Originally, I had planned to write a blog post about how to go about establishing a grassroots advocacy movement about UAP Disclosure this summer. However, with the early release of the first portion of AARO’s historical UAP study, I have pivoted to address the political considerations underlying the latest AARO report. Many will write about the evidentiary support, or lack thereof, of this latest report. However, this latest AARO submission must also be seen for what it is. It is a political document that uses an incomplete study to loudly trumpet Pentagon biases that have been part of its approach to the UAP subject matter since at least 1947. The timing of the report; the use of historic assumptions and methods of inquiry; and the selective use of the data all lead to the inevitable conclusion that this effort is intended to mislead Congress and the public. It shows how a segment of the Executive Branch is acting as an independent political operator to continue its UAP operations without interference from the legislative branch or, apparently, the White House. This analysis also ignores declassified information that shows a cover-up of data which show today’s UAP are no different than yesterday’s craft. Documentation can be found in my recently published book, Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP.
The recent release of AARO’s Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Volume I (History Report I) demonstrates that little has changed in the manner in which the Pentagon addresses UAP. For 80 years, UAP has manipulated its explanations of the evidence to keep the public and Congress from learning about the phenomenon. The timing of its first historical report reflects AARO’s political intent to minimize exposure, while sticking to a superficial recitation of the facts.
The timing of History Report I is quite interesting. While finalized sometime in February, it was publicly released on a day that would maximize its influence on the public, by burying any negative responses. It came out on a Friday, where political stories often go to die. A rule of thumb is that you release bad news on a Friday when the public is less likely to read it, as they prepare for the weekend. However, Friday, March 8th was not any ordinary Friday. It was the day after the largest political event of the year. President Biden’s State of the Union Address was given the night before. It had an estimated audience of 32 million, far higher than recent State of the Union addresses. This relegated news of the UAP history report to the back pages of newspapers and outside of the news blocks in a typical cable news show.
For obvious reasons, it was the Presidential speech that dominated media coverage. It was held two days after the Super Tuesday Primaries. These primary elections effectively cemented Joe Biden and Donald Trump as the presumptive nominees of their parties. Even with another outcome in the primaries, the date chosen minimized its attention. Since the Speaker of the House must invite the President to speak, his reason for picking this date is perplexing. It handed a public relations victory to the Biden White House. Picking this date raised interest in the annual speech far beyond normal expectations.
In choosing this date for release of a report that would be subject to considerable pushback, the Defense Department timing was politically favorable to their desired outcome. As a result, most media accounts gave very little space to contrary opinions or data. The defense establishment had essentially free media to make its pitch without countervailing arguments. The two main purposes of this report were to throw cold water on a possible non-terrestrial source of UAP and to state that it had not found any UAP-related non-disclosure agreements prior to finishing its investigation. Since AARO has yet to follow up any of its reports with a press conference to answer questions, it leaves alternative views with no real outlet to counter claims by made an organization that investigated itself.
The Defense Department, over the years, has timed many of its UAP actions on the politics of the moment to great effect.[1] In a recent example, the Pentagon rolled out a proposed UAP program during Senate debate about the first UAP legislation. After a strong amendment to the draft UAP law sponsored by several prominent Senators, Deputy Director of Defense Kathleen Hicks announced the replacement of the UAP Task Force with the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG). This new Pentagon UAP program had none of the oversight provisions in the proposed UAP law. Issued while the Senate was considering the strong amendment, it was an unusual step. Essentially, it was an “end run” around the proposed congressional legislation. The timing of the hastily drafted, incomplete AOIMSG policy was intended as an alternative to the proposed UAP law. The move injected the Pentagon into the middle of consideration of a bill with much stronger UAP provisions. However, the Pentagon proposal, introduced two days before Thanksgiving, did not derail the UAP legislation. Like the timing of History Report I, both followed a historic pattern where the Pentagon’s actions were more akin to a political actor than an executive department. On the surface, it was not a measure that had the express endorsement of the White House. It appeared to be generated solely by the Defense Department (DoD).
This pattern started very early in the government’s response to UAP. Delays in program requirements; shading the facts to fit their narrative; and activities to lower interest in UAP have occurred for the duration of the phenomenon.[2] Soon after the 1952 summer UFO Wave, the CIA was asked to look into UAP. The CIA and DoD used political tactics to influence Congress or isolate congressional involvement from UAP matters. For instance, from August 1952 to early December, it met with the Air Force and defense experts to formulate a proposal to take back to the White House. It wasn’t until after the November election of Dwight Eisenhower that the CIA prepared a short report for its director to take to the White House. On or about December 19, 1952, President Truman was presented with plans for the formation of the Robertson Panel to recommend responses to UAP. The Panel’s Report was eventually issued three days before Eisenhower was sworn in as President. The Report’s implementation was overseen by new CIA Director Allen Dulles who instituted only the recommendations the CIA had wanted. The most disturbing one was “debunking” UFO witnesses in a manner similar to other documented illegal programs begun under Dulles in 1953-54.[3] The details of the report were circulated to different executive departments, all without reference to the civil liberty implications of the Robertson Panel recommendations. The CIA used a group of physicists to recommend that certain UFO groups be subject to surveillance. According to declassified records, the CIA implemented surveillance and steps to marginalize people who possessed quality UAP evidence. These efforts have never been acknowledged by the military/intelligence community. On the current CIA website, a “history” of its UAP involvement is still prominently posted that denigrates citizens with an interest in the subject and documents illegal actions taken by the Agency in hide its intense interest in the subject. The scope of what was covered up is still unknown.
Another prominent example of politically favorable timing was the release of the 1968 Air Force sponsored study by the University of Colorado (Condon Report). The Report was forwarded to the Air Force in November 1969. The announcement of the termination of Project Blue Book, as recommended in the study, was announced on December 17, 1969. However, the actual Condon Commission Report was not publicly released until January 1970. The delay of the report’s release until well after the decision to follow its recommendation to terminate Blue Book made it difficult to argue against the termination. The print media was almost universal in its positive coverage of the decision to terminate. The public was unable to see the rationale, which has received widespread criticism for its shoddy research methods, until well after the Air Force decision. Later, the Report was released to the public. The Air Force sponsored study had support from many friendly journalists. Most significant was the support of the New York Times science editor, Walter Sullivan, who wrote the foreword to the publication of the committee’s study, playing the role of advocate, not journalist.
While there have been dozens of other examples of improper or illegal conduct meant to hide CIA/Air Force UAP-related actions, AARO continues to follow this delay and obfuscation playbook. It’s first annual report to Congress was delayed for almost three months. It contained little detail and failed to explain wide contradictions in its analysis when compared to the 2021 Navy’s UAP Task Force report. Later, on October 17, 2023, AARO made public its 2023 annual report.[4] It was the first action taken by AARO before a statutory deadline (October 31st). However, the report only covered eight months, August 31, 2022 to April 30, 2023. To file on time, AARO cut the reporting period by one-third. At each step, the purpose was delay. As in the past, delays are meant to slow down uncomfortable responses with the hope that elected leaders will move on to other subjects.
Delays, data manipulation, and incomplete reports have been historic methods used to paint a picture that is contradicted by the public record. In History Report I, it loudly proclaims that it has found no evidence of a non-terrestrial source to UAP or reverse-engineering programs. However, it ignores eyewitness evidence from trained personnel and has only interviewed witnesses that are willing to talk to it. Some whistle blowers have bypassed AARO to speak directly to congressional national security committees, as is their right. AARO has been the source of conduct that has threatened whistle blowers who have spoken directly to Congress. The Pentagon and AARO are hardly a safe environment when whistle blowers have had their official record of service misrepresented and had personnel files leaked to the public. It makes one wonder whether the organization can investigate itself on this issue.
The History Report I also claims it has found no non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) related to UAP incidents. However, it states that it will continue to investigate this issue. If it has sworn testimony from personnel forced to sign NDAs, why is it prejudging the evidence by making this broad statement that UAP-related NDAs do not exist? Is it any wonder that witnesses bypass AARO? The History Report I is using this aggressive approach to push a conclusion before all of the evidence is in regarding NDAs.
The overall approach for Pentagon programs maintains the historic policy assumptions held by the military back to 1947. Today and yesterday, unknown cases are not worrisome if we had enough data. Reducing the number of unknowns through a variety of means is how to eliminate the problem. As long as our batting average of solving cases gets high enough, we don’t need to worry about the remaining unknown cases.[5] These assumptions have been made for decades and are still used by AARO. Thanks to the UAP Task Force, the biggest difference today is that UAP are considered to be of scientific interest. In 1953, the distinguished scientific panel saw no scientific value in the study of UFOs. Despite this significant change, we are not approaching the phenomenon any differently than in 1953. Yet, the phenomenon keeps posing problems that will not go away.
If UFOs are real, the History Report I goes to great pains to discount any non-terrestrial possibility without having another suspect. Much like an aggressive political actor, it has jumped ahead of the statutory deadline to grab the narrative. All past UAP programs that have come to this conclusion are discussed without serious analysis. Each program’s description merely parrots these program’s ultimate conclusions without any effort to determine how they came to those conclusions. In listing past programs with little further information, AARO has only scratched the surface of what was statutorily required of it. The UAP legislation also mandated a Government Accountancy Office (GAO) audit of AARO’s efforts to study UAP since January 1945, including “any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena or related activities.” (50 U.S.C. §3373(j)(1)(B)(ii)(III).) Hopefully, the GAO audit of AARO will point out the lack of any discussion of efforts to mislead the public. In AARO’s rush to shut down discussion of a possible source that fits the descriptions of Navy pilots that are confirmed by sensor data, AARO seeks to claim a political narrative by assuming all perplexing sightings are the product of sensor error. This fits the historic pattern of how the DoD approached the study of UAP. In 1949, the Air Force established assumptions about the source of UAP. The final report of Project Sign explained its search criteria as follows:
“Another possibility is that these aerial objects are visitors from another planet…. Pending elimination of all other solutions or definite proof of the nature of these objects, this policy will not be explored.”[6]
Until AARO eliminates all other causes, a non-terrestrial analysis will not be undertaken. Since AARO assumes that perplexing cases which cannot be explained will disappear when sensor flaws are found, a non-terrestrial hypothesis will never be considered. As long as the batting average of solved cases is high enough, AARO can assume that the remaining cases must be the product of sensor error. Eyewitness accounts of Navy pilots that are confirmed by independent sensor data are ignored. Much like the July 1952 Washington D.C. sightings where air traffic controllers were able to step outside and see objects where radar showed them, AARO discounts trained human corroboration of sensor data. Hardly a scientific approach.
The History Report I is more a political document than a sincere effort to study the past. Many witnesses have avoided AARO and gone directly to congressional national security committees. The harsh public statements of former Director Sean Kirkpatrick about David Grusch and a House Oversight subcommittee for the temerity to hold a public hearing demonstrates that AARO leadership does not welcome witnesses that do not support the AARO narrative. The timing of the early release of a report that picks and chooses which legislative requirements it is following shows it has public relations in mind with what it discloses and when. Pilot witnesses, yesterday and today, are ignored even when they have corroborating sensor data from multiple platforms. Past programs are discussed with no analysis laying out their findings as if still valid. No analysis of the implications of their findings are considered. AARO has scored a public relations victory with the early release of this report. It successfully conquered the news cycle at the expense of any independent analysis. It is what we should expect when you put an organization in charge of investigating itself.
[1] Lough, James, Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP, IngramSpark (January 2024).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Church Committee (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Within the United States), Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans: 1976 U.S. Senate Report on Illegal Wiretaps and Domestic Spying by the FBI, CIA and NSA, Red and Black Publishers (2007); Lough, James, Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP, IngramSpark (January, 2024).
[4]https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/FY23_Consolidated_Annual_Report_on_UAP-Oct_2023.pdf?ver=BmBEf_4EBtMRu9JZ6-ySuQ%3d%3d.
[5] DoD, “Media Roundtable on the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office,” December 16, 2022, https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3249303/usdis-ronald-moultrie-and-dr-sean-kirkpatrick-media-roundtable-on-the-all-domai/.
[6] https://archive.org/details/ProjectSIGN/mode/2up. Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project Sign, technical report no. F-TR-2274-IA, @ p. 9 (12 of 72).