Strong, letter to Robertson; Strong, letter to Samuel Goudsmit; Strong, letter to Luis Alvarez, 20 December 1957; and Strong, memorandum for Major James F. Byrne, Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence Department of the Air Force, “Declassification of the `Report of the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects,'” 20 December 1957. See also Berkner, letter to Strong, 20 November 1957 and Page, letter to Strong, 4 December 1957. The panel members were also reluctant to have their association with the Agency released.

(49) See Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for the record, “Comments on Letters Dealing with Unidentified Flying Objects,” 4 April 1958; J. S. Earman, letter to Major Lawrence J. Tacker, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Information Service, 4 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Davidson, 18 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Strong, 21 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Tacker, 27 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Allen Dulles, 27 April 1958; Ruppelt, letter to Davidson, 7 May 1958; Strong, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Earman, 16 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Goudsmit, 18 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Page, 18 May 1958; and Tacker, letter to Davidson, 20 May 1958.

(50) See Lexow, memorandum for Chapin, 28 July 1958.

(51) See Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 346-47; Lexow, memorandum for the record, “Meeting with the Air Force Personnel Concerning Scientific Advisory Panel Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, dated 17 January 1953 (S),” 16 May 1958. See also La Rae L. Teel, Deputy Division Chief, ASD, memorandum for the record, “Meeting with Mr. Chapin on Replying to Leon Davidson’s UFO Letter and Subsequent Telephone Conversation with Major Thacker, [sic]” 22 May 1958.

(52) See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division (Scientific), memorandum to Chief, Chicago Office, “Radio Code Recording,” 4 March 1955 and Ashcraft, memorandum to Chief, Support Branch, OSI, 17 March 1955.

(53) The Contact Division was created to collect foreign intelligence information from sources within the United States. See the Directorate of Intelligence Historical Series, The Origin and Development of Contact Division, 11 July 1946­1 July 1965 (Washington, DC; CIA Historical Staff, June 1969).

(54) See George O. Forrest, Chief, Chicago Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division for Science, 11 March 1955.

(55) See Support Division (Connell), memorandum to Dewelt E. Walker, 25 April 1957.

(56) See J. Arnold Shaw, Assistant to the Director, letter to Davidson, 10 May 1957.

(57) See Support (Connell) memorandum to Lt. Col. V. Skakich, 27 August 1957 and Lamountain, memorandum to Support (Connell), 20 December 1957.

(58) See Lamountain, cable to Support (Connell), 31 July 1958.

(59) See Support (Connell) cable to Skakich, 3 October 1957 and Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 October 1957.

(60) See Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 October 1957.

(61) See R. P. B. Lohmann, memorandum for Chief, Contact Division, DO, 9 January 1958.

(62) See Support, cable to Skakich, 20 February 1958 and Connell (Support) cable to Lamountain, 19 December 1957.

(63) See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division, Office of Operations, memorandum for Austin Bricker, Jr., Assistant to the Director, “Inquiry by Major Donald E. Keyhoe on John Hazen’s Association with the Agency,” 22 January 1959.

(64) See John T. Hazen, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, 12 December 1957. See also Ashcraft, memorandum to Cleveland Resident Agent, “Ralph E. Mayher,” 20 December 1957. According to this memorandum, the photographs were viewed at “a high level and returned to us without comment.” The Air Force held the original negatives. The CIA records were probably destroyed.

(65) The issue would resurface in the 1970s with the GSW FOIA court case.

(66) See Robert Amory, Jr., DDI, memorandum for Assistant Director/Scientific Intelligence, “Flying Saucers,” 26 March 1956. See also Wallace R. Lamphire, Office of the Director, Planning and Coordination Staff, memorandum for Richard M. Bissell, Jr., “Unidentified Flying Saucers (UFO),” 11 June 1957; Philip Strong, memorandum for the Director, NPIC, “Reported Photography of Unidentified Flying Objects,” 27 October 1958; Scoville, memorandum to Lawrence Houston, Legislative Counsel, “Reply to Honorable Joseph E. Garth,” 12 July 1961; and Houston, letter to Garth, 13 July 1961.

(67) See, for example, Davidson, letter to Congressman Joseph Garth, 26 June 1961 and Carl Vinson, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, letter to Rep. Robert A. Everett, 2 September 1964.

(68) See Maxwell W. Hunter, staff member, National Aeronautics and Space Council, Executive Office of the President, memorandum for Robert F. Parkard, Office of International Scientific Affairs, Department of State, “Thoughts on the Space Alien Race Question,” 18 July 1963, File SP 16, Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, National Archives. See also F. J. Sheridan, Chief, Washington Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, “National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP),” 25 January 1965.

(69) Chamberlain, memorandum for DCI, “Evaluation of UFOs,” 26 January 1965.

(70) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 199 and US Air Force, Scientific Advisory Board, Ad Hoc Committee (O’Brien Committee) to Review Project BLUE BOOK, Special Report(Washington, DC: 1966). See also The New York Times, 14 August 1966, p. 70.

(71) See “Congress Reassured on Space Visits,” The New York Times, 6 April 1966.

(72) Weber, letter to Col. Gerald E. Jorgensen, Chief, Community Relations Division, Office of Information, US Air Force, 15 August 1966. The Durant report was a detailed summary of the Robertson panel proceedings.

(73) See John Lear, “The Disputed CIA Document on UFOs,” Saturday Review (September 3, 1966), p. 45. The Lear article was otherwise unsympathetic to UFO sightings and the possibility that extraterritorials were involved. The Air Force had been eager to provide Lear with the full report. See Walter L. Mackey, Executive Officer, memorandum for DCI, “Air Force Request to Declassify CIA Material on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO),” 1 September 1966.

(74) See Klass, UFOs, p. 40, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 214 and Everet Clark, “Physicist Scores `Saucer Status,'” The New York Times, 21 October 1966. See also James E. McDonald, “Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects,” submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 29 July 1968.

(75) Condon is quoted in Walter Sullivan, “3 Aides Selected in Saucer Inquiry,” The New York Times, 8 October 1966. See also “An Outspoken Scientist, Edward Uhler Condon,” The New York Times, 8 October 1966. Condon, an outgoing, gruff scientist, had earlier become embroiled in a controversy with the House Unamerican Activities Committee that claimed Condon was “one of the weakest links in our atomic security.” See also Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 169-195.

(76) See Lundahl, memorandum for DDI, 7 February 1967.

(77) See memorandum for the record, “Visit of Dr. Condon to NPIC, 20 February 1967,” 23 February 1967. See also the analysis of the photographs in memorandum for Lundahl, “Photo Analysis of UFO Photography,” 17 February 1967.

(78) See memorandum for the record, “UFO Briefing for Dr. Edward Condon, 5 May 1967,” 8 May 1967 and attached “Guidelines to UFO Photographers and UFO Photographic Information Sheet.” See also Condon Committee, Press Release, 1 May 1967 and Klass,UFOs, p. 41. The Zaneville photographs turned out to be a hoax.

(79) See Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Bantam Books, 1969) and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The report contained the Durant report with only minor deletions.

(80) See Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, News Release, “Air Force to Terminate Project BLUEBOOK,” 17 December 1969. The Air Force retired BLUEBOOK records to the USAF Archives at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. In 1976 the Air Force turned over all BLUEBOOK files to the National Archives and Records Administration, which made them available to the public without major restrictions. Some names have been withheld from the documents. See Klass, UFOs, p. 6.

(81) GSW was a small group of UFO buffs based in Phoenix, Arizona, and headed by William H. Spaulding.

(82) See Klass, UFOs, p. 8.

(83) See Wilson, letter to Spaulding, 26 March 1976 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859.

(84) GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859, p. 2.

(85) Author interview with Launie Ziebell, 23 June 1994 and author interview with OSI analyst, 21 July 1994. See also affidavits of George Owens, CIA Information and Privacy Act Coordinator; Karl H. Weber, OSI; Sidney D. Stembridge, Office of Security; and Rutledge P. Hazzard, DS&T; GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859 and Sayre Stevens, Deputy Director for National Foreign Assessment, memorandum for Thomas H. White, Assistant for Information, Information Review Committee, “FOIA Litigation Ground Saucer Watch,” no date.

(86) See “CIA Papers Detail UFO Surveillance,” The New York Times, 13 January 1979; Patrick Huyghe, “UFO Files: The Untold Story,” The New York Times Magazine, 14 October 1979, p. 106; and Jerome Clark, “UFO Update,” UFO Report, August 1979.

(87) Jerome Clark, “Latest UFO News Briefs From Around the World,” UFO Update, August 1979 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action No. 78-859.

(88) See Wortman, memorandum for DCI Turner, “Your Question, `Are we in UFOs?’ Annotated to The New York Times News Release Article,” 18 January 1979.

(89) See GSW v. CIA Civil Action 78-859. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 10-12.

(90) See John Brennan, memorandum for Richard Warshaw, Executive Assistant, DCI, “Requested Information on UFOs,” 30 September 1993; Author interviews with OSWR analyst, 14 June 1994 and OSI analyst, 21 July 1994. This author found almost no documentation on Agency involvement with UFOs in the 1980s.

There is a DIA Psychic Center and the NSA studies parapsychology, that branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of such psychic phenomena as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, and telepathy. The CIA reportedly is also a member of an Incident Response Team to investigate UFO landings, if one should occur. This team has never met. The lack of solid CIA documentation on Agency UFO-related activities in the 1980s leaves the entire issue somewhat murky for this period.

Much of the UFO literature presently focuses on contactees and abductees. See John E. Mack, Abduction, Human Encounters with Aliens (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1994) and Howard Blum, Out There (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).

(91) See Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore, The Roswell Incident (New York: Berkeley Books, 1988); Moore, “The Roswell Incident: New Evidence in the Search for a Crashed UFO,” (Burbank, California: Fair Witness Project, 1982), Publication Number 1201; and Klass,UFOs, pp. 280-281. In 1994 Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-NM) called for an official study of the Roswell incident. The GAO is conducting a separate investigation of the incident. The CIA is not involved in the investigation. See Klass, UFOs, pp. 279-281; John H. Wright, Information and Privacy Coordinator, letter to Derek Skreen, 20 September 1993; and OSWR analyst interview. See also the made-for-TV film, Roswell, which appeared on cable TV on 31 July 1994 and Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 245-251.

(92) See John Diamond, “Air Force Probes 1947 UFO Claim Findings Are Down to Earth,” 9 September 1994, Associated Press release; William J. Broad, “Wreckage of a `Spaceship’: Of This Earth (and U.S.),” The New York Times, 18 September 1994, p. 1; and USAF Col. Richard L. Weaver and 1st Lt. James McAndrew, The Roswell Report, Fact Versus Fiction in New Mexico Desert (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995).

(93) See Good, Above Top Secret; Moore and S. T. Friedman, “Philip Klass and MJ-12: What are the Facts,” (Burbank California: Fair-Witness Project, 1988), Publication Number 1290; Klass, “New Evidence of MJ-12 Hoax,” Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 14 (Winter 1990); and Moore and Jaime H. Shandera, The MJ-12 Documents: An Analytical Report (Burbank, California: Fair-Witness Project, 1990), Publication Number 1500. Walter Bedell Smith supposedly replaced Forrestal on 1 August 1950 following Forrestal’s death. All members listed were deceased when the MJ-12 “documents” surfaced in 1984. See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 258-268.

Dr. Larry Bland, editor of The George C. Marshall Papers, discovered that one of the so-called Majestic-12 documents was a complete fraud. It contained the exact same language as a letter from Marshall to Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey regarding the “Magic” intercepts in 1944. The dates and names had been altered and “Magic” changed to “Majic.” Moreover, it was a photocopy, not an original. No original MJ-12 documents have ever surfaced. Telephone conversation between the author and Bland, 29 August 1994.

Gerald K. Haines is the National Reconnaissance Office historian.

Original Source: CIA

The post CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Many of the files are broken into different parts, for easier downloading.  Simply click on the “File #1” links to download each file segment.

Document Archive

Adamski, George – [286 Pages, 193.5MB] – George Adamski (17 April 1891 – 23 April 1965) was a Polish American citizen who became widely known in ufology circles, and to some degree in popular culture, after he claimed to have photographed spaceships from other planets, met with friendly Nordic alien Space Brothers, and to have taken flights with them to the Moon and other planets. He was the first, and most famous, of the so-called contactees of the 1950s. Adamski called himself a “philosopher, teacher, student and saucer researcher”, although most investigators concluded his claims were an elaborate hoax, and that Adamski himself was a con artist. Adamski authored three books describing his meetings with Nordic aliens and his travels with them aboard their spaceships: Flying Saucers Have Landed (co-written with Desmond Leslie) in 1953, Inside the Space Ships in 1955, and Flying Saucers Farewell in 1961. The first two books were both bestsellers; by 1960 they had sold a combined 200,000 copies.

The Aetherius Society – [48 Pages, 44MB] – The Aetherius Society is a new religious movement founded by George King in the mid-1950s as the result of what King claimed were contacts with extraterrestrial intelligences, to whom he referred as “Cosmic Masters”. The main goal of the believer is to cooperate with these Cosmic Masters to help humanity solve its current Earthly problems and advance into the New Age.

Aho, Wayne – [114 Pages, 80MB] – Wayne Sulo Aho (24 August 1916 – 16 January 2006) was an American contactee who claimed contact with extraterrestrial beings. He was one of the more obscure members of the 1950s wave of contactees who followed George Adamski. Aho and fellow 1957 contactee Reinhold O. Schmidt went on the lecture circuit together in California, and their double-header lectures continued until Schmidt was arrested for and convicted of grand theft. Aho’s presentations tended to emphasize his military service in World War II, and spent very little time on “spiritual revelations” he had received from the Space Brothers, either directly or through later sessions with a spirit medium. Aho tended to refer to himself as “Major W. S. Aho,” inviting confusion with Major Donald E. Keyhoe, a UFO researcher and writer who thought UFOs were real, but held contactees in low regard. Aho soon fell under the spell of another one-time Adamski follower, Otis T. Carr. Carr claimed to have built a full-size flying saucer operating on authentic Adamskian or Teslarian “magnetic” principles, and after a suitable amount of money had been collected from gullible elderly attendees at the lectures of Aho and Carr, they announced the Carr saucer, piloted by Carr and Aho, would take off from a fairground in front of thousands of witnesses and fly to the moon, returning with incontrovertible proof of the trip. Criminal charges against both Aho and Carr resulted from the inevitable public fiasco, but Aho was judged to be an innocent dupe.

Angelucci, Orfeo – [2 Pages, 1MB] – Records Destroyed in 2009 – Orfeo Matthew Angelucci (Orville Angelucci) (June 25, 1912 – July 24, 1993) was one of the most unusual of the mid-1950s so-called “contactees” who claimed to be in contact with extraterrestrials. Beginning in summer 1952, according to Angelucci in his book The Secret of the Saucers (1955), he began to encounter flying saucers and their friendly human-appearing pilots during his drives home from the aircraft plant. These superhuman space people were handsome, often transparent and highly spiritual. Eventually Angelucci was taken in an unmanned saucer to earth orbit, where he saw a giant “mother ship” drift past a porthole. He also described having experienced a “missing time” episode and eventually remembered living for a week in the body of “space brother” Neptune, in a more evolved society on “the largest asteroid”, the remains of a destroyed planet, while his usual body wandered around the aircraft plant in a daze. In his later book, The Son of the Sun, Angelucci related an account that he claimed had been told to him by a medical doctor calling himself Adam, whose experiences were similar to his own. He also published several pamphlets on space-brotherly themes, such as “Million Year Prophecy” (1959), “Concrete Evidence” (1959) and “Again We Exist” (1960).

Animal & Cattle Mutilations – This is a direct link to FBI files related to animal and cattle mutilations.

Ballard, Edna – [769 Pages, 50MB] – Edna Anne Wheeler Ballard, also known as Lotus Ray King (June 25, 1886 – February 10, 1971), was an American occultist who co-founded the Saint Germain Foundation and served a co-leader of the I AM Movement with her husband, Guy Ballard. In 1944, Ballard and her son, Donald Ballard, were charged with mail fraud and their court case would eventually be ruled by the US Supreme Court as United States v. Ballard. Ballard’s work with the I AM Movement is considered a predecessor to the current new age movement.

Ballard, Guy – Release #1 – [768 Pages, 400MB]  Ballard, Guy – Release #2 – [251 Pages, 9MB] – Guy Warren Ballard (July 28, 1878 – December 29, 1939) was an American mining engineer who became, with his wife, Edna Anne Wheeler Ballard, the founder of the “I AM” Activity. Ballard was born in Newton, Kansas and married his wife in Chicago in 1916. Ballard served in the U.S. Army in World War I, and then became a mining engineer. Both Edna and Guy studied Theosophy and the occult extensively.

Bell, Art (Arthur) – Arthur William Bell III (June 17, 1945 – April 13, 2018) was an American broadcaster and author. He was the founder and the original host of the paranormal-themed radio program Coast to Coast AM, which is syndicated on hundreds of radio stations in the United States and Canada. He also created and hosted its companion show Dreamland. Coast to Coast still airs nightly.

Bethurum, Truman – [17 Pages, 10MB] – Truman Bethurum (August 21, 1898 – May 21, 1969) was one of the well known 1950s UFO or alien “contactees”- individuals who claimed to have spoken with people from other inhabited planets and entered or ridden in their spacecraft. Bethurum was born in Gavilin, California, and in the early 1950s worked as a truck driver and a mechanic on a desert road-building crew. He later became a self-proclaimed spiritual advisor. In 1953, Bethurum first published magazine and newspaper (Redondo Beach Daily Breeze, September 25, 1953) accounts of being contacted on eleven separate occasions beginning in July, 1952 by the humanoid crew of a landed space ship in the Mojave Desert, and repeatedly conversing with its beautiful and voluptuous female captain, Aura Rhanes. The saucer and its crew, who spoke colloquial English, came from the unknown planet Clarion, which was allegedly on the other side of our Sun and thus could not be seen from the Earth. Bethurum’s 1954 book, Aboard a Flying Saucer, gave many details of his suffering at the hands of skeptics and a great deal of information about Captain Rhanes, Clarion and its people.

The Borderland Sciences Research Associates aka Borderland Sciences Research Foundation – [35 Pages, 22.3MB] – According to their website, which is still around today: “Borderland Sciences Research Foundation is a California non-profit (C0254263) research and education organization, founded in 1951 by Meade Layne for the purpose of studying parapsychology and extended consciousness. It has since expanded in scope to traverse as broad a path of the grand terrain of the borderland as may be uncovered by human perceptions (and perhaps even further).”

Browne. Sylvia – [ 52 Pages, 32MB ] This FBI File consists of the investigation into Browne for embezzlement and bank fraud. It was determined that Brown falsified financial records to obtain more than $1,000,000 in loans, and according to the FBI, lived an “extravagent lifestyle.”  FBI file #29A-SF-9888 – [ 139 Pages, 116.8MB ] – While reading the above file, I noticed a reference to FBI File #29A-SF-9888 which is the investigation involving Sylvia Browne and her loan partner. This is the first (of multiple) releases of the declassified files.  FBI file #29A-SF-9888 – Release #2 – [102 Pages, 68.6MB] – Here is the second release of the above FBI file.  FBI file #29A-SF-9888 – Release #3 – [10 Pages, 1.8MB] – Here is the third release of the above FBI file.

Bushman, Boyd – (FOIA Response Letter) [ 37 Pages, 19.9MB ]  Bushman, Boyd FBI Release #2 [ 14 Pages, 2.2MB ] In 2014, a video surfaced with Boyd Bushman, a retired Lockheed Martin Senior Scientist, with alleged photos of aliens. The video had a description that stated, “Shortly before Boyd Bushman passed away on August 7, 2014, he was video recorded candidly speaking about his personal experiences with Area 51, UFOs, aliens and anti-gravity ideas. Boyd was a retired Senior Scientist for Lockheed Martin. His career spanned over forty years, was awarded many patents, and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin.” Although the video is highly disputed, and the “alien” appears to be an exact prop that can be purchased at Walmart, I went after the FBI file of Mr. Bushman. This is what I found.

Carr, Otis T. – [64 Pages, 5.3MB] – Otis T. Carr (December 7, 1904 – September 20, 1982) first emerged into the 1950s flying saucer scene in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1955 when he founded OTC Enterprises, a company that was supposed to advance and apply technology originally suggested by Nikola Tesla. Carr patented a flying saucer, and asserted he was working on a full-size version that could fly to the Moon and return in less than a day, using two counter-rotating metal plates, spinning electromagnets and large capacitors, which when spinning charged and powered by a battery, which became “activated by the energy of space.” Carr’s scheme resembles slightly earlier proposals by John R. R. Searl and Thomas Townsend Brown. Carr also claimed to have invented “The Gravity Electric Generator”, “The Utron Electric battery”, “The Carrotto Gravity Motor”, and “The Photon Gun”.

Condon, Edward Uhler [ File #1 (312MB) | File #2 (0.1MB) | File #3 (0.1MB) | File #4 (177MB) ]- [ 1,777 Pages ] – Edward Uhler Condon (March 2, 1902 – March 26, 1974) was a distinguished American nuclear physicist, a pioneer in quantum mechanics, and a participant in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. The Franck–Condon principle and the Slater–Condon rules are named after him.  Condon became widely known in 1968 as principal author of the Condon Report, an official review funded by the United States Air Force that concluded that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have prosaic explanations. The lunar crater Condon is named for him.  Please note: The FBI stated there MAY be additional records pertaining to Condon. I requested the remaining material, and if any exists, will post it when available. Press the “subscribe” button for this page to be notified when it’s updated.

Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #1  [333 Pages, 164MB]  Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #2  [21 Pages, 13.4MB] Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #3 – Night Vision Goggle Investigation [101 Pages, 13.4MB]  Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #4  – Despite being a different release from the above, it appears to be duplicate to “Release #3”, but it is archived here for reference 0 [101 Pages, 13.5MB] – Milton William “Bill” Cooper (May 6, 1943 – November 6, 2001) was an American conspiracy theorist, radio broadcaster, and author best known for his 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse, in which he warned of multiple global conspiracies, some involving extraterrestrial aliens. Cooper also described HIV/AIDS as a man-made disease used to target blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals, and that a cure was made before it was implemented. He has been described as a “militia theoretician”.  As Cooper moved away from the UFOlogy community and toward the militia and anti-government subculture in the late 1990s, he became convinced that he was being personally targeted by President Bill Clinton and the Internal Revenue Service. In July 1998 he was charged with tax evasion; an arrest warrant was issued, but Cooper eluded repeated attempts to serve it. In 2000, he was named a “major fugitive” by the United States Marshals Service.  On November 5, 2001, Apache County sheriff’s deputies attempted to arrest Cooper at his Eagar, Arizona home on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment stemming from disputes with local residents. After an exchange of gunfire during which Cooper shot one of the deputies in the head, Cooper was fatally shot. Federal authorities reported that Cooper had spent years evading execution of the 1998 arrest warrant, and according to a spokesman for the Marshals Service, he vowed that “he would not be taken alive”.

Edwards, Frank – FBI Release #1 –  [21 Pages, 4MB] Edwards, Frank – NARA Release #1 –  [21 Pages, 23.7MB] – Sadly, the electronic files sent to me from NARA are fairly low resolution, which may cause some issues with reading.  I am trying to get more readable copies… but until then… these are the only available.Frank Allyn Edwards (August 4, 1908 – June 23, 1967) was an American writer and broadcaster, and one of the pioneers in radio. He hosted a radio show broadcast across the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. Late in his life, he became additionally well known for a series of popular books about UFOs and other paranormal phenomena.

Extra-Sensory Perception – [40 Pages, 10MB] – ESP is considered a perception of information about events beyond what may be discerned through the five physical senses or deduced from past experience or knowledge. This release consists of cross references to ESP found in FBI files from 1957 to 1960. Several of the documents concern William Foos, a proponent of ESP. Others concern claims that ESP could be used in espionage investigations. The FBI found no scientific support for this or other claims and did not pursue the matters raised in these references.

Finders Cult – FBI Release #1 – [373 Pages, 196MB]  Finders Cult – FBI Release #2 – [280 Pages, 120MB] – A bizarre and rarely heard about cult that allegedly deals with white slave traffic, sexual exploitation of children, and satanic rituals. It also found its way into many “Pizzagate” conspiracy theories. Not much is known, but here is a pile of hundreds of documents released on the “cult.”

Fortean Society – [169 Pages, 152.5MB] – The Fortean Society was started in the United States in 1931 during a meeting held in the New York flat of Charles Hoy Fort in order to promote the ideas of American writer Charles Fort. The Fortean Society was primarily based in New York City. Its first president was Theodore Dreiser, an old friend of Charles Fort, who had helped to get his work published. Founding members of The Fortean Society included Tiffany Thayer (see file below), Booth Tarkington, Ben Hecht, Alexander Woollcott (and many of NYC’s literati such as Dorothy Parker), and Baltimore writer H. L. Mencken. Other members included Vincent Gaddis, Ivan T. Sanderson, A. Merritt, Frank Lloyd Wright and Buckminster Fuller. The first 6 issues of the Fortean Society’s newsletter “Doubt” were each edited by a different member, starting with Theodore Dreiser. Tiffany Thayer thereafter took over editorship of subsequent issues. Thayer began to assert extreme control over the society, largely filling the newsletter with articles written by himself, and excommunicating the entire San Francisco chapter, reportedly their most active, after disagreements over the society’s direction, and forbidding them to use the name Fortean. During World War II, for example, Thayer used every issue of “Doubt” to espouse his politics. Particularly, he frequently expressed opposition to Civil Defense, going to such lengths as encouraging readers to turn on their lights in defiance to air raid sirens. In contrast to the spirit of Charles Fort, he not only dismissed flying saucers as nonsense, but also dismissed the atomic bomb as a hoax.

Friedman, Stanton – FBI Release #1 – [63 Pages, 34.3MB]  Friedman, Stanton – FBI Release #2 – [9 Pages, 1MB] – Stanton Terry Friedman (July 29, 1934 – May 13, 2019) was a nuclear physicist and professional ufologist who resided in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. He was an early civilian investigator of the Roswell UFO incident. He worked on research and development projects for several large companies.

Friend, Robert – [4 Pages, 2.5MB] – Lieutenant Colonel Robert Jones Friend (1920–2019) was a Tuskegee airman in WW2 and led the USAF’s Project Blue Book from 1958 to 1963. He also served during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He had a 28 year military career. Note: All files on Friend were either lost or destroyed.

The Galileo Project – [9 Pages, 8MB] – The Galileo Project at Harvard University represents a pioneering scientific initiative aimed at systematically studying unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and interstellar objects visiting our solar system. Launched in July 2021 by Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, the project is named after the renowned astronomer Galileo Galilei and seeks to bring the rigor of empirical science to understanding these mysterious phenomena. Utilizing a network of telescopes, cameras, and computer algorithms, the project intends to capture high-resolution images and data of UAPs to analyze their properties and origins scientifically. Distinct from speculative theories or anecdotal reports, the Galileo Project aspires to answer questions about these phenomena through a transparent and verifiable scientific process, contributing potentially groundbreaking insights into astrophysics and extraterrestrial technologies.

Heaven’s Gate Cult – [382 Pages, 283MB] Heaven’s Gate was an American UFO religious Millenarian group based in San Diego, California, founded in the early 1970s and led by Marshall Applewhite (1931–1997) and Bonnie Nettles (1927–1985). On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39 members of the group who had committed mass suicide in order to reach what they believed was an alien space craft following Comet Hale–Bopp.

Hottel, Guy – [2 Pages] Guy Hottel was a special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The information concerning Mr. Hottel is in regard to a March 22, 1950 memo he sent to the FBI Director concerning flying saucers.  This has been one of the FBI’s most downloaded document from their website, once they finally added it to the archive.

Hynek, J. Allen – [24 Pages, 1.42MB] – Dr. Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was a United States astronomer, professor, and ufologist. He is perhaps best remembered for his UFO research. Hynek acted as scientific adviser to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force under three consecutive names: Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book. For decades afterwards, he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the Close Encounter classification system, and is widely considered the father of the concept of scientific analysis of both reports and, especially, trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.

Keyhoe, Donald – [13 Pages, 6MB] – Donald Edward Keyhoe (June 20, 1897 – November 29, 1988) was an American Marine Corps naval aviator, writer of many aviation articles and stories in a variety of leading publications, and manager of the promotional tours of aviation pioneers, especially of Charles Lindbergh. In the 1950s he became well known as a UFO researcher, arguing that the U.S. government should conduct research in UFO matters, and should release all its UFO files. Jerome Clark writes that “Keyhoe was widely regarded as the leader in the field” of ufology in the 1950s and early to mid-1960s.

Klass, Phil (FBI Release) – [187 Pages, 99.7MB]  Klass, Phil (FBI Release #2 October, 2015) – [10 Pages, 0.9MB]  Klass, Phil (NCIS Release) – [14 Pages, 1MB]  Klass, Phil (AFOSI Release) – [14 Pages, 1MB]  Klass, Phil (CIA Release by way of FBI) – [5 Pages, 0.8MB]Philip Julian Klass (November 8, 1919 – August 9, 2005) was an American engineer, journalist, and UFO researcher, known for his skepticism regarding UFOs. In the ufological and skeptical communities, Klass tends to inspire strongly polarized appraisals. He has been called the “Sherlock Holmes of UFOlogy”. Klass demonstrated “the crusader’s zeal for what seems ‘right,’ regardless of whether it brings popular acclaim,” a trait he claimed his father instilled in him. “I’ve found,” said Klass, “that roughly 97, 98 percent of the people who report seeing UFOs are fundamentally intelligent, honest people who have seen something – usually at night, in darkness – that is unfamiliar, that they cannot explain.” The rest, he said, were frauds.With his work as Editor of Aviation Week magazine, Klass found himself in the middle of an investigation for publishing classified information. As chronicled in Wikipedia: For ten years, Klass worked for General Electric as an engineer in aviation electronics. Dissatisfied with his job, in 1952 he moved to Washington, DC, and joined Aviation Week, which later became Aviation Week & Space Technology.[7] He was a senior editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology for thirty-four years. Always striving to stay on the cutting edge, Klass published an “Exclusive Report on Counter Measures” in the November 18th and 25th, 1957, editions of Aviation Week. This report was referred to the FBI for the “unauthorized disclosure of information classified ‘Secret'”. An investigation into the disclosure was dropped when the US Air Force told the FBI that the disclosed information could not be declassified for purposes of prosecution.

Kurtz, Paul – [7 Pages, 0.6MB] – Paul Kurtz (December 21, 1925 – October 20, 2012) was a prominent American scientific skeptic and secular humanist. He has been called “the father of secular humanism”. He was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, having previously also taught at Vassar, Trinity, and Union colleges, and the New School for Social Research. Kurtz founded the publishing house Prometheus Books in 1969. He was also the founder and past chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry. He was editor in chief of Free Inquiry magazine, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. Kurtz published over 800 articles or reviews and authored and edited over 50 books. Many of his books have been translated into over 60 languages.

LaPaz, Dr. Lincoln – [  File #1 |  File #2 ] [  NSA Request Response for Records ] [  FBI Release – May 19, 2017 ] – Lincoln LaPaz was an American astronomer from the University of New Mexico and a pioneer in the study of meteors.  In ufology, LaPaz’s name is often associated with UFO investigations on behalf of the military during the late 1940s and early 1950s. These include the so-called Roswell UFO incident of 1947, the N.M. green fireballs, that began in late 1948 and continued through the 1950s, and the search for near-Earth orbiting satellites in 1954 along with fellow N.M. astronomer Clyde Tombaugh. However, only LaPaz’s association with the green fireball investigations for the Air Force is thoroughly documented and an undeniable historical fact. (Note: Additional pages of material on Dr. Lincoln LaPaz were released by the FBI, and a DESTROYED file number was referenced that may have contained additional pages on the man – but no one will ever know what those pages contained.)

Long John Nebel aka John Zimmerman – [8 Pages, 1.9 MB] – Long John Nebel (born John Zimmerman; June 11, 1911 – April 10, 1978) was an influential New York City talk radio show host. From the mid-1950s until his death in 1978, Nebel was a hugely popular all-night radio host, with millions of regular listeners and what Donald Bain described as “a fanatically loyal following” to his syndicated program, which dealt mainly with anomalous phenomena, UFOs, and other offbeat topics.

Mack, Dr. John E. – FBI Release #1 – [49 Pages, 12.9MB]  Mack, Dr. John E.  [4 Pages, 0.8MB] – I went after additional records other than the above release, and they said the potential records pertaining to Dr. Mack were destroyed on June 18, 2014.John Edward Mack M.D. (October 4, 1929 – September 27, 2004) was an American psychiatrist, parapsychologist, writer, and professor at Harvard Medical School. He was a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, a leading researcher and writer on alien abduction experiences, and a campaigner for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

McDonald, Dr. James E. – [113 Pages, 64.81 MB] – James Edward McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson. McDonald campaigned in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an important unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science. He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena. McDonald interviewed over 500 UFO witnesses, uncovered many important government UFO documents, and gave important presentations of UFO evidence. He testified before Congress during the UFO hearings of 1968. McDonald also gave a famous talk called “Science in Default” to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was a summary of the current UFO evidence and a critique of the 1969 Condon Report UFO study. See Also: Hemogeneous Nucleation of Vapor Condensation, 1962, Dr. James McDonald Reports

Merchant, Madeline Gwynn – FBI Release #1 – [14 Pages, 1.4MB] Merchant, Madeline Gwynn – FBI Release #2 – [14 Pages, 1.1MB] Merchant, Madeline Gwynn – NARA Release #1 – [16 Pages, 1.1MB] – Madeline Gwynne Merchant was a resident from New Mexico who wrote numerous letters regarding UFOs and her theories to multiple agencies.  The FBI did have a file on her… and what is interesting to note that in one memo to the Director of the FBI (written in 1949), it states, “This matter is considered top secret by Intelligence Officers of both the Army and the Air Forces.”

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena – [ File #1 | File #2 | File #3 ] The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, NICAP, was founded in the 1950s to research reports of UFO phenomenon. Between 1957 and 1969, NICAP and its members periodically communicated with the FBI. This release consists of this correspondence.

Newton, Silas – [78 Pages, 2.5MB]  Silas Newton (1887-1972) was a wealthy oil producer and con-man who claimed that he had a gadget that could detect minerals and oil. He was cited as an authority in Frank Scully’s book Behind the Flying Saucers, a work that claimed to report on several UFO crashes in the area of New Mexico. In 1950, Newton said that a flying saucer crashed on land he leased in the Mojave Desert; however, he revised his claim in 1952, saying he never saw a flying saucer but had only repeated comments he heard from others. These files detail the FBI’s investigations into Newton’s fraudulent activities between 1951 and 1970.

Page, Dr. Thornton Leigh – [4 Pages, 1.2MB] – Thornton Leigh Page was an American professor of astronomy at the University of Chicago and at Wesleyan University. He became embroiled in the controversy over unidentified flying objects (UFOs) after serving briefly on the Robertson Panel, a Central Intelligence Agency–sponsored committee of scientists assembled in Washington, D.C. from 14–18 January 1953 to study the available evidence on UFOs. According to the FBI, records relating to Dr. Page were destroyed.

Palmer, Raymond – FBI Release – [35 Pages, 29.5MB] Palmer, Raymond – NARA Release (FOIA Case 57555) – [33 Pages, 1.5MB] – Raymond Arthur Palmer (August 1, 1910 – August 15, 1977) was an American editor of Amazing Stories from 1938 through 1949, when he left publisher Ziff-Davis to publish and edit Fate Magazine, and eventually many other magazines and books through his own publishing houses, including Amherst Press and Palmer Publications. In addition to magazines such as Mystic, Search, and ‘Flying Saucers,” he published numerous spirtualist books, including Oahspe: A New Bible, as well as several books related to flying saucers, including “The Coming of the Saucers,” co-written by Palmer with Kenneth Arnold. Palmer was also a prolific author of science fiction and fantasy stories, many of which were published under pseudonyms.  (Note: I have requested the files possibly at the National Archives, as noted in the FBI’s letter. I will post those when/if they are released.)

Project Blue Book – [ File #1 ] – Project Blue Book Originally Project Blue Book was the Air Force name for a project that investigated UFO reports between 1947 and 1969. In 1989, an organization calling itself “The New Project Blue Book” contacted the FBI. This file consists of correspondence concerning this organization.

PSI TECH – [4 Pages, 2MB] – PSI TECH was founded in 1989 by a 4 star General and an DIA intelligence officer who ushered a top secret information collection technology currently known as TRV (Technical Remote Viewing) out of the Pentagon and into the private sector. Our first client was the Defense Department, gathering intelligence for the Gulf War. The original data acquisition protocols were developed by researchers at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) under Pentagon contract and deployed by a special Intelligence unit stationed at Fort Meade. At one time most of these officers in the military unit worked for PSI TECH as employees or contractors. Fast forward to present time – PSI TECH now operates a research and consulting firm specializing in intelligence collection for individual, corporate, and government clients who are looking to solve problems outside of what conventional information can provide. We spent over a decade refining the protocols for the financial markets and focusing on how to determine optimum outcomes of event based targets. PSI TECH employs skilled analysts who corroborate the data and compile it into actionable strategies for a variety of client problem solving and information needs.

Roswell – On July 8, 1947, the FBI Dallas Field Office sent a teletype regarding a “flying disc” that resembled a high altitude weather balloon found near Roswell, New Mexico.

Schmidt, Reinhold – [4 Pages, 1MB] – Reinhold Schmidt (1897–1974) was a 1957 UFO “contactee” in an era that began with George Adamski in 1953. He was born and grew up in Nebraska, where he worked for most of his adult life as a reputable grain buyer and dealer. He became a contactee after telling of his experience on November 5, 1957 detailed in his book Edge of Tomorrow, when while driving through a rural area near Kearney, Nebraska, he noticed a large, cigar-shaped object resting in a field. He was soon escorted inside the space ship, which turned out to be crewed by completely human-looking space aliens, four male and two female, who apparently spoke perfect German and claimed to be from the planet Saturn. “The Saturnians” also claimed to be interested in the recently launched Russian sputniks, and the satellite-launching plans of the US.

Stringfield, Leonard – [23 Pages, 12MB] – Leonard Stringfield (1920–1994) was an American ufologist who took particular interest in crashed flying saucer stories. He died in 1994. Stringfield was director of Civilian Research, Interplanetary Flying Objects (CRIFO), and published a monthly newsletter, ORBIT. In 1957 he became public relations adviser for the civilian UFO group, National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), under the direction of Donald Keyhoe, a friend since 1953. From 1967 to 1969, Stringfield served as an “Early Warning Coordinator” for the Condon Committee. During the 1970s, he wrote a number of books about alleged recoveries of alien spaceships and alien bodies.

Spontaneous Human Combustion – [114 Pages, 66.3MB] – Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is a term encompassing reported cases of the combustion of a living (or very recently deceased) human body without an apparent external source of ignition. In addition to reported cases, examples of SHC appear in literature, and both types have been observed to share common characteristics regarding circumstances and remains of the victim.

Thayer, Tiffany Ellsworth – [166 Pages, 152.5MB] – Tiffany Ellsworth Thayer (March 1, 1902 – August 23, 1959) was an American actor, author and founder of the Fortean Society.

UFO Document FBI Collection [1,600 Pages] – Unexplained Flying Objects (UFOs) In 1947, a rash of sightings of unexplained flying objects (UFOs) swept America. Although the newly formed U.S. Air Force was the primary investigator of these sightings, the FBI received many reports and worked for a time with the Air Force to investigate these matters. This release details the FBI’s role in investigating such reports between 1947 and 1954.

Williamson, George Hunt – [706 Pages, 60MB] – George Hunt Williamson (December 9, 1926 – January 1986), aka Michael d’Obrenovic and Brother Philip, was an American flying saucer contactee, channel, and metaphysical author who came to prominence in the 1950s.

Majestic-12 / MJ-12

The following FBI files were requested, which are the alleged members of MJ-12 and even the FBI’s file on MJ-12 itself.

Although some of these files may have nothing to do with UFOs or MJ-12, these are the alleged members and are archived here.

Majestic 12 –  In 1988, two FBI offices received similar versions of a memo titled “Operation Majestic-12…” claiming to be highly classified government document. The memo appeared to be a briefing for newly-elected President Eisenhower on a secret committee created to exploit a recovery of an extra-terrestrial aircraft and cover-up this work from public examination. An Air Force investigation determined the document to be a fake.

Berkner, Lloyd – [ 135 Pages, 10.43 MB ]  Berkner, Lloyd, Release #2 – [ 12 Pages, 2.4 MB ] – Lloyd Viel Berkner (February 1, 1905, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin – June 4, 1967, in Washington, D.C.) was an American physicist and engineer. He was one of the inventors of the measuring device that since has become standard at ionospheric stations because it measures the height and electron density of the ionosphere. The data obtained in the worldwide net of such instruments  were important for the developing theory of short wave radio propagation to which Berkner himself gave important contributions.Additional information was found at the FBI, that originated at the CIA.  The FBI forwarded these records to the CIA for review, and declassification, and the CIA information me that all material on Berkner is classified.  Berkner, Lloyd CIA Documents Denial Letter – [ 2 Pages, 0.5 MB ]

Bronk, Detlev – [ 248 Pages, 7.18 MB ] – Detlev Wulf Bronk (August 13, 1897 – November 17, 1975) was a prominent American scientist, educator, and administrator. He is credited with establishing biophysics as a recognized discipline. Bronk served as President of Johns Hopkins University from 1949 to 1953 and as President of the The Rockefeller University from 1953 to 1968. Bronk also held the presidency of the National Academy of Sciences between 1950 and 1962. Please note: According to the FBI, more pages exist on Bronk and are being sent to another government agency for release. Will post when available.

Bush, Vannevar – [ 241 Pages, 78.1 MB ] – Vannevar Bush (March 11, 1890 – June 28, 1974) was an American engineer, inventor and science administrator, whose most important contribution was as head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II, through which almost all wartime military R&D was carried out, including initiation and early administration of the Manhattan Project. He is also known in engineering for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, an adjustable microfilm viewer with a structure analogous to that of the World Wide Web.  Bush was also an alleged member of the Majestic-12 (MJ-12) group.  Please note: As admitted by the FBI, an entire file on Bush was destroyed. According to the FBI: “One record (161-BS-1452) which may be responsive to your FOIA request was destroyed in April of 1998.”

Forrestal, James – [290 Pages, 32.66MB] – James Vincent Forrestal (February 15, 1892 – May 22, 1949) was the last Cabinet-level United States Secretary of the Navy and the first United States Secretary of Defense. Forrestal was a supporter of naval battle groups centered on aircraft carriers. In 1954, the world’s first supercarrier was named USS Forrestal in his honor, as is the headquarters of the United States Department of Energy. He is also the namesake of the Forrestal Lecture Series at the United States Naval Academy, which brings prominent military and civilian leaders to speak to the Brigade of Midshipmen, and of the James Forrestal Campus of Princeton University in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey.

Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #1 – [349 Pages, 88.8MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #2 – [23 Pages, 2.5MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #3 – [44 Pages, 4.2MB]  Gray, Gordon (State Department Release) – [3 Pages, 1.1MB] Gordon Gray (May 30, 1909 – November 26, 1982) was an official in the government of the United States during the administrations of Harry Truman (1945–53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) associated with defense and national security.

Hillenkoetter, Adm Roscoe Henry – [ 32 Pages, 20.70MB ] – Roscoe Henry Hillenkoetter (May 8, 1897 – June 18, 1982) was the third director of the post-World War II United States Central Intelligence Group (CIG), the third Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency created by the National Security Act of 1947. He served as DCI and director of the CIG and the CIA from May 1, 1947 to October 7, 1950 and after his retirement from the United States Navy was a member of the board of governors of National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) from 1957 to 1962.

Hunsaker, Jerome – [ 3 Pages, 0.9MB ] – Jerome Clarke Hunsaker (August 26, 1886 – September 10, 1984) was an American airman born in Creston, Iowa, and educated at the Naval Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.According to the FBI, Hunsaker’s file was destroyed September 24, 2004

Menzel, Donald – [ 209 Pages, 24.10MB ] – Donald Howard Menzel (April 11, 1901 – December 14, 1976) was one of the first theoretical astronomers and astrophysicists in the US. He discovered the physical properties of the solar chromosphere, the chemistry of stars, the atmosphere of Mars, and the nature of gaseous nebulae.

Montague, Robert M. – [ 2 Pages, 0.3MB ] – Robert Miller Montague (August 7, 1899 – February 20, 1958) was a Lieutenant General in the United States Army. He achieved prominence as the deputy commander of Fort Bliss, Texas and commander of the Sandia Missile Base in New Mexico during the start of modern ufology and head of the U.S. Caribbean Command.  The FBI claims that they could not find a file on Montague.

Souers, Sidney Adm. – [ 691 Pages, 47.53MB ] – Sidney William Souers (March 30, 1892 – January 14, 1973) was an American admiral and intelligence expert. ear Admiral Souers was appointed as the first Director of Central Intelligence on January 23, 1946 by President Harry S. Truman. Prior to this, as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Souers had been one of the architects of the system that came into being with the President’s directive. He had written the intelligence chapter of the Eberstadt Report, which advocated a unified intelligence system. Toward the end of 1945, when the competing plans for a national intelligence system were deadlocked, Souers’ views had come to the attention of the President, and he seems to have played a role in breaking the impasse.

Twining, General Nathan – [23 Pages, 15.43MB] – Nathan Farragut Twining, (October 11, 1897 – March 29, 1982) was a United States Air Force General, born in Monroe, Wisconsin. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1953 until 1957. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1957 to 1960 he was the first member of the Air Force to serve in that role.

Vandenberg, Hoyt – [ 98 Pages, 6.12MB ] – Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg (January 24, 1899 – April 2, 1954) was a U.S. Air Force general, its second Chief of Staff, and second Director of Central Intelligence. During World War II, Vandenberg was the commanding general of the Ninth Air Force, a tactical air force in England and in France, supporting the Army, from August 1944 until V-E Day. Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central coast of California is named for General Vandenberg. In 1946, he was briefly the U.S. Chief of Military Intelligence. He was the nephew of Arthur H. Vandenberg, a former U.S. Senator from Michigan.

Other Alleged MJ-12 Members

 The Aviary

No Records Exist

The following FBI Files were requested, but according to the FBI, they found no records.

Marjorie Fish

Budd Hopkins

W.C. Levengood

Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr.

Donald Keyhoe

Zecharia Sitchin

Leonard Stringfield

The post FBI Files: The Paranormal Collection first appeared on The Black Vault.

The following memorandum was first released by the FBI in the 1970s, but did not gain notoriety until much later.

It was written by a Special Agent of the FBI by the name of Guy Hottel, who addressed the memo to the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover. Within, Hottel describes information from an Air Force investigator, in which three “flying saucers” had been recovered in New Mexico. In addition, each saucer was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only three feet tall, dressed in a metallic cloth.

According to the informant (see update below for identity), the saucers were found in New Mexico due to the fact that the Government had “a very high-powered radar setup in the area.”

The FBI never followed up, according to them, and in their own words they call the memorandum a “mystery.”

See below for the document and for additional information posted by the FBI.

UPDATE August 2022

In August of 2022, The Black Vault finally received the full “Hottel Memo” without redactions. FOIA Case 1555167-000 was filed on August 2, 2022, and although the FBI denied my request for “expedited processing”, their release of the record came within a week.

On August 8, 2022, the “Hottel Memo” was released in full. Although the standard boilerplate language in the FOIA letter states the information was “pre-processed” – there is no indication online, or in published articles, the complete memorandum was ever published, unredacted.

That said, the newly released version can be seen here:

This reveals that Robert H. Kurtzman, FBI Special Agent in Washington D.C. received the information from another law enforcement agency (surprisingly, not Silas Newton or a “Silas Newton” type informant with unverifiable information. The information came from the Metropolitan Police Department (presumably Washington D.C.) and “Sex Squad” Special Investigator Karl Howe.

Where the Metropolitan Police Department received the information, remains a mystery. However, as it could be Silas Newton (or again, a “Silas Newton” type person expressing a hoaxed story) it was an interesting find to see another law enforcement agency informed the FBI — not some unreliable source. Now the question is, at what level did the Metropolitan Police Department investigate the claims, in order for them to feel the need to waste the FBI’s time with it.

Although still a mystery, at least now, we have the full document with the names attached.

Document Archive

The original, older release, of the “Hottel Memo”

The Black Vault went after the full FBI file on FBI Agent Guy Hottel himself. That was received and is AVAILABLE HERE (though no additional UFO/alien references were found.)

Additional Information

The following was published by the FBI in March of 2013 to explain the memorandum. Although they give some additional facts, they call it a “mystery” with no viable explanation.

—-

The post The “Guy Hottel” Memo and the Crashed Flying Saucers of New Mexico, March 22, 1950 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Nuclear Physicist-Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman received his BSc. and MSc. Degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist by such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas working in such highly advanced, classified, eventually cancelled programs as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and various compact nuclear powerplants for space and terrestrial applications.

He became interested in UFOs in 1958, and since 1967 has lectured about them at more than 600 colleges and 100 professional groups in 50 U.S. states, 10 Canadian provinces and 18 other countries in addition to various nuclear consulting efforts. He has published more than 90 UFO papers and has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs including on Larry King in 2007 and twice in 2008, and many documentaries. He is the original civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident and co-authored Crash at Corona: The Definitive Study of the Roswell Incident. TOP SECRET/MAJIC, his controversial book about the Majestic 12 group, established in 1947 to deal with alien technology, was published in 1996 and went through 6 printings. An expanded new edition was published in 2005. Stan was presented with a Lifetime UFO Achievement Award in Leeds, England, in 2002, by UFO Magazine of the UK. He is co-author with Kathleen Marden (Betty Hill’s niece) of a book in 2007: Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience. The City of Fredericton, New Brunswick, declared August 27, 2007, Stanton Friedman Day. His book Flying Saucers and Science was published in June 2008 and is in its 3rd printing. His newest book, also co-authored with Kathleen Marden, is Science Was Wrong released in June 2010.

He has provided written testimony to Congressional Hearings, appeared twice at the UN, and been a pioneer in many aspects of ufology including Roswell, Majestic 12, The Betty Hill-Marjorie Fish star map work, analysis of the Delphos, Kansas, physical trace case, crashed saucers, flying saucer technology, and challenges to the S.E.T.I. (Silly Effort To Investigate) cultists. He has spoken at more MUFON Symposia than anyone else.

Stanton T. Friedman was a dual citizen of the USA and Canada.

Document Archive

 Friedman, Stanton – FBI Release #1 – [63 Pages, 34.3MB]
 Friedman, Stanton – FBI Release #2 – [9 Pages, 1MB]

The Black Vault Radio

The post Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Files on Stanton Friedman first appeared on The Black Vault.

Majestic 12 is the purported code name of a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials, supposedly formed in 1947 by an executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. The purpose of the committee was to investigate UFO activity in the aftermath of the Roswell incident – the purported crash of an alien spaceship near Roswell, New Mexico, in July 1947. This alleged committee is an important part of the UFO conspiracy theory of an ongoing government cover up of UFO information.

Document Archive

The following FBI files were requested, which are the alleged members of MJ-12 and even the FBI’s file on MJ-12 itself.

Although some of these files may have nothing to do with UFOs or MJ-12, these are the alleged members and are archived here.

Original Alleged MJ-12 Members

Majestic-12 FBI File – [24 Pages] Subject concerns an FBI inquiry into a possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information when a document marked “Top Secret” was made public. According to the FBI, the investigation was closed after it was learned that the document was completely “bogus.”

Berkner, Lloyd – [135 Pages, 10.43 MB]  Berkner, Lloyd, Release #2 – [12 Pages, 2.4 MB] – Lloyd Viel Berkner (February 1, 1905, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin – June 4, 1967, in Washington, D.C.) was an American physicist and engineer. He was one of the inventors of the measuring device that since has become standard at ionospheric stations because it measures the height and electron density of the ionosphere. The data obtained in the worldwide net of such instruments  were important for the developing theory of short wave radio propagation to which Berkner himself gave important contributions.Additional information was found at the FBI, that originated at the CIA.  The FBI forwarded these records to the CIA for review, and declassification, and the CIA information me that all material on Berkner is classified.  Berkner, Lloyd CIA Documents Denial Letter – [ 2 Pages, 0.5 MB ]

Bronk, Detlev – [ 248 Pages, 7.18 MB ] – Detlev Wulf Bronk (August 13, 1897 – November 17, 1975) was a prominent American scientist, educator, and administrator. He is credited with establishing biophysics as a recognized discipline. Bronk served as President of Johns Hopkins University from 1949 to 1953 and as President of the The Rockefeller University from 1953 to 1968. Bronk also held the presidency of the National Academy of Sciences between 1950 and 1962. Please note: According to the FBI, more pages exist on Bronk and are being sent to another government agency for release. Will post when available.

Bush, Vannevar – [ 241 Pages, 78.1 MB ] – Vannevar Bush (March 11, 1890 – June 28, 1974) was an American engineer, inventor and science administrator, whose most important contribution was as head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II, through which almost all wartime military R&D was carried out, including initiation and early administration of the Manhattan Project. He is also known in engineering for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, an adjustable microfilm viewer with a structure analogous to that of the World Wide Web.  Bush was also an alleged member of the Majestic-12 (MJ-12) group.  Please note: As admitted by the FBI, an entire file on Bush was destroyed. According to the FBI: “One record (161-BS-1452) which may be responsive to your FOIA request was destroyed in April of 1998.”

Forrestal, James – [290 Pages, 32.66MB] – James Vincent Forrestal (February 15, 1892 – May 22, 1949) was the last Cabinet-level United States Secretary of the Navy and the first United States Secretary of Defense. Forrestal was a supporter of naval battle groups centered on aircraft carriers. In 1954, the world’s first supercarrier was named USS Forrestal in his honor, as is the headquarters of the United States Department of Energy. He is also the namesake of the Forrestal Lecture Series at the United States Naval Academy, which brings prominent military and civilian leaders to speak to the Brigade of Midshipmen, and of the James Forrestal Campus of Princeton University in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey.

Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #1 – [349 Pages, 88.8MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #2 – [23 Pages, 2.5MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #3 – [44 Pages, 4.2MB]  Gray, Gordon (State Department Release) – [3 Pages, 1.1MB] Gordon Gray (May 30, 1909 – November 26, 1982) was an official in the government of the United States during the administrations of Harry Truman (1945–53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) associated with defense and national security.

Hillenkoetter, Adm Roscoe Henry – [ 32 Pages, 20.70MB ] – Roscoe Henry Hillenkoetter (May 8, 1897 – June 18, 1982) was the third director of the post-World War II United States Central Intelligence Group (CIG), the third Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency created by the National Security Act of 1947. He served as DCI and director of the CIG and the CIA from May 1, 1947 to October 7, 1950 and after his retirement from the United States Navy was a member of the board of governors of National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) from 1957 to 1962.

Hunsaker, Jerome – [ 3 Pages, 0.9MB ] – Jerome Clarke Hunsaker (August 26, 1886 – September 10, 1984) was an American airman born in Creston, Iowa, and educated at the Naval Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.According to the FBI, Hunsaker’s file was destroyed September 24, 2004

Menzel, Donald – [ 209 Pages, 24.10MB ] – Donald Howard Menzel (April 11, 1901 – December 14, 1976) was one of the first theoretical astronomers and astrophysicists in the US. He discovered the physical properties of the solar chromosphere, the chemistry of stars, the atmosphere of Mars, and the nature of gaseous nebulae.

Montague, Robert M. – [ 2 Pages, 0.3MB ] – Robert Miller Montague (August 7, 1899 – February 20, 1958) was a Lieutenant General in the United States Army. He achieved prominence as the deputy commander of Fort Bliss, Texas and commander of the Sandia Missile Base in New Mexico during the start of modern ufology and head of the U.S. Caribbean Command.  The FBI claims that they could not find a file on Montague.

Souers, Sidney Adm. – [ 691 Pages, 47.53MB ] – Sidney William Souers (March 30, 1892 – January 14, 1973) was an American admiral and intelligence expert. ear Admiral Souers was appointed as the first Director of Central Intelligence on January 23, 1946 by President Harry S. Truman. Prior to this, as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Souers had been one of the architects of the system that came into being with the President’s directive. He had written the intelligence chapter of the Eberstadt Report, which advocated a unified intelligence system. Toward the end of 1945, when the competing plans for a national intelligence system were deadlocked, Souers’ views had come to the attention of the President, and he seems to have played a role in breaking the impasse.

Twining, General Nathan – [ 23 Pages, 15.43MB ] – Nathan Farragut Twining, (October 11, 1897 – March 29, 1982) was a United States Air Force General, born in Monroe, Wisconsin. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1953 until 1957. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1957 to 1960 he was the first member of the Air Force to serve in that role.

Vandenberg, Hoyt – [ 98 Pages, 6.12MB ] – Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg (January 24, 1899 – April 2, 1954) was a U.S. Air Force general, its second Chief of Staff, and second Director of Central Intelligence. During World War II, Vandenberg was the commanding general of the Ninth Air Force, a tactical air force in England and in France, supporting the Army, from August 1944 until V-E Day. Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central coast of California is named for General Vandenberg. In 1946, he was briefly the U.S. Chief of Military Intelligence. He was the nephew of Arthur H. Vandenberg, a former U.S. Senator from Michigan.

Other Alleged MJ-12 Members

The post FBI File: Majestic-12 first appeared on The Black Vault.

The FBI has released a collection of documents pertaining to Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso, a prominent figure in the UFO community known for his claims about recovered alien technology. These documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by The Black Vault in 2019, reveal Corso’s interactions with the FBI and other government entities, many of which appear to be previously unreleased.

Corso, who served in the U.S. Army for over twenty years primarily in intelligence roles, gained notoriety with the publication of his book, The Day After Roswell. In it, Corso claimed he had direct knowledge about the recovery and analysis of extraterrestrial technology from the Roswell incident, which he alleged was reverse-engineered to advance American technology. Despite his fame in the UFO community, the newly released FBI files focus on his broader interactions with the government but make no mention of his UFO stories.

What a portion of these documents do deal with is a 1964-1965 request to perform a name check on Corso. A name check is a thorough search conducted by the FBI to investigate an individual’s background, ensuring there are no red flags or derogatory information that might affect their suitability for certain roles or positions. This process is particularly crucial for individuals being considered for sensitive government positions or committee memberships.

In this instance, the name check on Corso was initiated because he was being considered for a position on the Immigration and Nationality Subcommittee of the House of Representatives, chaired by Congressman Michael A. Feighan. The name check aimed to uncover any past activities or affiliations that could potentially disqualify Corso from serving on the committee.

The FBI’s records showed that Corso was often in contact with the Bureau, frequently providing information on alleged subversive activities. However, the documents also indicate that many of Corso’s claims lacked credible evidence. These facts were first chronicled in a letter by then Acting Attorney General Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach, which was sent to Congressman Emanuel Celler, the then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in which the Immigration and Nationality Subcommittee was a part of.

The memo went on to detail one incident in which Corso provided General Arthur S. Trudeau with a list of individuals he alleged were “Fabian Socialists” within the U.S. government. “Fabian Socialists” are members of a British socialist organization founded in 1884, advocating for a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism through reform rather than revolution.

This term was used by Corso to label individuals within the U.S. government whom he accused of subversive activities. The FBI had reviewed its files and found “although [the FBI]  did find derogatory information concerning many of them, there was insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the allegation of ‘Fabian Socialists'”.

Another revelation in the FBI files is Corso’s involvement in spreading a claim that Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, was an FBI informant.

According to the documents, Corso admitted to an FBI official that he had disseminated this information, claiming it came from CIA sources. However, he refused to identify these sources, stating, his allegations “had been strictly deductions and had no basis in fact”. He further stated that his “CIA friends had no facts whatsoever [and]  he did not want to reveal their identity.”

The documents also highlight Corso’s role in leaking information about a Polish defector, Michal Goleniewski, to the press in the early 1960s.

The FBI noted that there was “some basis to believe that Corso may have deliberately distorted information concerning this defector” and that Corso was characterized by another government agency as a “parasite who has never produced any intelligence through his own efforts but has profited from information developed by dedicated Government agents and investigators”​​. It is unclear which government agency labeled Corso a “parasite”.

Congressman Feighan had significant issues with the results of the name check. Feighan felt that the findings by the FBI were unfair and amounted to a violation of Corso’s civil rights.

In response to Feighan’s concerns, another memo was circulated within the FBI, indicating that the Bureau stood by their original assessment of Corso. The memo emphasized the need to “set the record straight” regarding Corso, as the FBI believed Feighan was misinformed about the nature of Corso’s background and the legitimacy of the allegations against him. The memo outlined various instances where Corso had made unfounded claims and highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the FBI’s findings.

In the end, Corso was not permitted to serve on the Immigration and Nationalities Subcommittee.

A couple of years after the name check, documents reveal that Corso was suing prominent columnist Drew Pearson (and possibly Jack Anderson) for libel, accusing him of writing on column on March 29, 1965, which had a portion entitled “FBI Blackballs Aide” and refers to Corso.

The Black Vault tracked down this column, which was archived within CIA files. That column can be seen embedded in this article. Although FBI files show that Corso was suing Pearson, it was actually Jack Anderson who wrote the column. Based on the documents released, it is unclear if Anderson was part of the suit, or what the result was.

It was believed by Corso that information in the column was based on information somehow obtained from the FBI memos about Corso that were sent to Congressman Celler. It was unclear how Pearson could have obtained the information, or if they truly had the full contents of the memos.

It was also during these time in 1966, when FBI files further reveal that due to Congressman Feighan’s disagreement with the FBI about Corso’s name check, it would have a lasting effect that would change the Bureau’s willingness to help him. In an April 1, 1966, memorandum, it was said that Robert J. Beatson was seeking “all” information the FBI had on the the “Cuban refugee problem.” This request was made on behalf of Congressman Feighan, and the Immigration and Nationalities Subcommittee.

This then sparked the FBI to resurface the disagreement Congressman Feighan had with the FBI, and it was written in Anderson’s column that Feighan had “phoned the Attorney General and tongue-lashed him for turning over an FBI memorandum concerning Corso to Representative Celler and accused the Attorney General of ‘McCarthy-like tactics’ in circulating ‘unevaluated’ information.”

As a result, the FBI stated, “In view of the antagonistic attitude which has been displayed toward the Bureau by Feighan, particularly with regard to the Corso matter, it is not felt that we should take any steps to be of assistance to his subcommittee or any of its representatives.”

Decades after this, Corso surfaced again in FBI files. This time in the form of a handwritten letter from 1990 that Corso had sent to Senator Strom Thurmond, where Corso describes his knowledge of a “lethal barometric device” weapon and that he wanted to inform the Senator of his knowledge about it.

This communication to Thurmond was sparked by Corso’s reading about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in the September 1990 issue of Reader’s Digest. In his letter, Corso detailed his experiences with a similar device developed by the Germans during World War II. Corso’s intention was to share his expertise in hopes of contributing to counter-terrorism efforts.

In the letter, Corso even drew the device and how he recalled it being shaped like a “sausage”:

The details unearthed in these documents juxtapose Corso’s audacious claims with the stark reality of his inconsistent and often unsubstantiated allegations. This raises questions about the credibility of his famous UFO claims, considering his track record of making unsupported statements to and about the U.S. government over the span of decades.

In addition, it’s important to note that all of the documents released were written prior to the establishment of the FOIA, in an era when government officials could express their opinions more candidly, never anticipating that their words would one day be scrutinized by the public. It is also worth noting that most, if not all, did not surface until 26 years after the publishing of Corso’s book.

The FOIA response from the FBi to The Black Vault also indicates that additional records related to Corso may exist within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). They provided various FBI numbers to track down, and The Black Vault is actively pursuing these additional files to further investigate Corso’s claims and the extent of his interactions with government agencies.

###

(Note: The original request seeking information from the FBI on Corso was filed by The Black Vault in 2017. That yielded a “no records” response. Years later, a reference to an FBI file number was discovered that may have pertained to Corso, so a new request was filed in 2019. However, in this particular request, unlike the one filed in 2017, it included language to request “cross references” about Corso, vs. just seeking a “main file” search.

According to the FBI, they consider these newly released files on Corso as “cross references” and not a “main file” indicating he was never officially investigated by the FBI. Therefore, in 2017, they considered these files as non-responsive, which is why a “no records” response was first received.

Seeking out “cross references” is now in the language of every request filed to the FBI by The Black Vault, and has been the case for many years. However, in 2017, that standard language had yet to be implemented for each submission.)

Document Archive

FBI Releases Files on Lt. Col. Philip Corso [321 Pages, 65.5MB]

The post Unreleased FBI Documents Shed Light on Lt. Col. Philip Corso’s Controversial Claims first appeared on The Black Vault.

The NSA was a target of one of my original FOIA requests, which yielded the below results. Some of these records were one of the first documents I scanned onto The Black Vault back in 1996, and are archived here as a timestamp for what the NSA was releasing then vs. now.

National Security Agency’s UFO Files Batch #1 [159 Pages]

National Security Agency’s Batch #2, Records Once Exempt From Release [254 Pages]

The “Missing” UFO Files

The below documents are the UFO records released today by the NSA. Years after The Black Vault put the UFO records (as scanned above) – the NSA added them to their website as well.  One interesting document of note is the the “Yeates Affidavit.”

In 1980, the NSA was involved in Civil Action No. 80-1562, “Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. National Security Agency”. Documents related to that litigation are below, and marked with “*”. “XXXXX” has been inserted in a title if a portion of the title has been deleted prior to release. During this court case, the judge was given an “in camera” Top Secret clearance to see the explanation on why the NSA was not releasing the UFO documentation, and why the majority of it, were to remain blacked out.

The judge decided in the NSA’s favor, and allowed the information to remain classified. As the years went by, the NSA released the COMINT records, but most of them had only a few words visible per page. The rest, was largely redacted using white out (less of an impact than black ink).

In July of 2013, I requested a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) of ALL of these records from the NSA. What this means, is that you can request an agency to review a document that was classified many years ago, but may not be classified anymore, and hopefully, if you are lucky, they will release more of it.

But, they claim they can not find any of the unredacted original reports for a review. That amounts to literally HUNDREDS of pages of classified UFO material – that has mysteriously vanished into thin air. They did find the Yeates Affidavit, which they did review.

 FOIA Case Processing Notes for my FOIA Case 73445 and MDR 73494 [4 Pages, 1.2MB]

The Yeates Affidavit – 2014 Release

 2014 Yeates Affidavit Release version in July 2014, a year later. This is the most unredacted version that I know of, however, as of May 20, 2016, almost two YEARS after I was successful in getting it reviewed, the NSA still has an older, much more redacted version, that they release to the public. This is a clear and blatant disregard for transparency to the general public. If the NSA releases this information in a FOIA Reading Room online, they should inform the public they are not giving them the whole and complete story, as there is much more information to be found in the document.

The Documents

 * In Camera Affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates – Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. NSA (Civil Action No. 80-1562)

The NSA still releases the above record on their website, with complete disregard that my MDR was successful in getting a much less redacted version released to the public —  SEEN HERE.

 * Communications Intelligence (COMINT) reports [broken into sizable parts for viewing]. These COMINT reports are what the NSA claims to have lost – and are no longer available for review. So, according to them, this important and valuable information has been lost forever.
PART A
PART B
PART C
PART D
PART E
PART F
PART G
PART H
PART I
PART J

 * Affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates – Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. NSA(Civil Action No. 80-1562)

 “U.F.O. Files: The Untold Story” by Patrick Huyghe

 “Govt.’s Super-Secret Security Agency Warns: Take UFOs Seriously or Be Prepared for Sneak Invasion by Space Aliens” by Thomas L. Muldoon, National Enquirer

 “The U.S. Government and the Iran Case”– IUR Report

 “Report of U.F.O. Crash in ’47 Called False by Science Panel”– The New York Times

 “What the U.S. Government Knows About UnidentifiedFlying Objects” by Peter Gersten, Frontiers of Science

 “Is the CIA Stonewalling?” by Richard Hall

 “The Government and UFOs”

 “UFO As Advanced Technology”

 “French Government UFO Study”

 Communications Intelligence (COMINT) report – “XXXXX Unidentified Flying Objects”

 COMNAVSECGRU visual sighting report

 “Report Bibliography” issued by the Defense Documentation Center

 “Now You See It, Now You Don’t” by Captain Henry S. Shields, HQ USAFE/INOMP

 Joint Chiefs of Staff report concerning the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976

 Exploitation Report – A Fragment, Metal Recovered in the Republic of the Congo

 Navy report – Country: Cuba, Subject: UFO

 Routing and Transmittal Slip from Louis E. Foster, DIA with a DIA summary sheet and US Defense Attache report on the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Flying Saucers Are a Myth

 Department of State report – Subject: Tunisian Firefall

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Celestial Body Observed over Antarctica

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Political Report for August 1965

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Sighting of Object Possibly Originating from
Space Vehicle

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects Reported Over Angola

 Department of State AIRGRAM – Subject: Report of Unidentified Object Which Fell Near Municipio of General Teran, N.L.

 American Embassy Tunis report – Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects

 Report from Air Force Special Security Office – Subject: (Unclassified) UFOB NEAC Area

 General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Steven H. Schiff, House of Representatives – Government Records – Results of a Search for Records Concerning the 1947 Crash Near Roswell, New Mexico

 * Memorandum and Order – Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. National Security Agency
(Civil Action No. 80-1562)

 “Communication With Extraterrestrial Intelligence” by Lambros D. Callimahos

 * “UFO Hypothesis and Survival Questions”

 * “UFO’s and the Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive Data”

 Memorandum for the Record – Subject: Information Request Solicitation

 United States Air Force Fact Sheet 95-03 – “Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force
Project Blue Book”

 Report of Air Force Research Regarding the “Roswell Incident”

 JANAP 146

 Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne

 Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Howard H. Campaigne

The post UFOs: The National Security Agency (NSA) Collection first appeared on The Black Vault.

FBI Files: American Politicians, Aides, and Appointees

Welcome to the FBI Files on American Politicians, Aides, and Appointees archive at The Black Vault. This section compiles declassified and released FBI records pertaining to public officials across all levels of government — from senators, governors, and cabinet officials to presidential advisers and political staff.

These files include background checks, security reviews, investigative materials, and correspondence that illuminate how the FBI monitored, evaluated, or interacted with individuals serving in political roles. Collectively, they reveal decades of domestic intelligence practices, political scrutiny, and the evolving relationship between national security and public service.

This archive is designed for researchers, journalists, historians, and anyone interested in understanding how the FBI documented the lives, careers, and political activities of influential American figures throughout modern history.

Blanchard, Col. William H. - [4 Pages, 1MB] - RECORDS DESTROYED - General William Hugh Blanchard (February 6, 1916 – May 31, 1966) was a United States Air Force officer who attained the rank of four-star general and served as Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1965 to 1966. On July 8, 1947, Colonel Blanchard issued an official Army Air Force press release stating that the base intelligence office had recovered a so-called "flying disc" or "flying saucer" from a nearby ranch, it had been found "sometime last week," and they were flying it to "higher headquarters". The press release and the media feeding frenzy that followed it triggered the so-called Roswell UFO Incident.

Bucher, Lloyd M. - [66 Pages, 27.8MB] - Lloyd Mark "Pete" Bucher (1 September 1927 – 28 January 2004) was an officer in the United States Navy, who is best remembered as the captain of the USS Pueblo (AGER-2), which was captured on January 23, 1968 by North Korea. While monitoring North Korea, the Pueblo came under attack by North Korean naval forces, primarily motor torpedo boats, even though U.S. Naval officials and the crew have claimed the ship was in international waters at the time. North Koreans boarded the ship and took her to the port at Wonsan. For the next 11 months, Bucher and his crew were held as POWs by the North Koreans. Initially, they were treated relatively well, with good food and living accommodations.

Butler, Smedley Darlington - [42 Pages, 2.78 MB] - Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler is well known for having later become an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences, as well as exposing the Business Plot, a purported plan to overthrow the U.S. government.

Donovan, William J. - [ File #1 | File #2 | File #3 | File #4 | File #5 | File #6 | File #7 ] - Background investigation of Major General William J. "Wild Bill" Donovan, Medal of Honor recipient and former Director of the Office of Strategic Services during World War II, forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Fellers, Bonner - [32 Pages, 20.70MB] - Bonner Frank Fellers (February 7, 1896 – October 7, 1973) was a U.S. Army officer who served during World War II as military attaché and psychological warfare director. He is notable as the military attaché in Egypt whose extensive transmissions of detailed British tactical information were intercepted by Axis agents and passed to German field marshal Erwin Rommel for over six months, contributing to disastrous British defeats at Gazala and Tobruk in June 1942. He was considered a protégé of General Douglas MacArthur.

Flickinger, Brig. General Don D. - [13 Pages, 1MB] - Dr. Donald D. Flickinger, an early expert on space medicine who as a World War II flight surgeon parachuted into the Himalayas to rescue downed fliers and later helped select the first seven Mercury astronauts. Dr. Flickinger, who retired from the Air Force in 1961 as a brigadier general and later was a consultant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other agencies, ''was a pioneer in high-altitude medicine,'' said Robert Hotz, a former editor in chief of Aviation Week and Space Technology. (Note: Researcher Keith Basterfield proposed that Brig. General Flickinger was the mentor described [but not named]by Dr. Kit Green in an interview with Richard Dolan)

Friend, Robert - [4 Pages, 2.5MB] - Lieutenant Colonel Robert Jones Friend (1920–2019) was a Tuskegee airman in WW2 and led the USAF's Project Blue Book from 1958 to 1963. He also served during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He had a 28 year military career. Note: All files on Friend were either lost or destroyed.

Gale, William Potters - [494 Pages, 89.2MB] - According to claims of unknown reliability, William Potters Gale had previously been an aide to General Douglas MacArthur, and had coordinated guerrilla resistance in the Philippines during World War II. Gale became a leading figure in the anti-tax and paramilitary movements of the 1970s and 1980s, beginning with the California Rangers and the Posse Comitatus, and helped found the militia movement.

Hathcock, Carlos - [19 Pages, 89.2MB] - Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 – February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. Hathcock's record and the extraordinary details of the missions he undertook made him a legend in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was honored by having a rifle named after him: a variant of the M21 dubbed the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather, for the nickname "White Feather" given to Hathcock by the North Vietnamese People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN).

Hillenkoetter, Adm Roscoe Henry - [32 Pages, 20.70MB] - Roscoe Henry Hillenkoetter (May 8, 1897 – June 18, 1982) was the third director of the post-World War II United States Central Intelligence Group (CIG), the third Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency created by the National Security Act of 1947. He served as DCI and director of the CIG and the CIA from May 1, 1947 to October 7, 1950 and after his retirement from the United States Navy was a member of the board of governors of National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) from 1957 to 1962.

La Rocque, Gene - [10 Pages, 3.1MB] - Eugene Robert La Rocque (June 29, 1918 – October 31, 2016) was a rear admiral of the United States Navy who founded the Center for Defense Information in 1971.

Lansdale, Edward Geary - [19 Pages, 8.6MB] - Edward Geary Lansdale (February 6, 1908 – February 23, 1987) was a United States Air Force officer who served in the Office of Strategic Services and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He rose to the rank of Major General and was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1963. He was an early proponent of more aggressive U.S. actions in the Cold War. Lansdale was born in Detroit, Michigan and died in McLean, Virginia. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He was twice married and had two sons from his first marriage.

Please note: By letter from the FBI dated April 25, 2018, in FOIA request 1402808-000, potentially responsive documents were destroyed on Lansdale back on July 26, 1978. Additional documents may exist at NARA, which have been requested. Will add them when available.

LeMay, General Curtis - [42 Pages, 2.56 MB] - Curtis Emerson LeMay (November 15, 1906 – October 1, 1990) was a general in the United States Air Force and the vice presidential running mate of American Independent Party presidential candidate George Wallace in 1968. He is credited with designing and implementing an effective, but also controversial, systematic strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific theater of World War II. During the war, he was known for planning and executing a massive bombing campaign against cities in Japan and a crippling minelaying campaign in Japan's internal waterways. After the war, he unintentionally initiated the Berlin airlift, then reorganized the Strategic Air Command (SAC) into an effective instrument of nuclear war. He served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force from 1961 until his retirement in 1965.

MacArthur, Douglas - [42 Pages, 2.56 MB] - Douglas MacArthur (26 January 1880 – 5 April 1964) was an American five-star general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II. He received the Medal of Honor for his service in the Philippines Campaign, which made him and his father Arthur MacArthur, Jr., the first father and son to be awarded the medal. He was one of only five men ever to rise to the rank of General of the Army in the US Army, and the only man ever to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army.

Patton, General George S. - [149 Pages, 12.2MB] - George Smith Patton, Jr., (1885-1945) was a senior U.S. Army leader, serving in the military from 1909 to 1945. This release (previously made, but now posted to the FBI Vault) consists of 11 pages of references to Patton found in FBI files. The document dates range from 1945 to 1946.

Petraeus, David - [284 Pages, 10.1MB]

Civil Action# 16-CV-00514 - [18 Pages, 2.5MB] - This is the first interim release about this civil action, which was reference in the above document release. This FOIA request should bring up a different set of documents, which will be added here, when released.

Court Unseal Orders, Warrants, etc. - [242 Pages, 5.4MB] - These records were released by the United States District Courts, Western District of North Carolina. They have been combined to a searchable .pdf format, and the .pdf contains bookmarks to differentiate the different warrants and court orders.

Executive Office for United States Attorneys - [382 Pages, 23.5MB] - This is the package of multiple releases by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. I have combined them into one .pdf, searchable, with bookmarks stipulating the different releases (and dates).David Howell Petraeus is a retired American military officer and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012. Prior to his assuming the directorship of the CIA, Petraeus was a highly decorated four-star general, serving over 37 years in the United States Army. His last assignments in the Army were as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) from July 4, 2010, to July 18, 2011. His other four-star assignments include serving as the 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) from October 13, 2008, to June 30, 2010, and as Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) from February 10, 2007, to September 16, 2008. As commander of MNF-I, Petraeus oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq. In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA. Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.This release concerns an investigation into the compromise of classified material. The dates in the release range from 2012-2013.

Pash, Boris - [17 Pages, 7MB] - Boris Theodore Pash (born Boris Fedorovich Pashkovsky; Russian: Борис Фёдорович Пашковский) 20 June 1900 – 11 May 1995) was a United States Army military intelligence officer. He commanded the Alsos Mission during World War II and retired with the rank of colonel.

Powell, Colin - FBI Release 1-3 - [521 Pages, 32MB]

Powell, Colin - DCSA Release - [150 Pages, 179MB] - Colin Luther Powell (April 5, 1937 – October 18, 2021) was a distinguished American statesman and retired four-star general who served as the 65th U.S. Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, becoming the first African American to hold the position. Born in Harlem to Jamaican immigrant parents, Powell rose through the ranks of the U.S. Army, ultimately serving as National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a central figure in U.S. foreign and military policy during the Gulf War. Known for his leadership, integrity, and trailblazing career, Powell remained influential in public life through his memoir, My American Journey, and numerous charitable and corporate board roles following his retirement from public service.

Shurer, Ronald J. - FBI Release - [178 Pages, 85MB]

Shurer, Ronald J. - DCSA Release - [178 Pages, 4.5MB] - Ronald J. Shurer II was a distinguished American hero and Army medic who received the Medal of Honor for his acts of bravery and valor during the War in Afghanistan. Born on December 7, 1978, in Fairbanks, Alaska, Shurer enlisted in the United States Army in 2002 and later joined the Special Forces. He was honored for his extraordinary courage during the Battle of Shok Valley in 2008, where he braved enemy fire to treat and evacuate wounded soldiers. After his military service, he continued his service to the country by joining the Secret Service. Ronald J. Shurer passed away on May 14, 2020, after a valiant battle with cancer, leaving behind a legacy of selflessness and service.

Souers, Sidney Adm. - [691 Pages, 47.53MB] - Sidney William Souers (March 30, 1892 – January 14, 1973) was an American admiral and intelligence expert. ear Admiral Souers was appointed as the first Director of Central Intelligence on January 23, 1946 by President Harry S. Truman. Prior to this, as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Souers had been one of the architects of the system that came into being with the President's directive. He had written the intelligence chapter of the Eberstadt Report, which advocated a unified intelligence system. Toward the end of 1945, when the competing plans for a national intelligence system were deadlocked, Souers' views had come to the attention of the President, and he seems to have played a role in breaking the impasse.

Starbird, General Alfred - [5 Pages, 1.5MB]

Starbird, General Alfred - [5 Pages, 1.5MB] - Alfred Dodd Starbird (April 28, 1912 – July 28, 1983) was an American modern pentathlete, lieutenant general, and authority on nuclear weaponry. A graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, class of 1933, he was commissioned in the United States Army Corps of Engineers. He was a member of the United States modern pentathlon team at the 1936 Summer Olympics, finishing seventh overall in a field of 42.

Trudeau, General Arthur - [ File #1 | File #2 | File #3 ] - [ 360 Pages Total ] - Arthur Gilbert Trudeau (July 5, 1902 in Middlebury, Vermont – June 5, 1991, Chevy Chase, Maryland) was a Lieutenant General in the United States Army best known for his command of the 7th Infantry Division during the battle of Battle of Pork Chop Hill during the Korean War. (Source: Ernie Lazar)

Twining, General Nathan - [23 Pages, 15.43MB] - Nathan Farragut Twining, (October 11, 1897 – March 29, 1982) was a United States Air Force General, born in Monroe, Wisconsin. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1953 until 1957. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1957 to 1960 he was the first member of the Air Force to serve in that role.

Vandenberg, Hoyt - [98 Pages, 6.12MB] - Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg (January 24, 1899 – April 2, 1954) was a U.S. Air Force general, its second Chief of Staff, and second Director of Central Intelligence. During World War II, Vandenberg was the commanding general of the Ninth Air Force, a tactical air force in England and in France, supporting the Army, from August 1944 until V-E Day. Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central coast of California is named for General Vandenberg. In 1946, he was briefly the U.S. Chief of Military Intelligence. He was the nephew of Arthur H. Vandenberg, a former U.S. Senator from Michigan.

Woodard, Isaac - [18 Pages, 1.42MB] - Isaac Woodard Jr. (March 18, 1919 – September 23, 1992) was a decorated African-American World War II veteran. On February 12, 1946, hours after being honorably discharged from the United States Army, he was attacked while still in uniform by South Carolina police as he was taking a bus home. The attack and his injuries sparked national outrage and galvanized the civil rights movement in the United States.

This was obtained from the The National Archives at Atlanta, and they provided the following additional information:

The National Archives at Atlanta has custody of case 16603, United States of America v. Lynwood Lanier Shull, from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, Columbia Division which addresses the assault of Mr. Woodard. The scanned court case is attached in entirety. It is not a very big case but it is all that we have on this matter. You will notice the first scan, the outside of the folder, has a notation stating here are transcriptions in an FBI folder and more information at the Truman Presidential Library. The National Archives at Atlanta does not have any transcriptions.

The post FBI Files: American Military first appeared on The Black Vault.

Air Force Histories

Continental Air Command Histories

NORAD / CORAD Histories

 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jan – Jun Vol IX.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jul – Dec Vol X.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jan-Jun Vol VII.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jan-Jun Vol IX.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jul-Dec Vol X.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jul-Dec Vol XI.pdf
 (U) 1956 CONAD-ADC History Jan-Jun Vol VII.pdf
 (U) 1957 ADC History Jan – Jun.pdf
 (U) 1957 ADC History Jan – Jun Vol III.pdf
 (U) 1956 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57 Vol I.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57 Vol II.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57 Vol III.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec Vol II.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec Vol III.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec Vol IV.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 NORAD CONAD History.pdf
 (U) 1957 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1958 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1958 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1959 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1959 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1960 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1960 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1961 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1962 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1962 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1963 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1963 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1964 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1965 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1965 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1966 NORAD-CONAD History.pdf
 1967 – 1972 NORAD CONAD History [1,375 Pages, 328MB] – These records were donated to The Black Vault by FOIA researcher Cory Newman, and are used here with permission. Special thanks to Mr. Newman for his research and allowing The Black Vault to share it!

1940s

 Class Rosters of Various Air Force Schools – Including Roswell Field, 1942 – 1945 [1,617 Pages, 473MB]

 United States Strategic Air Forces In Europe History, Chapter 2, Jan 1942 through January 1945 [95 Pages, 13.9MB]

History of the 22nd Bombardment Group – May 1944 [68 Pages, 24.7MB]

History of the 25th Bombardment Group Aug Sep 1944 [80 Pages, 34MB]

History of the 5th Air Disarmament Group (Provisional) 1944 [96 Pages, 15MB]

History of the 161st Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron 29 August 1944 – April 1945 [93 Pages, 32MB]

The Inception, Organization and Functions of Headquarters, U.S. Strategic Air Forces in Europe, 28 May 1945 [111 Pages, 14.10MB]

 1950s

History of the Air Flight Service Center, March Air Force Base, 1 April 1952 – 30 June 1952 [15 Pages, 3MB]

History of the Directorate of Intelligence June 1 – December 31 1952 [13 Pages, 3MB]

History of the 20th Air Division (Defense), 1 July 1957 – 31 December 1957 [96 Pages, 49MB]

History of the 34th Air Division, 1 July – 31 December 1952, & – 30 January 1953  [254 Pages, 60MB]

History of the 34th Air Division, 31 December – 30 June 1953  [187 Pages, 44.1MB]

History of the 36th Air Base Group, 1 March to 30 April 1951 [102 Pages, 18.58MB]

History of the 36th Air Base Group, 1 May to 30 June 1951 [102 Pages, 16.1MB]

History of the 57th Fighter Interceptor Wing, Elmendorf Air Force Base, May – June 1950 [107 Pages, 30MB]

History of the 456th Troop Carrier Wing, Operations Summary and Analysis, 1954-1956 [326 Pages, 75.8MB]

History of the 1909th Airways and Air Communications Squadron, 1 July 1952 – 30 November 1952 [43 Pages, 13MB]

History of the 2143rd Air Weather Wing, 1 July – 31 December 1952 [144 Pages, 32MB]

History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 Jan to 30 June 1955 [74 Pages, 3.76MB]

 History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 July to 31 December 1955 [387 Pages, 103MB]

History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 January 1956 – 30 June 1956 [29 Pages, 10MB]

History of the 5001st Composite Wing, Ladd Air Force Base, Alaska – 1 January 1957 – 7 April 1957 [409 Pages, 103MB]

1960s

History of the Directorate of Administrative Services, 1 July 1960 – 31 December 1960 [905 Pages, 163MB]

History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January – 30 June 1961 [170 Pages, 16.84MB] – Only the first 167 pages of this document were obtained. The rest is available for purchase, but I was unable to afford the complete document.

History of the 31st Air Division (ADC) April 1 – June 30, 1967 [21 Pages, 3MB]

 History of the 62nd Military Airlift Wing July 1 – December 31, 1969 [224 Pages, 50.8MB]

History of the 78th Fighter Wing (ADC), 1 October 1964 – 31 December 1964 [322 Pages, 101MB]

History of the 4245th Strategic Wing, 1-31 March 1962 [202 Pages, 34.19MB]

History of the 313th Air Division, July-December 1962 [501 Pages, 61.5MB] – These documents detail the Okinawa Incident, October 28, 1962.

History of the 304th Air Rescue Squadron, 1 January – 30 June 1963 [1,984 Pages, 497MB] – UPON ACTIVATION 68/01/26, BECAME AN ACTIVE OPERATING UNIT IN LIEU OF A RESERVE TRAINING SQUADRON. THE CALL TO ACTIVE DUTY WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE SEIZURE OF THE NAVY INTELLIGENCE SHIP PUEBLO BY NORTH KOREA. PUEBLO CRISIS, RESERVE CALL-UP.

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 31 March 1967 [19 Pages, 6MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending June 1967 [22 Pages, 6MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 1966 [106 Pages, 31MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 31 December 1965 [115 Pages, 30MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 30 June 1961 [23 Pages, 6MB]

Lessons Learned, Headquarters, 52d Combat Aviation Battalion, 22 September 1969 [54 Pages, 3MB]

1970s

Air Force Museum Semi-Annual History, 1 January 1970 – 30 June 1970 [31 Pages, 12.76mb]

History of the 92nd Bombardment Wing and 92nd Combat Support Group, September 1976 [62 Pages, 12.98mb]

1980s

1. History of the 320th Bombardment Wing, October – December 198f1 [266 Pages, 46.82mb]

Oral History Interviews

Oral History Interview with Lt. Col. William Miller [72 Pages, 6.99mb]

Oral History Interview with Maj. Gen. William C. Garland [112 Pages, 15.28mb]

Other Related Documents

Aerial Interdiction: Air Power and the Land Battle in Three American Wars [444 Pages]

An Aerospace Bibliography [340 Pages]

Air Force Bases Vol. I: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 [651 Pages, 95 megabytes]

Vol. II: Air Bases Outside of the United States of America [241 Pages]

Air Force Combat Medals, Streamers, and Campaigns [358 Pages]

Air Force Combat Wings: Lineage and Honors Histories, 1947-1977 [366 Pages, 33 Megabytes]

The Air Force Integrates, 1945-1964 [366 Pages, 35 Megabytes]

Air Force Officers: Personnel Policy Development, 1944-1974 [503 Pages, 29 Megabytes]

Air Force Roles and Missions: A History [345 Pages, 27 Megabytes] – This history traces the usage of- and meaning given to- the terms “roles and missions” relating to the armed forces and particularly to the United States Air Force from 1903 to the mid-1990s.

Air Interdiction in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam: An Interview with General Earle E. Partridge, General Jacob E. Smart, and General John W. Vogt, Jr. [114 Pages, 9 Megabytes] – Air leaders relate their war experiences in major interdiction campaigns designed to disrupt the flow of men and supplies to enemy armies. As American officers flying in World War II, the interviewees fought in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and Northern France. In Korea and Vietnam, they faced the challenge of limited warfare, in which air power was restrained by national policy.

Air Leadership [168 Pages, 14 Megabytes] – This book contains the published proceedings of a conference on air leadership held at Bolling AFB in 1984.

Air Power and Warfare : the proceedings of the 8th Military History Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, 18-20 October 1978 [475 Pages, 25 Megabytes]

Air Power in Three Wars (World War II, Korea, Vietnam) [372 Pages, 44 Megabytes] – These are the memoirs of General Momyer, whose 35-year military career spanned three conflicts -World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Momyer reflects on his diverse experience, covering the development of tactical air strategy, command and control of air power, air superiority, interdiction, and close air support of ground forces.

Air Superiority in World War II and Korea: An Interview with General James Ferguson, General Robert M. Lee, General William Momyer, and Lt. Gen. Elwood R. Quesada [125 Pages] – The four generals participate in a group oral history on how American air forces achieved air superiority in World War II and Korea. Extensive notes and a bibliography supplement the lively and informative discussion.

Air Warfare and Air Base Defense, 1917-1973 [426 Pages, 8 megabytes]

Airpower Advantage: Planning the Gulf War Air Campaign 1989 – 1991 [497 Pages, 8 megabytes]

The American military and the Far East : proceedings of the Ninth Military History Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, 1-3 October, 1980 [426 Pages, 19 megabytes]

The American military on the frontier : the proceedings of the 7th Military History Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, 30 September-1 October 1976 [206 Pages, 19 megabytes]

Anatomy of a Reform : The Expeditionary Aerospace Force [111 Pages]

Anything, Anywhere, Anytime: Combat Cargo in the Korean War [42 Pages]

Attempts at Codification of Aerial Warfare [7 Pages, 1.23mb]

The 31 Initiatives: A Study in Air Force-Army Cooperation [177 Pages]

From the History of the Creation of Jet Aviation [20 Pages, 3.4mb]

Pathfinder Operations in the Khmer Republic (1973) [92 Pages, 7.22mb]

Shelters for Civilian Personnel, 10 September 1935 [31 Pages, 4.9mb]

United States Air Force History. An Annotated Bibliography [110 Pages, 7.64mb] – Reports of American aircraft events at Fort Myer, Virginia, in 1908 and published extensively in the United States and Europe, marked the beginning of an immense flood of literature about military aviation and aviators, and air deeds in war and peace. This annotated bibliography on U. S. Air Force history is a sampling of that literature, prepared primarily for the student and scholar.

Winged Shield, Winged Sword: A History of the United States Air Force. Volume 1, 1907-1950 [524 Pages, 7.55mb] – Throughout its first century, military aviation helped advance the interests of the United States. From a curiosity, fragile and of uncertain value, the warplane has become a devastating weapon. Moreover, ballistic missiles and surveillance satellites have joined aircraft in this aerial array. In these two volumes, the authors try to describe and analyze, in the context of national policy and international rivalries, the evolution of land-based air power since the United States Army in 1907 established an Aeronautical Division responsible to the Chief Signal Officer. This work, in addition to commemorating the Air Force’s 50th anniversary, also commemorates almost 100 years of progress in the design and use of aerial weaponry. By placing airmen and their machines in an appropriate context, it provides a clearer understanding of the central role of the Air Force in current American defense policy. Volume I, containing the first 12 chapters, begins with balloons and the earliest heavier-than-air machines. It carries the story through World War II to the establishment of the United States Air Force as a service separate from, but equal to, the Army and the Navy. Volume II picks up the narrative at the Korean War, takes it through the War in Southeast Asia, the Gulf War, to the drawdown following the end of the Cold War. Part I: The Early and Interwar Years, 1907-1939, contains The Roots of U.S. Military Aviation, The Air Service in the Great War, From Air Service to Air Corps — The Era of Billy Mitchell, The Coming of the GHQ Air Force, 1925-1935, and The Heyday of the GHQ Air Force, 1935-1939. Part II: World War II, 1939-1945, contains Reaction to the War in Europe, The Army Air Forces in Desperate Battle, 1941-1942, Building Air Power, The Defeat of Italy and Germany, and Victory over Japan. Part III: Building the Air Force, 1945-1950, contains The Quest for Independence and Framing Air Force Missions.

USAF Withdrawal from Southeast Asia, 1 JANUARY 1970 – 30 JUNE 1971 [102 Pages, 13.84MB] – The evaluations in this document represent the efforts of working groups and critique panels of USAF officers who were knowledgeable in the subjects addressed. They were based on reports, letters, messages, etc. written during the course of the war without benefit of a long term perspective.

Video Archive

The post Air Force History Collection first appeared on The Black Vault.

So frustrating to have to do a video like this, but as traction grows today on various social media platforms about a story that just surfaced rooted with a FOIA request response – I felt a video was in order.

Wild sensationalized headlines and misinterpreted FOIA results has all landed a new UFO story that is, well, just not accurate. Although at the recording of this, mainstream media coverage has not commenced, the blog in question has found itself posted throughout multiple social networks such as Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter; all resulting in many questions.

This is addressing the rumor, while adding a few more tidbits about AAWSAP that you may not be aware of.

SHOW NOTES

PENTAGON ADMITS IT HAS UFO DEBRIS, RELEASES TEST RESULTS by Anthony Bragalia

DIRD Report Research

Wayback Machine AAWSAP Bid Solicitation

Robert Bigelow – AAWSAP, the Tic Tac incident, Weird events on Skinwalker Ranch

Anthony Bragalia’s Response

The following was posted on YouTube. In the interest of fairness, I tweeted out his response and wanted to also publish it here. What follows is my response back.

John-

This is Anthony Bragalia. I wished that you had let me know that you were going to do a video critique of my article. I would have been able to respond point by point.

You are misleading viewers by having them believe that the DIA was responding to anything other than a very specific, unambiguous request for test results on UAP/UFO material held by Bigelow Aerospace. The reply from the DIA was to provide to me “advanced technical reports” on extraordinary materials. No matter what you are implying, it remains that the context in which I received the documents was in direct response to requests for information derived from recovered UFO debris and the testing of potentially extraterrestrial material. You naively assume that such technical reports would actually reference aliens, Roswell, etc. It does not work that way and your thinking that these technical reports would discuss such things in such a way shows that you do not have a true grasp of materials science and engineering studies.

My request for documents were for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). But there is deliberate obfuscation and purposeful confusion coming from the DIA. The program operated earlier under another name, Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Applications program (AAWSA), and the documents are stamped with this program name rather than AATIP. This allows the DIA to claim the studies relate to an advanced military weapons program for defense rather than to an aero-program identifying possible threats from outer space and the associated retrieval of flying saucer material. I have contacted two of the scientist authors and what they say will be reported on in a future article. This was not a “mistake” on the part of the DIA to provide me with reports on advanced defense aerospace materials instead of UAP materials.

Shortly after, I responded to the above.

Hello Anthony,

Actually, I did not feel a need to contact you. You published your FOIA request and the FOIA response, in full. That is all that is needed.

I specifically addressed your FOIA, and the fact that your line item #5 likely triggered them to have the 5 responsive documents they did. Nothing else. I’ve worked with the DIA through FOIA for nearly 25 years, and have learned how they respond to requests, which echoes that of many FOIA offices. The reports were close to your item #5, and given they were UNCLASS/FOUO, they released them to address your line item. For you to imply that any of that is connected to UAP debris, is misleading at best.

In addition, there are many things in your article I did not address, as a courtesy that I wasn’t out to attack you. Rather, to address the FOIA material. However, for you to have an entire section about how reports had been released before, and how you were confused on why they would redact the names, yet again is misleading and factually incorrect. You fail to inform your readers those were unauthorized LEAKS of FOUO material. They were never officially released, so your entire section with your accusations is also wrong there. I left that out, as again, I am not trying to pick apart your entire article.

Plain and simple, not a single page of your release has anything to do with UAPs or UFOs or Aliens or Fairies. They coincide with what AAWSAP was about, and to have a headline, with the content, such as yours – is entirely misleading and does this field zero favors.

There are other factual errors in your article, which I would recommend you vet again. I am not here to attack you, but rather, put the FOIA documents into proper context. I am sorry to say, your article, did not. You had a solid story with what you got, but tainted the importance as it’s now overshadowed by speculation and false claims. That’s not my opinion, but rather, a fact that the documents you show do not validate a single claim of your UFO crash debris and analysis result claims.

I stand by my video…

The post The REAL Story Behind the FOIA Request and UFO Debris Story – February 9, 2021 first appeared on The Black Vault.

by John Greenewald, Jr. – The Black Vault – Originally Published: February 12, 2021

UFO related social media circles were excited by news this week that the Pentagon had admitted it has “UFO debris” in its possession and that they had released the test results. That is, according to one UFO researcher, anyway.  Tacked on to numerous UFO related headlines in the past few years, the claim seemed to reinforce a public hope that humanity was on a one way train to “D”isclosure-ville, and that an extraterrestrial presence was about to be acknowledged by the powers that be. The only problem is that those powers that be see it much differently.

Staggering Implications

The idea that the U.S. government possesses crashed alien technology would be a game changer on numerous levels for humanity. The very notion redefines science; turns world religions upside down; and would make nearly every human re-think their place in the cosmos.

The idea that there is UFO debris out there has been touted most recently by the New York Times, having reported in July of 2020 that one astrophysicist claimed there were “retrievals from ‘off-world vehicles not made on this earth.’”

Luis Elizondo, the man who says he ran a secretive UFO study within the Pentagon known as the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” or AATIP, told Tucker Carlson in 2019 that he believed the U.S. government has “material” from UFOs. When pressed, Elizondo referred to his non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and would not elaborate.

An Extraordinary Claim Is Made

Although many claims have been made over the past couple of years, there is one vital piece to the puzzle that has been missing from the debate: the evidence. There are no test results; no confirmed artifacts; and no official government admission that any of it exists in the way some say. Up until now, there have just been words, claims, and speculation. Yet, nothing definitive.

However, Anthony Bragalia, a UFO researcher who runs the “UFO Explorations” blog, said he believes he made the Pentagon admit to the reality that they hold UFO debris; say that they’ve analyzed it; and he says he has the results. In his most recent blog post, he ran the headline, “Pentagon Admits It Has UFO Debris, Releases Test Results.”

“A stunning admission by the US government that it possesses UFO debris was recently made in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed over three years ago by this author,” Bragalia began his blog. “In a reply letter, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has ended decades of speculation by verifying that UFO material has indeed been recovered.”

Bragalia then outlined his original FOIA request, along with the response he received, in full. The original FOIA request asked for an array of seven various items surrounding UAP “material” in relation to the AATIP program. In a response video created by The Black Vault regarding his claims, it was proposed that one item specifically triggered the resulting records, and likely was simply in response to the “material” aspect of the request, rather than the “UAP” part. Given the fact that responsive documents never once mention “UAP,” “UFO,” “alien,” “extraterrestrial” (in the way he claimed), or “crash debris,” it would appear a logical way to look at it.

Bragalia disagrees. “You naively assume that such technical reports would actually reference aliens, Roswell, etc.,” Bragalia said in a publicly posted comment to The Black Vault. “It does not work that way and your thinking that these technical reports would discuss such things in such a way shows that you do not have a true grasp of materials science and engineering studies.”

Regardless of Bragalia’s stance, a new fact emerged that was omitted from Bragalia’s blog post. This was learned by The Black Vault and confirmed by the Pentagon the next day, that there were amendments to Bragalia’s original FOIA request to expedite getting the documents. Once asked, Bragalia then supplied The Black Vault the string of e-mails between him and the DIA. It proved the original FOIA request was modified, and it further supports The Black Vault’s theory on why the responsive records were sent out.

To summarize the back-and-forth, an agreed to amendment to Bragalia’s original FOIA took the original seven items, and amended it to start with only a single item, then move on to the others. The amended item asked for “test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DoD/Pentagon” to be processed first.

Amendments such as these are commonplace when filing FOIA requests. Officers working on their growing case-loads seek out amendments to shorten processing times; save on review fees; or just decrease overall workloads. In Bragalia’s case, he amended his request to get the material analyses quicker and the remaining items would be processed but released (if anything) at a later date (this is known as a “rolling release”).

As a result, Bragalia received the first batch of material consisting of 154 pages, and included five “Defense Intelligence Reference Documents” or DIRDs.

The DIRDs, 38 in total, were created under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program or AAWSAP. There has been some confusion about the relationship AAWSAP had with AATIP, but according to the Pentagon, AAWSAP was the portion of AATIP outsourced to the private sector. In this case, Bigelow Aerospace‘s subsidiary BAASS. They were the organization that created the reports, and issued them back to the DIA to fulfill their contractual obligation.

The five reports sent to Bragalia were all the DIRD reports dealing with “material” in some way, hence why The Black Vault believes that is the responsive portion of the request which triggered them to be sent. The “UAP” portion became secondary and irrelevant on the final release of records, which will be explained more below.

The Pentagon Addresses the Claim

Bragalia’s claims were not well received by the Department of Defense. The Pentagon told The Black Vault that the claims Bragalia were making about the first batch of documents he received, were “inaccurate” and “misleading.”

“The testing referred to in the documents released by the Defense Intelligence Agency under the Freedom of Information Act was of known materials, conducted for study purposes pursuant to the Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program’s mission of establishing a center of expertise for advanced aerospace technologies,” Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough said in an e-mail to The Black Vault. “Any claims that the tests are of debris are inaccurate and misleading.”

Could the amendment to the FOIA case prove Bragalia got the DIA to admit to UFO debris, and the resulting documents were UAP material analyses? He says yes.

According to Bragalia, the DIA’s FOIA officer confirmed to him that they were processing “a request for UFO/UAP related test results” and not “for known aero-defense metals as the Pentagon now claims.” But could just this acknowledgement by the FOIA officer in what he was processing prove the responsive records were UFO/UAP related test results on potentially extraterrestrial debris like Bragalia claims? Likely not. Here’s why:

FOIA Cases Solidify a Proven Track Record

The Black Vault has filed more than 10,000 FOIA requests in nearly 25 years. Within some of those cases, it is proven that FOIA case officers will often try hard to help requesters get what they want, and will sometimes send material that is loosely responsive, rather than exactly responsive, in an attempt to meet the requesters needs. Although that is not always the case with some agencies, there are numerous real-world examples that can be referred to.

In FOIA case 143F-97, filed by The Black Vault to the U.S. Army, all “records concerning and/or captioned Unidentified Flying Object (UFO),” were requested. The result included a large stack of documents relating to the Horton Brothers, and the World War II era “flying wing” design developed by Nazi Germany. That was always an identified craft, and one that was not fully pertaining to the The Black Vault’s FOIA request. However, since in some circles the design was referred to as a “Flying Saucer,” the FOIA case officer at the time, Russell Nichols, provided them as responsive. Loosely related to the request, but not exactly “responsive.”

Another example is FOIA case 15-0007 that The Black Vault filed to the Naval Research Laboratory. This request asked for all records pertaining to Project Argus, a US Navy program that “exploded three fission type nuclear bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean, in the part of the lower Van Allen Belt closest to the earth’s surface.” The request went into extensive details about the nuclear tests that the FOIA request was seeking documentation on.

The result, was a document pertaining to a Project Argus, but the record was about a 1960s era US Navy program on “isolation and confinements research.” There is no mention of anything nuclear.  In this case, FOIA officer Richard Thompson saw the name of the program, and sent the responsive document. Loosely related by name, but far from exactly responsive.

These examples, along with many more citable from over the years, shows an aura of helpfulness on the side of many FOIA officers; and not one of obfuscation. As a result, however, some results can be misconstrued, like in Bragalia’s case.

Murky Waters

The story surrounding “UFO Debris” has been drowning in muddy waters since many of the claims have surfaced.

Although the NY Times reported in 2017 that Bigelow Aerospace had modified buildings at its Las Vegas headquarters for, “…the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena,” CEO Robert Bigelow says they never had any material at all.

In a one-on-one interview with George Knapp of MysteryWire.com, Bigelow was asked directly on this matter. “NY times reported that you modified your facility here in order to house some material from somewhere else. Did you ever have it?” Knapp asked. Bigelow responded, “We never had any.”

This denial seems to further invalidate the claim that the Pentagon admitted to studying UFO debris, and releasing the results, given the fact that Bigelow himself was the one who owned BAASS, and was responsible for creating the DIRD reports in question. Bigelow’s team can not analyze what they say they never had.

To ensure accuracy, The Black Vault also reached out to Dr. Hal Puthoff, the lead engineer who headed the AAWSAP program for BAASS.  According to Dr. Puthoff, he was the one responsible for choosing the topics of the DIRD reports.

In an e-mailed statement to The Black Vault, Dr. Puthoff offers the nail in the coffin for Bragalia’s allegation. “The five-cited DIRDs that we commissioned addressed advanced-material topics potentially significant for advanced aerospace application, not evaluation of UAP debris in hand.”

The inaccuracies about UFO debris claims go well beyond the most recent with Bragalia’s FOIA response. In July of 2020, two of the three same journalists who broke the AATIP story three years prior, returned to report about “off world vehicles.” It was originally reported by the NY Times that former Senator Harry Reid confirmed that “vehicles from other worlds had occurred and that retrieved materials had been studied secretly for decades.” However, this claim was pulled back the next day, and the NY Times issued a correction, and they deleted the reference.

Reid even tweeted out a response to this, also reinforcing he had never said such things.

The Black Vault reached out to Bragalia to address the newer parts of this story, including the Pentagon’s statements and the contradictory evidence to his claims. Despite an extensive back-and-forth for on the record comments, Bragalia retracted all submitted e-mails to The Black Vault, and rather pointed to an online article he wrote. The Black Vault’s article here was adjusted prior to publication to adhere to Bragalia’s request.

Onward

Bragalia claims in his newest published rebuttal that a “lawsuit against the Pentagon… has been initiated today with the retention of counsel to uncover the underlying truth.” Although he maintains his position, he now adds more to the story that there were phone calls with the DIA reinforcing his stance; a fact also absent from Bragalia’s original blog. Phone calls with government officials are hard to verify in relation to content and context, since nothing is recorded or logged.

Regardless of any truth to his new claims and evidence, nothing he has put forth disproves the Pentagon or Dr. Puthoff’s stance that this material is not related to UFOs or UAPs.

The Black Vault has long maintained a UFO cover-up of some kind. There are thousands of documents that prove that. Yet, extraordinary claims about the government admitting to UFO debris, must be backed up by evidence that is verifiable/reproduceable. In the above examples, not only with Bragalia’s claims, but the NY Times as well, nothing is.

With each claim, whether it be printed (then retracted) by the NY Times; or ones made by UFO researchers; or ones that appear from anonymous sources – the waters become more murky when it comes to “UFO Debris.” The “facts” presented often fall apart when pursued, and the foundation for each claim often crumbles easily when pushed upon.

Maybe that is the ultimate plan by those who operate within the shadows. Confuse the public enough, they fall into a pit of uncertainty about the entire topic that they can’t get out of.

Or, maybe those at the root of the “UFO Debris” claims, are either easily convinced without evidence or maliciously deceiving with their intent.

Either way, the absolute truth remains hidden. And the public, remains in the dark.

###

Video Presentations

Part 1

Part 2

The post Murky Waters Drowning “UFO Debris” Claims first appeared on The Black Vault.

CIA’s Role In The Study of UFOs [19 Pages]

Colonel Corso’s DA Form 66 [5 Pages] (More Information)

Court Case: State of New Hampshire v. Daniel Fichera. [13 Pages] – This is an interesting document, obtained from the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. In an attempted murder case, the defendant tried to discredit the victim due to her belief in UFOs. If for nothing else, this is an interesting read!

Extraterrestrial Life In The Universe [10 Pages]

First UFO Incident for Our Country [6 Pages]

GAO: Records Concerning the 1947 Crash Near Roswell, New Mexico [26 Pages]

Interstellar contact in an evolving universe, Jan 1, 1978 [7 Pages, 3.59MB] – The evolution of organization in the universe is considered. It is proposed that a circum-solar community, and eventually a galactic community represent the next levels of organization in this evolutionary process. Possible strategies for detecting other technological civilizations in the galaxy are discussed.

Major General William F.  McKee (USAF) Complaining about UFOs [1 Pages, 60kb]

JANAP 146(E) [33 Pages]

New UFO Explanation? Every week Public Affairs staffers prepare an article for publication in the Las Cruces Sun-News and the Alamogordo Daily News. This is a humorous explanation for UFOs. Was surprised to find the government even referencing the topic! [1 Page]

Oral History Interview with Maj. Gen. William C. Garland [112 Pages, 15.28mb] – Check out pages 182 – 185 for a discussion on UFOs and Flying Saucers. Very interesting closing remark. (More Information)

The Path to the Stars: A Collection of Science Fiction Works [464 Pages, 24.33 MB] – The article is a collection of science fiction works and a number of propositions by the Russian author, K. E. Tsiolkovsky. Many of his ideas and propositions have proven to be inaccurate, but nevertheless he did accurately describe some possibilities of the space environment as we know it today. He proposed that the absence of gravity facilitates work, and this relieves the pain of the aged and the ill. He proposed the use of a special green house for supplying food and the restoration of wastes into usable air and water. All necessary energy was to be obtained by mirrors from the sun’s rays, which Tsiolkovsky thought were being wasted for the most part. He gives an adequately accurate description of the moon’s landscape, but he is presupposing too much in the description of native life on the moon and other planets, especially without an atmosphere, and the ease with which gravity is defied. Tsiolkovsky also underestimated some suppositions about the acceleration force in the absence of gravity and the danger of meteorite collision. He overestimated the possibility of using a liquid medium for reducing ‘g’ forces on man during acceleration and the possibility of ‘catching’ meteorites with nets as one would catch butterflies. Some other improbable conceptions of his are the underestimation of using mirrors to create temperature increases at great distances from the sun, the assumption that all starts have planetary systems, migrations to other planets is a necessity, the estimation of the sun’s ‘cooling’ and destroying the Earth, forcing humanity to find another home by migration to other planets. Despite his inaccurate assumptions, his articles are of value.

Phoenix Lights Incident in 1997

 Project Aquarius Final Report (U)

 Project Aquarius Quarterly Report (U) (2 March 1970)

 Project Aquarius Annual Report (U) (1 June 1970)

 Project Aquarius Special Report (U) (18 February 1970)

Project Plato (Report Bibliography)[6 Pages]

Project X-148 and Foo Fighters

The ‘UFO’ of July 24, 1981: A Discussion with Comrade Zhang Zhousheng [10 Pages]

The Schizophrenic Theme in Science Fiction [17 Pages, 1.22 MB]

Science and Engineering: Indicators 2000 Volume 1, National Science Foundation – Chapter of interest is Chapter 8, page 8-31, entitled, “Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience” | Volume 2, Appendix Tables

The Search for Signals of Extraterrestrial Life [10 Pages, 600KB]

UFO Seen, Thought to be a Trident Missile by Russian Radar Crew

UFOs: What to Do? [46 Pages]

United States Air Force Fact Sheet on UFOs and their Termination of Project Blue Book News Release [3 Pages]

The post Various Records on UFOs first appeared on The Black Vault.

 

Released June 2013 [4,465 Pages]

The final tranche of UFO files released by The National Archives contain a wide range of UFO-related documents, drawings, letters, and photos and parliamentary questions covering the final two years of the Ministry of Defence’s UFO Desk (from late 2007 until November 2009).

Discover the reasons behind the closure of the UFO desk, the handling of the largest number of UFO sighting reports received in 30 years and the disclosure campaign for ‘the truth’, which was sparked by the closure of the UFO Desk.

Start by reading our highlights guide (PDF, 363kb) to help navigate your way through the files.

Due to the large size of some of these files, we recommend you save them to your computer before opening them. Please right click on the links and select the ‘save’ option.

1. DEFE 24/2448/1 (23,489 kb)
2. DEFE 24/2449/1 (28,799 kb)
3. DEFE 24/2450/1 (14,842 kb)
4. DEFE 24/2451/1 (19,256 kb)
5. DEFE 24/2452/1 (11,997 kb)
6. DEFE 24/2453/1 (1,477 kb)
7. DEFE 24/2454/1 (29,481 kb)
8. DEFE 24/2455/1 (21,193 kb)
9. DEFE 24/2456/1 (24,937 kb)
10. DEFE 24/2457/1 (8,207 kb)
11. DEFE 24/2458/1 (5,408 kb)
12. DEFE 24/2459/1 (20,540 kb)
13. DEFE 24/2460/1 (22,154 kb)
14. DEFE 24/2461/1 (12,592 kb)
15. DEFE 24/2462/2 (20,856 kb)
16. DEFE 24/2463/1 (18,754 kb)
17. DEFE 24/2464/1 (25,086 kb)
18. DEFE 24/2465/1 (22,913 kb)
19. DEFE 24/2623/1 (9,848 kb)
20. DEFE 24/2624/1 (19,324 kb)
21. DEFE 24/2625/1 (22,758 kb)
22. DEFE 24/2626/1 (21,242 kb)
23. DEFE 24/2627/1 (8,011 kb)
24. DEFE 24/2628/1 (9,617 kb)
25. DEFE 24/2629/1 (21,153 kb)

Released July 2012 [6,814 Pages]

The files contain a wide range of UFO-related documents, drawings, letters and parliamentary questions ranging from 1965 up to 2008.

Discover the role of the UFO Desk Officers, what they really thought of alien visitors, their ideas to harness alien technology as a weapon, and their briefings to Tony Blair on UFO policy.

Six of the files (DEFE 31/189/1-194/1) contain some duplicates of UFO sighting reports copied by the Air Secretariat between 1996-1999.

The original papers were released by The National Archives in February 2010.

(The Black Vault would like to thank Michel M. Deschamps, UFO Researcher/Historian/Archivist, for assisting in obtaining the documents below and allowing them to be listed on The Black Vault!)

defe-24-1984-1	defe-24-1985-1
defe-24-1987-1	defe-24-2005-1
defe-24-2043-1	defe-24-2061-1
defe-24-2073-1	defe-24-2074-1
defe-24-2077-1	defe-24-2078-1
defe-24-2079-1	defe-24-2080-1
defe-24-2083-1	defe-24-2084-1
defe-24-2087-1	defe-24-2088-1
defe-24-2089-1	defe-24-2090-1
defe-24-2093-1	defe-31-189-1
defe-31-190-1	defe-31-191-1
defe-31-192-1	defe-31-193-1
defe-31-194-1

 

Released August 2011 [9,358 Pages]

The files contain a wide range of UFO-related documents, drawings, letters and parliamentary questions covering the years 1985-2007.

Read eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings, see the picture of a ‘flying saucer’ which was sent for analysis by defence experts and discover the bizarre story of ‘Mork and Mindy’s’ visit to East Dulwich.

Start by reading our highlights guide (PDF, 397kb) to help you navigate your way through the files released in August 2011.

Seven files in this tranche (DEFE 31/182/1-188/1) contain copies of numerous UFO reports made by members of the public and submitted to MoD between April 1993 and July 1996. These reports are duplicates of papers from tranche #4 of the UFO files, released by The National Archives in August 2009 (DEFE 24/1959/1-1961/1 and DEFE 24/1974/1-76/1 on the webpage).

Due to the large size of some of these files, we recommend you save them to your PC before opening them. Please right click on the links and select the ‘save’ option.

1. DEFE 24/1958/1 (PDF, 29.6 Mb)
2. DEFE 24/2006/1 (PDF, 19.5 Mb)
3. DEFE 24/2019/1 (PDF, 49.8 Mb)
4. DEFE 24/2020/1 (PDF, 24.4 Mb)
5. DEFE 24/2031/1 (PDF, 12.3 Mb)
6. DEFE 24/2033/1 (PDF, 42.5 Mb)
7. DEFE 24/2034/1 (PDF, 32.6 Mb)
8. DEFE 24/2035/1 (PDF, 28.7 Mb)
9. DEFE 24/2047/1 (PDF, 81.2 Mb)
10. DEFE 24/2056/1 (PDF, 23.7 Mb)
11. DEFE 24/2057/1 (PDF, 11.2 Mb)
12. DEFE 24/2060/1 (PDF, 21.7 Mb)
13. DEFE 24/2064/1 (PDF, 20.8 Mb)
14. DEFE 24/2065/1 (PDF, 42.7 Mb)
15. DEFE 24/2066/1 (PDF, 5.7 Mb)
16. DEFE 24/2067/1 (PDF, 38.6 Mb)
17. DEFE 24/2068/1 (PDF, 18.3 Mb)
18. DEFE 24/2069/1 (PDF, 8.9 Mb)
19. DEFE 24/2070/1 (PDF, 19.2 Mb)
20. DEFE 24/2071/1 (PDF, 31.1 Mb)
21. DEFE 24/2072/1 (PDF, 26.2 Mb)
22. DEFE 24/2075/1 (PDF, 11.6 Mb)
23. DEFE 24/2076/1 (PDF, 21.5 Mb)
24. DEFE 24/2081/1 (PDF, 11.0 Mb)
25. DEFE 24/2082/1 (PDF, 12.1 Mb)
26. DEFE 24/2091/1 (PDF, 8.9 Mb)
27. DEFE 24/2094/1 (PDF, 26.9 Mb)
28. DEFE 31/182/1 (PDF, 46.2 Mb)
29. DEFE 31/183/1 (PDF, 32.9 Mb)
30. DEFE 31/184/1 (PDF, 31.0 Mb)
31. DEFE 31/185/1 (PDF, 26.0 Mb)
32. DEFE 31/186/1 (PDF, 27.2 Mb)
33. DEFE 31/187/1 (PDF, 30.1 Mb)
34. DEFE 31/188/1 (PDF, 34.1 Mb)

Released March 2011 [8,612 Pages]

Find out more about the House of Lords’ debate on UFOs, a flying saucer hoax that was treated as a potentially real alien invasion of the UK and how 1978 nearly became ‘the year of the UFO’.

Start by reading our highlights guide (PDF, 397kb) to help you navigate your way through the files.

Due to the large size of some of these files, we recommend you save them to your PC before opening them. Please right click on the links and select the ‘save’ option.

1. DEFE 24/1986 (PDF, 27.8 Mb)
2. DEFE 24/1997 (PDF, 57.9 Mb)
3. DEFE 24/1999 (PDF, 197.0 Mb)
4. DEFE 24/2018 (PDF, 40.9 Mb)
5. DEFE 24/2021 (PDF, 9.4 Mb)
6. DEFE 24/2022 (PDF, 13.0 Mb)
7. DEFE 24/2023 (PDF, 17.1 Mb)
8. DEFE 24/2024 (PDF, 36.0 Mb)
9. DEFE 24/2025 (PDF, 44.4 Mb)
10. DEFE 24/2026 (PDF, 40.4 Mb)
11. DEFE 24/2027 (PDF, 34.3 Mb)
12. DEFE 24/2028 (PDF, 11.6 Mb)
13. DEFE 24/2030 (PDF, 13.8 Mb)
14. DEFE 24/2032 (PDF, 37.2 Mb)
15. DEFE 24/2036 (PDF, 28.0 Mb)
16. DEFE 24/2037 (PDF, 25.6 Mb)
17. DEFE 24/2038 (PDF, 8.7 Mb)
18. DEFE 24/2039 (PDF, 37.6 Mb)
19. DEFE 24/2040 (PDF, 11.6 Mb)
20. DEFE 24/2041 (PDF, 19.5 Mb)
21. DEFE 24/2044 (PDF, 16.9 Mb)
22. DEFE 24/2046 (PDF, 7.8 Mb)
23. DEFE 24/2048 (PDF, 8.9 Mb)
24. DEFE 24/2049 (PDF, 7.6 Mb)
25. DEFE 24/2050 (PDF, 44.0 Mb)
26. DEFE 24/2052 (PDF, 4.8 Mb)
27. DEFE 24/2053 (PDF, 24.6 Mb)
28. DEFE 24/2054 (PDF, 8.4 Mb)
29. DEFE 24/2055 (PDF, 9.3 Mb)
30. DEFE 24/2058 (PDF, 21.6 Mb)
31. DEFE 24/2059 (PDF, 9.6 Mb)
32. DEFE 24/2062 (PDF, 26.1 Mb)
33. DEFE 24/2063 (PDF, 50.5 Mb)
34. DEFE 24/2085 (PDF, 39.0 Mb)
35. DEFE 24/2092 (PDF, 16.5 Mb)

Released August 2009

The files contain a wide range of UFO-related documents covering the years 1981-1996.

Find out more about close encounters, stray satellites, bright lights and Britain’s very own Roswell – Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk.

Start by reading our highlights guide (PDF, 254kb) to help you navigate your way
through the files.

1. DEFE 24/1948 [191 Pages, 84.6mb]
2. DEFE 24/1959 [372 Pages, 36.5mb]
3. DEFE 24/1960 [486 Pages, 67.2mb]
4. DEFE 24/1961 [394 Pages, 48.6mb]
5. DEFE 24/1962 [296 Pages, 31.2mb]
6. DEFE 24/1963 [257 Pages, 25.1mb]
7. DEFE 24/1964 [310 Pages, 29.6mb]
8. DEFE 24/1965 [334 Pages, 32.5mb]
9. DEFE 24/1970 [402 Pages, 44.9mb]
10. DEFE 24/1972 [85 Pages, 22.60mb]
11. DEFE 24/1974 [215 Pages, 20.6mb]
12. DEFE 24/1975 [329 Pages, 39.6mb]
13. DEFE 24/1976 [271 Pages, 36.2mb]
14. DEFE 24/2086 [126 Pages, 12.8mb]

Released October 2008

Highlights guide (PDF 442kb) to help you navigate your way through the files.

WATCH VIDEO – Dr David Clarke, an expert in UFO history, guides us through the highlights of the newly released UFO files.

The files contain a wide range of UFO-related documents covering the years 1986-1992. If you want to find out more about close encounters over Gatwick Airport, alien abductions, stray satellites – and what the UK Government thought of it all

1. DEFE 24/1953/1 (24.8 Mb)
2. DEFE 24/1954/1 (20.6 Mb)
3. DEFE 24/1955/1 (36.8 Mb)
4. DEFE 24/1956/1 (26.3 Mb)
5. DEFE 24/1957/1 (26.7 Mb)
6. DEFE 24/1940/1 (14.6 Mb)
7. DEFE 24/1941/1 (29.9 Mb)
8. DEFE 24/1942/1 (37.5 Mb)
9. DEFE 24/1943/1 (5.1 Mb)
10. DEFE 24/1949/1 (34.3 Mb)
11. DEFE 24/1951/1 (26.2 Mb)
12. DEFE 24/1952/1 (25.9 Mb)
13. DEFE 24/1926/1 (30.2 Mb)
14. DEFE 24/1927/1 (213.7 Mb)
15. DEFE 24/1928/1 (37.6 Mb)
16. DEFE 24/1929/1 (62.7 Mb)
17. DEFE 24/1930/1 (61.4 Mb)
18. DEFE 24/1931/1 (38.4 Mb)
19. DEFE 24/1939/1 (48.1 Mb)

Previously Released Records

1. DEFE 31/172 – UFO incidents
2. DEFE 31/173 – UFO incidents
3. DEFE 31/174 – UFO incidents
4. DEFE 31/175 – UFO incidents
5. DEFE 24/1922 – UFO reports
6. DEFE 24/1923 – UFO reports
7. DEFE 24/1924 – UFO reports
8. DEFE 24/1925 – UFO reports
9. DEFE 44/119 Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s)
10. PREM 11/855 Prime Minister’s request for an explanation of stories about flying saucers (UFO’s)
11. AIR 20/7390 AIRCRAFT: General (Code 5/1): Unidentified aircraft (flying objects UFO’s): reports. INTELLIGENCE (Code 80): Unidentified aircraft (flying objects): report
12. AIR 2/19086 Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s) policy and policy statements

UFO Sightings in the United Kingdom, through 2009

1. UFO Report 2009 PDF [264.0 KB]
2. UFO Report 2008 PDF [63.0 KB]
3. UFO Report 2007 PDF [29.2 KB]
4. UFO Report 2006 PDF [14.0 KB]
5. UFO Report 2005 PDF [18.0 KB]
6. UFO Report 2004 PDF [13.4 KB]
7. UFO Report 2003 PDF [16.5 KB]
8. UFO Report 2002 PDF [15.0 KB]
9. UFO Report 2001 PDF [24.9 KB]
10. UFO Report 2000 PDF [33.8 KB]
11. UFO Report 1999 PDF [37.2 KB]
12. UFO Report 1998 PDF [37.7 KB]
13. UFO Report 1997 PDF [54.2 KB]

The post United Kingdom UFO Documents first appeared on The Black Vault.

The transcript was created by The Black Vault with the help/assistance of AI. Then, manually, the names were matched up with the speakers, and a rough pass over the transcript was done, but it is far from perfect. However, the intent is to have some kind of a guide to the meeting that can be searched. For any corrections, feel free to CONTACT with changes.

Transcript

Karen Fox  00:12

Oh, everybody and welcome to this a media telecon after our independent study on UAP, that’s an identified anomalous phenomena. We hope you weren’t. If you’re here for the media that you had the opportunity to watch the public broadcast today, we will have a link for that up shortly, you can go back and look at it. We will be focusing today mostly on q&a. We’re not going back over all the things we discussed today. So we will be leaving the most time we can for immediate ask questions. I am Karen Fox, with NASA’s Office of Communications. And we will start with just a couple of minutes of introductory remarks. And then we will go quickly into the q&a, a warning for you. If you did not have the opportunity to watch the broadcast. today. We have many people here today, we’re going to try very hard to be good about making sure each person says their name ahead of time, you should feel free to write us in the opposite communications. If for some reason you missed the name, but we will do our best to get you all the names as we go. Once we do questions, you will be invited to press star one to get in the queue. To ask a question. Without further ado, I will toss to two of our panelists, Dan Evans and David Spergel. Each one is going to give just a couple of minutes overview of what this independent study is about and what we’ve accomplished today. And then we’ll move right into our q&a portion.

Dan Evans  01:51

Thanks very much, Karen. So something I mentioned this morning, but I’d like to re iterate this afternoon is that this subject of on identify anomalous phenomena UAPs, if you will, has truly captured the attention of the public of the scientific community. And nowadays, the US government as well. And we at NASA strongly believe that it’s our responsibility, all working together to investigate these occurrences, and to provide the sort of rigorous scientific scrutiny that NASA is well known for our boss, the NASA administrator, Senator Bill Nelson, truly believes that studying UAPs is incredibly important, not least because it provides an opportunity for us to expand our understanding of the world around us. And given NASA’s roots in exploration. As I said, this morning, this work is in our DNA. Secondly, we are approaching this study, highly cognizant of the fact that there is a situational awareness aspect. The presence of UAPs undoubtedly raises concerns about the safety of our skies. And it’s our responsibility, again, working together to investigate whether those anomalies, those phenomenas pose any risks to SP safety. What we’re doing now is we have brought together this team of 16 experts, all of whom are absolutely top notch experts in their respective fields, and pull them together in a highly interdisciplinary approach. We’ve tasked them with helping NASA produce a roadmap, a roadmap that doesn’t necessarily look back at previous grainy footage sort of acknowledges that many UAPs historically, we’ll never be able to get to the bottom of because the data are of such poor quality. So we’re trying to assess whether those phenomena pose any risks to SB safety. And we’re doing it using science. NASA believes that the tools of science apply to the study of UAP because they allow us to separate fact from fiction. And that’s all part of NASA’s commitment to exploring the unknown. And doing so with the openness, transparency and candor that were well accustomed to providing the public. I’ll pass it over to David.

David Spergel  04:35

Thanks, Dan. So as Dan noted, our goal here is to provide a roadmap for how NASA can contribute to understanding and in doing so, you know, mindful of the AR O’s role as leading the whole of government UAP effort. But NASA has some really unique capabilities. It is the civilian agency and as its data is open It handles things in a transparent manner. And as such, I think is the best suited to interact with both the citizen scientists and scientists, professional scientists engage with us. We’ve gone through a data collection stage, which is continued with the our hearing today. And I think what we’ve seen is that many events have conventional explanations. We saw more of this today that many of these events are commercial aircraft, civilian and military drones, whether in research balloons, military equipment, weather phenomena ionospheric phenomenon. That said, we there are remain events that we do not understand. But these events tend to be characterized by poor quality and limited data. And I think one of the lessons we’ve drawn is the need for more high quality data and data that is, well caliber measured with well calibrated instruments, multiple observations, and that there’s a need for high quality data curation. In order to assess these events. Where we have not yet made our recommendations, we’re still at the stage of developing our report. So we just were everything we say now represents really preliminary observations, our report will be out, we hope by the end of July. And that report will be fully open. And you know, it’s really only at that stage that we can, we will have consensus recommendations that we will be presenting to NASA. And these will be a report that we will send through the Earth Science Advisory Board, which will pass it on to NASA Headquarters.

Karen Fox  07:06

All right. Thank you so much. As I mentioned, we will move on to the q&a portion of this.

Operator  07:14

And to ask a question, please press star one,

Karen Fox  07:18

star one. And I’ll remind our panelists to say your name first when you when you answer. And our first question is going to be from Steve Crabtree of BBC, please.

Steve Crabtree  07:32

Hello, can everyone hear me okay? Yeah. Fantastic. I should start just by saying, Dan can tell from your accent that you’re from the UK. So I began my career at the BBC on Tomorrow’s World. I currently look after the sky at night, and I was the editor of horizon for five years. So the chances are, you probably appeared in one of my programs. And David Speigel. David, I did a presentation for the Simons foundation last year about science and science fiction, which my friend is a modern who organized. My question is very television law, I’m afraid. But it’s very straightforward, which is, I’m just very curious as to whether you’ve discussed what to do, if you actually do discover that UAPs are extraterrestrial, because that would suggest an advanced technology. And we know clearly what what happens certainly on the earth when a when an advanced civilization meets a less advanced civilization. So I’m just curious as to whether that has been discussed as a group with everyone on the panel that has done this brilliant presentation this afternoon.

David Spergel  08:46

That was actually not I mean, that’s a fascinating question. I think one or probably many of us have speculated about, but not one that was in our charge.

Karen Fox  08:56

So that was David Spergel speaking and we’re gonna go to David Grinspoon, next.

David Grinspoon  09:01

Oh, yeah, again, as as David mentioned, this is David Grinspoon. It’s not something we’ve spent time thinking about too much as a panel, because it’s not really in our in our remit. But you know, in the astrobiology community, I can tell you that, of course, it comes up a lot. What happens if we’re successful and even more specifically, not just with finding extraterrestrial life, but what happens if SETI detects a signal or we otherwise get what seems like convincing evidence of you know, that we aren’t alone in the universe. And there’s pretty much complete consensus in that community that that what we do is share that knowledge with the world that any any concern that we as scientists might have about the repercussions of that and you know, we could have some longer discussion about what we think that may be, but that’s sort of not not our job. Our job is to investigate Get the universe and share what we find. And so I think you will find that that would be the attitude in the scientific community is just to, to share what we find.

Karen Fox  10:12

Great, thank you so much. Moving on to our second question, which is from Marcia Dunn of the AP.

Marcia Dunn  10:20

Yes. Hi, can you hear me?

Karen Fox  10:22

Yes, you can.

Marcia Dunn  10:23

Okay.I’m struck by Michael’s comment that there’s probably plenty of stigma surrounding the topic right there at NASA headquarters. And given that, how hard was it, to kick off this study by NASA? And how hard was it to get sick and 16 open minded people to serve on the panel? Also, considering that they’ve been bombarded with online attacks? And also, why not just call these UFOs? Why UAPs? And furthermore, why switch the A from aerial to anomalous? Because that makes it even a bigger mouthful to say? Thanks.

Dan Evans  10:58

Alright, so lots of questions. How do we start, this started with the NASA administrator, Senator Bill Nelson, wanting to better understand UFOs. And that, in large part is based on the considerable work that he did when he was in the US Senate. But and I wanted to actually pay a major credit to Senator Nelson for, for doing this, because this has not historically been in NASA’s remit. And so it’s very rewarding that he has the confidence in NASA science, to take a scientific look in this because the administrator believes, as do we, that the tools of science apply here also. Now, how do you go about assembling a team of experts to come and do this task. And, again, I wanted to pay tribute to this incredible group that I’m proud to sit on the stage with right now. This is a complex task. We recognize that there is a need for expertise in multiple scientific disciplines. So we sought out recognized authorities in their respective fields, who could approach this investigation from diverse perspectives. And yes, given the sensitivity, and the stigma associated with the topic, it is important to find individuals who are willing to participate in this endeavor and I can tell you that we have nobody turn us down. Everybody on stage is our first choice because they collectively bring an incredible diversity of expertise to this task, and then combined, that diversity leads us to truly, I think, profound places. Let me address another question. And forgive me if I didn’t get to every single one of your sub questions. The term UAP originally, unidentified aerial phenomena was changed by the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law in December 2022, I believe, to identify anomalous phenomena and that was principally in recognition of the fact that one should expand our search beyond just airspace to potentially include near space, and undersea phenomena as well and consistent with that law than NASA accordingly changed our our charge to encompass multiple domains. Why don’t we call it UFOs? I think because of the stigma associated with UFOs. This is a serious business. I think many experts have told us about the potential risks to us airspace safety. And I think also because we want to employ the rigorous scientific method that NASA is accustomed to providing, I think it’s actually good practice to to call these events UAPs, not UFOs.

14:33

Then I could be mistaken, but I thought it was actually in the Defense Authorization Act of 2022 is where this study was requested. Not it was not.

Dan Evans  14:47

The NDAA Scott actually authorized the establishment of the or domain anomaly resolution office AARO in the NDAA that was signed in for 21 I believe If 22 Exactly 22, excuse me, all right, and is Senator Nelson and Astrid ministry to the directors of this study take place for NASA.

Karen Fox  15:12

And for those online, that was Scott Kelly, who was responding to Dan.

Karen Fox  15:20

All right, moving on to our next question. Gina Sunseri. With ABC News.

Gina Sunseri  15:27

Yes. Questions for Dr. Drake, if she’s available,

Gina Sunseri  15:31

will you talk about the roadmap to this?

Gina Sunseri  15:34

But what would the roadblocks beat that roadmap?

Gina Sunseri  15:37

What are the hurdles that need to be overcome?

Nadia Drake  15:44

Hi Gina,

Nadia Drake  15:45

thank you for the question. This is Nadia,

Nadia Drake  15:47

I think I’m actually going to toss that one over to Dr. Spergel,

Nadia Drake  15:50

our chair to address what the possible roadblocks could be.

David Spergel  15:57

I mean, I think there’s a lot of different kinds of robots. I mean, a lot of them are so I feel in addressing this issue. We steer between the rocks and the cyclone, we have a community of people who are completely convinced of the existence of UFOs. And we have a community of people who think addressing this question is ridiculous. Because you have Oh, students, you know, everything can be explained. And so to me, that’s the greatest roadblock we we want faces here. And I think as scientists, the way to approach questions is you start by saying, We don’t know. And then you collect data, and you try to calibrate your data well, and to go to an analogy we talked about earlier. The first step, if you want to find needles in haystacks or don’t even know to look, what you’re looking for, is you want to learn and characterize the haystack really well. And if you understand a well and how you measure and observe a well, you can find things. But that’s that’s not an approach that we have a community, I think the biggest challenge is you have community out there that says that haystack is filled with gold, and another community saying it’s not to look in a haystack for anything interesting. There’s nothing there. So I think to me, that’s the greatest challenge in this area. That’s right. Josh Smith

Karen Fox  18:00

matter. All right, I’m gonna move on to the next question, which is Bill Harwood with CBS News.

Bill Harwood  18:10

Thank you very much. This is for anyone really, but when you say there are events that, you know, after you’ve ruled out things that are obvious that there are some events that simply can’t be understand, understood at this point? What does that actually mean? And what I’m asking you is, is that more a case of the data that you have either due to quality, the age of it subjective accounts, whatever, that the data just isn’t good enough to reach a conclusion? Or does it mean the data might be good, but what you’re seeing is something that cannot be understood in terms of known technology? Or is it both?

Karen Fox  18:43

Alright, Federica, Bianco Hi.

Frederica Bianco  18:46

So I think you actually hit the nail in the head. The data that we have seen is generally sparse, poor, difficult to analyze. And in the cases in which it’s best, we can determine the nature of the things that look weird, even if they look clear by you know, re measuring them or accurately and accurately finding out that they don’t move so fast, after all, and so on. There are many cases in which we might be under the impression that there might be something anomalous that the data is not provisioned to support an analysis that would allow us to really understand either the shape or the behavior in motion, or the relativity property of the object. So it just cannot be said with the current data. It’s very possible that with better data that will be reconciled with a known phenomenon.

Karen Fox  19:42

All right. Moving on to our next question, we have Marina Koren from the Atlantic.

Marina Koren  19:50

Hi, thank you. I have two questions. The first is for any panelists who would like to take it? Can you tell us more about the online harassment that you receive? Were you surprised to get such harassment? And then a question for either David Spergel, or David Grinspoon, or both David’s you said near the end of today’s meeting that scientists are looking for life beyond Earth? Actively, obviously, and you mentioned techno signatures as one way that you’re doing that. You both also said that NASA should help remove the stigma around UAP. So do you think that NASA should consider the study and analysis of UAP as a way of looking for evidence of life beyond Earth? Thank you.

Karen Fox  20:34

Great, really start with Dan Evans.

Dan Evans  20:36

Okay, so I’m going to address the first question, which was surrounding online harassment as the panelists. And although I won’t get into specifics, I will point out that if you were watching the NASA YouTube feed this afternoon, and looking at the live chat that’s on the side of that panel, then you can sort of see some of the the online trolling. That just is, that’s really the tip of the iceberg. I think the important point is actually this, that if we are truly to approach UAP, with an unwavering commitment, and dedication to the scientific process, then harassment of any nature only serves to detract from that process. And of course, we see this not just in in UAP, but in other fields of science, as well. I will underscore something that I said earlier today is that every single member of our team is a respected authority in their field. They have NASA’s complete and total support. And this is hard work. It’s serious work. And if we are truly to respect the sanctity of the scientific process, that we allow, need to allow science, indeed, to be free, and that freedom stems directly from an absence of harassment to this incredible team of panelists.

Karen Fox  22:14

All right, and really, the second question was to either David Spergel, or David Grinspoon. Yeah,

David Grinspoon  22:21

this is David Grinspoon, it’s an interesting question, because, you know, as I indicated in my talk, during the panel, there is conceptually a connection, perhaps, between astrobiology and SETI and the study of UAPs. In that, you know, it’s a big universe. And we have to admit that there are things out there, we don’t understand. And in fact, in some of those, not well understood or not, not understood, phenomenon may be really important clues to, you know, things like two important mysteries that we want to understand. If you were giving me a finite pot of resources, right now to look for bio signatures and techno signatures, would I put some of that those resources into studying UAPs? Personally, probably not. Because, as we said, we haven’t seen any evidence that indicates that UAPs have anything to do with extraterrestrial phenomena. So so to me, it’s much more straightforward as as a application of our curiosity about extraterrestrial life to look at exoplanets to look elsewhere in the solar system. So I don’t, we don’t have reason yet to explicitly explicitly connect UAPs. With that study in that way, however, as long as there’s a mystery, bait on Earth, or wherever we have to pursue it. And if the data leads us to, to realize that it does have something to do with extraterrestrial life, of course, we’ll be enthralled and fascinated by that and will want to pursue it. But at this point, we don’t really have any explicit data that suggests to us that there’s a connection between UAPs and extraterrestrial life.

Karen Fox  24:13

Thank you so much. Moving on to the next question, which is from Jeff Brumfield of NPR.

Jeff Brumfield  24:20

Oh, Hi, there. I am sorry, to kind of belabor Marina question, but actually, the online chat for the livestream was close to at least on YouTube. So I was wondering if you could just be I’m not asking for names just a little more explicit about the type of harassment isn’t harassment you’re receiving from people who believe aliens are real or people who believe this is a ridiculous question or both sort of gay back to David’s burgles rock and hard place point.

Karen Fox  24:51

So just before I pass that question off, I would like to point out that there were in fact, two YouTube videos going live today. One has had all of that. And we will be sharing, you know, there will be a permanent version going up. So you’ll be able to watch watch. But I do think it is one of the best places to see an example. Because we’re, of course, in a position where, you know, based on privacy and security reasons, we’re not able to give examples.

Jeff Brumfield  25:16

No, no, just a general sense of where this, which can be, you know, you don’t have to point fingers just more of a general sense of what’s going on.

Karen Fox  25:24

Right, Dan Evans will give a response.

Dan Evans  25:27

I think every one of the 16 Strong panel, plus myself receives on a on a daily basis, emails of all sorts concerning this subject, but we’re not talking about that we’re talking about specific attacks on the character of individuals and their suitability to sit on this panel. And again, that’s really just scratching the surface. I’ll go back to the remark I made previously that if we are to follow science, which is exactly what the American public expects of this agency, then science needs to be free to conduct its process. And I think Paul has got a follow up.

Paula Bontempi  26:19

Yeah. This is Paula Bontempi. I just wanted to add to that. Two things. First, you know, the, when the panel was announced, I’m an oceanographer by trade, and I’m the dean of a Graduate School of oceanography. And I had a lot of people asking what possible role an oceanographer could play on this panel. And I’m, you know, I’m a satellite oceanographer. I’m also an optical oceanographer. And so one of the points I think the panel has repeatedly made today is about how, when you blend multiple communities that do and utilize different observations and data and analyses, for their science together, we tend to really break boundaries and push new frontiers in discovery. And that is exactly what NASA is about. And I would add one thing to it, and I would not call it harassment. But one of the really interesting accounts that we did get first person was by somebody who was a pilot who had witnessed an anomalous event and reported it. And the one thing that that person said was how many people would contact that person and just want to give their account of what they had experienced? This goes to the stigma of reporting, these were people that had a story to tell and didn’t know where to tell it or didn’t feel safe telling it. And I think the other thing we’ve covered today is how to go about D stigmatizing reporting. Right? That also gives us more data with which to address understanding, reported events. So I think it all goes hand in hand.

Karen Fox  28:10

Thanks so much. Our next question is from Joey Roulette with Reuters.

Joey Roulette  28:17

Thanks. I don’t know who is best to answer this question. But

Joey Roulette  28:21

it’s about I guess, the overcoming the issue of the low calibrated data. Do you? Does this panel expect to recommend that a satellite or any kind of other sensor system should be dedicated to spotting UAPs? Or UFOs?

Joey Roulette  28:35

What would that look like? Exactly? And

Joey Roulette  28:38

also UAP now encompasses near space, was space part of the study? Are any of your findings? And if not, why did that not, you know, produce any kind of data

Joey Roulette  28:50

that was discussed today? Sorry, I

Joey Roulette  28:51

missed something on that front. But yeah.

David Spergel  28:54

So I don’t think we will this David Spergel. You know, while we haven’t reached our conclusions, yet, I do not think we’d be recommending a dedicated satellite. Satellites cover a relatively small, you have a trade off with a satellite, you can either cover a lot of the planet at very low resolution, far too low to yield anything interesting here or you can cover only a very small portion of the planet. So I think a dedicated satellite would not be very effective approach. We have been discussing ways in which you can engage citizen scientists engage the public in ways in which they could help collect data take advantage of an interest that will require well calibrated instruments. You know, I think we will be thinking through potential recommendations in that area. And you know, and see where we go from there, but I do not see just the limitations of a on how many pixels you have on a satellite, it’s a big planet, to cover at the resolution that you would need to continuously look for for events.

Karen Fox  30:13

Thank you very much. Our next question is from Shane Harris with the Washington Post.

Shane Harris  30:20

Hey, there, thanks for doing this related questions regarding the data that you had access to? Did you have access to military or intelligence agency data, including things like radar tracking information? And did the panel have any access to classified information sources? And if the answer is no to any of those, would that kind of information be more helpful in reaching more definitive conclusions?

David Spergel  30:47

The answer is no. This is an unclassified panel, we didn’t have that. role would, you know, I think background noise there was really more to provide a roadmap to NASA on how we can contribute. The Aaro is charged with being the lead CNS, they have access to the classified data, have issued regular reports on this and plan to issue additional reports, it’s really their responsibility to look through the classified data. I hope that was clear. We had a lot of background noise. Yep, that’s clear. Thanks

Karen Fox  31:31

And Dan Evans wanted to weigh in as well. Yeah, thanks.

Dan Evans  31:34

So just on score a few things that David said the focus our focus on unclassified data. It’s a strategic choice. And it’s meant to prioritize transparency and public engagement. And by working with unclassified data uniquely, we at NASA can share our findings and methods with the public and the scientific community. And that’s important because it allows open discussion, independent verification of the results. And of course, those are key principles in scientific research. Not only that the use of classified data allows for wider collaboration, not just within the US government, but also with our international partners, our our academia, partners, and of course, private industry, it’s important to note that the use of classified data doesn’t necessarily preclude collaboration with agencies that handle classified information, such as the automated anomaly resolution office. And yeah, such collaboration can occur as appropriate and necessary. But really, the focus of this work is on unclassified.

David Spergel  32:36

So this is David’s for let me just add something on classification, which is most data is classified. That’s how it’s taken, not what’s in the image. You know, if an F 35 takes a picture of a bird, it’s classified with military intelligence satellite, satellite takes an image of a balloon from space, it’s classified. So, you know, in many cases around these events, the classification is done not to, to hide the nature of the event, but in order to protect our our technical capabilities for for studying and assessing threats from potential adversaries.

Karen Fox  33:25

Thank you so much. Our next question is from Tim Fernholz with quartz.

Tim Fernholz  33:33

Thank you for taking the time to talk to us about this and for holding the public meeting, just to maybe get you to talk a little bit more about what you might predict. Obviously, you mentioned you’re not interested in the NASA satellite for this. But based on the findings so far, is there any thought that NASA should have a program or program office dedicated towards thinking about UAPs in their research?

Mike Gold  33:59

So as I might go, look best on radio. As we mentioned previously, during the panel, I’ve been part of far too many Blue Ribbon studies and groups have produced reports that have just laid on the shelf. I think we have an inflection point opportunity here to the leadership that administrator Nelson has shown to institutionalize this and be able to tackle the issues that we’ve laid out in a comprehensive in serious fashion. And I think that requires a permanent office at NASA to effectively deal with the issues that we’ve laid out. None of the topics or challenges here can be dealt with quickly. And it really requires a permanent solution. And I think that could be implemented for a modest financial costs. So that’s certainly something at least I personally, will be pushing and recommending that we proceed with if you don’t To visualize something at NASA, the fear is it can go way far too quickly.

Karen Fox  35:07

Thank you so much. Our next question Oh, wait, I take it back then of influence the way into

Dan Evans  35:13

budget land. The very fact, of course, that we’re standing up this team and doing it in an extremely public setting, you know that, that tells you that NASA takes this issue seriously. But it’s also true to say that the funding going forward is going to be determined within the larger context of NASA’s overall budget. That is, of course annually by Congress. And the specifics are going to differ depend on a variety of factors. That includes the extent of the work required resources and an alignment of the UAP study with NASA’s overall mission and goals. As you know, of course, our budget is publicly available. Any allocation for this agency would make regarding UAP will be transparent, subject to public and congressional scrutiny as well it should be.

Karen Fox  36:09

Alright, now we’re moving on to the next question, which is from Brett Tingley with space.com.

Brett Tingley  36:17

Hello, thank you all for doing this. Given that the concepts of replicability and reproducibility are so fundamental to the scientific method, to what extent can such an unpredictable and ephemeral phenomenon such as UAP truly fit into a scientific framework, given we can’t predict when or where UAP will appear, and that there’s such a severe lack of data as outlined in the panel before

Karen Fox  36:43

going to David Spergel for that, and then to Federica Bianco.

David Spergel  36:46

So this is one where in the discussions I, earlier on I talked about Fast radio bursts. This is something we’re actually used to in astronomy, some of the most interesting things are bursts that go off at unpredictable times, and unpredictable locations. And history of Fast Radio versus here, I think, are instructive. And that when they were first seen, they would doubt it, people weren’t sure they were there. Turned out that a class of Fast Radio Bursts turned out to be associated with microwave ovens that were where the doors were open before they were turned off. That produced a distinctive signal that was identified. But ultimately, the Fast Radio Bursts turned out to be a exciting cosmological phenomenon. One who’s discoverers just won the Shaw Prize yesterday. So that kind of shows, sometimes, you know, that very much wasn’t an anomaly. Sometimes anomalies are really interesting, and point to novel physical phenomenon. And I think there’s a number of interesting lessons learned there. When you know, initially, you often find things that are intriguing, you have to study their nature, sometimes they will turn out to have conventional explanations. But ultimately, in order to really detect and study or not, you know, anomalous events that are unpredictable, you have to decide figure out ways in which you can do dedicated observations and optimize your observational strategy to be able to do that. And I think that’s, as we think about UAPs, I think we’re informed by previous successes in identifying anomalies.

Karen Fox  38:53

Federico Bianca was gonna go, but I think she feels that I think David David covered it. Fantastic. We’ll move on to our next question, which is from Brandi Vincent, of defense.

Brandi Vincent  39:08

Thank you. And thank you all so much for doing this today. First, and I’m sorry if I missed this one. But who is the new NASA Science Advisor that’s embedding in AARO? And is someone from DOD and betting at NASA? Tell me a little bit more about sort of what to expect and your thinking there. And then separately, you’ve confirmed that unclassified data isn’t being used for NASA’s current studies by these outside experts. What’s your response to criticism that if NASA is not using classified MASINT or SIGINT data held by NGA, DIA and other DoD archives, that maybe it’s not getting a full and accurate assessment for the public?

Dan Evans  39:53

Okay, so I can respond to those. This is Dan Evans again. Yes, so we are shortly to send over a liaison officer to the Department of Defense, their or domain anomaly resolution office. This is Mark McInerney. He’s sitting in the audience. He is a tremendous expert on large scale curation of data. He is an employee of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. And he really runs the show when it comes to our Earth Observing assets. All that being said, I want to underscore again, that NASA’s interests in UAP do differ from the Pentagon, and from the intelligence community, we are adopting a science focus here. And it’s good because we believe that science has a seat at the table. Individuals such as Mark can translate into both domains between unclassified and classified data. But I will foot stomp a remark I made earlier, namely, that we see true benefit to this team working solely on unclassified data. Because when you restrict yourself to those types of data, you can collaborate freely, with academia, with industry, with international partners, and we need as many eyes on this subject as possible. So there’s actually a huge advantage about it. And also, we can speak about it in public. Again, huge benefit for us to do it like this.

Karen Fox  41:42

Thank you. Moving on to Andrea Leinfelder with the Houston Chronicle.

Andrea Leinfelder  41:49

Hi, I, thanks for taking the questions. First, I want to double check the AR o stat. It said there have been more than 800 UAP sightings collect in the past 27 years. And of those maybe two to 5% are truly anomalous, is that correct? And then second, you know, data has been a really big part of the conversation a day. But I’m really struggling to explain it just a very simple way, how we are going to collect better data, you know, you’ve talked about multiple sources, maybe using existing assets. But if you just kind of give me more of a direct answer on how to collect better data for this random event, thank you.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick  42:31

This is Dr. Kirkpatrick from AARO. Those stats are correct. It’s we’re currently tracking over 800 cases. In few percent of those are truly anomalous, those numbers are going to change. They change weekly. And in our our file, our annual report coming up here this summer, you’ll get new numbers that have come out. My hope is that as we build out our website, those statistics will be kept up in real time. So people can just take a look at where we are in the picture. To answer your second question, I’ll start and then I’ll hand it over to you guys. From a how do we get better data perspective, I spoke a little bit this morning about analyzing the data sets that exist in current sensors, whether that’s FAA sensors or overhead sensors, to look at what sensors can actually see the types of things that we’re looking for, which I also spoke about this morning. And then further, we’ve got some purpose built surveillance systems that we’re deploying for just that purpose to look for search and track any of these objects over long periods of time so that we can get a baseline pattern analysis and a life analysis so that we can understand what’s normal, and what’s not normal. And then from there, we will bootstrap ourselves up into what sort of signatures are we picking out? And how do we refine our collection architecture to go after that? This will take time working through the data and the signatures that we have, it’ll be a little bit of searching of some old data, it’ll be looking at dedicated sensors in the future. Dan or David overdue?

David Spergel  44:25

Yeah. So something we are thinking about, and this is I would, you know, as I said at the beginning, we’re still we’re not yet written our report. We’re still in the stage of deliberating is the use of cell phones. We have there’s a water terminal three to 4 billion cell phones in the world. It’s a great citizen science opportunity. And cell phones record not only images, we’re all used to cell phone cameras, but they measure the local magnetic field Are there Graviton monitors, they measure sound, then they encode enormous amount of information about the environment around them. They pick up GPS signals, so have accurate timestamps and location stamps. And something that I think a number of us have been thinking about is, you know, potentially making a recommendation about NASA inlet, either internally, or, more likely externally enlisting a company to develop an app that could record data on cell phones, and then perhaps supporting the development of a website in which this data would be uploaded. If and if you have something seen by multiple cell phones, with good timestamp, data’s at multiple angles, you’re able to infer the location and velocity of that object. Most of the time, that will tell you it’s a plane, it’s a balloon, whatever. And if it’s something novel, you have high quality, uniformly selected data that can be used, and then combined with other data sets, like radar data, overhead data. And you I think the way one would want to understand really, you know, first eliminate the normal and then identify anything interesting is have multi-platform data that one can combine in an interesting way. And I think that’s, I think the way a number of us are thinking about how we might approach this,

Karen Fox  46:41

and Federica Bianco.

Frederica Bianco  46:42

Yeah, just to add that one of the things we emphasize multiple times today already is that the data needs to be well calibrated. So not only do we need to collect large amounts of data, but the information of the metadata so the information about the data has to be collected at the same time. So really, an ideal platform will give you not only the data, but also a wealth of information about the sensor that then allows you to really understand the context in which the data will stay.

Karen Fox  47:10

Thank you. We have about 10 minutes left and many, many questions. So I am going to try and get through as many as we can. But please note when you ask your question, and when you answer it, we might start picking up the pace a little bit, even though I know that’s not what any of us prefer to do. Alright, so our next question is Leonard David with Scientific American.

Leonard David  47:30

You know, thanks for doing this. I guess the question I’ve got is, you know, to what extent is the term UAP giving the folklore kind of mystique of UFOs and we’re talking Roswell crash, recovered aliens, public encounters, you know, on and on. Is that term UAP? Could it have nothing to do with a possibility? Other star folk visiting here?

Karen Fox  48:04

Okay, we have somebody, Mike, are you going to jump in? But

Mike Gold  48:09

Hey, Leonard, it’s good to hear your voice. This is Mike Gold. I think the very term UAP was intended to get away from the assumptions and baggage that are part of the term UFO. Again, I’m a recovering attorney. So I believe words matter, words of power. And I think what was trying to be achieved with that terminology. And what we’re trying to do with this group, is to be agnostic, to be objective, and to look at this issue, purely from a scientific perspective, without bias. So I believe that was the intent. Whether or not it’s been successful is up to you. But I think it was a valuable intent. And it’s certainly a goal that we have this with this group to eliminate the bias and to proceed from an objective scientific perspective.

Karen Fox  49:02

Thank you very much. Next question is from Doris Urrutia from inverse.

Doris Elin Urrutia  49:10

Hello, thank you for having this meeting. So to clarify, how many of the 800 samadhi UAP sightings has the 16 person group been able to view and of the several dozen do a piece sightings that remain anomalous? Are there hints of a natural origin for at least those that the 16 person team has access to view? For example, could this could be anomalous? UAPs be explained by something along the lines of sprites or ball lightning? Thank you.

David Spergel  49:45

So our this is David Spergel. Our remit was not really to go through those 800 events, right, that that really is the responsibility that Congress gave ARL Our task was to To develop a roadmap for NASA, on how they could contribute, where to go

Dan Evans  50:08

precisely that. Great,

Karen Fox  50:10

thank you. Moving on to Natalie Jonas with Aerospace America.

Natalie Jonas  50:19

Yeah, thanks for doing this meeting. I have a question for David Spergel. So you mentioned the creation of an app to submit sightings and media taking people across the country. Is this in production? Is this in production or just an idea to help sort of help centralize citizen science data?

David Spergel  50:38

You know, our job is to make recommendations to NASA. So this is a I would say a potential recommendation. Since we haven’t written a report yet that we might make to NASA and then NASA would make any decision on implementation. We’re, we’re an independent advisory board. You know, our our responsibility is to give advice. As someone who has commissioned independent advisory boards, Nasser’s responsibility is to listen to their advice, take it seriously, and then assess which aspects of it they want to follow.

Karen Fox  51:17

Great, thank you very much. We will be sharing these recommendations of course when they are finished, and we will make them all public. Next question is from Keith Cowen with NASAWatch.com.

Keith Cowen  51:30

By a question for Dr. Evans, this committee is engaged in the topic that I think everybody will agree, the public is equating with the search for life life, Elson the work elsewhere in the universe, even if it isn’t in the charter, even if you don’t want to make that connection. And I get the whole stigma thing, the giggle factor and the threats, trust me. But to be honest, NASA also allows some goofy sci fi movies with aliens to be shot in their facilities with a big NASA logo. My question with regard to the whole transparency issue is why is it that the NASA Astrobiology website, the NASA citizen Citizen Science website, the NASA Education website all make no mention of this committee or the meeting today? Or the topic under discussion? And how can you really do this with a straight and straight face if you really don’t want to just connect the obvious public interest with the program? Astrobiology that has been set up to look for life in the universe.

Dan Evans  52:27

Okay, firstly, I love love your Twitter stream, I get so much information from it. So thank you for that. Look. Point number one. And I want to emphasize this loud and proud that there is absolutely no convincing evidence for extraterrestrial life or associated with UAPs, anything like that? I think that when we stood up this incredible team, we did so in recognition of the fact that we need to get to an answer without assuming an origin going in. And we also acknowledge that there could potentially be very serious risks to us airspace as a result of us not necessarily knowing what is in our skies at a given time. And of course, that has national security implications, as well. To your point about astrobiology. Well, of course, astrobiology primarily focuses on the search for life in the universe. And the study is the origins and the study of UAPs is truly a distinct undertaking, in its own right. It has its own goals, its own methodologies. And that’s primarily concerned with identifying the nature and origin of UAPs. Not necessarily connecting that with the search for extraterrestrial life. As I’ve said numerous times today, we are all committed to transparency, and openness at NASA. And this is why we’re holding these meetings or this meeting in such a public forum. This is why you’ve been able to see the team really do science. And this is why we will be releasing the full report later this summer on our website.

Karen Fox  54:35

Thank you very much. If we move quickly, I think we have time for two more questions. So next up is Julian Barnes with the New York Times.

Julian Barnes  54:45

Hi, thanks for taking the question. Clarification, you mentioned that there had been an uptick of reports after the Chinese spy balloon transmitted the US Do you have any further information about how Many more numbers, that how many more reports that yielded. And then the geometry around the Coface video was pretty interesting. Do you have any other plans to do similar explanations of the other Pentagon videos that might explain why they could be optical illusions or things like that?

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick  55:29

Hi, this is Dr. Kirkpatrick from AARO, let me answer your first question. And then I’ll tell you what our plans are going forward. So the the uptick that was alluded to by some of the panel members. No, I don’t have an exact number for you from I guess, February until now, we can certainly do the math on what we reported in the last annual report we have, we’ve had a cut off date of December to now which is when it was about 511 or so and last year’s annual report, and it’s over 800. Now that number changes all the time. A lot of the uptick we’ve had recently is mostly because we’ve integrated the FAA data, which is, you know, over 100 new cases, just alone in the last few weeks. So, but that covers many, many years worth of data. That’s not like all at once. So it’s, it’s a little bit of a misnomer to think all of that increases just over the last few months. It’s covers many, many years. And all that will be detailed, of course, in our our report this summer. And as we get the website going, and we can have all these statistics out there for everybody, they can see it all the time. Your second question on the analysis performed on one of those videos, that is ultimately our goal at AARO is that we are going to do that level of analytics, that level of scientific deconvolution of all of these cases as we get them and we can work through them with the scientific community with the intelligence community, reduce those to digestible forms that we can then declassify and put out on the website for people to look at along with all of the associated analysis. That’s that is the ultimate goal, as I’ve said, in many occasions, as we’ve laid out the plans for how AARO is going to operate. And we will do that with our NASA team, with our interagency team with our scientific community.

Karen Fox  57:39

Thank you so much. I promise one last question. And then we’ll have to wrap it up today. Robert Coppinger with spaceflight magazine. Hello.

Robert Coppinger  57:50

So the recommendations are not going to come until the end of July. Or you’re not going to get anything into the FY 24 budget for following work. And Dr. Evans, are you going to lead the collaboration, any collaboration with the UK space agency? Because you’re British? And also Carlene toner, could you? I think I heard you say the FAA might make it mandatory for pilots to to make reports about UAP. Did I hear you correctly those. That’s the more questions. Thanks.

Dan Evans  58:26

Okay, thanks very much. Well, certainly for the purposes of today, I’m absolutely an American citizen. I’m a dual national. Let me get get to budget questions. You know, we have a lengthy budget process right now, this agency is going through internal preparations for the FY 25 budget request. Too early to say what would happen there because it’s a hallmark of us of data science to really have this deep partnership with the community. And by having this august group of independent experts come in, we solidify that partnership, and we look forward to their recommendations. And we’ll take appropriate action at the right time, too early to say which fiscal year if any things would fall into and as I said earlier, it’s a complicated process federal budgeting, to your question about involvement with the UK space agency. No, we have not had any, although, as Dr. Kirkpatrick said, we had a brief meeting last week with the five eyes that I sat in on more as a fly on the wall than anything acknowledging again, that there are different swim lanes and DOD in the intelligence community have vastly different interests in UAP than NASA’s science program.

Karen Fox  59:51

And the second question about the FAA

Karlin Toner  59:56

This is Carlin toner and I’ll start but I might turn it over to Warren Randolph. Follow up. So we heard from our speaker this morning, our FAA surveillance experts, that the controllers do have an operational procedure to report things that they see. And I believe similarly, the FAA does not mandate pilots can report but there is a volunteer reporting system and I have Warren clarify that.

Warren Randolph  1:00:23

Sure. Thank you, Warren Randolph. Yes, the system. First of all, just just to reiterate what Colin just said, and to answer the question directly, there are no plans and there are no requirements for required UAP reporting. So I want to be on our airmen. I want to be clear about that. From the federal government level, there may be internal reporting requirements at different operators or what have you, but there is nothing in the civilian, federal government and the FAA there is no regulatory requirements want to be clear there. Now, there are voluntary reporting environments. And the aviation community utilizes those one is the excuse me, the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, a s Rs. There are some voluntary, submitted reports from flight crews as well as air traffic, basically citing UFO or UAP. So that’s in the public domain. And I encourage you to take a look at that.

Karen Fox  1:01:28

Thank you so much. To those on the line. I do apologize for those whose questions we could not get to you should feel free to send an email in to Katherine Rohloff. And to me, Karen Fox, and we will try to get answers to you. Thank you so much for our panel. It’s been a long day and I think we are wrapping up now. Thank you so much.

Operator  1:01:54

And this does conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect at this time.

The post NASA’s Public UAP Meeting Media Teleconference Held May 31, 2023 first appeared on The Black Vault.